politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » We are more than six months away from the primaries yet the

The primary school population in England has continued to rise sharply, with 94,000 extra pupils this year, reaching the highest levels since the 1970s.

The 2.1% increase in primary numbers is equivalent to six more pupils for every school.

"Minority ethnic pupils made up 71% of the increase," says the Department for Education's school census report.

The annual figures show there are now more super-sized primary schools.

It will mean more funding demands to create extra places and pressure on places for families looking for schools.

There are now 87 primary schools with more than 800 pupils, up from 77 in 2014 and 58 in 2013.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304

Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone except Labour, when almost uncontrolled immigration is allowed.

Interesting move by Andy Burnham

Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham today said he was prepared to offer a “helping hand” to rivals without enough nominations to stand in the contest.

Mr Burnham said he would agree to push some of his backers towards other contenders to ensure they made the final shortlist if they needed help to get “over the line”.

It came as the shadow health secretary’s support grew even further to 60 MPs — almost double the required number of 35

http://bit.ly/1FUOZ4u

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

Someone wanted 5-1 on Brexit.

I will give 5-1 on the United Kingdom ceasing to be a part of Europe within the next ten years**.

I'm happy to take bets of any size.


** For the purposes of this bet, "ceasing to be a part of Europe" refers to the geographical location of the United Kingdom. So long as the distance between London, England and Brussels, Belgium is less than the distance between London, England and Washington DC, USA, then the United Kingdom will be considered to be a part of Europe.

A short video of Tsipiras today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZX4i3UAPdo

Does he look happy or sad?

Off topic

Just over 30% of primary school kids are from an ethnic minority

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304

Does this include Poles/Latvians etc? If so it's not that surprising

If NOT, it seems a very large number to my untrained eyes. Total numbers of pupils increasing a lot, over 2% in a year.

Not to politicians: EXPECT THESE PUPILS TO ALSO GO TO SECONDARY SCHOOL IN A FEW YEARS AND PLAN ACCORDINGLY

(Capitals because history tells us they are a bit slow on the uptake and to plan for these things...)

TheScreamingEagles said:

Interesting move by Andy Burnham

Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham today said he was prepared to offer a “helping hand” to rivals without enough nominations to stand in the contest.

Mr Burnham said he would agree to push some of his backers towards other contenders to ensure they made the final shortlist if they needed help to get “over the line”.

It came as the shadow health secretary’s support grew even further to 60 MPs — almost double the required number of 35

http://bit.ly/1FUOZ4u

Burnham will benefit from lefties being motivated to vote - he is likely to pick up their second preferences. Therefore he wants Corbyn on the ballot.

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

JonCisBack said:

Off topic

Just over 30% of primary school kids are from an ethnic minority

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304

Does this include Poles/Latvians etc? If so it's not that surprising

If NOT, it seems a very large number to my untrained eyes. Total numbers of pupils increasing a lot, over 2% in a year.

Not to politicians: EXPECT THESE PUPILS TO ALSO GO TO SECONDARY SCHOOL IN A FEW YEARS AND PLAN ACCORDINGLY

(Capitals because history tells us they are a bit slow on the uptake and to plan for these things...)

No it does not include Slavs, or any other Europeans. High immigration and differing fertility rates.

On topic, I beg to differ.
The focus groups of republican voters in Iowa and N.Hampshire are strongly against Bush as they think he is unelectable, also he is the second most unpopular republican after Chris Christie within his own party.

And there are more nails on his coffin today:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/10/shaming-unwed-moms-was-the-law-in-jeb-bush-s-florida.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/09/jeb-bush-1995-book_n_7542964.html

"Public shaming would be an effective way to regulate the “irresponsible behavior” of unwed mothers, misbehaving teenagers and welfare recipients, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) argued in his 1995 book Profiles in Character.

In a chapter called "The Restoration of Shame,” the likely 2016 presidential candidate made the case that restoring the art of public humiliation could help prevent pregnancies “out of wedlock.”

"Bush points to Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter, in which the main character is forced to wear a large red "A" for "adulterer" on her clothes to punish her for having an extramarital affair that produced a child, as an early model for his worldview. "Infamous shotgun weddings and Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter are reminders that public condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong historical roots,” Bush wrote."

So Bush is in favour to force people to wear symbols on their clothes to point them as social outcasts, what's next? Will jews be forced to wear the star of david?

FalseFlag said:

JonCisBack said:

Off topic

Just over 30% of primary school kids are from an ethnic minority

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304

Does this include Poles/Latvians etc? If so it's not that surprising

If NOT, it seems a very large number to my untrained eyes. Total numbers of pupils increasing a lot, over 2% in a year.

Not to politicians: EXPECT THESE PUPILS TO ALSO GO TO SECONDARY SCHOOL IN A FEW YEARS AND PLAN ACCORDINGLY

(Capitals because history tells us they are a bit slow on the uptake and to plan for these things...)

No it does not include Slavs, or any other Europeans. High immigration and differing fertility rates.

Blimey.

30% BME then, on average. I would have thought only a few inner city areas hit that level anywhere, but that implies it's well above that in many places. Must be to balance out the <<5% in most rural areas.

rcs1000 said:

By the way, I was shocked today to discover there are British Overseas Territories where the Euro is the official currency.

Can anyone name them?

Some military bases in cyprus I guess.

Clinton, yes nailed on.

Bush, unlikely I'd say. Can't really see why he'd stand out over other 2016 GOP contenders. He's not a very good speech maker, he hasn't won an election since 2002, and his last name is Bush.

Rand Paul would be the best shout for the GOP in terms of the general election, however I think they are going to pick Walker of Rubio.

Bet the US are glad they moved away from heredity as a principle of govt.

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

By the way, I was shocked today to discover there are British Overseas Territories where the Euro is the official currency.

Can anyone name them?

Some military bases in cyprus I guess.

Very good :-)

AllyPally_Rob said:

Clinton, yes nailed on.

Bush, unlikely I'd say. Can't really see why he'd stand out over other 2016 GOP contenders. He's not a very good speech maker, he hasn't won an election since 2002, and his last name is Bush.

Rand Paul would be the best shout for the GOP in terms of the general election, however I think they are going to pick Walker of Rubio.

Kasich would be the GOP's best bet in the general but his immediate problem is visibility, and his longer-term problem is winning the nomination. But I agree that the two front runners are now Rubio and Walker. Bush will hang in until the end of the nomination process because he will have gobs of money and the backing of the old Establishment. But he is lacklustre and a Bush (even if on paper he would be the best Bush in the shrubbery).

Of course, this far out, many a slip twist cup and lip.

MTimT said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Clinton, yes nailed on.

Bush, unlikely I'd say. Can't really see why he'd stand out over other 2016 GOP contenders. He's not a very good speech maker, he hasn't won an election since 2002, and his last name is Bush.

Rand Paul would be the best shout for the GOP in terms of the general election, however I think they are going to pick Walker of Rubio.

Kasich would be the GOP's best bet in the general but his immediate problem is visibility, and his longer-term problem is winning the nomination. But I agree that the two front runners are now Rubio and Walker. Bush will hang in until the end of the nomination process because he will have gobs of money and the backing of the old Establishment. But he is lacklustre and a Bush (even if on paper he would be the best Bush in the shrubbery).

Of course, this far out, many a slip twist cup and lip.

I like Walker - but I think he'd lose to Hillary.

Rubio would beat her, but I have this sneaking feeling that the Republicans won't choose him.

Rand Paul would be an incredible result from a betting perspective...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/08/2016-gop-power-index-fiorina-still-rising-paul-survives/

Fiorina could be a good bet to be on the ticket.

williamglenn said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/08/2016-gop-power-index-fiorina-still-rising-paul-survives/

Fiorina could be a good bet to be on the ticket.

Agreed, but alas just for the female tick in the box (admittedly, a fairly important tick in the GOP's countering of the 'war on women' charge). She is a failed businesswoman and a failed politician, so far.

@alexsmith1982: Seeing the contours of a plan in this week's Times: 3-year break clause for Labour leader, happily coinciding with DMil 5-year IRC break.

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

Odd as it may seem, I don't actually 'back' Russia, but I do back sanity. Russia is the world's biggest nuclear power, has vast energy resources, and occupies an important geopolitical sphere bridging East and West. And despite the fact that Vladimir Putin is a de facto Dictator, it is also by no stretch of the imagination the most undemocratic, unfree, or grottiest regime that we deal with. There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment, beyond the fact that it's the US' current agenda, and we all have to fall in line.

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

By the way, I was shocked today to discover there are British Overseas Territories where the Euro is the official currency.

Can anyone name them?

Some military bases in cyprus I guess.

Very good :-)

I believe they are called Sovereign Base Areas.

On the subject of Sovereigns.... Anyone know if tim paid the equivalent of a sov into the pb.com fund, for the bet he lost to me? I haven't heard a peep, but did say I'd be happy enough for him to pay it to help OGH maintain this place....

(In case anyone is in contact with him, it was his bet with me that Labour would get more than 34% of the UK wide vote at the General Election. Entered into around the time of the "Omnishambles" budget.... You know, that one that laid the groundwork for winning the election. Or losing it on the Pasty Tax, depending on your position.)

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Clinton, yes nailed on.

Bush, unlikely I'd say. Can't really see why he'd stand out over other 2016 GOP contenders. He's not a very good speech maker, he hasn't won an election since 2002, and his last name is Bush.

Rand Paul would be the best shout for the GOP in terms of the general election, however I think they are going to pick Walker of Rubio.

Kasich would be the GOP's best bet in the general but his immediate problem is visibility, and his longer-term problem is winning the nomination. But I agree that the two front runners are now Rubio and Walker. Bush will hang in until the end of the nomination process because he will have gobs of money and the backing of the old Establishment. But he is lacklustre and a Bush (even if on paper he would be the best Bush in the shrubbery).

Of course, this far out, many a slip twist cup and lip.

I like Walker - but I think he'd lose to Hillary.

Rubio would beat her, but I have this sneaking feeling that the Republicans won't choose him.

Rand Paul would be an incredible result from a betting perspective...

Never underestimate Walker, regardless of his conservative views. His attack on the nexus of public sector workers and unions being the tail that wags local government and budgets has hit a very strong nerve even in Purple and Light Blue states.

Except for Unions that back his election campaign, apparently. He is the epitome of union cronyism and a nationwide general election campaign would expose him.

rcs1000 said:

By the way, I was shocked today to discover there are British Overseas Territories where the Euro is the official currency.

Can anyone name them?

Akrotiri and Dhekelia ^_~

Danny565 said:

Scott_P said:

@alexsmith1982: Seeing the contours of a plan in this week's Times: 3-year break clause for Labour leader, happily coinciding with DMil 5-year IRC break.

How is David Miliband meant to get back into Parliament?

He could always try his luck in Richmond Park

Right wing English rag Dundee Courier:

Deputy First Minister John Swinney has leapt to the defence of the SNP's plan for full fiscal autonomy despite Scottish Parliament analysis which found that plummeting oil prices could lead to a £9.7 million cut in public spending.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/snp-defends-fiscal-autonomy-plan-1.883171

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Clinton, yes nailed on.

Bush, unlikely I'd say. Can't really see why he'd stand out over other 2016 GOP contenders. He's not a very good speech maker, he hasn't won an election since 2002, and his last name is Bush.

Rand Paul would be the best shout for the GOP in terms of the general election, however I think they are going to pick Walker of Rubio.

Kasich would be the GOP's best bet in the general but his immediate problem is visibility, and his longer-term problem is winning the nomination. But I agree that the two front runners are now Rubio and Walker. Bush will hang in until the end of the nomination process because he will have gobs of money and the backing of the old Establishment. But he is lacklustre and a Bush (even if on paper he would be the best Bush in the shrubbery).

Of course, this far out, many a slip twist cup and lip.

I like Walker - but I think he'd lose to Hillary.

Rubio would beat her, but I have this sneaking feeling that the Republicans won't choose him.

Rand Paul would be an incredible result from a betting perspective...

Never underestimate Walker, regardless of his conservative views. His attack on the nexus of public sector workers and unions being the tail that wags local government and budgets has hit a very strong nerve even in Purple and Light Blue states.

Except for Unions that back his election campaign, apparently. He is the epitome of union cronyism and a nationwide general election campaign would expose him.

A very much nationalized recall election, followed by a nationalized re-election have fully exposed all there is to know on his election financing and any cronyism. Nothing new on that score will come out in the general. His weakness is foreign policy, not what he did in Wisconsin.

Also, the unions he exempted were unions the general public has most sympathy for - IIRC firefighters and police.

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Clinton, yes nailed on.

Bush, unlikely I'd say. Can't really see why he'd stand out over other 2016 GOP contenders. He's not a very good speech maker, he hasn't won an election since 2002, and his last name is Bush.

Rand Paul would be the best shout for the GOP in terms of the general election, however I think they are going to pick Walker of Rubio.

Kasich would be the GOP's best bet in the general but his immediate problem is visibility, and his longer-term problem is winning the nomination. But I agree that the two front runners are now Rubio and Walker. Bush will hang in until the end of the nomination process because he will have gobs of money and the backing of the old Establishment. But he is lacklustre and a Bush (even if on paper he would be the best Bush in the shrubbery).

Of course, this far out, many a slip twist cup and lip.

I like Walker - but I think he'd lose to Hillary.

Rubio would beat her, but I have this sneaking feeling that the Republicans won't choose him.

Rand Paul would be an incredible result from a betting perspective...

Never underestimate Walker, regardless of his conservative views. His attack on the nexus of public sector workers and unions being the tail that wags local government and budgets has hit a very strong nerve even in Purple and Light Blue states.

Except for Unions that back his election campaign, apparently. He is the epitome of union cronyism and a nationwide general election campaign would expose him.

A very much nationalized recall election, followed by a nationalized re-election have fully exposed all there is to know on his election financing and any cronyism. Nothing new on that score will come out in the general. His weakness is foreign policy, not what he did in Wisconsin.

Also, the unions he exempted were unions the general public has most sympathy for - IIRC firefighters and police.

The Dem national leadership didn't touch the recall election with a barge poll.

CarlottaVance said:

Right wing English rag Dundee Courier:

Deputy First Minister John Swinney has leapt to the defence of the SNP's plan for full fiscal autonomy despite Scottish Parliament analysis which found that plummeting oil prices could lead to a £9.7 million cut in public spending.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/snp-defends-fiscal-autonomy-plan-1.883171

@ScottyNational: OBR : SNP confirms dramatic reduction in oil revenue would not be an issue for FFA. Provided people don't want schools, hospitals or stuff

CarlottaVance said:

Right wing English rag Dundee Courier:

Deputy First Minister John Swinney has leapt to the defence of the SNP's plan for full fiscal autonomy despite Scottish Parliament analysis which found that plummeting oil prices could lead to a £9.7 million cut in public spending.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/snp-defends-fiscal-autonomy-plan-1.883171

£9.7 MILLION cut you say, eh Courier? Try again.

"In a significant blow to the Scottish National party’s quest for full fiscal autonomy, the OBR said it now believed the sector could only generate a total of about £2bn in tax revenues over the 20 years from 2020 to 2041, compared with its forecast last year of £37bn for the same period."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/11/scotland-fiscal-autonomy-north-sea-oil-tax-forecast-slashed-obr

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

not_on_fire said:

Tories starting to wobble on welfare:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/11/george-osborne-pressure-slow-welfare-cuts

At a personal level, I'm rather nervous about Osborne announcing swingeing cuts to child tax credits. Having seen my brother in law recently leave my sister and 3 young kids to run off with his fancy woman, and knowing how much she is relying on tax credits and similar to keep them afloat and in their home, reading the reports this morning really brought it home to me thinking about how much she cannot afford to see an axe taken to what she's currently getting. She's in work, a trained professional working part time and raising 3 children. I'd feel very bad if the party I just voted for went and kicked her in the teeth.

And it would be such an open goal for Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP.

There must be other ways of making cuts to the welfare budget?

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

The 'western' version has been pretty consistent from the first few days. BUK missile fired by (or on behalf of) pro-Russia militias.....

The 'Russian' version has had so many iterations I've lost track - do you have a favourite?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/mh17-five-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-zionist-plots-illuminati-russian-tv

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

Scott_P said:

@alexsmith1982: Seeing the contours of a plan in this week's Times: 3-year break clause for Labour leader, happily coinciding with DMil 5-year IRC break.

How is David Miliband meant to get back into Parliament?

If Ed Miliband had any decency, he'd stand down as an MP for Doncaster North, and let David Miliband take over

Just talking about a Milliband engenders such a feeling of ennui.

Prezza has it right.

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

Yeah, right.... Thanks for that clear, evidence-based rebuttal.

MarqueeMark said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

Yeah, right.... Thanks for that clear, evidence-based rebuttal.

I feel a bit narked.

Putin is spending lots of money on an online army of Pro Russian trolls/sock puppets and we get the Roubleland versions.

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

The 'western' version has been pretty consistent from the first few days. BUK missile fired by (or on behalf of) pro-Russia militias.....

The 'Russian' version has had so many iterations I've lost track - do you have a favourite?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/mh17-five-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-zionist-plots-illuminati-russian-tv

Do you really enjoy being patronised by that Buzzfeed style Garbage? Where's any technical info in that article? Where's any form of forensic evidence? Where's any form of cogent reasoning? Where's anything beyond 'Look, let's make any alternative to our story seem silly by bringing up transforming lizards'. It's brain rotting idiot fodder.

I don't pretend to know what happened, and since the official reports haven't yet concluded anything, neither can you.

MarqueeMark said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

Yeah, right.... Thanks for that clear, evidence-based rebuttal.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/28/a-reckless-stand-upper-on-mh-17/

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1037125.html

Germans again using Spiegel to brief against the US. Interestingly the US hasn't updated their analysis since the event.

rcs1000 said:

By the way, I was shocked today to discover there are British Overseas Territories where the Euro is the official currency.

Can anyone name them?

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

Russia (and the purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

What about it?

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

Which version of the Russian versions do you subscribe to?

There have been so many......

Try reading Frontline Ukraine by Richard Sakwa,

Who does he say shot down MH17?

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

The 'western' version has been pretty consistent from the first few days. BUK missile fired by (or on behalf of) pro-Russia militias.....

The 'Russian' version has had so many iterations I've lost track - do you have a favourite?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/mh17-five-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-zionist-plots-illuminati-russian-tv

I don't pretend to know what happened, and since the official reports haven't yet concluded anything, neither can you.

A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:

The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...

Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.

"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/09/us-ukraine-crisis-mh17-investigation-idUSKBN0H40LM20140909

Ukraine also has BUK missiles?

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

Yeah, right.... Thanks for that clear, evidence-based rebuttal.

I feel a bit narked.

Putin is spending lots of money on an online army of Pro Russian trolls/sock puppets and we get the Roubleland versions.

To be fair on our pro-Putin trolls, Russia is skint and they are trying to do sockpuppetry on a shoestring.

Alistair said:

Bob__Sykes said:

not_on_fire said:

Tories starting to wobble on welfare:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/11/george-osborne-pressure-slow-welfare-cuts

At a personal level, I'm rather nervous about Osborne announcing swingeing cuts to child tax credits. Having seen my brother in law recently leave my sister and 3 young kids to run off with his fancy woman, and knowing how much she is relying on tax credits and similar to keep them afloat and in their home, reading the reports this morning really brought it home to me thinking about how much she cannot afford to see an axe taken to what she's currently getting. She's in work, a trained professional working part time and raising 3 children. I'd feel very bad if the party I just voted for went and kicked her in the teeth.

And it would be such an open goal for Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP.

There must be other ways of making cuts to the welfare budget?

There's always OAP benefits.

But OAPs vote so no chance of them being cut.

The best way to cut the welfare bill would be to get rid of the ridiculous triple lock and freeze the state pension for a couple of years.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

Yeah, right.... Thanks for that clear, evidence-based rebuttal.

we get the Roubleland versions.

We should be so lucky....more like 'Two for a Kopeck'.....

I'm in on Scott Walker, Jeb and a wild, wild one on Carly Fiorina. Rand Paul looking interesting at around 20/1 at the moment. I might take the plunge.

rottenborough said:

I'm in on Scott Walker, Jeb and a wild, wild one on Carly Fiorina. Rand Paul looking interesting at around 20/1 at the moment. I might take the plunge.

On the GOP nomination I think it could be Walker provided he doesn't bomb in the debates.
But Hillary will win easily in probably the most loopsided result since 1988 or 1996 against all republican candidates with the exception of Rand Paul.
Using the old rule book of republicans never nominating the most electable candidate it excludes Rand Paul from the nomination.

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.

While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. snip

There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment

MH17?

I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG

It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.

You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?

Must be a lonely world you inhabit.

I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.

The 'western' version has been pretty consistent from the first few days. BUK missile fired by (or on behalf of) pro-Russia militias.....

The 'Russian' version has had so many iterations I've lost track - do you have a favourite?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/mh17-five-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-zionist-plots-illuminati-russian-tv

Do you really enjoy being patronised by that Buzzfeed style Garbage? Where's any technical info in that article? Where's any form of forensic evidence? Where's any form of cogent reasoning? Where's anything beyond 'Look, let's make any alternative to our story seem silly by bringing up transforming lizards'. It's brain rotting idiot fodder.
I don't pretend to know what happened, and since the official reports haven't yet concluded anything, neither can you.

Rebels assisted by Russians with a Russian missile, shoot down an innocent airliner thinking it was a military cargo plane and all of a sudden, just for a change, you do not pretend to know anything.