politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leader ratings side by side: How JC’s doing against DC gene

Naught but Counter-Revolutionary Propaganda!

To vote for England, text 51657

He flipping reviewed that ?

I Ipsos are showing why polling companies need to move to "favourable" ratings rather than satisfaction ratings. Too many Tories happy with Corybn trashing the party for that decentish rating mean any thing.

My £3 remains a South Sea Bubble investment cashed out at the top of the market.

Would it be possible to see a side-by-side Corbyn-Miliband comparison at this stage in their leadership??

SimonStClare said:

"the chart above can only be interpreted as bad news for Corbyn."

However, this won’t stop some trying to argue otherwise. – All part of the fun on PB.Com

Let's see, how about:

Corbyn on 33% with Ipsos MORI is almost level with Cameron's 35% with ComRes

Richard_Nabavi said:

MarqueeMark said:

Would it be possible to see a side-by-side Corbyn-Miliband comparison at this stage in their leadership??

That would be cruel

Richard, surely "informative" was the word you were looking for?

The "OK Class", designed by First Sea Lady, Emily Thornberry, in 2021, approved by the Supreme Leader, Jeremy Corbyn and Chancellor of the Extraordinaire, John McDonnell:

HMS OK
HMS Alright
HMS Average
HMS Not Bad
HMS So-So
HMS Adequate
HMS Normal
HMS Satisfactory

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MarqueeMark said:

Would it be possible to see a side-by-side Corbyn-Miliband comparison at this stage in their leadership??

That would be cruel

Richard, surely "informative" was the word you were looking for?

That as well!

Plato_Says said:

Brilliant

Politico Daily
People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

Abby T also called him "courageous"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband

FPT

Wanderer said:

NickPalmer said:

FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?

As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).

MyBurningEars said:

FPT

Wanderer said:

NickPalmer said:

FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?

As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).

20% or more of the electorate are mindless lefty drones with trust funds or metalwork in their nostrils who would give favourable polling to having their own genitals shrivelled with a blowtorch as long as it was comrade Jez proposing it. The thing is that as GEs get near people start paying a bit more attention and the actual Labour vote shrinks back from pre-GE polling levels to the moonbat hardcore - the otherwise sensible but somewhat lefty inclined having taken a good look at Gordo / Miliblob / Corbyn / whoever and going 'eeeeew!'.

MyBurningEars said:

FPT

Wanderer said:

NickPalmer said:

FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?

As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).

My comment about the Trident missiles on the last thread - which some may have misinterpreted - was about why the US and Lockheed should continue the pooling arrangement for the missiles if we are not planning to carry them on the submarines.

The whole idea of the Japanese option is ridiculous IMO. But some will believe that is is cheaper and safer ...

Plato_Says said:

Brilliant

Politico Daily
People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

Wonder who wrote that then.......

National elections scheduled to take place in 2016. https://t.co/J4TLo8uF7A https://t.co/2vnz3qbgKy

david_herdson said:

Tim_B said:

Jeb Bush is endorsed by his mother. The shocks just keep on coming.

That's nice. Have either of the presidents in his family formally endorsed him yet?

When is Jeb Bush most likely to suspend his campaign?

#BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

SimonStClare said:

#BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

"Bravery" and "integrity"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SimonStClare said:

#BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

"Bravery" and "integrity"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband

Ma Beckett is as deluded as Abby Tomlinson,- but without the excuse of immaturity.

SimonStClare said:

#BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

Is that in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word?

SimonStClare said:

#BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

I think that's slightly unfair. He might be more than a bit of a dork but he:

- Took on his brother (and others) in a leadership election, and won. He didn't have to do that and knew the anguish it would cause those close to him in doing so. All the same, he believed in what he was doing and did it. And won.

- Took on NewsCorp, in a way that Blair and Brown never would. Whether that was politically wise is another matter but it wasn't the act of the weak-hearted.

- Took on big business elsewhere, from the energy sector to finance. Arguably, doing so was superficially popular and so an easy decision. Perhaps, but alternatively, he risked - and must have known he'd risk - his party's reputation on managing the economy if the reaction from CBI'tes was to loudly condemn him

So no, "courageous" isn't the least appropriate adjective to describe Ed. I'd make a suggestion as to what is but it would require too much mind-bleach.

I think his problem was not so much that he wasn't seen as a principled man, he was simply seen as weak and incapable.

SimonStClare said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SimonStClare said:

#BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

"Bravery" and "integrity"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband

Ma Beckett is as deluded as Abby Tomlinson,- but without the excuse of immaturity.

Ma Beckett has always drifted with the wind.

david_herdson said:

Plato_Says said:

Brilliant

Politico Daily
People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

Maybe that was a compliment: potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables.

Ed was as moreish as a fragrant bowl of garlic mash made with lashings of butter.

Pro_Rata said:

Wanderer said:

MyBurningEars said:

FPT

Wanderer said:

NickPalmer said:

FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?

As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).

It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.

We'll build Trident but not use it would suit me very well thank you very much - especially the not use it bit.

Fair enough. Let's say that "using" Trident means maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent, not taking out a few cities for the hell of it.

Wanderer said:

MyBurningEars said:

FPT

Wanderer said:

NickPalmer said:

FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?

As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).

It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.

Indeed. Corbo is going wonderfully at confounding the expectations of those non-tribal supporters, or possible Labour voters, willing to give him a chance.

The fervent Corbynistas on my fb are now much less overtly positive. They're still more negative about the government than they ever were under EdM. To a laughable extent, in fact. One pal today honestly, genuinely posted the article about the Cardiff wristbands and compared it to the Nazis. When I questioned him he replied with an emotional rant that questioned how I 'can't see the parallels'.

The longer people like this are associated with advocating the current Labour leadership, the worse the brand value of Labour will fall.

AlastairMeeks said:

Wanderer said:

david_herdson said:

Plato_Says said:

Brilliant

Politico Daily
People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

Maybe that was a compliment: potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables.

Ed was as moreish as a fragrant bowl of garlic mash made with lashings of butter.

He wouldn't take kindly to being described as New.

As it turned out, he wasn't an Arran Victor either.

Top tayto punnage!

Pro_Rata said:

Wanderer said:

MyBurningEars said:

FPT

Wanderer said:

NickPalmer said:

FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?

As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).

It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.

We'll build Trident but not use it would suit me very well thank you very much - especially the not use it bit.

I think having CASD but not having to use it in anger would suit just about everyone.

I rather think though that Corbyn's, "have the subs but don't arm" them was purely political without even giving a nod to any arguments about defence. The unions want the subs built - jobs, unionised jobs in Cumbria. Corbyn doesn't like weapons. So build the subs and give them no weapons and both sides are happy.

HurstLlama said:

I rather think though that Corbyn's, "have the subs but don't arm" them was purely political without even giving a nod to any arguments about defence. The unions want the subs built - jobs, unionised jobs in Cumbria. Corbyn doesn't like weapons. So build the subs and give them no weapons and both sides are happy.

Yes, it's brilliant. In a couple of sentences he managed to:

- Reinforce the perception that Labour are a danger to national security
- Reinforce the perception that Labour are in thrall to the unions
- Reinforce the perception that Labour think wasteful spending is a good idea
- Reinforce the perception that Labour are hopelessly divided
- Look a complete twerp.

Fysics_Teacher said:

I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

Of course it does - or at least the assumption of the possibility. Not least because he is in his late 60s and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility.

But, if you wargame the alternatives, it is unlikely to be a Blairite until hard left wing politics is rightly put back into its box after an electoral thumping.

Pro_Rata said:

Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.

Mortimer said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

Of course it does - or at least the assumption of the possibility. Not least because he is in his late 60s and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility.

But, if you wargame the alternatives, it is unlikely to be a Blairite until hard left wing politics is rightly put back into its box after an electoral thumping.

What are the chances they could pull the Michael Howard trick if Corbyn were not available for some reason?

Mortimer said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

Of course it does - or at least the assumption of the possibility. Not least because he is in his late 60s and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility.

But, if you wargame the alternatives, it is unlikely to be a Blairite until hard left wing politics is rightly put back into its box after an electoral thumping.

Yes, plus there's also the near-certainty that the mere process of replacing Corbyn would unleash another round of civil war, with no guarantee of someone competent ending up as leader. You can't just parachute competence into an organisation which is in chaos.

Fysics_Teacher said:

I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

One might have thought that would be the prudent course for the Conservative Party to steer, Mr. Teacher. To do otherwise would be like assuming the taxes generated during a boom were he new baseline and spending more than that anyway. Who but someone who is completely bonkers would do that?

NickPalmer said:

Pro_Rata said:

Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.

We should be more worried about one of the other 200+ countries in the world having an itchy nuclear finger. We at least have some pretty hefty checks and balances to our system. North Korea doesn't and nor does Iran, not to mention regimes yet to exist.

NickPalmer said:

Pro_Rata said:

Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.

We've scaled back our nukes as well:

36. As a result of the SDR, the number of operationally available warheads was reduced by one third, from around 300 to under 200, whilst the number of warheads carried on each Trident submarine was reduced by half, from 96 to 48. As a result of these reductions, the Government estimated that the explosive power of the UK's nuclear deterrent would be 70% less than that of the operationally available warheads held during the 1970s.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98605.htm

The WE.177C freefall bombs were withdrawn from the RN in 1992, and the RAF in 1998.

AS for "scaling bakc by similar numbers": it wouldn't make a dent in (say) the Russian arsenal. Our nukes are under 2% of the world total.

NickPalmer said:

Pro_Rata said:

Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.

You really think rational people, as opposed to the sub optimally challenged corbynistas, will be taken in by all that convoluted rubbish?

flightpath01 said:

NickPalmer said:

Pro_Rata said:

Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.

You really think rational people, as opposed to the sub optimally challenged corbynistas, will be taken in by all that convoluted rubbish?

" sub optimally" - I see what you did there

HurstLlama said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

One might have thought that would be the prudent course for the Conservative Party to steer, Mr. Teacher. To do otherwise would be like assuming the taxes generated during a boom were he new baseline and spending more than that anyway. Who but someone who is completely bonkers would do that?

So is there a political equivalent of capital versus income?

LondonBob said:

http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

Another deliberate leak designed by the leaker(s) to block Obama's ability to suppress the FBI investigation, as well as DOJ action against Clinton and her immediate personal staff. This article, and the implied threat of more such leaks, effectively shuts out the possibility of a POTUS intervention in the investigation.

It will be surprising if there are not indictments.

From your link:

In one email, Clinton pressured Sullivan to declassify cabled remarks by a foreign leader.

“Just email it,” Clinton snapped, to which Sullivan replied: “Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it.”

In another recently released email, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she ordered.

If this is accurate, how could it not lead to an indictment?

IANAL, but it suggests intent, foreknowledge that the information was classified, presumably conspiracy, malfeasance and lots of other goodies.

Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets

Wanderer said:

flightpath01 said:

NickPalmer said:

Pro_Rata said:

Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.

You really think rational people, as opposed to the sub optimally challenged corbynistas, will be taken in by all that convoluted rubbish?

" sub optimally" - I see what you did there

Use English wrongly?

Mortimer said:

Omnium said:

I was looking at Ed's wiki page. I wondered what he was up to now. Reading through it though one thing caught my attention - How on earth did he get elected to JCR President in his first year?

Ed's legacy is being undermined and in some cases demolished by Corbyn. No wonder Ed is lukewarm.

From my experience, only 2 people per year want to be. It is quite a lot of work, with little gain of power or respect. My 3 JCR presidents could be described as :

1 - Nice carefree chap, was JCR pres when I arrived but no-one else seemed to care about politics.
2- Lefty crusader, but not overly offensive JCR pres because she really wanted to be and her friends were happy to attend to vote for her.
3 - Lovely sensible centrist friend of mine, one of the fairest people I know - now a crusading (human rights etc) barrister. I can't remember who opposed her, but IIRC even he knew he wouldn't have a chance.

In short - it tells you nothing about EdM.

Is JCR an acronym for Junior Common Room ?

Pulpstar said:

Mortimer said:

Omnium said:

I was looking at Ed's wiki page. I wondered what he was up to now. Reading through it though one thing caught my attention - How on earth did he get elected to JCR President in his first year?

Ed's legacy is being undermined and in some cases demolished by Corbyn. No wonder Ed is lukewarm.

From my experience, only 2 people per year want to be. It is quite a lot of work, with little gain of power or respect. My 3 JCR presidents could be described as :

1 - Nice carefree chap, was JCR pres when I arrived but no-one else seemed to care about politics.
2- Lefty crusader, but not overly offensive JCR pres because she really wanted to be and her friends were happy to attend to vote for her.
3 - Lovely sensible centrist friend of mine, one of the fairest people I know - now a crusading (human rights etc) barrister. I can't remember who opposed her, but IIRC even he knew he wouldn't have a chance.

In short - it tells you nothing about EdM.

Is JCR an acronym for Junior Common Room ?

Yup.

Charles said:

If this is accurate, how could it not lead to an indictment?

IANAL, but it suggests intent, foreknowledge that the information was classified, presumably conspiracy, malfeasance and lots of other goodies.

That was my reaction as well. I think we certainly have to take seriously the possibility that Hillary might have to withdraw.

Haven't seen any comments re Labour's urgent question on the Google tax. I take it, it was pretty mediocre and no "blows were landed?"

I did catch a glimpse of Alison McGovern's very, very, very low-cut top!

bigjohnowls said:

Mortimer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets

What a load of rubbish.

Measures are unimportant. The reality is. Trust the Lords to get twisted knickers about mere, bloody measures.

Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets

Not exactly whopping.

bigjohnowls said:

Mortimer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets

What a load of rubbish.

Measures are unimportant. The reality is. Trust the Lords to get twisted knickers about mere, bloody measures.

Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets

Is this groundhog day?