politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now most LAB leadership votes are in Osborne moves to under
Comments
-
I feel genuinely sympathetic to sensible left wing posters here, whose party is about to pass into the control of loons.0
-
I feel sorry for Corbyn in this instance.TheWhiteRabbit said:You buy a paper one morning. Its headline reads "Tragedy strikes as man killed". You would presume that we're supposed to feel sorry for him.
If, on page 3, it says "he should instead have been arrested" then you'd rightly feel that the headline was wrong.
Only rose tinted glasses can read into Corbyn's comments the context - if we assume he did mean what he know says - that was badly omitted from the headline.
However, as much as I'm loathe to quote Richard Littlejohn on Ken Livingstone, You get the feeling he's never met a terrorist he didn't like.0 -
More from that FT article:
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#ixzz3kQ8Fr5MU
0 -
Monmouth University Iowa GOP Caucus
Carson – 23% (8)
Trump – 23% (13)
Fiorina – 10% (3)
Cruz – 9% (7)
Walker – 7% (22)
Bush – 5% (7)
Kasich – 4% (2)
Rubio – 4% (5)
Paul – 3% (5)
Huckabee – 2% (6)
Santorum – 2% (3)
Christie – 1% (1)
Jindal – 1% (4)
Perry – 1% (3)
Pataki – * (*)
Gilmore – 0% (0)
Graham – 0% (0)
Undecided – 5% (11)
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/85775b52-ec99-4ad3-bbee-14826bdf86e5.pdf0 -
I don't think he wants any armed forces at all.HYUFD said:
Maybe, but Corbyn does not want any deterrent at allsurbiton said:
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.HYUFD said:
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completelyCarlottaVance said:
I wonder why (not really) you missed out the preamble to the preceding question:Theuniondivvie said:
I wonder why (not really) you went all the way back to 2013 when there's a much more recent poll?CarlottaVance said:
If you'd read the poll, you'd see that it did explore options - such as 'cheaper Trident' - and support for a deterrent remained greater than getting rid of it - even in Scotland!Luckyguy1983 said:
A happy state of affairs for supporters of our current arrangements that can only be damaged by opening the issue up to debate and scrutiny in my opinion.CarlottaVance said:
It is if the popular view is that renewing Trident is not a 'worthless fig leaf....'Luckyguy1983 said:I don't see that spending 500 million on a worthless figleaf is terribly likely to undermine the opposition.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/public-support-nuclear-weapons/
'YouGov / The Times Survey Results
Sample Size: 1656 GB Adults
Fieldwork: 25th - 26th January 2015
What do you think Britain should do when Trident reaches
the end of its useful life?
Region: Scotland
Don’t know
10%'
http://tinyurl.com/qg5lrwz
Britain's nuclear weapon system, Trident, is currently based in Scotland. In the event Scotland becomes independent the Scottish government have said they would no.
So having told Scots their government is opposed....ooh look! They don't like it!
I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
In terms of submarines while 43% of Scots do not want submarine based nuclear weapons, 29% want a nuclear submarine always on patrol and 17% want a cheaper system but where nuclear submarines are not always on patrol. So a majority of Scots want nuclear submarines in some form
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ksx1tw2rj8/TimesResults_150126_Trident_Website.pdf
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !0 -
And there is no dispute in France about replacing and updating the system. No one in France is a thick as either Corbyn or Sturgeon, two peas in a pod.JosiasJessop said:
If you want a continuous at-sea deterrent, then there is obviously a minimum number of boats required. One at sea, one under repair, and one training; it's easy to extend that to a fourth boat to guarantee continuity at sea (e.g. two under repair, or one going on patrol as another is coming off, etc, etc).surbiton said:What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
You may be able to get away with three; it would be impossible to get continuous deterrent with just two boats.
As an example, the French have four Triomphant-class subs.0 -
I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be. Corbyn's most recent tweet talks about Labour becoming a movement, as apposed to a party machine which exists to provide a career for the political elite:
https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader/status/6384232877359554570 -
Wasn't it you who insisted Breivik's attacks were perpetrated by an Islamist?SeanT said:
Anders Breivik. I have a funny feeling Corbyn might not offer tea to Anders Breivik. Not even to "open channels of communication.".TheScreamingEagles said:
I feel sorry for Corbyn in this instance.TheWhiteRabbit said:You buy a paper one morning. Its headline reads "Tragedy strikes as man killed". You would presume that we're supposed to feel sorry for him.
If, on page 3, it says "he should instead have been arrested" then you'd rightly feel that the headline was wrong.
Only rose tinted glasses can read into Corbyn's comments the context - if we assume he did mean what he know says - that was badly omitted from the headline.
However, as much as I'm loathe to quote Richard Littlejohn on Ken Livingstone, You get the feeling he's never met a terrorist he didn't like.0 -
ConservativeHome Tory Mayoral candidate poll
Zac Goldsmith 62%
Syed Kamall 26%
Andrew Boff 7%
Stephen Greenlagh 6%
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/08/london-mayoral-conservative-candidate-poll-three-in-five-party-member-respondents-favour-zac-goldsmith.html0 -
I expect he might set up a Peace Corps of Aid Workers insteadSean_F said:
I don't think he wants any armed forces at all.HYUFD said:
Maybe, but Corbyn does not want any deterrent at allsurbiton said:
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.HYUFD said:
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completelyCarlottaVance said:
I wonder why (not really) you missed out the preamble to the preceding question:Theuniondivvie said:
I wonder why (not really) you went all the way back to 2013 when there's a much more recent poll?CarlottaVance said:
If you'd read the poll, you'd see that it did explore options - such as 'cheaper Trident' - and support for a deterrent remained greater than getting rid of it - even in Scotland!Luckyguy1983 said:
A happy state of affairs for supporters of our current arrangements that can only be damaged by opening the issue up to debate and scrutiny in my opinion.CarlottaVance said:
It is if the popular view is that renewing Trident is not a 'worthless fig leaf....'Luckyguy1983 said:I don't see that spending 500 million on a worthless figleaf is terribly likely to undermine the opposition.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/public-support-nuclear-weapons/
'YouGov / The Times Survey Results
Sample Size: 1656 GB Adults
Fieldwork: 25th - 26th January 2015
What do you think Britain should do when Trident reaches
the end of its useful life?
Region: Scotland
Don’t know
10%'
http://tinyurl.com/qg5lrwz
Britain's nuclear weapon system, Trident, is currently based in Scotland. In the event Scotland becomes independent the Scottish government have said they would no.
So having told Scots their government is opposed....ooh look! They don't like it!
I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
In terms of submarines while 43% of Scots do not want submarine based nuclear weapons, 29% want a nuclear submarine always on patrol and 17% want a cheaper system but where nuclear submarines are not always on patrol. So a majority of Scots want nuclear submarines in some form
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ksx1tw2rj8/TimesResults_150126_Trident_Website.pdf
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !0 -
Establishment attacks ?? Please do keep all this up - I'm loving it. I'm also loving Corbyn's gobbledegook. Less of a machine more of a logo.calum said:I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be. Corbyn's most recent tweet talks about Labour becoming a movement;
twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader/status/638423287735955457
It really is wonderful that you are totally blind to what you say.0 -
These attacks resonate in Middle England.calum said:I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be. Corbyn's most recent tweet talks about Labour becoming a movement, as apposed to a party machine which exists to provide a career for the political elite:
https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader/status/6384232877359554570 -
Any sensible left-winger, who wants pragmatic ways to give rise to their vision of Britain, should be thinking about creating/joining a party that is genuine and credible. The Labour party for sure isn't their home.Sean_F said:I feel genuinely sympathetic to sensible left wing posters here, whose party is about to pass into the control of loons.
0 -
Anders Breivik? That's when you were suggesting internment camps for all Muslims in Europe?SeanT said:
Anders Breivik. I have a funny feeling Corbyn might not offer tea to Anders Breivik. Not even to "open channels of communication.".TheScreamingEagles said:
I feel sorry for Corbyn in this instance.TheWhiteRabbit said:You buy a paper one morning. Its headline reads "Tragedy strikes as man killed". You would presume that we're supposed to feel sorry for him.
If, on page 3, it says "he should instead have been arrested" then you'd rightly feel that the headline was wrong.
Only rose tinted glasses can read into Corbyn's comments the context - if we assume he did mean what he know says - that was badly omitted from the headline.
However, as much as I'm loathe to quote Richard Littlejohn on Ken Livingstone, You get the feeling he's never met a terrorist he didn't like.0 -
Anyway - 11 more sleeps until Corbyn becomes Labour leader0
-
The problem appears to be that the new terminal will not supply electricity, so the ships will have to sit there generating their own and polluting the atmosphere in the process. Leaving aside the melodramatic reporting, it is hard to imagine quite how this got through planning without someone raising an eyebrow.Omnium said:
Why would you link that? Lord knows why the Independent see fit to publish it anyway. It says for example -CarlottaVance said:
I'm guessing its not this:TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun are hinting they've got a mahoosive story on Boris.
Will publish in about 49 mins time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/boris-johnson-is-planning-a-cruise-ship-terminal-for-london--but-what-about-his-promise-for-cleaner-air-10479540.html
"Air pollution can be deadly to those with heart and lung disease, asthma and all respiratory conditions. But death is rarely instantaneous."
There really is no need to read further.0 -
But you miss the point - he did not wish to go to war!DavidBrackenbury said:
Oh yes he did!! As head of the Luftwaffe he was intimately involvedjustin124 said:from Flightpath01
'What a bozo you are.
Saddam was in breach of the ceasefire agreement which ended the Gulf war. Well it ended the fighting of the Gulf War but it did not end the war. In breaking the ceasefire Saddam laid himself open to further attack.
Do you get that?
Poland was a legal independent at peace country invaded without cause. Saddam's Iraq was a country which had invaded Kuwait and was finally evicted by international coalition. It was Saddam after that who should have been put on trial. Instead the ceasefire allowed him to say in power under certain conditions which he broke (not least by his Republican Guard massacring his opponents).
Yet you in your bigotry try to tell us that Bush and Blair are worse than Hitler and Nazi Germany. Get stu##ed.'
You have long revealed yourself to be one of the nastier pieces of work on this board - clearly a fully paid up member of the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
Whether or not Hussein was in breach of the ceasefire agreement any further action to enforce it required the support of the Security Council. That was certainly Koffi Annan's view and I am inclined to attach more weight to that than to the opinions of you - and the criminals who authorised the unprovoked attack.
As for bigotry , I suggest that you read what I actually said rather making everything up as you go along. I did not mention Poland though it is fair to say that Iraq was as much at peace in 2003 as was Poland in 1939 . Why not address your ignorance by actually reading the Nuremburg indictments and so increase the possibility of making intelligent comment on the matter? Blair and Bush planned the 2003 attack on Iraq - Hans Blix needs no convincing of that. How many of the Nuremburg defendants planned the attack on Poland? Goering certainly did not.0 -
Blairite Messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Mr. Corbyn. They may be your last as Labour Leader.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyway - 11 more sleeps until Corbyn becomes Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"?
[Corbyn unsheathes and points his sword at the Blairite Messenger's throat]
Blairite Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Jeremy Corbyn: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.
Blairite Messenger: No man, Blairite or Marxist, no man threatens a messenger!
Jeremy Corbyn: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered Trades Unions to Islington's city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my Party with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!
Blairite Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Jeremy Corbyn: Madness...? This is LABOUR!
[kicks the Blairite Messenger down the well]
0 -
J 124,,Maybe he should have taken an office job0
-
Is that rare in the public sector?Luckyguy1983 said:
That's the point - if they're not employed to a purpose they are in effect on benefits.richardDodd said:lg 1983 That is a view I suppose.. but if you are a cleaner in Faslane.. which is an incredibly busy facility.. then you don't actually give a fuck who you are cleaning for.. just keep the paycheck coming in.. or would you rather they all went back onto benefits..
0 -
2 theories - they think he's done enough to win already, so time to start with the attacks to solidify a view of Corbyn among voters in general, not just those tuning in to the labour leadership contest (something they will intensify when he actually wins), or they want to do that and give Corbyn a final boost from potential waverers, who will be more likely to vote for him when they see Tories gunning for him, to ensure he gets over the line.calum said:I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be.
Use all their big attacks now and they'll have less impact later, to be sure, but if they can make him seem unelectable now, it won't matter as much, though the risk would be if he managed to pull through and not seem so bad later, undermining future attacks and the big stuff has been used.
0 -
It's all about first impressions.kle4 said:
2 theories - they think he's done enough to win already, so time to start with the attacks to solidify a view of Corbyn among voters in general, not just those tuning in to the labour leadership contest (something they will intensify when he actually wins), or they want to do that and give Corbyn a final boost from potential waverers, who will be more likely to vote for him when they see Tories gunning for him, to ensure he gets over the line.calum said:I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be.
Use all their big attacks now and they'll have less impact later, to be sure, but if they can make him seem unelectable now, it won't matter as much, though the risk would be if he managed to pull through and not seem so bad later, undermining future attacks and the big stuff has been used.0 -
There may be some issues with what is being proposed. My issue though is with the nonsense that is in the link. This is not journalism - it's just rubbish.DecrepitJohnL said:
The problem appears to be that the new terminal will not supply electricity, so the ships will have to sit there generating their own and polluting the atmosphere in the process. Leaving aside the melodramatic reporting, it is hard to imagine quite how this got through planning without someone raising an eyebrow.Omnium said:
Why would you link that? Lord knows why the Independent see fit to publish it anyway. It says for example -CarlottaVance said:
I'm guessing its not this:TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun are hinting they've got a mahoosive story on Boris.
Will publish in about 49 mins time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/boris-johnson-is-planning-a-cruise-ship-terminal-for-london--but-what-about-his-promise-for-cleaner-air-10479540.html
"Air pollution can be deadly to those with heart and lung disease, asthma and all respiratory conditions. But death is rarely instantaneous."
There really is no need to read further.
0 -
I prefer Kamall, but I think Zac would be mostly likely to win vs Labour.HYUFD said:ConservativeHome Tory Mayoral candidate poll
Zac Goldsmith 62%
Syed Kamall 26%
Andrew Boff 7%
Stephen Greenlagh 6%
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/08/london-mayoral-conservative-candidate-poll-three-in-five-party-member-respondents-favour-zac-goldsmith.html
I think I will vote Kamall anyway, probably better for the Tories in the long run and the difference in 2016 won't be massive.0 -
They would have almost 4 years to do this. Also why do they need to attack the guy will self destruct all by himself so all they neede to do is observe from the sidelines.kle4 said:
2 theories - they think he's done enough to win already, so time to start with the attacks to solidify a view of Corbyn among voters in general, not just those tuning in to the labour leadership contest (something they will intensify when he actually wins), or they want to do that and give Corbyn a final boost from potential waverers, who will be more likely to vote for him when they see Tories gunning for him, to ensure he gets over the line.calum said:I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be.
Use all their big attacks now and they'll have less impact later, to be sure, but if they can make him seem unelectable now, it won't matter as much, though the risk would be if he managed to pull through and not seem so bad later, undermining future attacks and the big stuff has been used.
How do they know he's done enough to win though. We very quickly have gone back to believing polls. Did we or they learn nothing from May 7th?0 -
0
-
Close shave!TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
I don't see how Boris can recover from this.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
He has to go. He cannot possibly survive this.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
n.b. sill can't believe I got 9/10 even after Goldsmith announced his candidacy. (I know other people got long odds, further out though!)0
-
As someone who has never paid for a haircut, I agree. Such wasteful spending.Moses_ said:
He has to go. He cannot possibly survive this.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
Didn't they just have a vote on something like this? Will the SNP have something on this in their manifesto for their local elections?surbiton said:
The party of incompetence will probably increase its majority next year - a feat that is extremely difficult to achieve given their electoral system.CarlottaVance said:They'll rue the day:
The SNP’s incompetence as a party of government
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3kPMcxUAp
Scotland always was a separate country and it was forced to join the Union in 1707. They should be free.0 -
lg 1983.. Only in your world do cleaners, cooks and ancillary staff not count as productive workers..Bizarre.
.
0 -
?justin124 said:
But you miss the point - he did not wish to go to war!DavidBrackenbury said:
Oh yes he did!! As head of the Luftwaffe he was intimately involvedjustin124 said:from Flightpath01
..
You have long revealed yourself to be one of the nastier pieces of work on this board - clearly a fully paid up member of the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
Whether or not Hussein was in breach of the ceasefire agreement any further action to enforce it required the support of the Security Council. That was certainly Koffi Annan's view and I am inclined to attach more weight to that than to the opinions of you - and the criminals who authorised the unprovoked attack.
As for bigotry , I suggest that you read what I actually said rather making everything up as you go along. I did not mention Poland though it is fair to say that Iraq was as much at peace in 2003 as was Poland in 1939 . Why not address your ignorance by actually reading the Nuremburg indictments and so increase the possibility of making intelligent comment on the matter? Blair and Bush planned the 2003 attack on Iraq - Hans Blix needs no convincing of that. How many of the Nuremburg defendants planned the attack on Poland? Goering certainly did not.
Are you serious? (I mean your dimwitted death camp remark just shows you up - thats not your joke)
You are trying to justify your barmy war crime obsession by suggesting Goering did not help plan the invasion of Poland?
You are trying to compare the invasion/annexation of totally innocent but in the way Poland with Saddam's continued breaking of ceasefires after the Gulf War and his regular massacring on his own awkward countrymen. And of course you are failing completely. And when caught out you change from 'planning the war' which Goering did, to 'wanting the war'. If he had his doubts it was because he wanted more planes and bombs to kill more Poles before getting stuck in.
But Goering along with Army Chief Keitel as one example was indicted on charges of ''Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War''. And found guilty.
and “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.” - and found Guilty.
Goering said ''I must take 100 percent responsibility. I even overruled objections by the Fuehrer and brought everything to its final development''
And of course the invasion of Iraq was not a war of aggression or conquest or territorial gain. It was a war to remove a dictator who had broken international treaties and replace him with a freely elected government. A war not to eliminate democracy but to create it.
You are a grade 1 dummo bozo.
0 -
Comb Game over.....DecrepitJohnL said:
I don't see how Boris can recover from this.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
On topic: Osborne's announcement might not have been aimed at Osborne. The Chancellor is heir to Brown in wanting to run the country from the Treasury, and has also made other announcements that might otherwise have been left to the relevant ministers: on the new gas field and on education. One might almost think David Cameron has announced he will not serve a third term. The contrast is clear: Osborne acts; Boris has his hair cut.0
-
It is interesting how the Tories are dealing with Jezza. Do they go easy on him and run the risk that he gains traction, or do they whack him now, knowing that Labour may well find a more electable leader for 2020.
Obviously Osborne supports the latter strategy. Hit the enemy when they are at their weakest, and just hope that they stay weak. It is by far the safer strategy, and the one that I would probably employ.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
It would have been a grand contender for 'Silly Season Story of the Year'
....(un)fortunately Labour beat him to it.....0 -
A rich SNPer. We won't tell.malcolmg said:
Thousands a month in fact, I am not a tax avoider , I pay my way.CarlottaVance said:
No nerve, but delighted to see further ignorance on display.malcolmg said:
Struck a nerve, sensitive about being in a tax haven. We mortals pay dearly to keep you tax free.CarlottaVance said:
We know. You hate the UK so much you won't engage in argument.....surbiton said:
We know. You love Scotland so much that you live in tax exile !CarlottaVance said:
I love most things Scottish (I'm not a 'hater' - I leave that to the Nats)malcolmg said:
Unlike you I am not bigoted, I like the English.CarlottaVance said:
Quoting an English Playwright?malcolmg said:
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.CarlottaVance said:
And what exactly do you know anything about?malcolmg said:
Stick to something you know about, here you are just talking drivel.richardDodd said:MG Absolutely.. go and ask them yourself..job security for a lot more years.. until the Scots decide on Independence and then bingo.. unemployed..It is all that the SNP is offering them.
Turnips?
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Harpier cries "'Tis time, 'tis time."
When chapmen billies leave the street,
And drouthy neibors, neibors meet,
As market days are wearing late,
An' folk begin to tak the gate;
While we sit bousing at the nappy,
And getting fou and unco happy,
We think na on the lang Scots miles,
The mosses, waters, slaps, and styles,
That lie between us and our hame,
Where sits our sulky sullen dame.
Gathering her brows like gathering storm,
Nursing her wrath to keep it warm.
Scot manque....
PS: Serious question , is there anything Scottish you do not hate.
What I dislike is the 'blame others' culture fostered by SLAB and the SNP.
'If only Scotland wasn't ruled by a (Tory/Westminster - delete as appropriate) government, things would be so much better!
Its easy thinking of the first order and Adam Smith would be mortified by the shallow callow fatuity of the analysis.
So much for 'civic nationalism!'
What exactly do you 'pay'?0 -
This is a tricksy argument. "as a proportion of overall expenditure" - everything has to sum to 1. There's no God-given reason why the share of NHS spending in other spending ought to be constant over time, especially if health-related spending like personal care for the elderly is one of the relative growth categories.CarlottaVance said:More from that FT article:
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#ixzz3kQ8Fr5MU0 -
So those on benefits have no such right. Nice.malcolmg said:
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.CarlottaVance said:
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.CarlottaVance said:They'll rue the day:
The SNP’s incompetence as a party of government
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3kPMcxUAp
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....0 -
Earning over £87,000....good for him - we Tories welcome industry and its reward!ReggieCide said:
A rich SNPer. We won't tell.malcolmg said:
Thousands a month in fact, I am not a tax avoider , I pay my way.CarlottaVance said:
No nerve, but delighted to see further ignorance on display.malcolmg said:
Struck a nerve, sensitive about being in a tax haven. We mortals pay dearly to keep you tax free.CarlottaVance said:
We know. You hate the UK so much you won't engage in argument.....surbiton said:
We know. You love Scotland so much that you live in tax exile !CarlottaVance said:
I love most things Scottish (I'm not a 'hater' - I leave that to the Nats)malcolmg said:
Unlike you I am not bigoted, I like the English.CarlottaVance said:
Quoting an English Playwright?malcolmg said:
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.CarlottaVance said:
And what exactly do you know anything about?malcolmg said:
Stick to something you know about, here you are just talking drivel.richardDodd said:MG Absolutely.. go and ask them yourself..job security for a lot more years.. until the Scots decide on Independence and then bingo.. unemployed..It is all that the SNP is offering them.
Turnips?
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Harpier cries "'Tis time, 'tis time."
When chapmen billies leave the street,
And drouthy neibors, neibors meet,
As market days are wearing late,
An' folk begin to tak the gate;
While we sit bousing at the nappy,
And getting fou and unco happy,
We think na on the lang Scots miles,
The mosses, waters, slaps, and styles,
That lie between us and our hame,
Where sits our sulky sullen dame.
Gathering her brows like gathering storm,
Nursing her wrath to keep it warm.
Scot manque....
PS: Serious question , is there anything Scottish you do not hate.
What I dislike is the 'blame others' culture fostered by SLAB and the SNP.
'If only Scotland wasn't ruled by a (Tory/Westminster - delete as appropriate) government, things would be so much better!
Its easy thinking of the first order and Adam Smith would be mortified by the shallow callow fatuity of the analysis.
So much for 'civic nationalism!'
What exactly do you 'pay'?0 -
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
Yes. Hair today, gone tomorrow.Moses_ said:
He has to go. He cannot possibly survive this.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
People on benefits pay plenty of tax.ReggieCide said:
So those on benefits have no such right. Nice.malcolmg said:
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.CarlottaVance said:
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.CarlottaVance said:They'll rue the day:
The SNP’s incompetence as a party of government
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3kPMcxUAp
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....0 -
I wonder if Corbyn will talk sympathetically about the plight of Boris' hair. "Those poor strands, violently and with malice aforethought cut asunder by sharp blade from their neighbours, like peace-loving IS soldiers cut down by American bombs... we must remember the plight of those poor strands, which have been lost as a result of the vanity of a TORY. It is truly a tragedy on the scale of the sinking of the Titanic (caused by arms smuggled by the US in preparation for WW1) or the sinking of the Kursk (caused by a US death ray operated from deep within the heart of Margaret Fatcha's grave."TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
Its not a 'tricksy argument'EPG said:
This is a tricksy argument. "as a proportion of overall expenditure" - everything has to sum to 1. There's no God-given reason why the share of NHS spending in other spending ought to be constant over time, especially if health-related spending like personal care for the elderly is one of the relative growth categories.CarlottaVance said:More from that FT article:
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#ixzz3kQ8Fr5MU
For a party that campaigned in the referendum to 'Save the Scottish NHS (which we run already) from the Tories', allocation of resources is a perfectly valid metric.
As is the 'Free (subsidy for the rich at the cost of the poor) University Places program.0 -
It provides a very temporary and very localised diversion from occasional over seriousness. Harmless, and it is supposed to be silly season after all, which we were short changed on by getting an actually interesting and potentially transformative Labour leadership contest (for all the potential outcome amuses some people)tyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
0 -
I think he may be talking about a bowel movementSean_F said:
These attacks resonate in Middle England.calum said:I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be. Corbyn's most recent tweet talks about Labour becoming a movement, as apposed to a party machine which exists to provide a career for the political elite:
https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader/status/6384232877359554570 -
"No one"? There is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_de_la_Paix for a start.flightpath01 said:
And there is no dispute in France about replacing and updating the system. No one in France is a thick as either Corbyn or Sturgeon, two peas in a pod.JosiasJessop said:
If you want a continuous at-sea deterrent, then there is obviously a minimum number of boats required. One at sea, one under repair, and one training; it's easy to extend that to a fourth boat to guarantee continuity at sea (e.g. two under repair, or one going on patrol as another is coming off, etc, etc).surbiton said:What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
You may be able to get away with three; it would be impossible to get continuous deterrent with just two boats.
As an example, the French have four Triomphant-class subs.
I think the PCF is anti-nuke in a Corbynite vein, and they're more of a force than their British Commie equivalents: 138,000 members and a smattering of parliamentary representation; 11% of the vote at the last presidential election (and don't forget the Revolutionary Communist NPA nabbed 1% of the vote for themselves, and even the unreconstructedly mad Trots got half a percent). The British Left is relatively sane in comparison...until the last few months anyway.0 -
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.0 -
Osborne is the official Deputy Prime Minister. So how should he behave?DecrepitJohnL said:On topic: Osborne's announcement might not have been aimed at Osborne. The Chancellor is heir to Brown in wanting to run the country from the Treasury, and has also made other announcements that might otherwise have been left to the relevant ministers: on the new gas field and on education. One might almost think David Cameron has announced he will not serve a third term. The contrast is clear: Osborne acts; Boris has his hair cut.
Perhaps I should repeat that more slowly -- ''Osborne ... is ... the ... official ... Deputy ... Prime ... Minister''
0 -
Lusitania.....you'll give conspiracy theorists a bad name!JosiasJessop said:
a tragedy on the scale of the sinking of the Titanic (caused by arms smuggled by the US in preparation for WW1)TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
There is no official Deputy Prime Minister since Nick Clegg stood down.flightpath01 said:
Osborne is the official Deputy Prime Minister. So how should he behave?DecrepitJohnL said:On topic: Osborne's announcement might not have been aimed at Osborne. The Chancellor is heir to Brown in wanting to run the country from the Treasury, and has also made other announcements that might otherwise have been left to the relevant ministers: on the new gas field and on education. One might almost think David Cameron has announced he will not serve a third term. The contrast is clear: Osborne acts; Boris has his hair cut.
Perhaps I should repeat that more slowly -- ''Osborne ... is ... the ... official ... Deputy ... Prime ... Minister''
If you're going to be patronising, at least try and be accurate0 -
What if I told you there were no icebergs in the North Atlantic that day?CarlottaVance said:
Lusitania.....you'll give conspiracy theorists a bad name!JosiasJessop said:
a tragedy on the scale of the sinking of the Titanic (caused by arms smuggled by the US in preparation for WW1)TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
How about a thread on:TheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
"Should a Scottish version of 'Strictly Come Dancing' use the AV system?"
0 -
This seems to presume that he won't carry on making a prick of himself. How likely is that?kle4 said:
2 theories - they think he's done enough to win already, so time to start with the attacks to solidify a view of Corbyn among voters in general, not just those tuning in to the labour leadership contest (something they will intensify when he actually wins), or they want to do that and give Corbyn a final boost from potential waverers, who will be more likely to vote for him when they see Tories gunning for him, to ensure he gets over the line.calum said:I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be.
Use all their big attacks now and they'll have less impact later, to be sure, but if they can make him seem unelectable now, it won't matter as much, though the risk would be if he managed to pull through and not seem so bad later, undermining future attacks and the big stuff has been used.0 -
I know! I wanted the Titanic involved somehow, so merged the Lusy's conspiracy theory with the Titanic ...CarlottaVance said:
Lusitania.....you'll give conspiracy theorists a bad name!JosiasJessop said:
a tragedy on the scale of the sinking of the Titanic (caused by arms smuggled by the US in preparation for WW1)TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
Well he will have a honeymoon period, surely, and even possibly a lead in the polls, so best to help it along just in case?ReggieCide said:
This seems to presume that he won't carry on making a prick of himself. How likely is that?kle4 said:
2 theories - they think he's done enough to win already, so time to start with the attacks to solidify a view of Corbyn among voters in general, not just those tuning in to the labour leadership contest (something they will intensify when he actually wins), or they want to do that and give Corbyn a final boost from potential waverers, who will be more likely to vote for him when they see Tories gunning for him, to ensure he gets over the line.calum said:I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be.
Use all their big attacks now and they'll have less impact later, to be sure, but if they can make him seem unelectable now, it won't matter as much, though the risk would be if he managed to pull through and not seem so bad later, undermining future attacks and the big stuff has been used.0 -
Osborne is First Secretary of State, which is not the same thing.flightpath01 said:
Osborne is the official Deputy Prime Minister. So how should he behave?DecrepitJohnL said:On topic: Osborne's announcement might not have been aimed at Osborne. The Chancellor is heir to Brown in wanting to run the country from the Treasury, and has also made other announcements that might otherwise have been left to the relevant ministers: on the new gas field and on education. One might almost think David Cameron has announced he will not serve a third term. The contrast is clear: Osborne acts; Boris has his hair cut.
Perhaps I should repeat that more slowly -- ''Osborne ... is ... the ... official ... Deputy ... Prime ... Minister''0 -
Lots of timesCarlottaVance said:TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
It would have been a grand contender for 'Silly Season Story of the Year'
....(un)fortunately Labour beat him to it.....0 -
I was thinking Kirsty Gallacher winning Strictly Come Dancing is great for the SNPDisraeli said:
How about a thread on:TheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
"Should a Scottish version of 'Strictly Come Dancing' use the AV system?"0 -
Boris. Hair apparent?
0 -
"Strictly - the ultimate in BBC dumbing down" - discussTheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
0 -
Strictly alone makes the Licence Fee a bargainSunil_Prasannan said:
"Strictly - the ultimate in BBC dumbing down" - discussTheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.0 -
All of them? I never knew.EPG said:
People on benefits pay plenty of tax.ReggieCide said:
So those on benefits have no such right. Nice.malcolmg said:
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.CarlottaVance said:
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.CarlottaVance said:They'll rue the day:
The SNP’s incompetence as a party of government
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3kPMcxUAp
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....0 -
TV Poll Tax - viewers who are fed up with Strictly still have to pay!TheScreamingEagles said:
Strictly alone makes the Licence Fee a bargainSunil_Prasannan said:
"Strictly - the ultimate in BBC dumbing down" - discussTheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.0 -
One of the best (in a completely barking way) Titanic movie is the one the Nazis made - one of their most expensive - (and biggest hit in occupied Europe) but never shown in Germany - 'British capitalists drive new liner across Atlantic to capture Blue Riband (couldn't remotely) to save company despite best efforts of heroic (and ahistorical) German Officer' - gorgeously B&W photography - unfortunately the director "committed suicide" in the care of the Gestapo half way through.....JosiasJessop said:
I know! I wanted the Titanic involved somehow, so merged the Lusy's conspiracy theory with the Titanic ...CarlottaVance said:
Lusitania.....you'll give conspiracy theorists a bad name!JosiasJessop said:
a tragedy on the scale of the sinking of the Titanic (caused by arms smuggled by the US in preparation for WW1)TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
VAT?ReggieCide said:
All of them? I never knew.EPG said:
People on benefits pay plenty of tax.ReggieCide said:
So those on benefits have no such right. Nice.malcolmg said:
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.CarlottaVance said:
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.CarlottaVance said:They'll rue the day:
The SNP’s incompetence as a party of government
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3kPMcxUAp
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....0 -
Everyone else is paying so I can watch Prorogation live. Am not going to rock the boat.Sunil_Prasannan said:
TV Poll Tax - viewers who are fed up with Strictly still have to pay!TheScreamingEagles said:
Strictly alone makes the Licence Fee a bargainSunil_Prasannan said:
"Strictly - the ultimate in BBC dumbing down" - discussTheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.0 -
I'm looking forward to finding out. Much more interesting than Strictly.kle4 said:
Well he will have a honeymoon period, surely, and even possibly a lead in the polls, so best to help it along just in case?ReggieCide said:
This seems to presume that he won't carry on making a prick of himself. How likely is that?kle4 said:
2 theories - they think he's done enough to win already, so time to start with the attacks to solidify a view of Corbyn among voters in general, not just those tuning in to the labour leadership contest (something they will intensify when he actually wins), or they want to do that and give Corbyn a final boost from potential waverers, who will be more likely to vote for him when they see Tories gunning for him, to ensure he gets over the line.calum said:I can't quite fathom why the Tories are joining in the establishment attacks on Corbyn. I think there's a risk that with so much blanket ABC from the MSM and Labour grandees, that voters become impervious to these attacks as the SNP seem to be.
Use all their big attacks now and they'll have less impact later, to be sure, but if they can make him seem unelectable now, it won't matter as much, though the risk would be if he managed to pull through and not seem so bad later, undermining future attacks and the big stuff has been used.0 -
How can anyone be fed up of this?Sunil_Prasannan said:
TV Poll Tax - viewers who are fed up with Strictly still have to pay!TheScreamingEagles said:
Strictly alone makes the Licence Fee a bargainSunil_Prasannan said:
"Strictly - the ultimate in BBC dumbing down" - discussTheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8nO0tVyFds0 -
0
-
This really is the worst myth of the UK's so called "deterrent".surbiton said:
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.HYUFD said:
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
In terms of submarines while 43% of Scots do not want submarine based nuclear weapons, 29% want a nuclear submarine always on patrol and 17% want a cheaper system but where nuclear submarines are not always on patrol. So a majority of Scots want nuclear submarines in some form
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ksx1tw2rj8/TimesResults_150126_Trident_Website.pdf
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast (which, if focused in this way would mean zero impact on Russian military capabiility), at worst, the UK could give the Russians a bloody nose, history says Russia will always take a bloody nose if it gets what it wants.0 -
All of them? I never knewSunil_Prasannan said:
VAT?ReggieCide said:
All of them? I never knew.EPG said:
People on benefits pay plenty of tax.ReggieCide said:
So those on benefits have no such right. Nice.malcolmg said:
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.CarlottaVance said:
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.CarlottaVance said:They'll rue the day:
The SNP’s incompetence as a party of government
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3kPMcxUAp
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....0 -
Yet another massive explosion in a Chinese city, what in the name of god is going on over there.
Democratic nomination:
After posting the other day about Obama giving the nod to a Joe Biden presidential bid, the latest stories have it that he is looking at Elizabeth Warren as running mate.
There is a lot of smoke signals and on balance, I think he might go.0 -
So not only a better health service but better value for money.CarlottaVance said:More from that FT article:
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#ixzz3kQ8Fr5MU
It's no wonder the SNP are cleaning up. Who would think a principled, competent governing party would do well!0 -
Depends what they buy, of course.ReggieCide said:
All of them? I never knewSunil_Prasannan said:
VAT?ReggieCide said:
All of them? I never knew.EPG said:
People on benefits pay plenty of tax.ReggieCide said:
So those on benefits have no such right. Nice.malcolmg said:
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.CarlottaVance said:
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.CarlottaVance said:They'll rue the day:
The SNP’s incompetence as a party of government
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3kPMcxUAp
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....0 -
-
What can I say, but you are right on all fronts.
Actually, now I am at it, I am slightly awe struck by Boris's blonde, tousled, thatch. Possibly the best head of hair in modern politcis- though Heseltine could give him a run for his money.kle4 said:
It provides a very temporary and very localised diversion from occasional over seriousness. Harmless, and it is supposed to be silly season after all, which we were short changed on by getting an actually interesting and potentially transformative Labour leadership contest (for all the potential outcome amuses some people)tyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF00 -
-
The decision to go to war in 1939 was taken by Hitler with the active encouragement of Ribbentrop. There is no evidence that the other senior Nazis wanted a war. Goering made clear his opposition and worked to avoid it in the Summer of 1939. Even Goebbels was appalled by the idea. None of this is to deny that once the war got underway they went along with it - but had there been no Hitler there would have been no war at that time. Keitel was a military guy who simply did as he was told - in the same way that senior British commanders followed Blair's orders in 2003 despite having serious misgivings about the attack being lawful.flightpath01 said:
?justin124 said:
But you miss the point - he did not wish to go to war!DavidBrackenbury said:
Oh yes he did!! As head of the Luftwaffe he was intimately involvedjustin124 said:from Flightpath01
..
Are you serious? (I mean your dimwitted death camp remark just shows you up - thats not your joke)
You are trying to justify your barmy war crime obsession by suggesting Goering did not help plan the invasion of Poland?
You are trying to compare the invasion/annexation of totally innocent but in the way Poland with Saddam's continued breaking of ceasefires after the Gulf War and his regular massacring on his own awkward countrymen. And of course you are failing completely. And when caught out you change from 'planning the war' which Goering did, to 'wanting the war'. If he had his doubts it was because he wanted more planes and bombs to kill more Poles before getting stuck in.
But Goering along with Army Chief Keitel as one example was indicted on charges of ''Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War''. And found guilty.
and “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.” - and found Guilty.
Goering said ''I must take 100 percent responsibility. I even overruled objections by the Fuehrer and brought everything to its final development''
And of course the invasion of Iraq was not a war of aggression or conquest or territorial gain. It was a war to remove a dictator who had broken international treaties and replace him with a freely elected government. A war not to eliminate democracy but to create it.
You are a grade 1 dummo bozo.
As for the idea that the Iraq war was about removing Saddam , that contradicts what Blair said at the time when he expressly denied seeking regime change . It was about WDM and when they failed to appear he thought of something else.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
I was thinking Kirsty Gallacher winning Strictly Come Dancing is great for the SNPDisraeli said:
How about a thread on:TheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
"Should a Scottish version of 'Strictly Come Dancing' use the AV system?"
0 -
If I want p0rn, I can stay up for Babestation - or XpandedTVTheScreamingEagles said:
How can anyone be fed up of this?Sunil_Prasannan said:
TV Poll Tax - viewers who are fed up with Strictly still have to pay!TheScreamingEagles said:
Strictly alone makes the Licence Fee a bargainSunil_Prasannan said:
"Strictly - the ultimate in BBC dumbing down" - discussTheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8nO0tVyFds
0 -
I've never seen it, but the story's a classic.CarlottaVance said:
One of the best (in a completely barking way) Titanic movie is the one the Nazis made - one of their most expensive - (and biggest hit in occupied Europe) but never shown in Germany - 'British capitalists drive new liner across Atlantic to capture Blue Riband (couldn't remotely) to save company despite best efforts of heroic (and ahistorical) German Officer' - gorgeously B&W photography - unfortunately the director "committed suicide" in the care of the Gestapo half way through.....JosiasJessop said:
I know! I wanted the Titanic involved somehow, so merged the Lusy's conspiracy theory with the Titanic ...CarlottaVance said:
Lusitania.....you'll give conspiracy theorists a bad name!JosiasJessop said:
a tragedy on the scale of the sinking of the Titanic (caused by arms smuggled by the US in preparation for WW1)TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
In the you-couldn't-make-it-up category, there was a woman who survived the sinking of the Titanic, and was on board the sister-ship Olympic when it collided with another ship.
With that track record, it's a surprise they let her be a nurse on the third sister ship, the Britannic, when it was in war service. She survived that ship's sinking as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Jessop0 -
Shouldn't we have something on AV instead to lighten the mood?TheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.0 -
I'm sure the SNP will campaign on that!Dair said:
So not only a better health service but better value for money!CarlottaVance said:More from that FT article:
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#ixzz3kQ8Fr5MU
Pity they'll struggle with the facts....
0 -
England's nuclear deterrent isn't aimed against Russia, Dair.Dair said:
This really is the worst myth of the UK's so called "deterrent".surbiton said:
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.HYUFD said:
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
In terms of submarines while 43% of Scots do not want submarine based nuclear weapons, 29% want a nuclear submarine always on patrol and 17% want a cheaper system but where nuclear submarines are not always on patrol. So a majority of Scots want nuclear submarines in some form
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ksx1tw2rj8/TimesResults_150126_Trident_Website.pdf
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast (which, if focused in this way would mean zero impact on Russian military capabiility), at worst, the UK could give the Russians a bloody nose, history says Russia will always take a bloody nose if it gets what it wants.
It's aimed at our twin traditional enemies - France & Scotland.0 -
I've written quite the magnum opus on electoral reform for this Sunday on electoral reform.DavidBrackenbury said:
Shouldn't we have something on AV instead to lighten the mood?TheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
I'm planning to do several AV related threads once the Labour leadership result is known and we have the full voting breakdowns,0 -
Who ever said it needed to?Dair said:
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblastsurbiton said:
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.HYUFD said:
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
In terms of submarines while 43% of Scots do not want submarine based nuclear weapons, 29% want a nuclear submarine always on patrol and 17% want a cheaper system but where nuclear submarines are not always on patrol. So a majority of Scots want nuclear submarines in some form
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ksx1tw2rj8/TimesResults_150126_Trident_Website.pdf
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
Its always been a 'weapon of appalling revenge'
And that has been sufficient.0 -
-
I note you show lower only:)CarlottaVance said:
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?malcolmg said:
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.CarlottaVance said:
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.CarlottaVance said:They'll rue the day:
The SNP’s incompetence as a party of government
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32c37d04-4caf-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3kPMcxUAp
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
But what do you know......nothing.....
0 -
why are you obsessed with cleanersrichardDodd said:SNP,s Scotland..Land of the Brave,The Free and the unemployed if you are a cleaner in Faslane..but who gives a shit.. you are only cleaners..
0 -
On the subject of the Labour leadership.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've written quite the magnum opus on electoral reform for this Sunday on electoral reform.DavidBrackenbury said:
Shouldn't we have something on AV instead to lighten the mood?TheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
I'm planning to do several AV related threads once the Labour leadership result is known and we have the full breakdowns known.
I've not received any emails from candidates since the 20th.0 -
justin124 said:flightpath01 said:
Justin, The Hosbach Conference in 1937 had already given the senior German leaders a plan to start aggressive wars in the East, if Britain and France could be kept out of the matter. Goering was present. It is perfectly true that Goering did not want war with Britain and France when the decision was taken to invade Poland (after the anexation of Czechslovakia) but Goering and the German Military and Political heirarchy knew that they intended to wage an aggressive war against Poland and hoped to keep the West out of it, a plot that might have succeeded. Chamberlain had had enough at Munich and finally saw the Nazis for what they were.justin124 said:
The decision to go to war in 1939 was taken by Hitler with the active encouragement of Ribbentrop. There is no evidence that the other senior Nazis wanted a war. Goering made clear his opposition and worked to avoid it in the Summer of 1939. Even Goebbels was appalled by the idea. None of this is to deny that once the war got underway they went along with it - but had there been no Hitler there would have been no war at that time. Keitel was a military guy who simply did as he was told - in the same way that senior British commanders followed Blair's orders in 2003 despite having serious misgivings about the attack being lawful.DavidBrackenbury said:justin124 said:from Flightpath01
..
And of course the invasion of Iraq was not a war of aggression or conquest or territorial gain. It was a war to remove a dictator who had broken international treaties and replace him with a freely elected government. A war not to eliminate democracy but to create it.
You are a grade 1 dummo bozo.
As for the idea that the Iraq war was about removing Saddam , that contradicts what Blair said at the time when he expressly denied seeking regime change . It was about WDM and when they failed to appear he thought of something else.
I am not sure what this has with the Iraq war in 2003, though?0 -
You make that sound like a bad thing.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
On the subject of the Labour leadership.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've written quite the magnum opus on electoral reform for this Sunday on electoral reform.DavidBrackenbury said:
Shouldn't we have something on AV instead to lighten the mood?TheScreamingEagles said:
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this weektyson said:
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sun story on Boris.
Wow, just wow
http://bit.ly/1MYkLF0
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
I'm planning to do several AV related threads once the Labour leadership result is known and we have the full breakdowns known.
I've not received any emails from candidates since the 20th.0 -
DavidBrackenbury said:justin124 said:flightpath01 said:
Justin, The Hosbach Conference in 1937 had already given the senior German leaders a plan to start aggressive wars in the East, if Britain and France could be kept out of the matter. Goering was present. It is perfectly true that Goering did not want war with Britain and France when the decision was taken to invade Poland (after the anexation of Czechslovakia) but Goering and the German Military and Political heirarchy knew that they intended to wage an aggressive war against Poland and hoped to keep the West out of it, a plot that might have succeeded. Chamberlain had had enough at Munich and finally saw the Nazis for what they were.justin124 said:
The decision to go to war in 1939 was taken by Hitler with the active encouragement of Ribbentrop. There is no evidence that the other senior Nazis wanted a war. Goering made clear his opposition and worked to avoid it in the Summer of 1939. Even Goebbels was appalled by the idea. None of this is to deny that once the war got underway they went along with it - but had there been no Hitler there would have been no war at that time. Keitel was a military guy who simply did as he was told - in the same way that senior British commanders followed Blair's orders in 2003 despite having serious misgivings about the attack being lawful.DavidBrackenbury said:justin124 said:from Flightpath01
..
And of course the invasion of Iraq was not a war of aggression or conquest or territorial gain. It was a war to remove a dictator who had broken international treaties and replace him with a freely elected government. A war not to eliminate democracy but to create it.
You are a grade 1 dummo bozo.
As for the idea that the Iraq war was about removing Saddam , that contradicts what Blair said at the time when he expressly denied seeking regime change . It was about WDM and when they failed to appear he thought of something else.
I am not sure what this has with the Iraq war in 2003, though?0 -
Justin, The Hosbach Conference in 1937 had already given the senior German leaders a plan to start aggressive wars in the East, if Britain and France could be kept out of the matter. Goering was present. It is perfectly true that Goering did not want war with Britain and France when the decision was taken to invade Poland (after the anexation of Czechslovakia) but Goering and the German Military and Political heirarchy knew that they intended to wage an aggressive war against Poland and hoped to keep the West out of it, a plot that might have succeeded. Chamberlain had had enough at Munich and finally saw the Nazis for what they were.
I am not sure what this has with the Iraq war in 2003, though?0 -
Lot of beards going on with the ISIS karaoke pictures.
Are these guys really just Islamic hipsters?
I need to to have a word with the Friends about infiltrating IS. Get your spies to have seriously long beards, clearly its a status thing. Longer the beard, the more respect you get.
0
