Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave rates equally with CON party in latest ComRes online f

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave rates equally with CON party in latest ComRes online favourability ratings

Latest favourable/unfavourable ratings from ComRes online see Balls ahead of Osborne & LAB ahead CON. Dave/EdM = pic.twitter.com/h94WiXZOCw

Read the full story here


Comments

  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Favourable for EdM 20 % and for Ed Balls 15 %..

    Ridiculous percentages for a mid-term opposition. Ineffable and unelectable.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,280
    OGH: looks like the Opinium poll results have been posted twice.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    What were the ComRes voting intentions?

    Peter Kyle's selecion in Hove (reported by andrea on the last thread) is interesting - the hot favourite was Simon Burgess, who had union backing and the backing of several branches as well as decades in local Labour politics - I remember his name coming up when I was seat-hunting in 1997. A friend who lies in Hove says Kyle single-handedly canvassed every member up to 5 times, and his hard work evidently paid off. He's deputy CEO of ACEVO (a charity that supports other charities) so far from a career politician, something he put forward as an asset.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Sorry about mess up with this post. I'm doing it from my phone with a very poor 3G connection.

    The ComRes VI figures are now up.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,280
    The ComRes figures were pretty similar to Opinium's:

    Lab 35% (nc)
    Con 26% (-3%)
    UKIP 19% (nc)
    LD 10% (+2%)
    Others 10% (+1%)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,280
    edited June 2013
    Other Labour selections today:

    Brighton Kemptown: Nancy Platts, (Simon Burgess was the candidate in 2010)
    Warrington South: Nick Bent

    Swing required is about 1.5% in both seats. In Hove it's 1.9%.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    A charity that supports other charities?

    What were the ComRes voting intentions?

    Peter Kyle's selecion in Hove (reported by andrea on the last thread) is interesting - the hot
    favourite was Simon Burgess, who had union backing and the backing of several branches as well as decades in local Labour politics - I remember his name coming up when I was seat-hunting in 1997. A friend who lies in Hove says Kyle single-handedly canvassed every member up to 5 times, and his hard work evidently paid off. He's deputy CEO of ACEVO (a charity that supports other charities) so far from a career politician, something he put forward as an asset.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Voters think political class are "a shower" shocker.

    All of them.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    fitalass said:

    A charity that supports other charities?


    What were the ComRes voting intentions?

    Peter Kyle's selecion in Hove (reported by andrea on the last thread) is interesting - the hot
    favourite was Simon Burgess, who had union backing and the backing of several branches as well as decades in local Labour politics - I remember his name coming up when I was seat-hunting in 1997. A friend who lies in Hove says Kyle single-handedly canvassed every member up to 5 times, and his hard work evidently paid off. He's deputy CEO of ACEVO (a charity that supports other charities) so far from a career politician, something he put forward as an asset.

    It's what the Foundation I chair has been doing for 30 years - venture philanthrophy is all the rage these days as well.

    Charitable objectives from ACEVO's website:

    * To promote the third sector for the benefit of the public by:
    * liaising with charities, voluntary organisations, government, private sector bodies and other groups on relevant issues;
    * providing advice, training, conferences and seminars on subjects relevant to the third sector;identifying needs in the third sector and establishing projects or policies to address them;
    * providing information to the press and the public on the operation of, or problems encountered by, the third sector;
    * providing advice and information on fundraising techniques appropriate for third sector organisations and charities; and
    * acting as a representative of the third sector in relation to government policies and legislation

    I'm sure it's all very helpful, but probably not what most people would consider a charity.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    @Charles Thanks, and your right, all very helpful but I struggle to see how it can be regarded as a charity in itself?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    fitalass said:

    A charity that supports other charities?


    What were the ComRes voting intentions?

    Peter Kyle's selecion in Hove (reported by andrea on the last thread) is interesting - the hot
    favourite was Simon Burgess, who had union backing and the backing of several branches as well as decades in local Labour politics - I remember his name coming up when I was seat-hunting in 1997. A friend who lies in Hove says Kyle single-handedly canvassed every member up to 5 times, and his hard work evidently paid off. He's deputy CEO of ACEVO (a charity that supports other charities) so far from a career politician, something he put forward as an asset.

    http://www.acevo.org.uk/about+ACEVO

    It sounds as if they give advice to chief executives of charities.

    CAF is another charity that supports other charities with financial advice. I have a CAF account with CAF chequebook so that all my charitable contributions are claimed against higher rate tax.

    https://www.cafonline.org
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    With only a month until MPs are back on holiday again what have we got to look forward to until the conferences apart from the spending review on 26 June and next month's GDP figures?

    We need a by-election or defection to Ukip.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Consi
    fitalass said:

    @Charles Thanks, and your right, all very helpful but I struggle to see how it can be regarded as a charity in itself?

    Consider it as charities outsourcing financial and management expertise so that they can concentrate on their good cause. Some charities are run by fairly inexperienced but devoted enthusiasts, but do need advice on how to best manage their resources.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,280
    One big question is whether Cameron will get booed at some stage during this year's party conference. I don't think he ever has before but if UKIP are still only a few percentage points behind the Tories in the polls it might happen.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279

    Consi

    fitalass said:

    @Charles Thanks, and your right, all very helpful but I struggle to see how it can be regarded as a charity in itself?

    Consider it as charities outsourcing financial and management expertise so that they can concentrate on their good cause. Some charities are run by fairly inexperienced but devoted enthusiasts, but do need advice on how to best manage their resources.
    Fox, thanks for the helpful links, just shows how multi-layered the charity business has become over recent years.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    Sunil on Sunday exclusive!

    Mike Smithson to receive an OGH in the Queen's Birthday Honours!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    [turning to the camera] Boris Johnson is an alpha bloke!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good evening, everyone.

    Bad news for Cameron, but also his party. He could've handled party management better, but then, the backbenchers have hardly been a model of reason and discipline either. The problem with shooting your general in the back is that by the time the enemy army arrives you've run out of ammunition.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Millsy said:

    With only a month until MPs are back on holiday again what have we got to look forward to until the conferences apart from the spending review on 26 June and next month's GDP figures?

    We need a by-election or defection to Ukip.

    Life doesn't work that way, my friend. I wonder if the people of 99 summers ago had any inkling on June 15th how their world was going to end.

    Did we have any sense 23 years ago that a chain of events starting on August 2nd would reverberate through global politics for a generation?

    To assume it will be "quiet" in the dog days of summer is hubris of the highest order. By the time of the Party Conferences the political picture might be entirely transformed.

    Or it might not.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Childish aside: I was checking to see what tennis bets, if any, were up and apparently the ladies are playing a tournament called the TopShelf Open.

    Begun writing the 'woe is me' look back at the F1 season to date. It'll be a slight pain trying to remember the state of play for each race, but worth it, I think.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    fitalass said:

    Consi

    fitalass said:

    @Charles Thanks, and your right, all very helpful but I struggle to see how it can be regarded as a charity in itself?

    Consider it as charities outsourcing financial and management expertise so that they can concentrate on their good cause. Some charities are run by fairly inexperienced but devoted enthusiasts, but do need advice on how to best manage their resources.
    Fox, thanks for the helpful links, just shows how multi-layered the charity business has become over recent years.

    The CAF account helps me avoid tax, but surely at the most benign end of the spectrum.

    There is a lot of hot air spoken on the subject of tax avoidance, but many tax deductions are for very positive reasons, such as encouraging business investment, pension savings or charitable giving. This is one of many reasons that I am sceptical of UKIP's flat tax proposal.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    I saw the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster Bomber over Hyde Park this afternoon! Heard the Red Arrows but didn't actually see them!

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/346005949913391105
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    tim said:

    Mike is obviously right on favourability/approval ratings, this site has finally recognised that hasn't it.?

    The really interesting debate is the Balls-pensioners one, don't think hapless Dave can hold the line on that one.

    And the thread during the day today was the most dumbed down pathetic excuse for the people who know nothing about politics or betting to talk about irrelevant ephemera

    tim, your favourite movie, Date Night is on C4 right now!!!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    fitalass said:

    Consi

    fitalass said:

    @Charles Thanks, and your right, all very helpful but I struggle to see how it can be regarded as a charity in itself?

    Consider it as charities outsourcing financial and management expertise so that they can concentrate on their good cause. Some charities are run by fairly inexperienced but devoted enthusiasts, but do need advice on how to best manage their resources.
    Fox, thanks for the helpful links, just shows how multi-layered the charity business has become over recent years.

    The CAF account helps me avoid tax, but surely at the most benign end of the spectrum.

    There is a lot of hot air spoken on the subject of tax avoidance, but many tax deductions are for very positive reasons, such as encouraging business investment, pension savings or charitable giving. This is one of many reasons that I am sceptical of UKIP's flat tax proposal.
    Does this mean Fitalass is back ?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Carola said:
    Everyone sticking the other at the back ! What do they know that we don't ?

  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    Greetings, everyone. I don't post much at all nowadays as I can't think of anything much to say.

    So while it's quiet, may I ask a question of anyone who has an answer?

    Some years ago there was a frightful upheaval in the NHS when a whole cohort of young doctors were posted to random places and random specialisms.

    I was expected the ructions from that policy to reverberate for years, but I've heard nothing since the original publicity.

    What happened? Is it still going on?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Andy_JS said:

    One big question is whether Cameron will get booed at some stage during this year's party conference. I don't think he ever has before but if UKIP are still only a few percentage points behind the Tories in the polls it might happen.

    Surely not ! Not in the Privileged Party !

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited June 2013
    I don't post much at all nowadays as I can't think of anything much to say.

    Well now, if you let a little thing like that stop you from saying something, you'll never be able to consider really making it in politics for a start.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SeanT said:

    Think this may be the best urban view I have enjoyed in a hotel. The entire Florentine Arno, from the Ponte Vecchio to the Chianti hills.

    I did a panorama shot from my balcony.

    http://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/345974503882506240/photo/1

    Can any pb-er beat that for harmoniousness and beauty in a city hotel view? There may be more spectacular views in, say, Manhattan or Hong Kong, more intriguing views in London or Paris, but for unmarred historic city loveliness this is up there.

    That said, I've never stayed in one of the very best Venetian hotels at the best end of the Grand Canal. Bet they are pretty magical.

    I am in Rome for the week. Please stay where you are !
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    I wonder if the Arno leads to the Arnus Marshes, where Surus carried Hannibal when he lost an eye to exposure whilst outmanoeuvring the Romans.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    AnneJGP said:

    I don't post much at all nowadays as I can't think of anything much to say.

    Just repeat the same dozen words 4,400+ times. It's worked for tim.

  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    tim said:

    Mike is obviously right on favourability/approval ratings, this site has finally recognised that hasn't it.?

    The really interesting debate is the Balls-pensioners one, don't think hapless Dave can hold the line on that one.

    And the thread during the day today was the most dumbed down pathetic excuse for the people who know nothing about politics or betting to talk about irrelevant ephemera

    Thought you were supposed to be in the Middle East this weekend and you are still posting here. Haven't you really got anything better to do?
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    BenM said:

    Voters think political class are "a shower" shocker.

    All of them.

    I'm coming round more and more to the opinion that the UK is destined to be ruled by politicians of supreme mediocrity for many years to come. I guess there are no really nasty ones in high positions of any of the main parties, just totally below average boring useless rubbish.

    Is that good for the nation? Personally I think not, surely it has to be bad for democracy when the electorate basically doesn't want any of them in power. The bloody lot of them are so out of touch with the man and woman on the street it's pathetic. I'm sure Dave and Ed and Nick all have their hearts in the right place, but that's not enough is it? Are we condemned to this for the next 20 years?

    There are better people available to lead all 3 main parties, but the likes of Cruddas, Davis, Laws Boris and, we'll take your pick of your own favourites really, just ain't going nowhere.

    On the Tory side, I just can't imagine Hammond or Gove or May for that matter being any improvement. Labour, well apart from the aforementioned Cruddas, (who's not interested in being leader anyway), any other talented future leaders just have zero experience at the moment. Possibly Stella Creasy, but not for another 10 years or so.

    It's as if the establishment has decided to keep us proles at bay by boring us to death. Getting furious with this lot is near impossible, grumpy yes, but that's not enough for any political earthquakes. Really, is it that difficult for a Prime Minister to at least be respected a bit?

    Take the top 10 known,(or in positions of power), members of each party, and try and form a dynamic forward thinking cabinet from the mix of them? Nope! It's yawn x 100.

    To really sum it up, basically you can work it all out from the posters here on PB. Most of us are tribal, me included, but we get most of our kicks from abusing the other lot-whoever they may be. Finding genuinely positive things to say about our own sides is desperately difficult most of the time. Maybe 'Why be arsed?' is the hip attitude for the foreseeable future.

    Groan.



  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    @tim - what particularly ired you about today's thread then? I thought it was largely non-political as often is the case at the weekend.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Millsy said:

    With only a month until MPs are back on holiday again what have we got to look forward to until the conferences apart from the spending review on 26 June and next month's GDP figures?

    We need a by-election or defection to Ukip.

    If there was recall we'd likely have three: Hancock, Mercer and Yeo.

    Aside from that i'd say there's a reasonable chance the US and their two poodles are going to push Russia/China into a corner over Syria which could create some excitement.

    Also euro-contagion is going to finally reach France sooner or later so if it's sooner that should be a re-run of Greece / Portugal / Ireland / Spain / Italy but bigger.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    surbiton said:

    Carola said:
    Everyone sticking the other at the back ! What do they know that we don't ?

    Unless it's actually bleep and pals trying to make it look like she's being disloyal it makes you wonder if Cameron isn't 100% and they think he might pack it in early.
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    JohnO said:

    @tim - what particularly ired you about today's thread then? I thought it was largely non-political as often is the case at the weekend.

    I wish Tim would stand for Parliament, and win a nice 'out of the way' seat somewhere. There are voters who deserve 23 hour a day/7 day a week/52 week a year representation. He'd be brilliant, like Mcbride x 50 million in the attack dog league. Seriously, give the people a chance to have their voices heard by a man who cares.

    Failing that, a separate sidebar on PB would be good, with a nonstop commentary on every line of every other posters threads. Then it would be much easier for us all to learn exactly the things we get wrong in every post. You could turn that 4,443 posts, (and counting-Fast!), into one long never ending monologue of bile.

    If you did decide to run for parliament, I'd definitely canvass for you, anything to get you into employment. Alternatively, I can pretend you've worked for me in the past and I could give you a reference for a job at Burger King. It probably would be a bit of a naff one unfortunately since I fear you wouldn't stop talking for 2 seconds whilst a customer is trying to place an order....

    Please get a proper life for crissakes.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    JohnO said:

    I thought it was largely non-political as often is the case at the weekend.

    ...and it's been a very pleasant non-political thread to lurk on. It's Bank Holiday weekend here on The Rock as we get Monday for the Queen's Birthday. Boiling hot and perfect for lounging on the boat and dipping into PB on the mobile.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AnneJGP said:

    Greetings, everyone. I don't post much at all nowadays as I can't think of anything much to say.

    So while it's quiet, may I ask a question of anyone who has an answer?

    Some years ago there was a frightful upheaval in the NHS when a whole cohort of young doctors were posted to random places and random specialisms.

    I was expected the ructions from that policy to reverberate for years, but I've heard nothing since the original publicity.

    What happened? Is it still going on?

    I think it plays a significant part in creating the A and E "crisis".

    I have posted on it recently, but not sure how to trace it in Vanilla.

    Essentially the reorganization (MMC) led to widespread unhappiness, and lost 10 000 doctors (out of 170 000). The Trainees in the system are much less experienced than under the old system, and many posts are unfilled in critical specialities. Last year there were less than 100 applicants for the 198 training posts in A and E. Even assuming that all were suitable for appointment there would be 50% vacancies. a and E departments are staffed by locums, very junior trainees and a few burnt out seniors.

    It was a disaster, not only for the individuals concerned, but also for NHS staffing for the forseable future.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    Seems to have really kicked off again tonight in Turkish protests.

    Twitter
    Ed Fraser ‏@frasereC4 4m
    @ABYASUN: Protesters gathered, built a new barricade. Police fired tear gas #occupygezi pic.twitter.com/Y4xIceb65X”
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    BenM said:

    Voters think political class are "a shower" shocker.

    All of them.

    I'm coming round more and more to the opinion that the UK is destined to be ruled by politicians of supreme mediocrity for many years to come. I guess there are no really nasty ones in high positions of any of the main parties, just totally below average boring useless rubbish.

    Is that good for the nation? Personally I think not, surely it has to be bad for democracy when the electorate basically doesn't want any of them in power. The bloody lot of them are so out of touch with the man and woman on the street it's pathetic. I'm sure Dave and Ed and Nick all have their hearts in the right place, but that's not enough is it? Are we condemned to this for the next 20 years?

    There are better people available to lead all 3 main parties, but the likes of Cruddas, Davis, Laws Boris and, we'll take your pick of your own favourites really, just ain't going nowhere.

    On the Tory side, I just can't imagine Hammond or Gove or May for that matter being any improvement. Labour, well apart from the aforementioned Cruddas, (who's not interested in being leader anyway), any other talented future leaders just have zero experience at the moment. Possibly Stella Creasy, but not for another 10 years or so.

    It's as if the establishment has decided to keep us proles at bay by boring us to death. Getting furious with this lot is near impossible, grumpy yes, but that's not enough for any political earthquakes. Really, is it that difficult for a Prime Minister to at least be respected a bit?

    Take the top 10 known,(or in positions of power), members of each party, and try and form a dynamic forward thinking cabinet from the mix of them? Nope! It's yawn x 100.

    To really sum it up, basically you can work it all out from the posters here on PB. Most of us are tribal, me included, but we get most of our kicks from abusing the other lot-whoever they may be. Finding genuinely positive things to say about our own sides is desperately difficult most of the time. Maybe 'Why be arsed?' is the hip attitude for the foreseeable future.

    Groan.



    Our negative culture really encourages parties to pick grey, safe people, since risk-takers get jumped on. Any policy that isn't already being done will have downsides, and it's those that will be highlighted, so it's really safer to say nothing. Look how our consensus is that the Tories made a fatal mistake in getting specific in January 2010, and that the general assumption is that if and when Labour produces more concrete policies, they are bound to lose votes.

    Personally I think the way out is to present policies in clumps of 2-3, with one good thing being financed by 1-2 unpopular things. Then one has a fighting chance that people will understand the link and say "Well, I don't like X but if it helps Y..."
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    @tim. Ah, I see, not really my cup of tea either, but rather than fulminating, I quietly went shopping and tonight enjoyed a splendid bbq courtesy of the Esher and Walton Conservative Women's Organization!

    And you should be off to bed...as I shall imminently.
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    JohnO said:

    @tim - what particularly ired you about today's thread then? I thought it was largely non-political as often is the case at the weekend.

    Let's all invade and bring peace and democracy to them in the same way it's worked for the Iraqis. We have a template there to copy, don't have feck all army to actually do the invading though. Maybe those friendly Al Qaida militants could lend us some guns whilst we fight along side them.

    Voila. Peace, harmony, democracy, human rights, equality for women. Zero terrorism or suicide car bombings. We know how to deal with these countries and their problems don't we.

    I can't work out why Israel seems to want Assad to prevail though, sworn enemy and all that. What do the Jews know we don't? Nothing I'm sure.

    Book the victory parade for central London in say, 3 months or so? Cheer up the nation a bit.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921
    tim said:

    JohnO said:

    tim said:

    Mike is obviously right on favourability/approval ratings, this site has finally recognised that hasn't it.?

    The really interesting debate is the Balls-pensioners one, don't think hapless Dave can hold the line on that one.

    And the thread during the day today was the most dumbed down pathetic excuse for the people who know nothing about politics or betting to talk about irrelevant ephemera

    Thought you were supposed to be in the Middle East this weekend and you are still posting here. Haven't you really got anything better to do?
    It's 1.17 here, thought I'd check in
    Ah, so you've joined the Syrian Jihadists have you, tim?

    :)

  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    edited June 2013

    BenM said:

    Voters think political class are "a shower" shocker.

    All of them.

    I'm coming round more and more to the opinion that the UK is destined to be ruled by politicians of supreme mediocrity for many years to come. I guess there are no really nasty ones in high positions of any of the main parties, just totally below average boring useless rubbish.

    Is that good for the nation? Personally I think not, surely it has to be bad for democracy when the electorate basically doesn't want any of them in power. The bloody lot of them are so out of touch with the man and woman on the street it's pathetic. I'm sure Dave and Ed and Nick all have their hearts in the right place, but that's not enough is it? Are we condemned to this for the next 20 years?

    There are better people available to lead all 3 main parties, but the likes of Cruddas, Davis, Laws Boris and, we'll take your pick of your own favourites really, just ain't going nowhere.

    On the Tory side, I just can't imagine Hammond or Gove or May for that matter being any improvement. Labour, well apart from the aforementioned Cruddas, (who's not interested in being leader anyway), any other talented future leaders just have zero experience at the moment. Possibly Stella Creasy, but not for another 10 years or so.

    It's as if the establishment has decided to keep us proles at bay by boring us to death. Getting furious with this lot is near impossible, grumpy yes, but that's not enough for any political earthquakes. Really, is it that difficult for a Prime Minister to at least be respected a bit?

    Take the top 10 known,(or in positions of power), members of each party, and try and form a dynamic forward thinking cabinet from the mix of them? Nope! It's yawn x 100.

    To really sum it up, basically you can work it all out from the posters here on PB. Most of us are tribal, me included, but we get most of our kicks from abusing the other lot-whoever they may be. Finding genuinely positive things to say about our own sides is desperately difficult most of the time. Maybe 'Why be arsed?' is the hip attitude for the foreseeable future.

    Groan.



    Our negative culture really encourages parties to pick grey, safe people, since risk-takers get jumped on. Any policy that isn't already being done will have downsides, and it's those that will be highlighted, so it's really safer to say nothing. Look how our consensus is that the Tories made a fatal mistake in getting specific in January 2010, and that the general assumption is that if and when Labour produces more concrete policies, they are bound to lose votes.

    Personally I think the way out is to present policies in clumps of 2-3, with one good thing being financed by 1-2 unpopular things. Then one has a fighting chance that people will understand the link and say "Well, I don't like X but if it helps Y..."
    Part of the solution is to vote people like your good self back in, maybe find Anna somewhere safer first please. You seem a genuine and nice enough bloke, stuff the politics angle, you'll do nicely. Can you tell the other 5-600 useless tossers there to either quit or play in the traffic. The few goodies among you can start to rebuild our parliament after the zombie holocaust has been dealt with.

    MORE IMPORTANTLY. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION:

    WHEN IS THAT USELESS WASTE OF SPACE SELF INTERESTED HYPOCRITE YEO GOING TO QUIT?

    Much longer and my Russian mate Boris, (yes it's true-and deals with 'problem'), is gonna arrange a meeting him at one of his windmills. The discussion will go down, 'Here is what you greenie tree huggers do to birds with these abominations. Wanna try it for yourself?'

    By election nailed on.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Look how our consensus is that the Tories made a fatal mistake in getting specific in January 2010, and that the general assumption is that if and when Labour produces more concrete policies, they are bound to lose votes

    Those two things are mutually exclusive. With the BBC acting for many years as the de facto propaganda dept of the Labour Party it's always been more difficult for right of centre views to get a fair airing.

    If anyone breaks their cozy liberal policy orthodoxy then you see BBC political correspondents positively salivating as soon as they get to "...but critics say..." Policies are rubbished because of their source, not their content.

    See the ignoring of UKIP for years and every single Newsnight programme ever for details.

  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805

    BenM said:

    Voters think political class are "a shower" shocker.

    All of them.

    I'm coming round more and more to the opinion that the UK is destined to be ruled by politicians of supreme mediocrity for many years to come. I guess there are no really nasty ones in high positions of any of the main parties, just totally below average boring useless rubbish.

    Is that good for the nation? Personally I think not, surely it has to be bad for democracy when the electorate basically doesn't want any of them in power. The bloody lot of them are so out of touch with the man and woman on the street it's pathetic. I'm sure Dave and Ed and Nick all have their hearts in the right place, but that's not enough is it? Are we condemned to this for the next 20 years?

    There are better people available to lead all 3 main parties, but the likes of Cruddas, Davis, Laws Boris and, we'll take your pick of your own favourites really, just ain't going nowhere.

    On the Tory side, I just can't imagine Hammond or Gove or May for that matter being any improvement. Labour, well apart from the aforementioned Cruddas, (who's not interested in being leader anyway), any other talented future leaders just have zero experience at the moment. Possibly Stella Creasy, but not for another 10 years or so.

    It's as if the establishment has decided to keep us proles at bay by boring us to death. Getting furious with this lot is near impossible, grumpy yes, but that's not enough for any political earthquakes. Really, is it that difficult for a Prime Minister to at least be respected a bit?

    Take the top 10 known,(or in positions of power), members of each party, and try and form a dynamic forward thinking cabinet from the mix of them? Nope! It's yawn x 100.

    To really sum it up, basically you can work it all out from the posters here on PB. Most of us are tribal, me included, but we get most of our kicks from abusing the other lot-whoever they may be. Finding genuinely positive things to say about our own sides is desperately difficult most of the time. Maybe 'Why be arsed?' is the hip attitude for the foreseeable future.

    Groan.



    Our negative culture really encourages parties to pick grey, safe people, since risk-takers get jumped on. Any policy that isn't already being done will have downsides, and it's those that will be highlighted, so it's really safer to say nothing. Look how our consensus is that the Tories made a fatal mistake in getting specific in January 2010, and that the general assumption is that if and when Labour produces more concrete policies, they are bound to lose votes.

    Personally I think the way out is to present policies in clumps of 2-3, with one good thing being financed by 1-2 unpopular things. Then one has a fighting chance that people will understand the link and say "Well, I don't like X but if it helps Y..."

    I was just pondering on that negative vibe when this popped up in my twitter feed:

    'In an official declaration to Parliament released at the end of last week, the Aldershot MP described his job as “advising on the effects of legislative changes and other matters”. He expects to be paid between £15,000 and £20,000 for his work.

    In the register of interests, Sir Gerald makes no mention of QuickQuid. He describes himself as a “Consultant to CNU Online Holdings LLC (Enova), of 200W Jackson Blvd Suite 500, Chicago IL 60600”, which trades as QuickQuid.'

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-sir-gerald-howarth-is-consultant-to-payday-lender-quickquid-8660328.html
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Evening all :)

    The more I consider Syria, the more I think there are now only two options:

    1) Do Nothing - clearly, there's a humanitarian role to play in places like Jordan and Turkey and perhaps Iraq as Assad exacts his vengeance in Aleppo and then elsewhere. The end of it all will in truth be a return to the status quo ante - Syria involved deeply in Lebanon and allied with Iran.

    2) Intervene decisively and effectively - this means troops on the ground and in the air and might involve intervention in Lebanon with all that will entail. It means ending the ability of Assad to wage war against his own people with all that entails but it doesn't mean carte blanche for the rebels.

    Politically, it will be an imposed solution including an ongoing military presence. It might open the door to a lasting peace on Israel's northern border.

    Option 2) is more than risky, it's politically impossible and logistically difficult though with American support it's possible. The political impossibility is because it will mean a complete volte-face of post-Iraq foreign and security policy and would risk a direct challenge to Iran and possibly Russia. Domestically, the British and American Governments will face an enormous backlash probably far in excess of what happened with Iraq. It would likely destroy the Coalition in the UK.

    The time when we could have provided the logistics to enable the rebels to defeat Assad on their own has passed and in lieu of our support, the rebels have gone elsewhere as has Assad and the intervention of Hizbollah fighters from Iran and Lebanon has been decisive.

    It is and will continue to be an awful human tragedy which will haunt the region for decades and for all the blithe comments from a few on here about the irrelevance of the Middle East in the era of fracking, that suffering will, thanks to the wonders of the modern media, be ours to witness.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited June 2013
    Poor old Blair what a shame. Spare yourselves and do not look at the vile and in no way hilarious things being posted about the people's PM Tony on twitter.

    I fear Dan Hodges might just burst into tears if he sees it. :(
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    JohnO said:

    @tim - what particularly ired you about today's thread then? I thought it was largely non-political as often is the case at the weekend.

    Let's all invade and bring peace and democracy to them in the same way it's worked for the Iraqis. We have a template there to copy, don't have feck all army to actually do the invading though. Maybe those friendly Al Qaida militants could lend us some guns whilst we fight along side them.

    Voila. Peace, harmony, democracy, human rights, equality for women. Zero terrorism or suicide car bombings. We know how to deal with these countries and their problems don't we.

    I can't work out why Israel seems to want Assad to prevail though, sworn enemy and all that. What do the Jews know we don't? Nothing I'm sure.

    Boot the victory parade for central London in say, 3 months or so? Cheer up the nation a bit.
    The death toll in Syria is larger than the same post war Iraq period, you want to return to the model of Rwanda and Bosnia.
    I don't, Cameron and Blair don't.
    Give 'em a no fly zone and that's it. You have noticed that the Russians are 100% against this and won't be ridden roughshod over again right? So when we get bogged down with supplies and training the fighters and then helping them on a small scale at first, Russia will be arming Syria with loads of very expensive and high quality gear. And it will become a war we are sucked into. Whilst Blair, yourself and the US teaparty insanity merchants are all applauding a job well done, loads of people including our troops will die. And just to create yet another failed state where the majority Muslim factions will start exterminating the rest.

    Very fecking appealing all round. But Syria have weapons of mass destruction that could be launched in 45 mins and hit your house right? Just wanted the line to throw out there to garner public opinion.

    I tell you what, compromise? Accept all women and children from Syria as refugees and arm the men up to the teeth and tell them to go back in and fight for their country.

    Fecking ghost of New Labours disasterous foreign policy still hausts us here I see.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    We know how to deal with these countries and their problems don't we.

    As usual, Sarah Palin is exactly right; we should stay clear of Syria. "Let Allah sort it out"

    http://bit.ly/1672DBW

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Blair might end up uniting 90% of the country after all.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    MrJones said:

    Blair might end up uniting 90% of the country after all.

    In laughter? It would be a first.

  • I see that some on here are trying to breath new life into the doctrine of so-called "liberal interventionism". The international order cannot function unless and until it is appreciated that nation states have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nation states. If Syria posed an exigent threat to the defence of the realm or had violated agreements with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or Her allies which created grounds for the instigation of hostilities, then there would be a case for military intervention.

    At the present time, what is occurring in Syria is deplorable, but there is no case for intervention in an internal Syrian matter. That is, unless proponents of intervention would be happy with the People's Republic of China deciding to intervene liberally in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom in the years ahead, because the PRC was unhappy about how the Queen's Peace was being kept in the Rhondda. Liberal interventionism is an irrational, incoherent and hypocritical doctrine, characterised by thinly veiled charlatanry. That is why is no surprise that both Cameron and Blair are among the doctrine's avid supporters.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,280
    Getting rid of FPTP would be a start as far as improving British politics is concerned. If both UKIP and the LDs support such a position it must have something going for it.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Mick_Pork said:

    MrJones said:

    Blair might end up uniting 90% of the country after all.

    In laughter? It would be a first.

    I was meaning against Syrian intervention but the jokes probably help.
  • tim said:


    Why on earth Re you discussing this before we've ward you're views on kittens and boxed sets?

    A very good point. (1) Kittens are an imported and invasive species of vermin, akin to Japanese Knotweed. (2) I like many boxed sets, but would generally discuss the matter elsewhere than a site about politics and betting.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921

    I see that some on here are trying to breath new life into the doctrine of so-called "liberal interventionism". The international order cannot function unless and until it is appreciated that nation states have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nation states. If Syria posed an exigent threat to the defence of the realm or had violated agreements with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or Her allies which created grounds for the instigation of hostilities, then there would be a case for military intervention.

    At the present time, what is occurring in Syria is deplorable, but there is no case for intervention in an internal Syrian matter. That is, unless proponents of intervention would be happy with the People's Republic of China deciding to intervene liberally in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom in the years ahead, because the PRC was unhappy about how the Queen's Peace was being kept in the Rhondda. Liberal interventionism is an irrational, incoherent and hypocritical doctrine, characterised by thinly veiled charlatanry. That is why is no surprise that both Cameron and Blair are among the doctrine's avid supporters.

    Cameron = Heir to Blair?
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited June 2013


    Cameron = Heir to Blair?

    Blair for all his faults used to win elections. Cameron has shown no evidence of a propensity to do so; quite the reverse, in fact.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,921


    Cameron = Heir to Blair?

    Blair for all his faults used to win elections. Cameron has shown no evidence of a propensity to do so; quite the reverse, in fact.

    I was hinting at his propensity for liberal interventions!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Consi

    fitalass said:

    @Charles Thanks, and your right, all very helpful but I struggle to see how it can be regarded as a charity in itself?

    Consider it as charities outsourcing financial and management expertise so that they can concentrate on their good cause. Some charities are run by fairly inexperienced but devoted enthusiasts, but do need advice on how to best manage their resources.
    I know it very well - it's exactly what my family foundation does & has done for 30 years. But we don't charge membership fees and we don't spend time lobbying government which ACEVO seems to do.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,280
    "Election countdown: 99 weeks to go":

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22858795
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    And you have to love the PB Tories realising that Dave is a Liberal Interventionist.
    Did you not know he modelled himself on Blair (without the election winning ability)

    Palmerston got there first.

    With Gove looking to Disraeli and Clegg to Gladstone, perhaps we should be looking forward to a new Victorian era...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    tim said:

    fitalass said:
    Any views on interventionist Dave putting our boys at risk or do you only pontificate about geopolitics Pre May 2010?
    Two immutable rules.

    1.The road to hell is paved with good intentions
    2. No politician will pass up the opportunity to be seen as militarily strong and decisive no matter how ludicrous, impractical or self defeating the example might be.

    For these reasons the west have been straining at the leash to get involved in Syria, ignoring all the past examples of where that eventually leads. Dave will have his war and we, the Middle East and the rest of the world will all suffer for it.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    SUNDAY TIMES YOUGOV:

    Lab 39
    Con 30
    LD 10
    UKIP 14
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    JohnO said:

    @tim - what particularly ired you about today's thread then? I thought it was largely non-political as often is the case at the weekend.

    Let's all invade and bring peace and democracy to them in the same way it's worked for the Iraqis. We have a template there to copy, don't have feck all army to actually do the invading though. Maybe those friendly Al Qaida militants could lend us some guns whilst we fight along side them.

    Voila. Peace, harmony, democracy, human rights, equality for women. Zero terrorism or suicide car bombings. We know how to deal with these countries and their problems don't we.

    I can't work out why Israel seems to want Assad to prevail though, sworn enemy and all that. What do the Jews know we don't? Nothing I'm sure.

    Boot the victory parade for central London in say, 3 months or so? Cheer up the nation a bit.
    The death toll in Syria is larger than the same post war Iraq period, you want to return to the model of Rwanda and Bosnia.
    I don't, Cameron and Blair don't.
    It is fairly simple.

    We do not have the armed forces to do it.
    We do not have the money to do it.
    The British public rightly do not want to fight another war for a good while.

    Mostly it is a very bad idea to enter a war with no clear aim in mind, and one that it is very hard to conceive what victory looks like.

    Enjoy yourself in the middle east, it may not be possible to visit much longer.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    tim said:

    fitalass said:
    Any views on interventionist Dave putting our boys at risk or do you only pontificate about geopolitics Pre May 2010?
    Two immutable rules.

    1.The road to hell is paved with good intentions
    2. No politician will pass up the opportunity to be seen as militarily strong and decisive no matter how ludicrous, impractical or self defeating the example might be.

    For these reasons the west have been straining at the leash to get involved in Syria, ignoring all the past examples of where that eventually leads. Dave will have his war and we, the Middle East and the rest of the world will all suffer for it.
    Hillary Clinton never found a war she didn't want to be part of and Rand Paul's whole thing is wanting to stay out. If the Americans get sucked back into the middle-east and it goes pear-shaped again it could put Paul in the White House.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    @Life

    "nation states have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nation states"

    Now: that's a wonderfully attractive line, and one that powered the LibDems to north of 20% of the vote in 2000.

    But life is not so simple. Consider:

    1. A sovereign state decides to strip a minority - say Roma gypsies - of the vote. That's their concern, right?

    2. Said state decides to discourage said minority from procreating, through - say - forced sterilisation.

    3. Now they go one further and decide to round said minority up, and put them in camps. OK to intervene now?

    4. Camps now have facilities for extermination of said minority. Now?

    5. Said state extends their initial reach from an internal minority to British nationals. Said nationals are now 'interned' and accused of spying. Now?

    6. Without trial and due process, British nationals are no longer reachable. It's not a threat to the existence of the British state, but it sure sucks to be a British national in Ruritania now.

    This state isn't threatening to invade anyone, but I would presume you'd be happy wit military intervention at some point. The only question is where the line is drawn, not whether there is a line.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Other US thought: There could be room for a democrat to run against Hillary by running against the next war, in the same way that Obama ran against her by running against the previous one. Nobody inside the current administration will be able to do it - it needs to be an outsider, and preferably a woman.

    Elizabeth Warren?

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Check out that Rouhanigasm after third debate. He went into it on 8%...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Check out that Rouhanigasm after third debate. He went into it on 8%...
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    @rcs1000

    Some time before (6) the FCO would have warned British citizens to leave. Anyone who chooses to ignore that advice will have made an informed decision. (That's one of the reasons I objected to the Govt wasting time and money on the Chandlers who were kidnapped by Somali pirates in waters they'd specifically been told to avoid)
    rcs1000 said:

    @Life
    ...but I would presume you'd be happy with military intervention at some point. The only question is where the line is drawn, not whether there is a line.

    That assumption might be true of @Life but for others, such as me, that's not true.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Elizabeth Warren?

    The one who claimed to be a Red Indian to get a job? Fauxcahontas would be destroyed in a general election.

  • @rcs1000
    When a sovereign state deals with foreign nationals, it ceases exclusively to deal with its internal affairs. So intervention may be justified once stages 5 and 6 are reached, but not before. It was intervention under the guise of stages 1 to 4 (ie protection of an ethnic minority) that dominated the German Reich's policy in relation to Poland and Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    edited June 2013

    @rcs1000
    When a sovereign state deals with foreign nationals, it ceases exclusively to deal with its internal affairs. So intervention may be justified once stages 5 and 6 are reached, but not before. It was intervention under the guise of stages 1 to 4 (ie protection of an ethnic minority) that dominated the German Reich's policy in relation to Poland and Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.

    So it would not be acceptable to intervene in the case that a country decided to exterminate - say - all Jewish citizens?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    GeoffM said:

    Elizabeth Warren?

    The one who claimed to be a Red Indian to get a job? Fauxcahontas would be destroyed in a general election.

    That's not a particularly devastating attack line. It didn't work for Scott Brown.

    It also doesn't seem to be true, not that that has much to do with whether it works or not.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    edited June 2013
    "For these reasons the west have been straining at the leash to get involved in Syria, ignoring all the past examples of where that eventually leads. Dave will have his war and we, the Middle East and the rest of the world will all suffer for it."

    Add this to the list of things that Cameron's critics assume he has done, or will do so in the future? Its ironic that some are totally convinced that Cameron will not be able to renegotiate powers back from the EU before delivering any EU referendum if he is re-elected as PM 2015 with a majority. But some how Cameron will apparently be able to have his 'war' which we will all suffer for, and despite Cameron proving his critics wrong with a similar intervention in Libya.

    Cameron is not Blair, and Obama isn't Bush when it comes to Foreign intervention, and then there is Putin and the Russian stance on Syria. There is already a very bloody civil war raging in Syria, and with untold atrocities and damage inflicted on all sides. But there is also a lot of scary outside elements involved in this war, chemical weapons are already being deployed and may yet land up in the hands of others equally prepared to use them to further elsewhere.

    We are not going into Syria with boots on the ground under Cameron. The legacy of Blair's wars and Brown's economic incompetence means that no UK Government is going to be in a position to gather the support or financial backing to do so anywhere in the Middle East. Even if they wanted too, and which I very much doubt is the case right now. Cameron will be judged on his actions, not the perceived prejudice or spin of his opponents here on PB. We should be very concerned at the current situation in Syria, and where this civil war might lead. So lets not forget that our Government would be failing if it wasn't closely monitoring the situation there right now, and ready to offer assistance if needed, especially humanitarian aid.

    Thanks to Tony Blair and the New Labour spin operation, the UK public will never again be able to base their decisions on any Foreign intervention simple on the word of their Government when it comes to what is in the best interests of this country with regard outside threats. Despite all the usual partisan spin on here, surely that is the most damaging aspect of all this current speculation over what we shouldn't or should do with regard the situation in Syria?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited June 2013
    @edmundintokyo The facts are pretty much indisputable although you are right that they didn't put off a solidly blue state voting for a Democrat. Massachusetts about to elect Markey instead of the very impressive Gomez purely on party lines is further evidence that it's not a swing state.

    That's why I said "general election". She might even make Dem Nominee by playing the female card but she wouldn't win nationally. Lying about your heritage for a salary won't endear you to swing voters.

    [edited for grammar, clarity]
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    fitalass said:

    "For these reasons the west have been straining at the leash to get involved in Syria, ignoring all the past examples of where that eventually leads. Dave will have his war and we, the Middle East and the rest of the world will all suffer for it."

    Add this to the list of things that Cameron's critics assume he has done, or will do so in the future? Its ironic that some are totally convinced that Cameron will not be able to renegotiate powers back from the EU before delivering any EU referendum if he is re-elected as PM 2015 with a majority. But some how Cameron will apparently be able to have his 'war' which we will all suffer for, and despite Cameron proving his critics wrong with a similar intervention in Libya.

    Going to war would be a bilateral decision between Cameron and Obama. Changing the EU constitution just for Britain would require the unanimous agreement of the prime ministers, legislatures, revising chambers and heads of state of 27 sovereign states, and, and possibly even some referendums. So yes, it's much more plausible that the war would get done than the renegotiation.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    GeoffM said:

    @edmundintokyo The facts are pretty much indisputable although you are right that they didn't put off a solidly blue state voting for a Democrat. Massachusetts about to elect Markey instead of the very impressive Gomez purely on party lines is further evidence that it's not a swing state.

    That's why I said "general election". She might even make Dem Nominee by playing the female card but she wouldn't win nationally. Lying about your heritage for a salary won't endear you to swing voters.

    [edited for grammar, clarity]

    The claim that she lied about her heritage for a salary isn't indusputible, or true.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    edited June 2013

    fitalass said:

    "For these reasons the west have been straining at the leash to get involved in Syria, ignoring all the past examples of where that eventually leads. Dave will have his war and we, the Middle East and the rest of the world will all suffer for it."

    Add this to the list of things that Cameron's critics assume he has done, or will do so in the future? Its ironic that some are totally convinced that Cameron will not be able to renegotiate powers back from the EU before delivering any EU referendum if he is re-elected as PM 2015 with a majority. But some how Cameron will apparently be able to have his 'war' which we will all suffer for, and despite Cameron proving his critics wrong with a similar intervention in Libya.

    Going to war would be a bilateral decision between Cameron and Obama. Changing the EU constitution just for Britain would require the unanimous agreement of the prime ministers, legislatures, revising chambers and heads of state of 27 sovereign states, and, and possibly even some referendums. So yes, it's much more plausible that the war would get done than the renegotiation.
    Edmund, one huge problem with that view you hold there. And its the current UK and EU economies. We cannot afford any more costly Foreign interventions such as boots on the ground in the middle East. Any more than the EU can currently afford to say goodbye to the UK, and with it the financial contributions we bring to the table right now. That is the biggest fear of Cameron's opponents in both the Labour and UKIP camps right now. The former powerful allegiance of the German/Franco block in the EU is currently hanging by a shoogle peg as Germany moves closer to the UK right now. I read somewhere recently that Sarkozy had popped into visit Cameron, Hollande is looking really rather shaky right now.

    There is now a clear EU In/Out Referendum on the table from Cameron if the UK electorate wants it. And if they do, they vote in a Conservative Government with a majority to deliver it. And it will be delivered if they do win one. Cameron has already made clear his preferred option to remain in a reformed EU, but that also obligates the EU to step up to the plate and to deliver if it wants the UK to remain a big contributor to their project. And this time its not the UK who is the sick man of Europe, its the Eurozone.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    The claim that she lied about her heritage for a salary isn't indusputible, or true.

    On the contrary - Warren represented herself to both U. Penn (bo.st/KTBBkO) and Harvard (bit.ly/KZsCQx) for federal reporting purposes as a Red Indian for starters.

    A timeline which is thoroughly sourced all the way through here: bit.ly/148Ypsc

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    fitalass said:

    fitalass said:

    "For these reasons the west have been straining at the leash to get involved in Syria, ignoring all the past examples of where that eventually leads. Dave will have his war and we, the Middle East and the rest of the world will all suffer for it."

    Add this to the list of things that Cameron's critics assume he has done, or will do so in the future? Its ironic that some are totally convinced that Cameron will not be able to renegotiate powers back from the EU before delivering any EU referendum if he is re-elected as PM 2015 with a majority. But some how Cameron will apparently be able to have his 'war' which we will all suffer for, and despite Cameron proving his critics wrong with a similar intervention in Libya.

    Going to war would be a bilateral decision between Cameron and Obama. Changing the EU constitution just for Britain would require the unanimous agreement of the prime ministers, legislatures, revising chambers and heads of state of 27 sovereign states, and, and possibly even some referendums. So yes, it's much more plausible that the war would get done than the renegotiation.
    Edmund, one huge problem with that view you hold there. And its the current UK and EU economies. We cannot afford any more costly Foreign interventions such as boots on the ground in the middle East, any more than the EU can currently afford to say goodbye to the UK and with it the financial contributions we bring to the table right now. That is the biggest fear of Cameron's opponents in both the Labour and UKIP camps right now. The former powerful allegiance of the German/Franco block in the EU is currently hanging by a shoogle peg as Germany moves closer to the UK right now. I read somewhere recently that Sarkozy had popped into visit Cameron, Hollande is looking really rather shaky right now.

    The net UK contibution is about 10 Euros a head, they'd rather have it or not but it's not the main factor. Giving up time and political capital for a renegotiation to keep Britain in would probably not be sensible, because the renegotiation probably wouldn't be necessary and sufficient to do it. They might vote in without or out with, and things Cameron might want like leaving the social chapter would actually make out more likely because it would demotivate the in side.

    Money doesn't usually seem to stop countries going to war. People who thought the country was broke and needed to cut welfare discover that they can afford to borrow some more after all.

    That said, I doubt Obama will be too enthusiastic about joining another war in the Middle East.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    GeoffM said:

    The claim that she lied about her heritage for a salary isn't indusputible, or true.

    On the contrary - Warren represented herself to both U. Penn (bo.st/KTBBkO) and Harvard (bit.ly/KZsCQx) for federal reporting purposes as a Red Indian for starters.

    A timeline which is thoroughly sourced all the way through here: bit.ly/148Ypsc

    No evidence there that she thought it was untrue, no evidence that she got hired or paid more because of it, so your "indisputable" claim is disputable at both ends.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    No evidence there that she thought it was untrue, no evidence that she got hired or paid more because of it, so your "indisputable" claim is disputable at both ends.

    She began to claim minority status when she joined the U. Penn. Law School, and specifically in connection with establishing herself for continued employment purposes as a minority. The three 'points' you've stated yourself you've just made up in order to knock down. Only your second made up point (got hired) can be argued through witness recollections in relation to the Harvard application. The others didn't happen, which presumably is why you are making a big thing of saying they didn't happen.

    You've either made up a Straw Indian to defend her or you aren't aware of the real problems with her odd claims.



  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/15/broken-promise-barack-obama

    find myself agreeing with every word of this (apart from the suggestion that drone attacks have a "legal" framework)
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited June 2013
    rcs1000 said:

    So it would not be acceptable to intervene in the case that a country decided to exterminate - say - all Jewish citizens?

    I don't think so. We didn't intervene in the German Reich because of its treatment of Jews, but because of its flagrant aggression against our allies.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    GeoffM said:

    No evidence there that she thought it was untrue, no evidence that she got hired or paid more because of it, so your "indisputable" claim is disputable at both ends.

    She began to claim minority status when she joined the U. Penn. Law School, and specifically in connection with establishing herself for continued employment purposes as a minority. The three 'points' you've stated yourself you've just made up in order to knock down. Only your second made up point (got hired) can be argued through witness recollections in relation to the Harvard application. The others didn't happen, which presumably is why you are making a big thing of saying they didn't happen.

    You've either made up a Straw Indian to defend her or you aren't aware of the real problems with her odd claims.



    You made a specific claim, that she lied about her heritage for a salary, and that's what I'm disputing. She only lied if she doesn't have native American heritage and knew she didn't, but she may in fact have native American heritage, and in any case had reason to think she did. She only did it for a salary if there's a connection between her salary and her heritage, and there's no evidence that there is.

    But as far as the political implications go, it's good late night comedian stuff but it wouldn't swing an election.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    @edmund @GeoffM heartily recommend Tony Cascarino's Autobiography (Ghostwritten by Paul Kimmage, incidentally) in which his whole Ireland Soccer career was based on misinformation about his Grandparents. Interesting book, as sporting biographies go
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    Boys and their toys.

    3 points for discussion regarding Syria

    Putin's military, I believe, has been given a makeover with regards as to the capability and hardware. When you've got the toys, the boys will want to play with them.

    The US has the toys, the capability, plus the pork barrel politics to ensure that the toys and capacity continues. If you have new toys, you want to play with them.

    Cameron, through Fox, got rid of the carriers, upgraded Harriers and Nimrods, then cut the UK's capacity which means we will, if required, be flying out of Cyprus which won't please the Greek's, Turkey, Cypriot's, Israel or Egypt.

    Our grunts on the ground are knackered, through cuts in manpower, leading to faster, continuous recycling through war zones.

    Oh! But goodie, we have some drones which can be flown from a desk in deepest England. The Russians, like most of the other nations will have been thinking of countering the weapons. Against a non industrialised country like Afghanistan or Iraq, no problem. Against a prepared and capable force, it will be like the air forces of the first world war, in which, due to advances in technology, one side was able to destroy the opposition force very quickly before new technology on the other side caused a balance of sorts to occur.

    However, with the best will in the world, I can't see the UK coming up with new toys fast enough, when we do not have the capability or capacity to do so. We will have to survive on the scraps and cast offs from the USA and other more capable nations.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Edin_Rokz said:

    Boys and their toys.

    3 points for discussion regarding Syria

    Putin's military, I believe, has been given a makeover with regards as to the capability and hardware. When you've got the toys, the boys will want to play with them.

    The US has the toys, the capability, plus the pork barrel politics to ensure that the toys and capacity continues. If you have new toys, you want to play with them.

    Cameron, through Fox, got rid of the carriers, upgraded Harriers and Nimrods, then cut the UK's capacity which means we will, if required, be flying out of Cyprus which won't please the Greek's, Turkey, Cypriot's, Israel or Egypt.

    Our grunts on the ground are knackered, through cuts in manpower, leading to faster, continuous recycling through war zones.

    Oh! But goodie, we have some drones which can be flown from a desk in deepest England. The Russians, like most of the other nations will have been thinking of countering the weapons. Against a non industrialised country like Afghanistan or Iraq, no problem. Against a prepared and capable force, it will be like the air forces of the first world war, in which, due to advances in technology, one side was able to destroy the opposition force very quickly before new technology on the other side caused a balance of sorts to occur.

    However, with the best will in the world, I can't see the UK coming up with new toys fast enough, when we do not have the capability or capacity to do so. We will have to survive on the scraps and cast offs from the USA and other more capable nations.

    "Cameron, through Fox, got rid of the carriers, upgraded Harriers and Nimrods, then cut the UK's capacity which means we will, if required, be flying out of Cyprus which won't please the Greek's, Turkey, Cypriot's, Israel or Egypt. "

    Not this old meme. The aircraft carriers were pointless without aircraft, and Hoon got rid of the Sea Harrier FA2 around 2006. The coalition did cut the GR7/9's, but the RAF had been rather reticent to fly them off RN ships. You see, that would have made Hoon's stupid Joint Force Harrier scheme work, and the RAF didn't want the RN getting their grubby little mitts on the toys.

    Remember, in 2005 Labour decommissioned HMS Invincible, which then sat at Portsmouth without engines, apparently ready to go to sea within six months (later eighteen). Despite the fact the cannibalisation was done to get spares for the sister ships because they could not get spares. In the meantime, ask yourself what happened to the crew of the ship, and how long it would have taken the RN to train up a brand new crew for Invincible.

    In the meantime, Ark Royal and Lusty were used as glorified helicopter carriers, with a Harrier actually landing on them being seen as an event and not routine. That was because Joint Force Harrier had allowed the RAF to nick almost all the planes.

    As for Nimrod MRA4: anyone who knows anything about that project can see what an utter hideous balls-up it was. People associate with Nimrod because of its long service and illustrious name. Sadly the MRA4 project should have been scrapped a decade earlier, the moment they realised that airframes made in the 1960s were not made to the same precision as today, and that the new wings did not fit.

    Sadly, as ever bureaucratic inertia kept the project going.

    I'd like to see your argument about why the carriers should have been kept without planes to fly them off (*), why the Tornado should have been scrapped instead of the Harriers, and why the Nimrod MRA4 project should have been kept going.

    (*) Lusty is still in use as a helicopter carrier until the end of HMS Ocean's refit.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Edin_Rokz said:


    Cameron, through Fox, got rid of the carriers, upgraded Harriers and Nimrods, then cut the UK's capacity which means we will, if required, be flying out of Cyprus which won't please the Greek's, Turkey, Cypriot's, Israel or Egypt.

    Is the defence procurement timeline that short? I wouldn't have thought Cameron's decisions had had time to work through to what can be done now.
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    Hiya Josias,

    How soon after the Harrier's were sold off to the US Marines for spare parts and our carriers effectively decommissioned, the Nimrods chopped literally, did the Libya spring start which would have used the same effectively?

    We then had to use Typhoons from a base in Italy. Vastly over expensively equipped for the job they were not set up for. We couldn't even use the George Cross island of Malta which would have made more tactical sense probably from political problems but we don't have the set up to send the RAF equipment and resources except, expensively, by, for crying out loud, road.

    Cameron even sent in a special forces unit, supposedly to make contact with the "rebels" and promptly got themselves arrested. Seemingly, the Captain of a RN ship in the harbour picking up EU nationals had to intercede to get them out.

    In his haste to equal Blair's record in taking effective action in Sierra Leone and Yugoslavia, Cameron has shown that he may have the brains but not the ability. Now he wants his own version of the Iraq debacle.

    Edmund, the procurement in the UK goes to BAE, a company that with due respect has not the most brilliant record in the supply of weapons to the UK military. Massive delays, cost over runs etc..

    Regrettably, I have to sympathise with them, due to the meddling by politicians and/or civil servants with "brilliant" ideas wanting immediate and therefore expensive changes to the original plans.
  • Compare the headlines above for the 2 polls. In the first OGH highlights the negatives for DC and the Tories while in the second he ignores the positives for the Tories. The bias is beginning to reach BBC proportions.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Edin_Rokz said:

    Hiya Josias,

    How soon after the Harrier's were sold off to the US Marines for spare parts and our carriers effectively decommissioned, the Nimrods chopped literally, did the Libya spring start which would have used the same effectively?

    We then had to use Typhoons from a base in Italy. Vastly over expensively equipped for the job they were not set up for. We couldn't even use the George Cross island of Malta which would have made more tactical sense probably from political problems but we don't have the set up to send the RAF equipment and resources except, expensively, by, for crying out loud, road.

    Cameron even sent in a special forces unit, supposedly to make contact with the "rebels" and promptly got themselves arrested. Seemingly, the Captain of a RN ship in the harbour picking up EU nationals had to intercede to get them out.

    In his haste to equal Blair's record in taking effective action in Sierra Leone and Yugoslavia, Cameron has shown that he may have the brains but not the ability. Now he wants his own version of the Iraq debacle.

    Edmund, the procurement in the UK goes to BAE, a company that with due respect has not the most brilliant record in the supply of weapons to the UK military. Massive delays, cost over runs etc..

    Regrettably, I have to sympathise with them, due to the meddling by politicians and/or civil servants with "brilliant" ideas wanting immediate and therefore expensive changes to the original plans.

    How could the Libyan spring in 2011 have used Nimrods, which were not even scheduled to have reached IOC until October 2012? A couple were flying, but they were very much still under development.

    And we could not have used the Harriers there, as the RAF would have been using them in Afghanistan. And the RN and FAA weren't exactly current in flying them off the carriers.

    One of the problems is that we were spending far too much on small amounts of specific capabilities. Either we increased funding, or scrapped projects. Personally I'd have increased the MOD's funding, but I can see why that was a political non-starter.

    Still, this is a very old thread now.
This discussion has been closed.