politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON lead by 11 in first post-GE15 voting poll but governmen
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON lead by 11 in first post-GE15 voting poll but government approval at minus 5
First YouGov/Sun GE20 voting poll after the election
Con 41 Lab 30 LD 7 UKIP 13 GRN 4
Comments
-
Survation also carried out a poll on the 8th and 9th May that was published on the 10th of May
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Final-MoS-Post-election-poll-1c0d2h7.pdf
Con: 40%, Lab:31%, LD:6%, UKIP: 12%, SNP: 5%0 -
FPT:
I was just wondering what would have happened if Blair had not called the 2001 and 2005 elections at four year terms, instead of five years. We would have had an election in 2002 (Labour win), 2007 (just before the crash, Labour win) and 2012.
It is easy to see that Labour might still be in power.0 -
There's no need for opinion polls now even if they were credible, so one can only assume that these are being done for "Don't You Forget About Me"-type business promotional reasons.0
-
41% of people want improving standards of healthcare in the NHS. In which case, they don't want to let Andy Burnham anywhere near power.
The scum who puts the reputation of a trust ahead of patient welfare.0 -
Looks like a small boost for the government, even though they haven't done an awful lot yet. I guess aside from any methodological considerations the polls at this stage will be interesting for comparative rather than absolute purposes, say before and after the Budget.0
-
That ignores the secondary effects of extending those terms. Would the Tories have chosen different leaders post Hague? How would extending the Labour terms have affected the timing of the Blair/Brown handover?JosiasJessop said:FPT:
I was just wondering what would have happened if Blair had not called the 2001 and 2005 elections at four year terms, instead of five years. We would have had an election in 2002 (Labour win), 2007 (just before the crash, Labour win) and 2012.
It is easy to see that Labour might still be in power.0 -
I suspect the reason why government approval is lower than five years ago is that there are no longer two parties in government, so a smaller pool to fish from0
-
Think they may have been slaughtered in 2012, given that timeline and the length of time in power argument.JosiasJessop said:FPT:
I was just wondering what would have happened if Blair had not called the 2001 and 2005 elections at four year terms, instead of five years. We would have had an election in 2002 (Labour win), 2007 (just before the crash, Labour win) and 2012.
It is easy to see that Labour might still be in power.
2002 is pretty much the same result, with the same power struggle going on. I don't think Tories would have gone for the moderniser in 2002, so IDS gets his turn. However, what saw him removed in 2004(?) happens, with Howard leading calls for an open debate as to the future of the Conservatives, and Cameron wins in 2005, formally taking the reins in early 2006.
Assuming Blair --> Brown at approximately the same time (and I'd suggest it happens slightly earlier in this timeline), we're talking an election at around the time of the Brown Bounce/Bottle, so I'd happily argue that the reasons he bottled it stand up - he wins on a significantly reduced minority. Crash hits in much the same way, expenses hit in much the same way, they're deeply unpopular in 2010 and Eurozone went into recession in 2012, a double dip that we narrowly avoided.
I think you're looking at Labour's version of 1997 in 2012 in those circumstances.0 -
LOL....11%...Have YouWrongGov redone their model again?0
-
Okay, so England make it to lunch intact, 7% of the way down the long road to victory...
I'm not sure too much work will be getting done this afternoon now.0 -
FPT Thanks for that. Mr D. If I may continue the lunchtime (!) diversion just once more: I wondered if it was Bettany Hughes but apparently not. But (perhaps unsurprisingly) I did find a pair of grad students -Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Carnyx, I forget who it was, but one historian type tried it (I think that was the stuff) and he struggled to avoid vomiting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neboRTpRbbU
Shorter video here by someone else, the soup can be inspected at 4:14 on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrd7qtasidc
[edited - I muddled the two]
Actually, it seems to be a rather runny black pudding ...
0 -
Just heard Jacob Rees-Mogg explaining the nature of the HRA and the ECHR to Tulip Siddiq. A calm, assured performance even if he comes over as a posh academic.
She somehow came over as a four-year-old arguing with her parent ... "But why, mummy, why?"
Can one of the legal people on here explain what the HRA added apart from allowing Strasbourg courts to contest decisions of UK courts?0 -
I would have thought a period of silence from the pollsters would have been in order.0
-
The New Statesman points out what looks like a serious weakness in Andy Burnham's Parliamentary support base:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/southern-discomfort-does-it-matter-andy-burnham-cant-get-support-mps-south0 -
It's going to rain...Sandpit said:Okay, so England make it to lunch intact, 7% of the way down the long road to victory...
I'm not sure too much work will be getting done this afternoon now.0 -
44% disapproving of the record to date? I suspect they are not answering the question which was asked! It's not as if the government has actually done much yet...0
-
Charles said:
44% disapproving of the record to date? I suspect they are not answering the question which was asked! It's not as if the government has actually done much yet...
Perhaps there were expecting the gov to have done more?
Number of babies eaten: 0
Number of Scots pushed into the sea: 0
Number of disabled people crushed underfoot: 0
It's not much, is it?
0 -
Cook will be dancing around in his best Shaman outfit.Tissue_Price said:
It's going to rain...Sandpit said:Okay, so England make it to lunch intact, 7% of the way down the long road to victory...
I'm not sure too much work will be getting done this afternoon now.0 -
Do PMs typically get boosts at the beginning of their second mandate?TheScreamingEagles said:I suspect the reason why government approval is lower than five years ago is that there are no longer two parties in government, so a smaller pool to fish from
0 -
Needs to order up 2 days of constant rain :-)Pulpstar said:
Cook will be dancing around in his best Shaman outfit.Tissue_Price said:
It's going to rain...Sandpit said:Okay, so England make it to lunch intact, 7% of the way down the long road to victory...
I'm not sure too much work will be getting done this afternoon now.0 -
It's not as if they have many MPs in the south to choose from anyway,antifrank said:The New Statesman points out what looks like a serious weakness in Andy Burnham's Parliamentary support base:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/southern-discomfort-does-it-matter-andy-burnham-cant-get-support-mps-south0 -
Dan Hodges (peace be upon him) on electoral reform:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11643323/The-electoral-reform-lobby-needs-to-sober-up.html0 -
South of Warrington they have 45 MPs in London, 25 in Wales and 21 in the West Midlands for starters. I haven't done a proper tally but roughly half Labour's Parliamentary party seems to be south of Warrington.Slackbladder said:
It's not as if they have many MPs in the south to choose from anyway,antifrank said:The New Statesman points out what looks like a serious weakness in Andy Burnham's Parliamentary support base:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/southern-discomfort-does-it-matter-andy-burnham-cant-get-support-mps-south0 -
They have 45 in London (if you weren't being facetious) - I'm surprised, this has been the case for Burnham for the last week and I would have thought he would have targetted them to get at least one by now.Slackbladder said:
It's not as if they have many MPs in the south to choose from anyway,antifrank said:The New Statesman points out what looks like a serious weakness in Andy Burnham's Parliamentary support base:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/southern-discomfort-does-it-matter-andy-burnham-cant-get-support-mps-south0 -
I think all parties/PMs do after any election victory.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Do PMs typically get boosts at the beginning of their second mandate?TheScreamingEagles said:I suspect the reason why government approval is lower than five years ago is that there are no longer two parties in government, so a smaller pool to fish from
But would need to check properly.0 -
That Dan Hodges piece seem to amount to, Nigel Farage may get more seats under another system = electoral reform is bad.0
-
I think he's got nominees from Wales, no?antifrank said:
South of Warrington they have 45 MPs in London, 25 in Wales and 21 in the West Midlands for starters. I haven't done a proper tally but roughly half Labour's Parliamentary party seems to be south of Warrington.Slackbladder said:
It's not as if they have many MPs in the south to choose from anyway,antifrank said:The New Statesman points out what looks like a serious weakness in Andy Burnham's Parliamentary support base:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/southern-discomfort-does-it-matter-andy-burnham-cant-get-support-mps-south0 -
-
Ah yes - sorry, the New Statesman headline misled me.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I think he's got nominees from Wales, no?antifrank said:
South of Warrington they have 45 MPs in London, 25 in Wales and 21 in the West Midlands for starters. I haven't done a proper tally but roughly half Labour's Parliamentary party seems to be south of Warrington.Slackbladder said:
It's not as if they have many MPs in the south to choose from anyway,antifrank said:The New Statesman points out what looks like a serious weakness in Andy Burnham's Parliamentary support base:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/southern-discomfort-does-it-matter-andy-burnham-cant-get-support-mps-south0 -
The government approval figures (with changes from the last time the question was asked on May 4th-5th):
Approve 39 (nc)
Disapprove 44 (-4)
Perhaps a few people who didn't approve of the Coalition government are waiting to see how Cameron does on his own, while the majority of people see a great deal of continuity.0 -
We are all PB Hodges now.Tissue_Price said:Dan Hodges (peace be upon him) on electoral reform:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11643323/The-electoral-reform-lobby-needs-to-sober-up.html
Je Suis Dan0 -
Shall I go back to Headingley and start chanting "Allah u Akbar" might get the test stopped for the rest of the day?Pulpstar said:
Cook will be dancing around in his best Shaman outfit.Tissue_Price said:
It's going to rain...Sandpit said:Okay, so England make it to lunch intact, 7% of the way down the long road to victory...
I'm not sure too much work will be getting done this afternoon now.0 -
Before the 1998 Act, the UK was a party to the Convention, and judgments of the Strasbourg Court in cases in which the United Kingdom was a party were binding on Her Majesty's Government in international law (see article 46(1) of the Convention). The position in domestic law was quite different. While the convention could be used as an aid to the construction of genuinely ambiguous legislation, the Convention was not part of English law and public authorities were not obliged to have regard to the convention (Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 (HL)).CD13 said:Can one of the legal people on here explain what the HRA added apart from allowing Strasbourg courts to contest decisions of UK courts?
The 1998 Act incorporated certain (but not all) convention rights into domestic law. Those convention rights are to be construed having regard to Strasbourg case law (s. 2(1)). All legislation, so far as is possible to do so, must be construed compatibly with the Convention (s. 3). If legislation is incompatible with the convention, the court can so declare, although this does not affect the validity of the legislation (s. 4). Unless compelled to do so by primary legislation, it is unlawful and a breach of statutory duty for a public authority to act contrary to an individual's convention rights (ss. 6-7).
The 1998 Act has therefore made a substantial difference. The Strasbourg Court, however, impugned judgments of our courts before it entered into force. In Smith & Grady v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 493, 542-544, for example, it held that the limited scope for questioning a decision's substance in English administrative law, stated by the Court of Appeal in R v Ministry of Defence, Ex Parte Smith [1996] QB 57, violated the applicants' right to an effective remedy under article 13 of the Convention.0 -
To add to the intrigue, London Labour supporters are palpably more left-wing than the Labour Party elsewhere in the country. Either the MPs don't (a) like (b) think left-wing Burnham, or (c) they are more Blairite than their constituents.0
-
This has got to hurt
Labour’s next leader should look to David Cameron, not Tony Blair
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/labour-leader-cameron-not-blair
0 -
Its only just been elected. People may not like the medicine, but they know its good for them.... and Dave hasn't taken us into illegal war that cost millions of lives.Jonathan said:
Not much love for this govt. Tories would do well to bear this in mind. Reminds me of 2005.Charles said:44% disapproving of the record to date? I suspect they are not answering the question which was asked! It's not as if the government has actually done much yet...
0 -
They don't like the guy who won 3 times, do they?TheScreamingEagles said:This has got to hurt
Labour’s next leader should look to David Cameron, not Tony Blair
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/labour-leader-cameron-not-blair0 -
Tony Blair = Emmanuel GoldsteinSandpit said:
They don't like the guy who won 3 times, do they?TheScreamingEagles said:This has got to hurt
Labour’s next leader should look to David Cameron, not Tony Blair
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/labour-leader-cameron-not-blair0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
This has got to hurt
Labour’s next leader should look to David Cameron, not Tony Blair
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/labour-leader-cameron-not-blair
It won't be "heir to Blair".
How about "Leading on from Cameron".
Hmm. Not quite as catchy.
0 -
I see Juncker is doing his best to ensure Out wins
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11643101/Britain-will-not-vote-to-leave-EU-says-Juncker.html0 -
If I were IN I'd think maybe a kidnap were in order.TheScreamingEagles said:I see Juncker is doing his best to ensure Out wins
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11643101/Britain-will-not-vote-to-leave-EU-says-Juncker.html0 -
There was a piece last week which said what Labour really need is a master strategist like Osborne.MarkHopkins said:TheScreamingEagles said:This has got to hurt
Labour’s next leader should look to David Cameron, not Tony Blair
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/labour-leader-cameron-not-blair
It won't be "heir to Blair".
How about "Leading on from Cameron".
Hmm. Not quite as catchy.0 -
They had one, but he's now the second-most hated figure within the party.TheScreamingEagles said:There was a piece last week which said what Labour really need is a master strategist like Osborne.
0 -
Here it is
Before Labour finds it’s next leader, it needs to find its George Osborne – and fast
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/before-labour-finds-its-next-leader-it-needs-to-find-its-george-osborne-and-fast/
0 -
Strangely the YouGov poll appears to be 6 days old!0
-
Labour truly are averse to success.Richard_Nabavi said:
They had one, but he's now the second-most hated figure within the party.TheScreamingEagles said:There was a piece last week which said what Labour really need is a master strategist like Osborne.
0 -
Quite. Mandelson said the first time he was rung up for advice during the campaign was the day before polling day when he was asked how to get Miliband into Downing Street if Labour came second.Richard_Nabavi said:
They had one, but he's now the second-most hated figure within the party.TheScreamingEagles said:There was a piece last week which said what Labour really need is a master strategist like Osborne.
0 -
It looks as if Presidente Juncker has realised that Cameron is a staunch Heathite.0
-
Was Mandy’s short answer, - sack Lucy Powell?williamglenn said:
Quite. Mandelson said the first time he was rung up for advice during the campaign was the day before polling day when he was asked how to get Miliband into Downing Street if Labour came second.Richard_Nabavi said:
They had one, but he's now the second-most hated figure within the party.TheScreamingEagles said:There was a piece last week which said what Labour really need is a master strategist like Osborne.
0 -
Only tangentially related but only two issues have struck me in the last week (I've been v busy on work and other matters):-
1. IS apparently capturing the port at Sirte on the Libyan coast - only a few hours away from the Italian mainland and, obviously, making it much easier for them to import/export arms/people etc.
2. The US Defence Secretary talking about UK's weakening defence role this morning.
How the Western world deals with IS seems to me to be one of the key issues of the next few years and yet there seems to be no strategy whatsoever, or none that appears to be working, anyway.0 -
@toadmeister: Not surprised to learn Lucy Powell had a hand in the disastrous ‘Milibrand’ stunt. But Eddie Izard as well? Ha! http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/06/lucy-powell-the-campaign-genius-behind-the-milibrand-interview/ …SimonStClare said:Was Mandy’s short answer, - sack Lucy Powell?
0 -
Is Nick Palmer on?
He mentioned an Islington North (?) CLP meeting, I wonder who the nominees were.0 -
I think that most governments just hope it will go away. I simply can't understand the rationale for further defence cuts, when so much trouble is emerging on NATO's frontiers.Cyclefree said:Only tangentially related but only two issues have struck me in the last week (I've been v busy on work and other matters):-
1. IS apparently capturing the port at Sirte on the Libyan coast - only a few hours away from the Italian mainland and, obviously, making it much easier for them to import/export arms/people etc.
2. The US Defence Secretary talking about UK's weakening defence role this morning.
How the Western world deals with IS seems to me to be one of the key issues of the next few years and yet there seems to be no strategy whatsoever, or none that appears to be working, anyway.
0 -
From both their points of view, it would make more sense to engineer a fake row, to make it look as though Cameron had got important concessions. As antifrank puts it "You grunt, I groan."Life_ina_market_town said:It looks as if Presidente Juncker has realised that Cameron is a staunch Heathite.
0 -
They should start by hiring Dan Hodges. But that is a hell freezes over moment.TheScreamingEagles said:
There was a piece last week which said what Labour really need is a master strategist like Osborne.MarkHopkins said:TheScreamingEagles said:This has got to hurt
Labour’s next leader should look to David Cameron, not Tony Blair
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/labour-leader-cameron-not-blair
It won't be "heir to Blair".
How about "Leading on from Cameron".
Hmm. Not quite as catchy.
0 -
I am sure NATO would be delighted if IS were to launch an armada against Europe..Fish in a barrel springs to mind0
-
It's on Wednesday.TheWhiteRabbit said:Is Nick Palmer on?
He mentioned an Islington North (?) CLP meeting, I wonder who the nominees were.
0 -
IS are far from conventional. Ramadi was taken, IIRC, with just 500 men.richardDodd said:I am sure NATO would be delighted if IS were to launch an armada against Europe..Fish in a barrel springs to mind
0 -
(1) Defence is expensiveSean_F said:
I think that most governments just hope it will go away. I simply can't understand the rationale for further defence cuts, when so much trouble is emerging on NATO's frontiers.Cyclefree said:Only tangentially related but only two issues have struck me in the last week (I've been v busy on work and other matters):-
1. IS apparently capturing the port at Sirte on the Libyan coast - only a few hours away from the Italian mainland and, obviously, making it much easier for them to import/export arms/people etc.
2. The US Defence Secretary talking about UK's weakening defence role this morning.
How the Western world deals with IS seems to me to be one of the key issues of the next few years and yet there seems to be no strategy whatsoever, or none that appears to be working, anyway.
(2) They think cutting it won't cost votes, but a failure to spend more on something else will
(3) Using armed force is politically risky and gives no guarantees of success or plaudits
(4) It risks bringing tragedy closer to home in a way that's more politically damaging than letting it happen to people in faraway lands of which we know little and have little in common0 -
Sensible move by yougov, otherwise that poll shows no real change from the election other than a shift of undecideds slightly to the Tories.
O/T Sad to hear of the death of Beau Biden from cancer yesterday at 45, the Vice President's son was attorney general of Delaware and tipped for the governorship as well as an Iraq War vet0 -
FPT
Whoever it was from the Green Party speaking inordinately good sense on the wireless just now...
"not x% of GDP but we need to perform a strategic review, to decide what and who we want to be in the world and then work out how much it will cost, which could be more or less than 2%."
OK I don't agree with the Green Party's trident position, etc, but it seems an entirely reasonable approach.
Green Party defence spokesman, Rachel Johnson, was it? (oh how glorious that would be...)0 -
Cyclefree I believe the Egyptian military is heading towards an intervention in Libya sooner rather than later to head off ISIS, I agree on defence cuts, personally I would end ringfencing, certainly no reason international aid should be increased when defence dips below the NATO spending target, I believe several Tory backbenchers agree0
-
You missed out the most important one:Casino_Royale said:(1) Defence is expensive
(2) They think cutting it won't cost votes, but a failure to spend more on something else will
(3) Using armed force is politically risky and gives no guarantees of success or plaudits
(4) It risks bringing tragedy closer to home in a way that's more politically damaging than letting it happen to people in faraway lands of which we know little and have little in common
(5) Even if we spent twice as much, what would we actually be able to do that we and our allies can't do at the moment?
It's not lack of kit or personnel that is preventing the West confronting IS.0 -
White Rabbit.. Ramadi is a desert town ..deep in the territory that is controlled by IS..Italy is a couple of hundred miles away from Sirte..it would need a massive armada of sophisticated naval ships to even make the crossing..let alone mount an armed invasion.0
-
NickPalmer said:
It's on Wednesday.TheWhiteRabbit said:Is Nick Palmer on?
He mentioned an Islington North (?) CLP meeting, I wonder who the nominees were.
Thanks Nick. For some reason I had it in my head it was yesterday, but there will be a raft on Wednesday & Thursday this week which will bring us close to all nominated. That being said, in terms of the final numbers, the bar is so low the last few nominations could be important and are most likely to be out of sympathy.0 -
I think in our case it is. We have suffered greatly from having no carrier strike capability, anti submarine patrol assets and an army so small we can't credibly contribute to an expeditionary force.Richard_Nabavi said:
You missed out the most important one:Casino_Royale said:(1) Defence is expensive
(2) They think cutting it won't cost votes, but a failure to spend more on something else will
(3) Using armed force is politically risky and gives no guarantees of success or plaudits
(4) It risks bringing tragedy closer to home in a way that's more politically damaging than letting it happen to people in faraway lands of which we know little and have little in common
(5) Even if we spent twice as much, what would we actually be able to do that we and our allies can't do at the moment?
It's not lack of kit or personnel that is preventing the West confronting IS.
If we'd properly funded the 1998 SDR to meets its stated objectives, and maintained that funding, then I'd agree with you.0 -
Sorry, that was rather my point.richardDodd said:White Rabbit.. Ramadi is a desert town ..deep in the territory that is controlled by IS..Italy is a couple of hundred miles away from Sirte..it would need a massive armada of sophisticated naval ships to even make the crossing..let alone mount an armed invasion.
IS haven't made their gains using the tactics, skills, materiel or numbers to make a conventional assault on Europe (where the population would be far from welcoming).
0 -
One of Juncker's strengths is that he doesn't dissemble. Anyone with a passing knowledge of British politics is aware that Cameron is in favour of membership and doesn't want to keep coming back to the issue. It's not Juncker's problem that Cameron sometimes likes to pretend otherwise in order to square some backbenchers or recover UKIP votes. It's a good interview, and the comments on Orban are great.TheWhiteRabbit said:
If I were IN I'd think maybe a kidnap were in order.TheScreamingEagles said:I see Juncker is doing his best to ensure Out wins
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11643101/Britain-will-not-vote-to-leave-EU-says-Juncker.html
The basic argument was that it enables people to raise issues in British courts with British judges, instead of taking their issue over the long and tortuous route to Strasbourg.CD13 said:J
Can one of the legal people on here explain what the HRA added apart from allowing Strasbourg courts to contest decisions of UK courts?
0 -
Paradoxically, this intervention from Jean-Claude Juncker implies to me that he is concerned that there is a big gap between Britain wants and what the rest of the EU is prepared to agree to and that it might not be bridgeable.Sean_F said:
From both their points of view, it would make more sense to engineer a fake row, to make it look as though Cameron had got important concessions. As antifrank puts it "You grunt, I groan."Life_ina_market_town said:It looks as if Presidente Juncker has realised that Cameron is a staunch Heathite.
The EU will accept more change if it believes that the end result will be a permanent deal. It won't go far out of its way if it believes that Britain is going to be looking for new concessions in five years' time. By bigging up Britain's willingness to become good Europeans, Jean-Claude Juncker is looking to persuade others to show greater flexibility.0 -
So it is time to get rid of our nuclear deterrent and spend the money on conventional forces yes?0
-
TSE..No definitely not..0
-
similar taste in yachts and oligarchsRichard_Nabavi said:
They had one, but he's now the second-most hated figure within the party.TheScreamingEagles said:There was a piece last week which said what Labour really need is a master strategist like Osborne.
0 -
Re - previous thread. Whilst a change of leader in Autumn 2014 probably would not have led to a Labour victory, it surely has to be more than likely that it would have been sufficient to have prevented a Tory majority - perhaps something like the Broadcasters' Exit Poll of Con circa 315 Lab circa 240 LibDem circa 10. Such a result would have significantly altered the dynamics in the new Parliament and given Labour hope of forcing the Government out from 2017 onwards following by election reverses etc.0
-
Potentially Egyptian forces could also be deployed in Yemen as part of the Saudi backed suppression of Shi-ite Houti Rebels.HYUFD said:Cyclefree I believe the Egyptian military is heading towards an intervention in Libya sooner rather than later to head off ISIS, I agree on defence cuts, personally I would end ringfencing, certainly no reason international aid should be increased when defence dips below the NATO spending target, I believe several Tory backbenchers agree
0 -
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.richardDodd said:TSE..No definitely not..
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.0 -
Already refused, Egypt's Vietnam. Houthis killed Egyptian conscripts in the thousands in the 60s. Won't be going back.TimGeo said:
Potentially Egyptian forces could also be deployed in Yemen as part of the Saudi backed suppression of Shi-ite Houti Rebels.HYUFD said:Cyclefree I believe the Egyptian military is heading towards an intervention in Libya sooner rather than later to head off ISIS, I agree on defence cuts, personally I would end ringfencing, certainly no reason international aid should be increased when defence dips below the NATO spending target, I believe several Tory backbenchers agree
0 -
The RAF needs disbanding too.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.richardDodd said:TSE..No definitely not..
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11642595/Break-up-the-RAF-and-stop-buying-British.html
Maybe we can sell the carriers to China too, could even build more for them.
0 -
TSE..Like an insurance policy..we should have them because one day we might need them..even tho they are costly.0
-
It's full of half truth such as the two party vote increased. Yes it did but not by much and is still down from '97, '01 and '05.Tissue_Price said:Dan Hodges (peace be upon him) on electoral reform:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11643323/The-electoral-reform-lobby-needs-to-sober-up.html0 -
North Korea's works, so clearly cheaper options out there than Trident.richardDodd said:TSE..Like an insurance policy..we should have them because one day we might need them..even tho they are costly.
0 -
That worked well, didn't it?NickPalmer said:The basic argument was that it enables people to raise issues in British courts with British judges, instead of taking their issue over the long and tortuous route to Strasbourg.
Number of cases against the United Kingdom allocated to a Chamber of the Strasbourg Court in 1999: 429.
Number of cases against the United Kingdom allocated to a Chamber of the Strasbourg Court in 2010: 2766.
[Donald et al., The UK and the European Court of Human Rights, EHRC Research Report no. 83, p. 31, table 4.1]0 -
Obviously these statistics prove that British subjects don't need recourse to the ECtHR.Life_ina_market_town said:
That worked well, didn't it?NickPalmer said:The basic argument was that it enables people to raise issues in British courts with British judges, instead of taking their issue over the long and tortuous route to Strasbourg.
Number of cases against the United Kingdom allocated to a Chamber of the Strasbourg Court in 1999: 429.
Number of cases against the United Kingdom allocated to a Chamber of the Strasbourg Court in 2010: 2766.
[Donald et al., The UK and the European Court of Human Rights, EHRC Research Report no. 83, p. 31, table 4.1]0 -
Who leads the SNP?
@JamesClayton5: So Sturgeon has said she won't stand on same platform with Tories in EU ref.... only Salmond said he would http://t.co/C48OdQC0Ui0 -
How about "Cameron Continuity / Continuity Cameron" . . . or Labour could just pick Kendall and be competitive in their own right.MarkHopkins said:TheScreamingEagles said:This has got to hurt
Labour’s next leader should look to David Cameron, not Tony Blair
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/labour-leader-cameron-not-blair
It won't be "heir to Blair".
How about "Leading on from Cameron".
Hmm. Not quite as catchy.0 -
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.richardDodd said:TSE..No definitely not..
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.0 -
Pretending that IS are not getting nearer and that this increases the risk of tragedies happening to people here on the European mainland is no way to conduct foreign or defence policy. Pretending and/or hoping that other armies or other fighters will defeat IS when all the evidence is that they have failed so far, lack the will or are otherwise two-faced about what their real interests are is not much of a policy either.Casino_Royale said:
(1) Defence is expensiveSean_F said:
I think that most governments just hope it will go away. I simply can't understand the rationale for further defence cuts, when so much trouble is emerging on NATO's frontiers.Cyclefree said:Only tangentially related but only two issues have struck me in the last week (I've been v busy on work and other matters):-
1. IS apparently capturing the port at Sirte on the Libyan coast - only a few hours away from the Italian mainland and, obviously, making it much easier for them to import/export arms/people etc.
2. The US Defence Secretary talking about UK's weakening defence role this morning.
How the Western world deals with IS seems to me to be one of the key issues of the next few years and yet there seems to be no strategy whatsoever, or none that appears to be working, anyway.
(2) They think cutting it won't cost votes, but a failure to spend more on something else will
(3) Using armed force is politically risky and gives no guarantees of success or plaudits
(4) It risks bringing tragedy closer to home in a way that's more politically damaging than letting it happen to people in faraway lands of which we know little and have little in common
I honestly don't know what the answer is but I'm pretty certain that putting our fingers in our ears and hoping that the bad people will go away is not the answer. Sooner or later a confrontation of some kind is going to happen. A march through Paris (or Rome or London or Berlin or Tunis or wherever) and Twitter expressions of solidarity will not be sufficient.
0 -
Don't forget, we could sell Trident to Russia too.FalseFlag said:
North Korea's works, so clearly cheaper options out there than Trident.richardDodd said:TSE..Like an insurance policy..we should have them because one day we might need them..even tho they are costly.
0 -
I think you're proving TSE's point.MTimT said:
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.richardDodd said:TSE..No definitely not..
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Trident has a role beyond actually being used.
Trident might have been and might still be used on a different history arc.
Thus the fact that Trident has not been used is not compelling as a reason to get rid of it.0 -
I've no idea why anybody would commission an opinion poll at the moment
0 -
I wouldn't want to ditch them given the manoeuvres of Russia and Iran recently. You just never know how the international security situation could deteriorate.richardDodd said:TSE..Like an insurance policy..we should have them because one day we might need them..even tho they are costly.
I think our nuclear defence is one of the key reasons why the West is strategically secure.0 -
On VI nothing more frequently than fortnightly serves any real purpose.blackburn63 said:I've no idea why anybody would commission an opinion poll at the moment
But we should have more mayoralty polls!!0 -
http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2015/05/18/what-america-should-learn-from-the-british-election/
Jobs not guns. I was amused to read Cameron being praised for his pacifism.0 -
I agree with you, and have written to my MP and the SoS for Defence to say as much.Cyclefree said:
Pretending that IS are not getting nearer and that this increases the risk of tragedies happening to people here on the European mainland is no way to conduct foreign or defence policy. Pretending and/or hoping that other armies or other fighters will defeat IS when all the evidence is that they have failed so far, lack the will or are otherwise two-faced about what their real interests are is not much of a policy either.Casino_Royale said:
(1) Defence is expensiveSean_F said:
I think that most governments just hope it will go away. I simply can't understand the rationale for further defence cuts, when so much trouble is emerging on NATO's frontiers.Cyclefree said:Only tangentially related but only two issues have struck me in the last week (I've been v busy on work and other matters):-
1. IS apparently capturing the port at Sirte on the Libyan coast - only a few hours away from the Italian mainland and, obviously, making it much easier for them to import/export arms/people etc.
2. The US Defence Secretary talking about UK's weakening defence role this morning.
How the Western world deals with IS seems to me to be one of the key issues of the next few years and yet there seems to be no strategy whatsoever, or none that appears to be working, anyway.
(2) They think cutting it won't cost votes, but a failure to spend more on something else will
(3) Using armed force is politically risky and gives no guarantees of success or plaudits
(4) It risks bringing tragedy closer to home in a way that's more politically damaging than letting it happen to people in faraway lands of which we know little and have little in common
I honestly don't know what the answer is but I'm pretty certain that putting our fingers in our ears and hoping that the bad people will go away is not the answer. Sooner or later a confrontation of some kind is going to happen. A march through Paris (or Rome or London or Berlin or Tunis or wherever) and Twitter expressions of solidarity will not be sufficient.-1 -
Mea culpa. I frequently miss irony on the web, and particularly when I don't take time to read the entire thread. ThanksTheWhiteRabbit said:
I think you're proving TSE's point.MTimT said:
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.richardDodd said:TSE..No definitely not..
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Trident has a role beyond actually being used.
Trident might have been and might still be used on a different history arc.
Thus the fact that Trident has not been used is not compelling as a reason to get rid of it.0 -
So I run out for an hour and come back to find you were right. Mrs Sandpit is now happy that the afternoon won't be spent watching a game she doesn't understand!Tissue_Price said:
It's going to rain...Sandpit said:Okay, so England make it to lunch intact, 7% of the way down the long road to victory...
I'm not sure too much work will be getting done this afternoon now.0 -
I'm waiting for TSE to throw the lack of irony back on me...MTimT said:
Mea culpa. I frequently miss irony on the web, and particularly when I don't take time to read the entire thread. ThanksTheWhiteRabbit said:
I think you're proving TSE's point.MTimT said:
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.richardDodd said:TSE..No definitely not..
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Trident has a role beyond actually being used.
Trident might have been and might still be used on a different history arc.
Thus the fact that Trident has not been used is not compelling as a reason to get rid of it.0 -
Individuals cannot be blamed for pursuing every remedy which is lawfully open to them against the government. Whether the convention rights ought to be recognised and given effect to in law is another matter. I have never seen a convincing argument for why matters of social, political and moral judgment over which reasonable people can and do disagree, should be the preserve of judges, as is inevitable if we remain party to the convention.EPG said:Obviously these statistics prove that British subjects don't need recourse to the ECtHR.
0 -
between Saudi and Iran or their proxies, anyway. which is maybe why nobody much wants to get involvedCyclefree said:Sooner or later a confrontation of some kind is going to happen.
0
