politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After six weeks of CON leads or them level-pegging today Lo
Comments
-
HengistsGift The last 4 ICM polls have had UKIP on 11-15% and the Tories on 28-31%. 2 polls before that had UKIP on 9% and the Tories on 33-34%, that helps explain the movement
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/icm0 -
My reading of the Grexit coverage in the telegraph is the 'institutions' are very much calling Greece's bluff.
0 -
I hate people who talk about the stock market out of context and off topic. But: with grexit and eicipm on the cards, a + real return on cash already and deflation nailed on, (even if it is nice, fluffy, user-friendly deflation according to Mark Carney), and indices where they are, I am very happy to be sitting on a cash molehill just atm.Mortimer said:
The impact on UK aside (Grexit would likely lower our borrowing costs to record levels, but likely hit the economy, and bank shares too - some of which are still govt. owned), I imagine there will be, when it comes down to it, slightly more political well to prevent Anyexit than to allow Grexit...Easterross said:I do hope Germany puts Greece to the sword and kicks it out of the euro. It would be a resounding message to our voters that voting for kidology economics like that of Ed and Ed is the road to total ruin.
I dread to think how this would impact the UKIP/Con position. If managed correctly (i.e. Eurozone members pay for the failure of part of the eurozone) it would be a Con triumph, if not (i.e. all EU members pay Greek bills) I can see UKIP hitting 20%....
0 -
"Talks between Greece and European finance ministers have collapsed early after Greece rejected the EU's opening bailout offer as 'absurd'"
Varoufakis may be an expert in game theory, but he is setting up a game where the equilibrium position is Grexit, a position that is sub-optimal for all players at the table (though not for the Russians).0 -
malc site rules are changing as we approach the GE. We've all be asked to tone the insults down. Could I suggest you use "radish" between now and 8th May ?malcolmg said:
The halfwit has a long way to go to reach the dizzy heights of turnip level.Anorak said:
Wouldn't be the same place without it, turnip.Ishmael_X said:
Meet the new standards of decorum and courtesy on PB, same as the old standards of decorum and courtesy on PB.malcolmg said:
Unlike you I presume , what an odious creep, crawl off back into your hole.TheWatcher said:
Tiny and insignificant. A bit like you Malky.malcolmg said:
LOL< doddery claims to be a veteran who had his finger on the nuclear button. Was it big red and shiny like your cheeks.richardDodd said:Lucky Guy..Having spent some time on a Trident submarine I can assure you that is not the case.
0 -
Man charged over 'chemical weapon'
Breaking news (BBC ticker)
Man from Liverpool charged with "attempting to have a chemical weapon in his possession", police say0 -
Excellent FT piece from Janan Ganesh:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42544d70-b5ce-11e4-b58d-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_uk_politics/feed//product&siteedition=uk#axzz3Rw67FQwz
However, these showdowns only stabilise his position. They never generate enough escape velocity to hurtle him towards the premiership. This is partly because Britons reached a judgment about Mr Miliband as soon as he took his post in 2010 and it will never soften. It is also because resourcefulness in the last ditch is not such an attractive trait; it can look a bit like living hand to mouth.
But the problem as Mr Blair (and perhaps Mr Vellani) would see it is different. Mr Miliband’s targets, the people he calls “vested interests”, are just too obvious. Look at that enemies list again: they are all commercial forces of some kind, and pantomime villains at that. He has never defined himself against anyone you would not expect a generic leftwinger to define himself against. Like an alternative comedian venting about Margaret Thatcher at the Hackney Empire in 1987, there is nothing brave or surprising here, even if there is something of a spectacle.0 -
Not a million to be himHengists_Gift said:
Are you related to Matthew Parris by any chance? Only he seems as desperate as you to prove how awful UKIP are.antifrank said:
Relatively weak? In a scale from -100 to +100, the average score for UKIP is -26 and for Nigel Farage is -27. Labour voters put Nigel Farage at -55. By way of comparison, UKIP voters put Nigel Farage at +62, and as we have often seen on here, they take some persuading that Mr Farage cannot turn water into wine.maaarsh said:
Sorry, I missed the question about 'hating' and 'loathing' - silly me for thinking not everyone is as politically obsessed as you.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
You're projecting ridiculous language and strength of feeling on to relatively weak responses from people who would not think of these issues if not phoned and asked.0 -
Surely 4% if everyone else remained the same? But it is wasted Labour votes, that is for sure.Charles said:
If Labour is up by 8pt in seats the Tories won by 15 points or more last time, that is equivalent to a 16 percent swing in seats that they still loseTissue_Price said:ICM - further analysis:
Across Great Britain as a whole, Labour is up two and the Tories down one on 2010, a swing against Cameron of 1.5%. In the English battleground seats, however – defined as those which the Tories won by up to 15 points last time, plus those where Labour clung on by no more than 10 points – the Conservatives are unchanged on 38%, while Labour is actually down three on 33%.
and
The one class of seat where Labour looks to be doing materially better is the Tory heartlands. In those places where the Conservatives won by 15 points or more last time, Labour is up by an average of eight, which comes mostly from the Liberal Democrats – so good, but not good enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/16/what-icm-poll-means-for-uk-parties-election-campaign
Obviously all the above can be adjusted by 5% or so to allow for the unusually pro-Tory poll. But it's yet more evidence against that 11.4% "England swing" figure we've frequently seen quoted on here.
Hence the swing in more marginal seats will be lower, on average...0 -
Lucky Guy..Yes I can.0
-
Cheers malc. I was talking about the whole exchange, not just your contribution. You biscuit-ersed wee radge.malcolmg said:
What are you wittering about you halfwit, your support of sneering cretins like Watcher says a lot about you. Take a hike.Ishmael_X said:
Meet the new standards of decorum and courtesy on PB, same as the old standards of decorum and courtesy on PB.malcolmg said:
Unlike you I presume , what an odious creep, crawl off back into your hole.TheWatcher said:
Tiny and insignificant. A bit like you Malky.malcolmg said:
LOL< doddery claims to be a veteran who had his finger on the nuclear button. Was it big red and shiny like your cheeks.richardDodd said:Lucky Guy..Having spent some time on a Trident submarine I can assure you that is not the case.
0 -
Ref Guardian Today: Tories up six points in latest ICM poll C36, L32, LD10, UKIP9, Green 7
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/16/tories-up-six-points-latest-icm-opinion-poll
My Long Forecast St Valentines Day Swingback Massacre is starting to filter through.
Baxtering this (with Scotland figures based on Grauniad TNS poll 9th Feb (SNP41, Lab31,C16,Green 6, LD4, UKIP2) gives:
Conservative 304
Lab 274
SNP & Welshnats 40
Libdem 13
NI 18
Green 1
So Tories far and away the largest party.
Tory+Libdem+DUP Supply and confidence = Majority of 1 (in reality 6 due to no SF)
Lab+ SNP+Green+Libdem+SDLP= Majority of 12 (17 excl Sinnfein)
Either way DUP in pole position.
Baxter is much better now. Lesson - its all to play for, DUP sitting pretty and probable second election in October.Baxter still seems to be underestimating UKIP as they have them at 0 seats even if they win 14% of the vote, needing 15% to get one seat (with C36/L28 others asper above)0 -
Alan, lol , it is wimpy enough to describe some of the riff raff on here right enough, that or cabbage just to be nice.Alanbrooke said:
malc site rules are changing as we approach the GE. We've all be asked to tone the insults down. Could I suggest you use "radish" between now and 8th May ?malcolmg said:
The halfwit has a long way to go to reach the dizzy heights of turnip level.Anorak said:
Wouldn't be the same place without it, turnip.Ishmael_X said:
Meet the new standards of decorum and courtesy on PB, same as the old standards of decorum and courtesy on PB.malcolmg said:
Unlike you I presume , what an odious creep, crawl off back into your hole.TheWatcher said:
Tiny and insignificant. A bit like you Malky.malcolmg said:
LOL< doddery claims to be a veteran who had his finger on the nuclear button. Was it big red and shiny like your cheeks.richardDodd said:Lucky Guy..Having spent some time on a Trident submarine I can assure you that is not the case.
0 -
No, the swing will be smaller. The article states "which comes mostly from the Liberal Democrats". The rise in the Labour share is coming from squeezing the remaining Lib Dems in the Con/Lab marginals which is a known quantity. It doesn't lower the Tory share by 8 points though.Charles said:
If Labour is up by 8pt in seats the Tories won by 15 points or more last time, that is equivalent to a 16 percent swing in seats that they still loseTissue_Price said:ICM - further analysis:
Across Great Britain as a whole, Labour is up two and the Tories down one on 2010, a swing against Cameron of 1.5%. In the English battleground seats, however – defined as those which the Tories won by up to 15 points last time, plus those where Labour clung on by no more than 10 points – the Conservatives are unchanged on 38%, while Labour is actually down three on 33%.
and
The one class of seat where Labour looks to be doing materially better is the Tory heartlands. In those places where the Conservatives won by 15 points or more last time, Labour is up by an average of eight, which comes mostly from the Liberal Democrats – so good, but not good enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/16/what-icm-poll-means-for-uk-parties-election-campaign
Obviously all the above can be adjusted by 5% or so to allow for the unusually pro-Tory poll. But it's yet more evidence against that 11.4% "England swing" figure we've frequently seen quoted on here.
Hence the swing in more marginal seats will be lower, on average...0 -
LOL< Cuckoo, CuckoorichardDodd said:Lucky Guy..Yes I can.
0 -
Lol, you better trade mark that one or it will be pinchedIshmael_X said:
Cheers malc. I was talking about the whole exchange, not just your contribution. You biscuit-ersed wee radge.malcolmg said:
What are you wittering about you halfwit, your support of sneering cretins like Watcher says a lot about you. Take a hike.Ishmael_X said:
Meet the new standards of decorum and courtesy on PB, same as the old standards of decorum and courtesy on PB.malcolmg said:
Unlike you I presume , what an odious creep, crawl off back into your hole.TheWatcher said:
Tiny and insignificant. A bit like you Malky.malcolmg said:
LOL< doddery claims to be a veteran who had his finger on the nuclear button. Was it big red and shiny like your cheeks.richardDodd said:Lucky Guy..Having spent some time on a Trident submarine I can assure you that is not the case.
PS Watcher is a biscuit short of a full packet and nasty with it.0 -
All this will do is confirm those who hate UKIP in their belief, annoy people who are fed up with the big three, get UKIP publicity and make people who are annoyed by it more likely to vote for them. People recognise propaganda for what it is these days and those who still don't will be voting Labour or Tory anyway.MikeK said:
Has Antifrank had a hand in the making of the C4 smear on UKIP, that will be broadcast tonight?Hengists_Gift said:
Are you related to Matthew Parris by any chance? Only he seems as desperate as you to prove how awful UKIP are.antifrank said:
Relatively weak? In a scale from -100 to +100, the average score for UKIP is -26 and for Nigel Farage is -27. Labour voters put Nigel Farage at -55. By way of comparison, UKIP voters put Nigel Farage at +62, and as we have often seen on here, they take some persuading that Mr Farage cannot turn water into wine.maaarsh said:
Sorry, I missed the question about 'hating' and 'loathing' - silly me for thinking not everyone is as politically obsessed as you.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
You're projecting ridiculous language and strength of feeling on to relatively weak responses from people who would not think of these issues if not phoned and asked.
0 -
I think most of that 8 points is from the LDs. But then again the Tories are losing some to UKIP in the same seats, so maybe it comes out in the wash.
Labour are doing well in seats where its safe to have a tantrum, in other words.
In seats where it isn;t safe, the tories are winning.0 -
Ashcroft Focus group on which actors should play the party leaders
'Our participants struggled somewhat with Mr Clegg, though I doubt he will be too dismayed with the suggestion of Tom Cruise or Kevin Bacon. There was a wide consensus that Hugh Grant or Colin Firth should be cast as David Cameron, though whether either would be happy to play him is another question. There was even wider agreement – and I must emphasise that all these suggestions are unprompted – that Mr Miliband would be best portrayed by Rowan Atkinson, in character as Mr Bean. As so often, a division over the image of Mr Farage: for some, he is Ray Winstone; for others, Sid James.'
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/02/lord-ashcroft-labour-ahead-by-one-point-in-my-latest-poll.html0 -
On Greece, while one should never underestimate the ability of EU leaders to kick a can down the road, this really is a situation where they can lose big or lose (almost) everything and they need to be prepared to draw a line this week to avoid the latter. If they offer any meaningful concessions they will encourage further resistance not just in Greece but throughout the debtor states as electorates correctly conclude that the they can secure a better deal through truculence than through passive compliance. The cost of holding the eurozone together will rise exponentially without the corresponding political union that is essential to make it work as a long-term currency union. The fundamental weaknesses within the eurozone will remain, and indeed worsen, and discipline within member states will collapse. That will not be sustainable politically or economically.
With Greece on the outside, facing a brutal readjustment, the EU has a hope of maintaining unity. It just has to be managed in such a way as to minimise hard feelings - a forlorn hope, I fear. But the damage would have been done, not by the decision to stop helping now, but by the original decision to shoehorn Greece into the Euro and then to spend billions of euros trying to keep it there. Terribly sad.0 -
Times Diary (Behind paywall) Recounts how a passer by once mistook Ted Heath for Mr Thatcher on the Isle of Wight
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4355147.ece0 -
Would love to claim it but got it from Irvine Welsh.malcolmg said:
Lol, you better trade mark that one or it will be pinchedIshmael_X said:
Cheers malc. I was talking about the whole exchange, not just your contribution. You biscuit-ersed wee radge.malcolmg said:
What are you wittering about you halfwit, your support of sneering cretins like Watcher says a lot about you. Take a hike.Ishmael_X said:
Meet the new standards of decorum and courtesy on PB, same as the old standards of decorum and courtesy on PB.malcolmg said:
Unlike you I presume , what an odious creep, crawl off back into your hole.TheWatcher said:
Tiny and insignificant. A bit like you Malky.malcolmg said:
LOL< doddery claims to be a veteran who had his finger on the nuclear button. Was it big red and shiny like your cheeks.richardDodd said:Lucky Guy..Having spent some time on a Trident submarine I can assure you that is not the case.
PS Watcher is a biscuit short of a full packet and nasty with it.
0 -
You do realise that a winter radish can be bigger than a turnip - and uglier :-)malcolmg said:
Alan, lol , it is wimpy enough to describe some of the riff raff on here right enough, that or cabbage just to be nice.Alanbrooke said:
malc site rules are changing as we approach the GE. We've all be asked to tone the insults down. Could I suggest you use "radish" between now and 8th May ?malcolmg said:
The halfwit has a long way to go to reach the dizzy heights of turnip level.Anorak said:
Wouldn't be the same place without it, turnip.Ishmael_X said:
Meet the new standards of decorum and courtesy on PB, same as the old standards of decorum and courtesy on PB.malcolmg said:
Unlike you I presume , what an odious creep, crawl off back into your hole.TheWatcher said:
Tiny and insignificant. A bit like you Malky.malcolmg said:
LOL< doddery claims to be a veteran who had his finger on the nuclear button. Was it big red and shiny like your cheeks.richardDodd said:Lucky Guy..Having spent some time on a Trident submarine I can assure you that is not the case.
0 -
Malcolm G ..Lying again.. I did not claim to be a veteran or have my finger on the nuclear button..You are becoming the Tartan tim.. he lied a lot too..but you lack his charm and charisma.0
-
I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if he's peddling it as an accurate reflection of the implications of a UKIP government tomorrow. Pity about the timing though. With United in the Cup on BBC1 I don't think its going to get much of a look in except with those who already have an active hostility towards UKIP!MikeK said:
Has Antifrank had a hand in the making of the C4 smear on UKIP, that will be broadcast tonight?Hengists_Gift said:
Are you related to Matthew Parris by any chance? Only he seems as desperate as you to prove how awful UKIP are.antifrank said:
Relatively weak? In a scale from -100 to +100, the average score for UKIP is -26 and for Nigel Farage is -27. Labour voters put Nigel Farage at -55. By way of comparison, UKIP voters put Nigel Farage at +62, and as we have often seen on here, they take some persuading that Mr Farage cannot turn water into wine.maaarsh said:
Sorry, I missed the question about 'hating' and 'loathing' - silly me for thinking not everyone is as politically obsessed as you.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
You're projecting ridiculous language and strength of feeling on to relatively weak responses from people who would not think of these issues if not phoned and asked.
0 -
I'm not talking about a 'non nuclear Europe' -that's a straw man. France has an independent nuclear deterrent. If we had the same, there would be an argument for it, albeit an expensive one. We don't.Flightpath said:
How does non nuclear Europe ward off nuclear blackmail from China or Russia? How does non nuclear Europe influence anything or decide anything for itself in a world where the biggest countries in the world have nuclear weapons. Mr Black is entitled to his opinion. He is as wrong as ever. To be honest he is not only not right, it is not even wrong.
Since you don't back up your assertion that Black is 'wrong', I can't really engage with it can I?
It is a matter of public record that even if the UK can 'push the button' without US consent or even against US will, in the medium term, if the US ceased to cooperate, the UK nuclear weapons programme would wind up in a matter of months: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk
How is this independent? What if the diplomatic situation with the US should deteriorate? They've started more wars than any other country this century. They invaded Grenada; they very nearly supported our enemies in The Falklands, they even gave away the serial numbers of our nukes to Russia (in more lovey dovey times with Uncle Vlad) against our will: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
Is our nuclear deterrent to be placed on such a fragile footing?0 -
There won't be a UKIP government in May. I won't be watching the Channel 4 mockumentary. If I were a kipper I would take the view that any publicity is good publicity. Since I'm not, it seems like a complete waste of airspace to me.Hengists_Gift said:
I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if he's peddling it as an accurate reflection of the implications of a UKIP government tomorrow. Pity about the timing though. With United in the Cup on BBC1 I don't think its going to get much of a look in except with those who already have an active hostility towards UKIP!MikeK said:
Has Antifrank had a hand in the making of the C4 smear on UKIP, that will be broadcast tonight?Hengists_Gift said:
Are you related to Matthew Parris by any chance? Only he seems as desperate as you to prove how awful UKIP are.antifrank said:
Relatively weak? In a scale from -100 to +100, the average score for UKIP is -26 and for Nigel Farage is -27. Labour voters put Nigel Farage at -55. By way of comparison, UKIP voters put Nigel Farage at +62, and as we have often seen on here, they take some persuading that Mr Farage cannot turn water into wine.maaarsh said:
Sorry, I missed the question about 'hating' and 'loathing' - silly me for thinking not everyone is as politically obsessed as you.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
You're projecting ridiculous language and strength of feeling on to relatively weak responses from people who would not think of these issues if not phoned and asked.0 -
Clearly we could play this game all evening, but whilst I don't doubt for a second your knowledge of the processes and protocols aboard a British nuclear submarine, clearly you cannot know whether they would produce the desired effect in a deterrent situation, or whether a failsafe device would go into play, because it has never happened.richardDodd said:Lucky Guy..Yes I can.
0 -
Well I'm sure Tories will hope Dave doesn't get photographed in the back of a Limo anytime soon and I' not sure Clegg will be too happy with Cruise given all that Scientology stuff Cruise is supposedly into.HYUFD said:Ashcroft Focus group on which actors should play the party leaders
'Our participants struggled somewhat with Mr Clegg, though I doubt he will be too dismayed with the suggestion of Tom Cruise or Kevin Bacon. There was a wide consensus that Hugh Grant or Colin Firth should be cast as David Cameron, though whether either would be happy to play him is another question. There was even wider agreement – and I must emphasise that all these suggestions are unprompted – that Mr Miliband would be best portrayed by Rowan Atkinson, in character as Mr Bean. As so often, a division over the image of Mr Farage: for some, he is Ray Winstone; for others, Sid James.'
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/02/lord-ashcroft-labour-ahead-by-one-point-in-my-latest-poll.html
0 -
Can someone explain to me how anti-Ukip tactical voting will work at the General Election? I get why it might have happened in the Newark and Rochester by-elections, but at the General Election?
Many of the Ukip target seats should be seats that Labour want to win. Are Labour voters really going to vote Tory just so that their local MP isn't a Kipper, and risk Labour not being the largest party?
Surely it's much harder to vote tactically in a three way marginal.0 -
I thought our commanders were unique in that they had command (maybe not authority) over the weapons on their subs, as opposed to the US Permissive Action Link, which gives sole command and authority to the US President or his successors.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not talking about a 'non nuclear Europe' -that's a straw man. France has an independent nuclear deterrent. If we had the same, there would be an argument for it, albeit an expensive one. We don't.Flightpath said:
How does non nuclear Europe ward off nuclear blackmail from China or Russia? How does non nuclear Europe influence anything or decide anything for itself in a world where the biggest countries in the world have nuclear weapons. Mr Black is entitled to his opinion. He is as wrong as ever. To be honest he is not only not right, it is not even wrong.
Since you don't back up your assertion that Black is 'wrong', I can't really engage with it can I?
It is a matter of public record that even if the UK can 'push the button' without US consent or even against US will, in the medium term, if the US ceased to cooperate, the UK nuclear weapons programme would wind up in a matter of months: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk
How is this independent? What if the diplomatic situation with the US should deteriorate? They've started more wars than any other country this century. They invaded Grenada; they very nearly supported our enemies in The Falklands, they even gave away the serial numbers of our nukes to Russia (in more lovey dovey times with Uncle Vlad) against our will: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
Is our nuclear deterrent to be placed on such a fragile footing?0 -
I think you should consider changing your name from antifrank to antidemocracy.antifrank said:
Let's try to put this in terms that kippers can understand. The average member of the public feels considerably more hostile about UKIP and Nigel Farage than the average kipper feels about David Cameron.Hengists_Gift said:
Are you related to Matthew Parris by any chance? Only he seems as desperate as you to prove how awful UKIP are.antifrank said:
Relatively weak? In a scale from -100 to +100, the average score for UKIP is -26 and for Nigel Farage is -27. Labour voters put Nigel Farage at -55. By way of comparison, UKIP voters put Nigel Farage at +62, and as we have often seen on here, they take some persuading that Mr Farage cannot turn water into wine.maaarsh said:
Sorry, I missed the question about 'hating' and 'loathing' - silly me for thinking not everyone is as politically obsessed as you.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
You're projecting ridiculous language and strength of feeling on to relatively weak responses from people who would not think of these issues if not phoned and asked.0 -
Yet, I too can read. UKIP are supported by 18% of English voters in this poll. If they're loathed, what does that make the Lib Dems and Greens, who are supported by half that number?antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
0 -
On what basis do you come up with that bizarre suggestion? It's a factual observation made from two data points on the table at the top of this thread.nigel4england said:
I think you should consider changing your name from antifrank to antidemocracy.antifrank said:
Let's try to put this in terms that kippers can understand. The average member of the public feels considerably more hostile about UKIP and Nigel Farage than the average kipper feels about David Cameron.Hengists_Gift said:
Are you related to Matthew Parris by any chance? Only he seems as desperate as you to prove how awful UKIP are.antifrank said:
Relatively weak? In a scale from -100 to +100, the average score for UKIP is -26 and for Nigel Farage is -27. Labour voters put Nigel Farage at -55. By way of comparison, UKIP voters put Nigel Farage at +62, and as we have often seen on here, they take some persuading that Mr Farage cannot turn water into wine.maaarsh said:
Sorry, I missed the question about 'hating' and 'loathing' - silly me for thinking not everyone is as politically obsessed as you.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
You're projecting ridiculous language and strength of feeling on to relatively weak responses from people who would not think of these issues if not phoned and asked.0 -
Hengists Indeed, not sure miliband will be delighted with Mr Bean either0
-
Being the partisan hypocrite that I am, I linked to that vid about 2 hours ago.Smarmeron said:Ozzie has finally broken into "social media". Could this be a leadership bid?
"Osborne advice on tax avoidance resurfaces
Posted at 16:58
A 2003 appearance on the BBC's Daily Politics by George Osborne is doing the rounds on social media. Mr Osborne suggests a caller to the programme investigates some "pretty clever financial products". The clip comes about 30 seconds into this highlights' selection."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-31481032
0 -
Loathe would be greater than -50 (very negative) whilst 0 would be ambivalent. We can tell that Labour and Lib Dem voters loathe them from this table. However, for Conservative voters they are merely disliked and Conservative voters dislike both the Labour Party and Ed Miliband far more.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
Further, numbers can change. Both Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats had positive ratings before the 2010GE, and are now decidely negative.0 -
The general consensus when I have asked around has been that there have been riots across the country without any input from UKIP and also dismay at how anyone can object to clamping down on illegal immigration. Purely anecdotal though.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
All this will do is confirm those who hate UKIP in their belief, annoy people who are fed up with the big three, get UKIP publicity and make people who are annoyed by it more likely to vote for them. People recognise propaganda for what it is these days and those who still don't will be voting Labour or Tory anyway.MikeK said:
Has Antifrank had a hand in the making of the C4 smear on UKIP, that will be broadcast tonight?Hengists_Gift said:
Are you related to Matthew Parris by any chance? Only he seems as desperate as you to prove how awful UKIP are.antifrank said:
Relatively weak? In a scale from -100 to +100, the average score for UKIP is -26 and for Nigel Farage is -27. Labour voters put Nigel Farage at -55. By way of comparison, UKIP voters put Nigel Farage at +62, and as we have often seen on here, they take some persuading that Mr Farage cannot turn water into wine.maaarsh said:
Sorry, I missed the question about 'hating' and 'loathing' - silly me for thinking not everyone is as politically obsessed as you.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
You're projecting ridiculous language and strength of feeling on to relatively weak responses from people who would not think of these issues if not phoned and asked.
I imagine all of those UAF, HNH, Guardian reader types will be patting themselves on the back tonight at how UKIP have been exposed as the Nazis that they are.
0 -
Does antifrank want to deny kippers the vote?nigel4england said:
I think you should consider changing your name from antifrank to antidemocracy.antifrank said:
Let's try to put this in terms that kippers can understand. The average member of the public feels considerably more hostile about UKIP and Nigel Farage than the average kipper feels about David Cameron.Hengists_Gift said:
Are you related to Matthew Parris by any chance? Only he seems as desperate as you to prove how awful UKIP are.antifrank said:
Relatively weak? In a scale from -100 to +100, the average score for UKIP is -26 and for Nigel Farage is -27. Labour voters put Nigel Farage at -55. By way of comparison, UKIP voters put Nigel Farage at +62, and as we have often seen on here, they take some persuading that Mr Farage cannot turn water into wine.maaarsh said:
Sorry, I missed the question about 'hating' and 'loathing' - silly me for thinking not everyone is as politically obsessed as you.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
You're projecting ridiculous language and strength of feeling on to relatively weak responses from people who would not think of these issues if not phoned and asked.0 -
Lucky Guy.. The fact that it has never happened is a pointer to its success..0
-
0
-
The places where UKIP is strong are the places where people are most receptive to its message, and therefore, where anti-UKIP tactical voting will be least.tlg86 said:Can someone explain to me how anti-Ukip tactical voting will work at the General Election? I get why it might have happened in the Newark and Rochester by-elections, but at the General Election?
Many of the Ukip target seats should be seats that Labour want to win. Are Labour voters really going to vote Tory just so that their local MP isn't a Kipper, and risk Labour not being the largest party?
Surely it's much harder to vote tactically in a three way marginal.
I'm sure you could persuade vast numbers of people in Glasgow or Inner London to vote tactically against UKIP, but it doesn't matter there.0 -
Good for you Smarmy! I must have missed it..Smarmeron said:@JonnyJimmy
Way to slow Jonny, I posted it two days ago.
When did you last post an embarrassing video of Balls?0 -
I don't like separating peoples by ethnicity or religion but having worked in Cairo where my immediate client was a Coptic Christian and on another occasion in Lebanon where I worked with several Coptic Christians and where I was taken to meet the priests who made their wine and who looked after me for a day in one of the most beautiful places I've visited I can honestly say I have seldom worked for and with nicer people.
These executions which I've just heard about is really upsetting and disappointing.0 -
@JonnyJimmy
I like to leave something for the PBT's to post.0 -
OT. Doddy. Have you ever worked with an American called Steve Rothfelt?0
-
Your link puts the argument for retaining a nuclear deterrent very well:Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not talking about a 'non nuclear Europe' -that's a straw man. France has an independent nuclear deterrent. If we had the same, there would be an argument for it, albeit an expensive one. We don't.Flightpath said:
How does non nuclear Europe ward off nuclear blackmail from China or Russia? How does non nuclear Europe influence anything or decide anything for itself in a world where the biggest countries in the world have nuclear weapons. Mr Black is entitled to his opinion. He is as wrong as ever. To be honest he is not only not right, it is not even wrong.
Since you don't back up your assertion that Black is 'wrong', I can't really engage with it can I?
It is a matter of public record that even if the UK can 'push the button' without US consent or even against US will, in the medium term, if the US ceased to cooperate, the UK nuclear weapons programme would wind up in a matter of months: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk
How is this independent? What if the diplomatic situation with the US should deteriorate? They've started more wars than any other country this century. They invaded Grenada; they very nearly supported our enemies in The Falklands, they even gave away the serial numbers of our nukes to Russia (in more lovey dovey times with Uncle Vlad) against our will: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
Is our nuclear deterrent to be placed on such a fragile footing?
"Even if the chances of "strategic blackmail or nuclear attack" appear slim today, there is "insufficient certainty surrounding the prospect that it would be imprudent" to abandon Trident, argue the authors of the report.
Potential future threats are listed as: the re-emergence of a nuclear threat from a large nuclear arsenal (the only current example of such a possibilty is Russia, says the report); "an existing or emerging nuclear-armed threat" that "attains global reach"; and "the emergence of a future massive overwhelming threat involving bio-weapons or other comparable mass destruction technologies still unknown..."
Yet all this seems to amount to a "general insurance against an uncertain future" in all but name."0 -
If I was a Green/Lab/Lib voter in Thanet South who despised UKIP I would vote Tory to keep Farage out of Westminster. It could potentially cause a leadership contest and damage the party.tlg86 said:Can someone explain to me how anti-Ukip tactical voting will work at the General Election? I get why it might have happened in the Newark and Rochester by-elections, but at the General Election?
Many of the Ukip target seats should be seats that Labour want to win. Are Labour voters really going to vote Tory just so that their local MP isn't a Kipper, and risk Labour not being the largest party?
Surely it's much harder to vote tactically in a three way marginal.
With UKIP and the Conservatives neck and neck it doesn't need a huge number of tactical votes from the left to prevent a UKIP win.
Rather ironically, if the Tory candidate wins due to tactical voting, they would have elected a Eurosceptic and a former leader of UKIP.
0 -
@anti-frank
Well actually I do wonder whether it might help UKIP more than it hurts them as it sounds as if it goes way over the top but as a general view I disapprove of this sort of brazen attempt by a publicly owned TV media outlet to influence and misrepresent politics particularly in the run up to an election.0 -
I should answer your first point first, which was a good one -that the money saved on Trident replacement would just be spent elsewhere than defence. Sadly this is probably true, but if the deterrent is not functional, we surely come to whether the money should be spent keeping a relatively small number employed on Trident, or could have greater economic impact spent elsewhere.TheWatcher said:
How, exactly, can they do that?Luckyguy1983 said:FPT:
Trident can and will be used only when the US allows it.Casino_Royale said:
I wouldn't want to ditch Trident whilst Russia is playing the aggressive expansionist in eastern Europe atm, nor until we know the strategic position China adopts once it overtakes the USA in global economic clout.Luckyguy1983 said:
I agree, so why not ditch Trident and spend the money on conventional forces?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Zims, Defence was one of the few departments not splurged on by Labour during their misrule. It's been stretched too thin for too long, and we must retain sufficient resources to protect or, if necessary, reclaim British territory overseas.
We should slash Aid, not Defence.
To answer your second question:
1. The US manufactures the warheads -ample opportunity to install kill switches and fail-safes that have been rumoured in *all* US weapons (like planes) sold overseas, let alone world destroying ones.
2. The US maintains the warheads -withdrawal of US support would kill the program
3. The US provides the satellite data needed to target the warheads -no targeting info, no nuclear strike.
0 -
I bet you have a limp wet Uriah Heap type handshake. How you could possibly refer to murders by IS as "disappointing" is beyond me.Roger said:I don't like separating peoples by ethnicity or religion but having worked in Cairo where my immediate client was a Coptic Christian and on another occasion in Lebanon where I worked with several Coptic Christians and where I was taken to meet the priests who made their wine and who looked after me for a day in one of the most beautiful places I've visited I can honestly say I have seldom worked for and with nicer people.
These executions which I've just heard about is really upsetting and disappointing.0 -
They put the case for an independent nuclear deterrent, not a dependent one.Casino_Royale said:
Your link puts the argument for retaining a nuclear deterrent very well:Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not talking about a 'non nuclear Europe' -that's a straw man. France has an independent nuclear deterrent. If we had the same, there would be an argument for it, albeit an expensive one. We don't.Flightpath said:
How does non nuclear Europe ward off nuclear blackmail from China or Russia? How does non nuclear Europe influence anything or decide anything for itself in a world where the biggest countries in the world have nuclear weapons. Mr Black is entitled to his opinion. He is as wrong as ever. To be honest he is not only not right, it is not even wrong.
Since you don't back up your assertion that Black is 'wrong', I can't really engage with it can I?
It is a matter of public record that even if the UK can 'push the button' without US consent or even against US will, in the medium term, if the US ceased to cooperate, the UK nuclear weapons programme would wind up in a matter of months: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk
How is this independent? What if the diplomatic situation with the US should deteriorate? They've started more wars than any other country this century. They invaded Grenada; they very nearly supported our enemies in The Falklands, they even gave away the serial numbers of our nukes to Russia (in more lovey dovey times with Uncle Vlad) against our will: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
Is our nuclear deterrent to be placed on such a fragile footing?
"Even if the chances of "strategic blackmail or nuclear attack" appear slim today, there is "insufficient certainty surrounding the prospect that it would be imprudent" to abandon Trident, argue the authors of the report.
Potential future threats are listed as: the re-emergence of a nuclear threat from a large nuclear arsenal (the only current example of such a possibilty is Russia, says the report); "an existing or emerging nuclear-armed threat" that "attains global reach"; and "the emergence of a future massive overwhelming threat involving bio-weapons or other comparable mass destruction technologies still unknown..."
Yet all this seems to amount to a "general insurance against an uncertain future" in all but name."
0 -
A Labour supporter in Thanet S should and will vote Labour !MP_SE said:
If I was a Green/Lab/Lib voter in Thanet South who despised UKIP I would vote Tory to keep Farage out of Westminster. It could potentially cause a leadership contest and damage the party.tlg86 said:Can someone explain to me how anti-Ukip tactical voting will work at the General Election? I get why it might have happened in the Newark and Rochester by-elections, but at the General Election?
Many of the Ukip target seats should be seats that Labour want to win. Are Labour voters really going to vote Tory just so that their local MP isn't a Kipper, and risk Labour not being the largest party?
Surely it's much harder to vote tactically in a three way marginal.
With UKIP and the Conservatives neck and neck it doesn't need a huge number of tactical votes from the left to prevent a UKIP win.
Rather ironically, if the Tory candidate wins due to tactical voting, they would have elected a Eurosceptic and a former leader of UKIP.0 -
For the imbecile-tendency amongst us:
If we fire off 48 nuclear warheads from a Vanguard who would be left - let alone care - if the Septics would continue to service the rest of the stockpile of Trident missiles? And with another V-Day floating about who in the world would care..?
:tumbleweed:0 -
Sad. Libya today is a lawless country and increasingly government less.Roger said:I don't like separating peoples by ethnicity or religion but having worked in Cairo where my immediate client was a Coptic Christian and on another occasion in Lebanon where I worked with several Coptic Christians and where I was taken to meet the priests who made their wine and who looked after me for a day in one of the most beautiful places I've visited I can honestly say I have seldom worked for and with nicer people.
These executions which I've just heard about is really upsetting and disappointing.0 -
And Syria will be the same if we get our way.surbiton said:
Sad. Libya today is a lawless country and increasingly government less.Roger said:I don't like separating peoples by ethnicity or religion but having worked in Cairo where my immediate client was a Coptic Christian and on another occasion in Lebanon where I worked with several Coptic Christians and where I was taken to meet the priests who made their wine and who looked after me for a day in one of the most beautiful places I've visited I can honestly say I have seldom worked for and with nicer people.
These executions which I've just heard about is really upsetting and disappointing.
0 -
FPT. @FrancisUrquhart "Squirrel down...I repeat squirrel is down..."
I spilt my coffee laughing at this comment on the previous thread!
0 -
On the EU? ProbablyJonnyJimmy said:
Does antifrank want to deny kippers the vote?nigel4england said:
I think you should consider changing your name from antifrank to antidemocracy.antifrank said:
Let's try to put this in terms that kippers can understand. The average member of the public feels considerably more hostile about UKIP and Nigel Farage than the average kipper feels about David Cameron.Hengists_Gift said:
Are you related to Matthew Parris by any chance? Only he seems as desperate as you to prove how awful UKIP are.antifrank said:
Relatively weak? In a scale from -100 to +100, the average score for UKIP is -26 and for Nigel Farage is -27. Labour voters put Nigel Farage at -55. By way of comparison, UKIP voters put Nigel Farage at +62, and as we have often seen on here, they take some persuading that Mr Farage cannot turn water into wine.maaarsh said:
Sorry, I missed the question about 'hating' and 'loathing' - silly me for thinking not everyone is as politically obsessed as you.antifrank said:
I seem actually to have read the opinion poll findings at the top of the page. I realise that those are highly uncongenial for the kippers who think that everyone thinks as they do, but the starkest of findings that most of the public actually loathe them are being ignored.maaarsh said:
Yes, Antifrank seems to have confused the 1% odd balls on this site who follow politics for the electorate, most of whom barely have an opinion on the party they vote for, let alone others.Sean_F said:
They've proved that they can, in a string of by-elections.antifrank said:Conservative voters hate UKIP as much as they hate Labour. Labour voters hate UKIP much more than they hate the Conservatives. And Lib Dem voters are far more hostile to UKIP than either Labour or the Conservatives. Still, I'm sure that UKIP supporters will remain confident that they can get tactical votes aplenty.
You're projecting ridiculous language and strength of feeling on to relatively weak responses from people who would not think of these issues if not phoned and asked.0 -
Syria WILL go??????Luckyguy1983 said:
And Syria will be the same if we get our way.surbiton said:
Sad. Libya today is a lawless country and increasingly government less.Roger said:I don't like separating peoples by ethnicity or religion but having worked in Cairo where my immediate client was a Coptic Christian and on another occasion in Lebanon where I worked with several Coptic Christians and where I was taken to meet the priests who made their wine and who looked after me for a day in one of the most beautiful places I've visited I can honestly say I have seldom worked for and with nicer people.
These executions which I've just heard about is really upsetting and disappointing.0 -
But can Labour supporters take that risk? The Ashcroft polls show Labour to have a realistic chance to win South Thanet.MP_SE said:
If I was a Green/Lab/Lib voter in Thanet South who despised UKIP I would vote Tory to keep Farage out of Westminster. It could potentially cause a leadership contest and damage the party.tlg86 said:Can someone explain to me how anti-Ukip tactical voting will work at the General Election? I get why it might have happened in the Newark and Rochester by-elections, but at the General Election?
Many of the Ukip target seats should be seats that Labour want to win. Are Labour voters really going to vote Tory just so that their local MP isn't a Kipper, and risk Labour not being the largest party?
Surely it's much harder to vote tactically in a three way marginal.
With UKIP and the Conservatives neck and neck it doesn't need a huge number of tactical votes from the left to prevent a UKIP win.
Rather ironically, if the Tory candidate wins due to tactical voting, they would have elected a Eurosceptic and a former leader of UKIP.0 -
We chose to save money by signing a treaty with the U.S. to use their nuclear missile delivery system. That means the missiles use their design and components, and are serviced in a common pool in Georgia. However, the atomic warheads are manufactured and serviced in the UK. Furthermore, fire authority rests with the Royal Navy on approval from our Prime Minister.Luckyguy1983 said:
They put the case for an independent nuclear deterrent, not a dependent one.Casino_Royale said:
Your link puts the argument for retaining a nuclear deterrent very well:Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not talking about a 'non nuclear Europe' -that's a straw manFlightpath said:
How does non nuclear Europe ward off nuclear blackmail from China or Russia? How does non nuclear Europe influence anything or decide anything for itself in a world where the biggest countries in the world have nuclear weapons. Mr Black is entitled to his opinion. He is as wrong as ever. To be honest he is not only not right, it is not even wrong.
"Even if the chances of "strategic blackmail or nuclear attack" appear slim today, there is "insufficient certainty surrounding the prospect that it would be imprudent" to abandon Trident, argue the authors of the report.
Potential future threats are listed as: the re-emergence of a nuclear threat from a large nuclear arsenal (the only current example of such a possibilty is Russia, says the report); "an existing or emerging nuclear-armed threat" that "attains global reach"; and "the emergence of a future massive overwhelming threat involving bio-weapons or other comparable mass destruction technologies still unknown..."
Yet all this seems to amount to a "general insurance against an uncertain future" in all but name."
We have operational independence from the U.S. - which is the most important part, as it prevents potential aggressors from calculating that they could attack Britain and British interests without necessarily risking a direct US response - but I grant you that it does not make us fully independent in all ways.
However, NATO's defence alliance and command structure is interdependent in any many ways, so I don't see this as a problem unless there's a major change in our relationship with them. Given we're both free and independent democracies, i see that as unlikely.0 -
Cheers, will have a think! (I used to get paid for this...)
"Ro-Ro-Ro the UKIP Boat"???
25/10 UKIP performance in constituencies beginning "Ro"
Ahh, you worked at spin? IG?
I hope for the good of the country and my sanity i can settle at least one of your Ro-Ro-Ro bets to 25. Otherwise im moving to Panama to trade tennis.
0 -
Don't be too hard on yourself -I'd describe you as an eccentric, certainly not an imbecile.FluffyThoughts said:For the imbecile-tendency amongst us:
If we fire off 48 nuclear warheads from a Vanguard who would be left - let alone care - if the Septics would continue to service the rest of the stockpile of Trident missiles? And with another V-Day floating about who in the world would care..?
:tumbleweed:
My point, and the point of the initial link I posted, is that we couldn't do what you describe without US consent. The point about maintenance is that if relations with the US deteriorated slowly (as they tend to do rather than suddenly -outrage, newspaper stories, sanctions, speeches, arming 'democratic' revolutionaries etc.), we could be left without our nuclear deterrent.
0 -
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2015/0216/Meet-your-2016-GOP-front-runners-Jeb-Bush-yes-and-a-Midwestern-surprise
A little something for those betting on the US GOP primaries, see article linked above.
FYI, I am sure that Rubio will be in the mix too, and in effect it will be a two-stage thing: Bush vs Rubio for the main Establishment vote, and then the winner of that versus Walker for the centrist vs the conservative battle.0 -
Roger..not to my knowledge..altho he does sound familiar..what does he do.0
-
-
Firstly it will not cause a leadership contest as Farage was recently reelected unopposed until 2018 when he has hinted he will possibly stand down anyway. For Labour voters in Thanet it would seem absurd to vote for the party they opposed in 2010 potentially denying their party of first choice an overall victory in Westminster. The Tories have told them again and again. Vote UKIP get Labour. Why would they vote Tory then?MP_SE said:
If I was a Green/Lab/Lib voter in Thanet South who despised UKIP I would vote Tory to keep Farage out of Westminster. It could potentially cause a leadership contest and damage the party.tlg86 said:Can someone explain to me how anti-Ukip tactical voting will work at the General Election? I get why it might have happened in the Newark and Rochester by-elections, but at the General Election?
Many of the Ukip target seats should be seats that Labour want to win. Are Labour voters really going to vote Tory just so that their local MP isn't a Kipper, and risk Labour not being the largest party?
Surely it's much harder to vote tactically in a three way marginal.
With UKIP and the Conservatives neck and neck it doesn't need a huge number of tactical votes from the left to prevent a UKIP win.
Rather ironically, if the Tory candidate wins due to tactical voting, they would have elected a Eurosceptic and a former leader of UKIP.
As for the Greens and Libdems there not a lot of them in Thanet South. Furthermore that the Tory candidate is literally a UKIP reject just makes the idea of voting tactically even more bizarre. Why vote against the 'wolf' only to get a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'?0 -
Re the C4 programme about UKIP, does anyone else remember a book & TV drama called "When the Kissing Had to Stop" about the effect of an electoral win by a thinly disguised Michael Foot figure?
Don't think it made a toss of difference to anyone's vote!0 -
Dual-key is not "scientific-package":*
Under Lancaster House warhead design will be at Aldermaston and maintenance in France. Stop trolling 'The grauniad' and RT for theories....
* antifrank may still have the link to NATO'S dual-key arrangement with Belgium, Holland, Germany and Italy. Just be nice to him when you request it. 0 -
Labour could win Thanet South, so why not vote Labour? But, if you think they can't, every seat that's denied to the Conservatives makes a Labour government more likely.MP_SE said:
If I was a Green/Lab/Lib voter in Thanet South who despised UKIP I would vote Tory to keep Farage out of Westminster. It could potentially cause a leadership contest and damage the party.tlg86 said:Can someone explain to me how anti-Ukip tactical voting will work at the General Election? I get why it might have happened in the Newark and Rochester by-elections, but at the General Election?
Many of the Ukip target seats should be seats that Labour want to win. Are Labour voters really going to vote Tory just so that their local MP isn't a Kipper, and risk Labour not being the largest party?
Surely it's much harder to vote tactically in a three way marginal.
With UKIP and the Conservatives neck and neck it doesn't need a huge number of tactical votes from the left to prevent a UKIP win.
Rather ironically, if the Tory candidate wins due to tactical voting, they would have elected a Eurosceptic and a former leader of UKIP.
0 -
Doddy
Producer/production manager from New York. I only asked because you mentioned you'd been on a Trident submarine and I remember he did a documentary on one which I know he shot in Europe. A spitting image of Walter Matthau but funnier!0 -
On Farage/UKIP, i suspect the real position of the public is something like this: 30% would seriously consider voting for him; a further 15% wouldn't and have reservations about him, but secretly admire the way he says things that no one else says and contributes to the debate; a further 40% detest UKIP and its politics; and 15% haven't even thought about it and couldn't give a toss either way.0
-
Evening all
An interesting day poll-wise. I've said this any number of times on here but for all its merits and the "Gold Standard" accolade afforded it by some, ICM occasionally throws out outlier numbers for individual parties. Labour were on 38% in October and the LDs on 14% in December so now it's the turn of the Conservatives to (possibly) be overstated.
It's a poor poll for the LDs and UKIP in truth - the two parties combined had 29% in December (when the Tories were at an unlikely 28%) but until we see much more evidence to support it I'm filing it under "outlier". Of course, IF the Conservative number were to fall back 4 or 5 points this time next month (on the cusp of the Budget) it would change the narrative in the run up to said critical event.
Ashcroft and Populus are the reverse with the Conservatives becalmed around 30-32% and Labour enjoying a statistically insignificant advantage.
Interesting piece by Matthew Engel in today's Racing Post basically arguing a line I've peddled for a while - the Conservatives may have more seats than any other party but won't be ahead enough to prevent a Labour-led minority Government (enjoying S&C from various minor parties) taking office. In 2010, the Conservatives enjoyed a 50+ seat lead over Labour but might have failed to become the Government Party under other circumstances.
I can't see the LDs or the SNP running to Cameron's aid if he comes up short - the DUP seem equivocal and UKIP probably won't have enough MPs to make a difference. Thus, the Conservatives probably need to have at least as many seats as last time and certainly over 300.
In tonight's Evening Standard, a little piece on whether London might be facing a Mayoral by-election later this year. The theory goes that IF the Conservatives lose in May, Boris throws his hat in the leadership ring - IF he wins, can he really be LOTO and Mayor of London ? If he resigns after November, his Deputy could serve until the 2016 election. Otherwise, the rules say a by-election would be called for the Mayoralty.
0 -
You've just reiterated the officially understood position. I'm arguing that that is wrong. It doesn't matter that the atomic warheads are made here (with the Americans I might add) if the missiles can't be targeted or don't fire. Of course an invader could attack us without a US response -if US history teaches us anything at all, it's that they look after number 1.Casino_Royale said:
We chose to save money by signing a treaty with the U.S. to use their nuclear missile delivery system. That means the missiles use their design and components, and are serviced in a common pool in Georgia. However, the atomic warheads are manufactured and serviced in the UK. Furthermore, fire authority rests with the Royal Navy on approval from our Prime Minister.
We have operational independence from the U.S. - which is the most important part, as it prevents potential aggressors from calculating that they could attack Britain and British interests without necessarily risking a direct US response - but I grant you that it does not make us fully independent in all ways.
However, NATO's defence alliance and command structure is interdependent in any many ways, so I don't see this as a problem unless there's a major change in our relationship with them. Given we're both free and independent democracies, i see that as unlikely.
As for your last para, you are operating on a completely different paradigm from me when it comes to our thoughts on the US and its agenda. But what we can hopefully agree on is that it is a completely independent country of us, with an independent foreign policy agenda. So it's completely insupportable for our deterrent to depend on them.
It is simply a donation to the American military industrial complex. A donation we cannot afford.0 -
Tspiras, Varofakis, et al are not sane as we understand the term. They're the Radical Left. Let's remind ourselves what the Radical Left do:MTimT said:Those being the hard facts, the Greeks' only negotiating ploy is to up the ante beyond mere financial matters. "Well, if you're going to tell 79% of the Greeks to piss off, we will. We'll create a new currency, we'll go through unnecessary hardship through the transition back to the drachma, and we'll blame it on you. By leaving the EU, leaving NATO and finding other friends you don't like." That is their only ploy. And it only works if they believe it and will execute the threat. They are probably factoring in at least some Europeans taking them at their word.
So the questions are, would the Greeks really follow through on such a threat and, if they would, will the other Europeans correctly assess their intentions? Because no sane European - or Greek - should want that eventuality.
* Take other people's money
* Take other people's stuff
* Blame them
* Repeat until economy collapses
They will act in a way that is true to their nature and mess up the entire country.
0 -
" should answer your first point first, which was a good one -that the money saved on Trident replacement would just be spent elsewhere than defence. Sadly this is probably true, but if the deterrent is not functional, we surely come to whether the money should be spent keeping a relatively small number employed on Trident, or could have greater economic impact spent elsewhere.
To answer your second question:
1. The US manufactures the warheads -ample opportunity to install kill switches and fail-safes that have been rumoured in *all* US weapons (like planes) sold overseas, let alone world destroying ones.
2. The US maintains the warheads -withdrawal of US support would kill the program
3. The US provides the satellite data needed to target the warheads -no targeting info, no nuclear strike."
I usually only lurk here but this sort of oft repeated nonsense should be challenged.
1) Incorrect. The US does not manufacture the warheads and to do so would be a breach of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
2) Elements are vaguely true but only relevant over a period of many years, during which we could replace their input.
3) Won't address this in detail but it's nonsense. Often repeated nonsense, so I don't blame you for believing it, but it's nonsense. Think about the circumstances in which Trident might be fired (the West has gone and so have the toys overhead) and consider two things: a) we already know where e.g. Moscow is, and b) you don't need to be that accurate with a nuclear device.0 -
I've often wondered if the RN could use them against the US. It appears from the above that this is the case. In which case I would say the US are pretty good eggs for letting us buy them (especially if you study history further back than 1914) and saving us the cost of developing our own.Luckyguy1983 said:
You've just reiterated the officially understood position. I'm arguing that that is wrong. It doesn't matter that the atomic warheads are made here (with the Americans I might add) if the missiles can't be targeted or don't fire. Of course an invader could attack us without a US response -if US history teaches us anything at all, it's that they look after number 1.Casino_Royale said:
We chose to save money by signing a treaty with the U.S. to use their nuclear missile delivery system. That means the missiles use their design and components, and are serviced in a common pool in Georgia. However, the atomic warheads are manufactured and serviced in the UK. Furthermore, fire authority rests with the Royal Navy on approval from our Prime Minister.
We have operational independence from the U.S. - which is the most important part, as it prevents potential aggressors from calculating that they could attack Britain and British interests without necessarily risking a direct US response - but I grant you that it does not make us fully independent in all ways.
However, NATO's defence alliance and command structure is interdependent in any many ways, so I don't see this as a problem unless there's a major change in our relationship with them. Given we're both free and independent democracies, i see that as unlikely.
As for your last para, you are operating on a completely different paradigm from me when it comes to our thoughts on the US and its agenda. But what we can hopefully agree on is that it is a completely independent country of us, with an independent foreign policy agenda. So it's completely insupportable for our deterrent to depend on them.
It is simply a donation to the American military industrial complex. A donation we cannot afford.
0 -
No, he isn't. Genuinely. Reading a book on music does not enable you to sing. Look at how he's approached the negotiations. He couldn't have messed up worse if he was actually trying to.MTimT said:Varoufakis may be an expert in game theory...
If somebody claims to be a surgeon then removes the patient's arms and testicles whilst stabbing him in the heart shouting "DIE PATIENT DIE!", we can safely state that that person is not a surgeon. Similarly, we can safely state that Varoufakis is rubbish at game theory.0 -
Square Root
"I bet you have a limp wet Uriah Heap type handshake. How you could possibly refer to murders by IS as "disappointing" is beyond me."
I think because the Coptic Christians I knew were so gentle that's possibly what they'd have said. I don't know whether you have met many Arabs in that part of the world but I always find them so much more philosophical and reasoned than we are in Europe.0 -
Trident uses Inertial Navigation Systems and - don't Larf - 'interstellar-maps' (IIRC). Not difficult to replicate I would imagine.
Sattelite technology is not I the mix for obvious reasons: We have no 'first-strike' doctrine. Hence the - alleged - 'Today Programme' orders given to the boats' commanders....0 -
Given that his deputy can serve if he resigns after November and IIRC that Cameron was not appointed leader until December 2005 after Howard's resignation there probably isn't a particular problem.stodge said:Evening all
In tonight's Evening Standard, a little piece on whether London might be facing a Mayoral by-election later this year. The theory goes that IF the Conservatives lose in May, Boris throws his hat in the leadership ring - IF he wins, can he really be LOTO and Mayor of London ? If he resigns after November, his Deputy could serve until the 2016 election. Otherwise, the rules say a by-election would be called for the Mayoralty.
0 -
Under Lancaster House. I hope not or Robert Mugabe might have one of the keys......FluffyThoughts said:Dual-key is not "scientific-package":*
Under Lancaster House warhead design will be at Aldermaston and maintenance in France. Stop trolling 'The grauniad' and RT for theories....
* antifrank may still have the link to NATO'S dual-key arrangement with Belgium, Holland, Germany and Italy. Just be nice to him when you request it.0 -
Allister Heath had a nice piece the other day where he pointed out that public opinion is malleable (he was criticising the Tories for not attempting to move public opinion towards small government.) UKIP's doing OK now, but their ceiling is not fixed.Casino_Royale said:On Farage/UKIP, i suspect the real position of the public is something like this: 30% would seriously consider voting for him; a further 15% wouldn't and have reservations about him, but secretly admire the way he says things that no one else says and contributes to the debate; a further 40% detest UKIP and its politics; and 15% haven't even thought about it and couldn't give a toss either way.
"The most successful politicians don’t merely follow public opinion but seek to lead and mould it. They don’t just react to events but navigate their own path, inspired by a vision for the future.
They shift the centre-ground with clever, well-executed long-term strategies. Over time, they change a country’s culture in the same way that Google, Amazon or Facebook have revolutionised the way billions of people live their lives."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11407030/The-Tories-are-paying-the-price-for-their-lack-of-a-grand-vision.html
0 -
I think the issue re: a leadership election is moot, at least for the Tory party, but playing along, the Tory election process takes several months. Starting in May, it surey wouldn't be over till October at the earliest. Getting a few extra Tory MPs to stand would help - I'm sure a couple of the more earnest could be persuaded (JR-M, Peter Bone etc) - to lengthen the Parly process before the membership ballot occured.stodge said:Evening all
An interesting day poll-wise. I've said this any number of times on here but for all its merits and the "Gold Standard" accolade afforded it by some, ICM occasionally throws out outlier numbers for individual parties. Labour were on 38% in October and the LDs on 14% in December so now it's the turn of the Conservatives to (possibly) be overstated.
It's a poor poll for the LDs and UKIP in truth - the two parties combined had 29% in December (when the Tories were at an unlikely 28%) but until we see much more evidence to support it I'm filing it under "outlier". Of course, IF the Conservative number were to fall back 4 or 5 points this time next month (on the cusp of the Budget) it would change the narrative in the run up to said critical event.
Ashcroft and Populus are the reverse with the Conservatives becalmed around 30-32% and Labour enjoying a statistically insignificant advantage.
Interesting piece by Matthew Engel in today's Racing Post basically arguing a line I've peddled for a while - the Conservatives may have more seats than any other party but won't be ahead enough to prevent a Labour-led minority Government (enjoying S&C from various minor parties) taking office. In 2010, the Conservatives enjoyed a 50+ seat lead over Labour but might have failed to become the Government Party under other circumstances.
I can't see the LDs or the SNP running to Cameron's aid if he comes up short - the DUP seem equivocal and UKIP probably won't have enough MPs to make a difference. Thus, the Conservatives probably need to have at least as many seats as last time and certainly over 300.
In tonight's Evening Standard, a little piece on whether London might be facing a Mayoral by-election later this year. The theory goes that IF the Conservatives lose in May, Boris throws his hat in the leadership ring - IF he wins, can he really be LOTO and Mayor of London ? If he resigns after November, his Deputy could serve until the 2016 election. Otherwise, the rules say a by-election would be called for the Mayoralty.
0 -
0
-
Knowing the precise position of stars is important for the guidance of these things. See for instance the US Naval Interferometer in Arizona.FluffyThoughts said:Trident uses Inertial Navigation Systems and - don't Larf - 'interstellar-maps' (IIRC). Not difficult to replicate I would imagine.
Sattelite technology is not I the mix for obvious reasons: We have no 'first-strike' doctrine. Hence the - alleged - 'Today Programme' orders given to the boats' commanders....0 -
Exactly my criticism of Cameron. He's totally failed to lead the Conservative movement in this country. In no sense do I detect he's led national debate or moved the centre of public opinion over to the Conservative cause over the last 5 years.anotherDave said:
Allister Heath had a nice piece the other day where he pointed out that public opinion is malleable (he was criticising the Tories for not attempting to move public opinion towards small government.) UKIP's doing OK now, but their ceiling is not fixed.Casino_Royale said:On Farage/UKIP, i suspect the real position of the public is something like this: 30% would seriously consider voting for him; a further 15% wouldn't and have reservations about him, but secretly admire the way he says things that no one else says and contributes to the debate; a further 40% detest UKIP and its politics; and 15% haven't even thought about it and couldn't give a toss either way.
"The most successful politicians don’t merely follow public opinion but seek to lead and mould it. They don’t just react to events but navigate their own path, inspired by a vision for the future.
They shift the centre-ground with clever, well-executed long-term strategies. Over time, they change a country’s culture in the same way that Google, Amazon or Facebook have revolutionised the way billions of people live their lives."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11407030/The-Tories-are-paying-the-price-for-their-lack-of-a-grand-vision.html
In fact, whenever he does something vaguely Conservative he seems to be very apologetic about it. I think the centre of gravity of UK political discourse is exactly where it was in 2010.0 -
Well what is worse - telling people how to (legally) avoid tax - or attacking people who legally avoid tax - and then do it yourself?JonnyJimmy said:
Being the partisan hypocrite that I am, I linked to that vid about 2 hours ago.Smarmeron said:Ozzie has finally broken into "social media". Could this be a leadership bid?
"Osborne advice on tax avoidance resurfaces
Posted at 16:58
A 2003 appearance on the BBC's Daily Politics by George Osborne is doing the rounds on social media. Mr Osborne suggests a caller to the programme investigates some "pretty clever financial products". The clip comes about 30 seconds into this highlights' selection."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-31481032
0 -
State Control @State_Control 32m32 minutes ago
Director of EU-funded #UKIP Smear 'Mockumentary' In Court For Tax Fraud:
http://bit.ly/1DhSdmL
DIRECTOR OF UKIP SMEAR ‘MOCKUMENTARY’ IN COURT FOR TAX FRAUD0 -
I think this shows why Ed Miliband is such a dud
"Ed Miliband: All large companies hiring non-EU workers must offer apprenticeships
Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, says that all businesses bidding for government contracts or hiring non-EU workers will be required to offer apprenticeships"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11415513/Ed-Miliband-All-large-companies-hiring-non-EU-workers-must-offer-apprenticeships.html
Now, I am very keen to see businesses take on more apprentices, but for it to work, businesses must be engaged with the process and not forced to do it. Give incentives to businesses to take on apprentices by all means, but force them to and you just wind them up, discrediting the idea and meaning many of the resulting apprenticeship schemes will just be low quality mechanisms to look like they are compliant.
So Ed has managed at a stroke to turn a fantastic idea, enouraging more apprentices into something negative, authoritarian and interfering. EIC
And people accuse UKIP of coming out with ill thought out, populist crap......0 -
Appears to be the now rather common story of film project loses money, investors not that unhappy.MikeK said:State Control @State_Control 32m32 minutes ago
Director of EU-funded #UKIP Smear 'Mockumentary' In Court For Tax Fraud:
http://bit.ly/1DhSdmL
DIRECTOR OF UKIP SMEAR ‘MOCKUMENTARY’ IN COURT FOR TAX FRAUD
Also rather interesting that the directors previous works include Starsuckers, a documentary to expose ""shams and deceit involved in creating a pernicious celebrity culture".
Maybe his next documentary could be about exposing "shams and deceits involved in creating lose making film projects"?
Not that I am saying he will necessarily know anything about that at this present time, but might be an interesting project.0 -
High tech stem cell research company looking to employ world leading academic from US must also find job for a spotty 16 year old to do something or other within their firm....going to work out just fine.Paul_Mid_Beds said:I think this shows why Ed Miliband is such a dud
"Ed Miliband: All large companies hiring non-EU workers must offer apprenticeships
Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, says that all businesses bidding for government contracts or hiring non-EU workers will be required to offer apprenticeships"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11415513/Ed-Miliband-All-large-companies-hiring-non-EU-workers-must-offer-apprenticeships.html
Now, I am very keen to see businesses take on more apprentices, but for it to work, businesses must be engaged with the process and not forced to do it. Give incentives to businesses to take on apprentices by all means, but force them to and you just wind them up, discrediting the idea and meaning many of the resulting apprenticeship schemes will just be low quality mechanisms to look like they are compliant.
So Ed has managed at a stroke to turn a fantastic idea, enouraging more apprentices into something negative, authoritarian and interfering. EIC
And people accuse UKIP of coming out with ill thought out, populist crap......
Bloody idiot. There are some organisations that already do or definitely could really make use of apprenticeships, there are others that you need to be a PhD just to get through the door.
The way to do this is always to provide the right incentives to take people on, and incentives to continue to help their development / education if the company has found that a youngster has the right skills and drive to succeed. Just forcing this from high with a YOU MUST DO THIS OR ELSE, doesn't help the company, the individual or the country.0 -
Not as pissed off as Mr. Bean is at the comparison.....HYUFD said:Hengists Indeed, not sure miliband will be delighted with Mr Bean either
0 -
Hello, thanks for coming to say hi.ab195 said:
I usually only lurk here but this sort of oft repeated nonsense should be challenged.
1) Incorrect. The US does not manufacture the warheads and to do so would be a breach of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
2) Elements are vaguely true but only relevant over a period of many years, during which would could replace their input.
3) Won't address this in detail but it's nonsense. Often repeated nonsense, so I don't blame you for believing it, but it's nonsense. Think about the circumstances in which Trident might be fired (the West has gone and so have the toys overhead) and consider two things: a) we already know where e.g. Moscow is, and b) you don't need to be that accurate with a nuclear device.
1. Yes, -mea culpa. We manufacture the warheads in close cooperation with them. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/12/uk-us-mutual-defence-agreement-exclusive It doesn't advance your argument any though; they create the missiles.
2. You say over a period of years, the Trident Commission says months: http://www.basicint.org/publications/trident-commission/2014/trident-commission-concluding-report I choose to believe them.
3. An interesting angle -one of the key reasons given in the Commission report for maintaining Ballistic missiles over simply using an aircraft is its capability of accuracy within 10s of metres. Perhaps you could outline to them your theory of just lobbing one in the general direction of the Russians -you might save us a lot of money.0 -
That is as delicious as a really, really delicious thing.MikeK said:State Control @State_Control 32m32 minutes ago
Director of EU-funded #UKIP Smear 'Mockumentary' In Court For Tax Fraud:
http://bit.ly/1DhSdmL
DIRECTOR OF UKIP SMEAR ‘MOCKUMENTARY’ IN COURT FOR TAX FRAUD
0 -
I think a combination of the three would be worst. Like telling a donor how to make a tax free donation while also attacking tax avoiders and tax avoiding.weejonnie said:
Well what is worse - telling people how to (legally) avoid tax - or attacking people who legally avoid tax - and then do it yourself?JonnyJimmy said:
Being the partisan hypocrite that I am, I linked to that vid about 2 hours ago.Smarmeron said:Ozzie has finally broken into "social media". Could this be a leadership bid?
"Osborne advice on tax avoidance resurfaces
Posted at 16:58
A 2003 appearance on the BBC's Daily Politics by George Osborne is doing the rounds on social media. Mr Osborne suggests a caller to the programme investigates some "pretty clever financial products". The clip comes about 30 seconds into this highlights' selection."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-31481032
Now, who's done that?
0 -
That was rather my point.viewcode said:
No, he isn't. Genuinely. Reading a book on music does not enable you to sing. Look at how he's approached the negotiations. He couldn't have messed up worse if he was actually trying to.MTimT said:Varoufakis may be an expert in game theory...
If somebody claims to be a surgeon then removes the patient's arms and testicles whilst stabbing him in the heart shouting "DIE PATIENT DIE!", we can safely state that that person is not a surgeon. Similarly, we can safely state that Varoufakis is rubbish at game theory.0 -
Cheers, will have a think! (I used to get paid for this...)Jungleland said:
"Ro-Ro-Ro the UKIP Boat"???
25/10 UKIP performance in constituencies beginning "Ro"
Ahh, you worked at spin? IG?
I hope for the good of the country and my sanity i can settle at least one of your Ro-Ro-Ro bets to 25. Otherwise im moving to Panama to trade tennis.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I worked at IG sport for nine years yes... invented 'the 0-0 detector' bet and "no sleep til heartbeat!'
Short lived specials....
I meant all the constituencies starting 'Ro' in a special bet?? I think there are a few chances0 -
Roger..sorry ..the film I made was entirely Brit produced..I spent a lot of time in LA and may have crossed his path there..hence the familiar sound of his name.0
-
Precisely. Not just good eggs, the best eggs, the best that ever existed -American endangering for the sake of the Brits eggs. Even the most determinedly rose-tinted Atlanticist must surely realise it's utter, utter balls.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
I've often wondered if the RN could use them against the US. It appears from the above that this is the case. In which case I would say the US are pretty good eggs for letting us buy them (especially if you study history further back than 1914) and saving us the cost of developing our own.Luckyguy1983 said:
You've just reiterated the officially understood position. I'm arguing that that is wrong. It doesn't matter that the atomic warheads are made here (with the Americans I might add) if the missiles can't be targeted or don't fire. Of course an invader could attack us without a US response -if US history teaches us anything at all, it's that they look after number 1.Casino_Royale said:
We chose to save money by signing a treaty with the U.S. to use their nuclear missile delivery system. That means the missiles use their design and components, and are serviced in a common pool in Georgia. However, the atomic warheads are manufactured and serviced in the UK. Furthermore, fire authority rests with the Royal Navy on approval from our Prime Minister.
We have operational independence from the U.S. - which is the most important part, as it prevents potential aggressors from calculating that they could attack Britain and British interests without necessarily risking a direct US response - but I grant you that it does not make us fully independent in all ways.
However, NATO's defence alliance and command structure is interdependent in any many ways, so I don't see this as a problem unless there's a major change in our relationship with them. Given we're both free and independent democracies, i see that as unlikely.
As for your last para, you are operating on a completely different paradigm from me when it comes to our thoughts on the US and its agenda. But what we can hopefully agree on is that it is a completely independent country of us, with an independent foreign policy agenda. So it's completely insupportable for our deterrent to depend on them.
It is simply a donation to the American military industrial complex. A donation we cannot afford.
0
