Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Blue and the Purple – the threat of a Tory civil war ov

124»

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Mr Dancer, a good suggestion of Alonso for P3, he missed it by only a whisker.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Back from cricket, now trying to hurriedly reschedule tomorrow morning's meetings!

    At least you'll have no probem finding a seat!
    True, unfortunately there's not much enthusiasm for Test cricket outside the Ashes any more. The shorter games will be much busier though. It was a good atmosphere yesterday among about 3,000 fans, a mixture of English and Pakistanis, expats and visitors. And they fixed the problem from last year where you couldn't take beers into the stands - fixed with opaque blue plastic cups rather than clear glass ones!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    "I also do not see how the roles of Keitel/Jodl/Doenitz/Raeder differed significantly from those of Alanbrooke/Marshall/Eisenhower/Portal etc on the Allied side - they were all obeying the orders of political masters. "

    Maybe some more reading might help you understand the difference.

    Perhaps you would gain from reading the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trial as I have done - it took me two years.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cyclefree said:
    Whatever happened to students' unions being bastions of free speech? Completely bonkers and silly not-thought-through-properly arguments, but free speech none the less. With the rise of the illiberal liberals, is political correctness about to eat itself?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    Re Trident..whatever it takes..nobody buys a new car and keeps it in the garage..
  • MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:



    That's right, with a caveat.

    The reason Pedro Coelho of Portugal Ahead has told the President that he can continue in government is that he doesn't believe the three left wing parties - the Socialist Party, the Left Block and the Democratic Socialists (Communists) - will be able to defeat him in a vote of confidence.

    Portugal Ahead got 39% of the vote, 7% ahead of the PS. And a number of PS deputies are in open revolt about the possibility of going into coalition with the Left Block and the Communists. (Before the election, quite a few explicitly ruled out a coalition with them.) The Simon Dancsuks of the PS are unhappy, essentially, about being pushed around by the Jeremy Corbyns.

    There is a final caveat: with the vote being so close, it is entirely possible that Andre Silva of the People-Animals-Nature party will be the decider.

    Irrespective, I think it is likely Portugal will be having more elections before long. I don't believe that PaF will be able to govern without a majority, unless PS splits. And I don't believe PS-BE-CDU will be hold together for long: simply, they are ideologically miles apart, with some pro-NATO, Euro-enthusiast in PS, and some quit NATO and the EU in the CDU.

    Really helpful update, thanks. Telegraph readers, come to PB for rational explanations!

    Incidentally, we animal welfare types are gradually gaining ground - several MPs in the Netherlands and polls promising a further leap next time, and embryonic efforts here and there including London. The idea isn't to win power and give votes to bluebottles, but to make the big parties think "Oh, hell, I suppose we need to do something for animal welfare to see off this splinter group". As a way of translating single-issue passions into electoral politics, it's not totally daft.
    I think UKIP are a much better example. 10 years ago the idea of an in/out referendum was laughed at, and yet here we are with the Tories putting our membership to a public vote. Without pressure from UKIP it would not have happened.
    I don't agree. I think 81 Tory MPs rebelling and voting for an EU referendum had a far greater impact than the zero UKIP MPs doing the same. Cameron pledged a referendum within months of that rebellion occurring.
    And how many of those Tory MPs would have voted that way had they not feared the threat they believed UKIP posed to their sests?
    I suspect either all or nearly all of them. Have you got a reason to think they were dishonest in their beliefs and didn't genuinely if not passionately believe in it?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    As suggested repeatedly by enthusiastic Tridentineys, it looks like £100 billion for Trident II was way off the mark.

    Far too low.

    'Exclusive: UK nuclear deterrent to cost 167 billion pounds, far more than expected

    In a written parliamentary response to Crispin Blunt, a lawmaker in Cameron's Conservative party, Minister of State for Defense Procurement Philip Dunne said on Friday the acquisition of four new submarines would cost 25 billion pounds.
    He added that the in-service costs would be about 6 percent of the annual defense budget over their lifetime. The total defense budget for 2014/15 reached 33.8 billion pounds and rises to 34.1 billion pounds in 2015/16, according to the ministry.
    "My office's calculation based on an in-service date of 2028 and a missile extension until 2060 ... the total cost is 167 billion pounds," Blunt told Reuters.'

    http://tinyurl.com/qxrzm66

    What time period is that over ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Quite entertaining qualifying. Working on the pre-race piece.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Whatever happened to students' unions being bastions of free speech? Completely bonkers and silly not-thought-through-properly arguments, but free speech none the less. With the rise of the illiberal liberals, is political correctness about to eat itself?
    I think "illiberals" would be a good term for the new left.
  • Pulpstar said:

    As suggested repeatedly by enthusiastic Tridentineys, it looks like £100 billion for Trident II was way off the mark.

    Far too low.

    'Exclusive: UK nuclear deterrent to cost 167 billion pounds, far more than expected

    In a written parliamentary response to Crispin Blunt, a lawmaker in Cameron's Conservative party, Minister of State for Defense Procurement Philip Dunne said on Friday the acquisition of four new submarines would cost 25 billion pounds.
    He added that the in-service costs would be about 6 percent of the annual defense budget over their lifetime. The total defense budget for 2014/15 reached 33.8 billion pounds and rises to 34.1 billion pounds in 2015/16, according to the ministry.
    "My office's calculation based on an in-service date of 2028 and a missile extension until 2060 ... the total cost is 167 billion pounds," Blunt told Reuters.'

    http://tinyurl.com/qxrzm66

    What time period is that over ?
    I'm assuming 2060 though that would seem to involve another extension to the life of the missiles (according to Wiki they're currently going to be extended to 2042).
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Sean_F said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11953566/Hard-left-Labour-advisors-will-be-forced-to-fall-into-line-warns-John-McDonnell.html

    Hard-left advisors to Labour will be made to fall into line and serve the party, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, has warned, as he admitted that the killing of Lee Rigby was a terrorist offence.

    Mr McDonnell was forced to clarify comments made by Seumas Milne, the party's new Director of Communications, after he claimed Mr Rigby's murder was not "terrorism in the normal sense" because he was serving in the armed forces.
    What was it that was said about when the spin doctor becomes the story? He's only been there 72 hours and already shadow ministers are having to defend him in public for describing a murder as justified!
    Seamus Milne was a very strange choice.

    Yes. Although I do find it odd that people are going hard on the Lee Rigby quote. It was the one area where he is technically right: typically terrorism is considered to target civilians.

    What was far more appalling was the apologism for Stalinism.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Whatever happened to students' unions being bastions of free speech? Completely bonkers and silly not-thought-through-properly arguments, but free speech none the less. With the rise of the illiberal liberals, is political correctness about to eat itself?
    Student unions have never been bastions of free speech. Rather bastions of prejudice and intolerance.

    In my day, it was No Platform. Now, it's safe spaces and the right to be comfortable.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Am I imagining things, or did Malc and I just have fairly inoffensive posts deleted?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    justin124 said:

    murali_s said:

    So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.

    No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.

    That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.

    Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
    That was not quite the experience of Keitel and Jodl.
    OK, I stand corrected on that count, including by Richard Tyndall.

    However, as Sean F states downthread, the AG's judgement that the war was legal should be enough to clear anyone on that count.

    I rather suspect that the wish is the father of the belief with many of those who want Blair prosecuted.
    Yes, but it does get a bit dodgy when they sacked the chief legal adviser to appoint one who gave them the legal advice they wanted, and when the original legal advice from the AG was changed under pressure from No 10.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:



    That's right, with a caveat.

    The reason Pedro Coelho of Portugal Ahead has told the President that he can continue in government is that he doesn't believe the three left wing parties - the Socialist Party, the Left Block and the Democratic Socialists (Communists) - will be able to defeat him in a vote of confidence.

    Portugal Ahead got 39% of the vote, 7% ahead of the PS. And a number of PS deputies are in open revolt about the possibility of going into coalition with the Left Block and the Communists. (Before the election, quite a few explicitly ruled out a coalition with them.) The Simon Dancsuks of the PS are unhappy, essentially, about being pushed around by the Jeremy Corbyns.

    There is a final caveat: with the vote being so close, it is entirely possible that Andre Silva of the People-Animals-Nature party will be the decider.

    Irrespective, I think it is likely Portugal will be having more elections before long. I don't believe that PaF will be able to govern without a majority, unless PS splits. And I don't believe PS-BE-CDU will be hold together for long: simply, they are ideologically miles apart, with some pro-NATO, Euro-enthusiast in PS, and some quit NATO and the EU in the CDU.

    Really helpful update, thanks. Telegraph readers, come to PB for rational explanations!

    Incidentally, we animal welfare types are gradually gaining ground - several MPs in the Netherlands and polls promising a further leap next time, and embryonic efforts here and there including London. The idea isn't to win power and give votes to bluebottles, but to make the big parties think "Oh, hell, I suppose we need to do something for animal welfare to see off this splinter group". As a way of translating single-issue passions into electoral politics, it's not totally daft.
    I think UKIP are a much better example. 10 years ago the idea of an in/out referendum was laughed at, and yet here we are with the Tories putting our membership to a public vote. Without pressure from UKIP it would not have happened.
    I don't agree. I think 81 Tory MPs rebelling and voting for an EU referendum had a far greater impact than the zero UKIP MPs doing the same. Cameron pledged a referendum within months of that rebellion occurring.
    And how many of those Tory MPs would have voted that way had they not feared the threat they believed UKIP posed to their sests?
    It's a classic good cop/bad cop. Cameron to concede a referendum to the good cop, in case he ended up having to deal with the bad cop.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    justin124 said:

    murali_s said:

    So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.

    No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.

    That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.

    Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
    Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.

    I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
    I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!

    I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
    The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"

    Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
    US/UK humbug and hypocrisy at its zenith!
    You seriously think that there was nothing to prosecute at Nuremburg that was worse than what the Allies had done?

    The war guilt clause in Versailles is a far clearer case of victor's justice.
    It was certainly a stronger case than Nuremburg, but only in the sense that in the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is King. Germany was rightfully blamed for starting the first world war.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Incidentally, my bet on Alonso to reach Q3 didn't come off. Not sure if it'll be made null and void, but to be honest, I don't think it should be. If he'd had a top 10 time and Q3 hadn't been run, I'd be pissed off at not getting paid, so can't complain if it counts as a loss rather than being voided.

    Got a few bets in minds but Ladbrokes are being a little sleepy.

    Glad to see McLaren being a little bit sharper.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656



    The Czech Republic does have a history of a functional working democracy pre-1989 though. It might only just have been within living memory for some and out of it for most but something of that culture or collective memory seems to have survived. By contrast, for many other countries east of the Iron Curtain the communist dictatorships were simply the latest interpretation of an autocratic model which had existed since time immemorial.

    Yes, that's a good point. More generally, I know people who aren't especially left or right wing who feel that we assume too readily that freedom and democracy are a sine qua non for enjoyable life, and think that we are too eager to overthrow functioning autocracies which are holding things together - they cite everything from Tito to Saddam to Gaddafi to Assad - and then express naive dismay when the area descends into brutal anarchy. Encouraging the autocracies to inch towards greater freedom is sometimes the more promising route.

    The case where one needs to be particularly careful is where the country is an artificial amalgamation of a number of rival groups. In such cases - Yugoslavia is the obvious example - then one messes with it at extreme peril.
    All countries are artificial amalgamations of a number of ethnic groups. Germany had the Prussians, Sorbs, Bavarians, etc. Britain has the English, Welsh, Scots etc. France has the Bretons, Corsicans, Occitans etc. The academic literature suggests its not problematic to have lots of ethnic group, except in one situation: where one group has a slight majority.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    JEO said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sandpit said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11953566/Hard-left-Labour-advisors-will-be-forced-to-fall-into-line-warns-John-McDonnell.html

    Hard-left advisors to Labour will be made to fall into line and serve the party, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, has warned, as he admitted that the killing of Lee Rigby was a terrorist offence.

    Mr McDonnell was forced to clarify comments made by Seumas Milne, the party's new Director of Communications, after he claimed Mr Rigby's murder was not "terrorism in the normal sense" because he was serving in the armed forces.
    What was it that was said about when the spin doctor becomes the story? He's only been there 72 hours and already shadow ministers are having to defend him in public for describing a murder as justified!
    Seamus Milne was a very strange choice.
    Yes. Although I do find it odd that people are going hard on the Lee Rigby quote. It was the one area where he is technically right: typically terrorism is considered to target civilians.

    What was far more appalling was the apologism for Stalinism.


    There's something for everyone...
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. HYUFD, thanks for the correction :)

    Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).

    I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.

    Mr. Notme, not seen Vikings.

    Once you've watched a show in which the teenage *heroine* conducts human sacrifice, burns people alive, nails people to crosses, locks a girl in a vault to starve, feeds a man alive to a dragon, everything else probably seems a little tame by comparison.
    I always assumed Daenerys Targaryen was being set up as the ultimate villain: the Mad Queen.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Latest CBS 2016 polls, caveat emptor it's yougov :

    https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/658290468443152384

    https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/10/25/clinton-surges-early-states-carson-levels-trump-io/

    Iowa

    Hillary 46
    Sanders 43

    Trump 27
    Carson 27
    Cruz 12

    N.Hampshire

    Sanders 54
    Hillary 39

    Trump 38
    Carson 12
    Bush 8

    S.Carolina

    Hillary 68
    Sanders 25

    Trump 40
    Carson 23
    Cruz 8

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. JEO, the ultimate villain is Hodor. I've exclusively seen a sneak peek of his victory speech.

    "Hodor," Hodor said, glaring at his most hated foe. "Hodor Hodor. Hodor." He started to laugh and cut his adversary in two. "Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor. HODOR!"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2015

    Incidentally, my bet on Alonso to reach Q3 didn't come off. Not sure if it'll be made null and void, but to be honest, I don't think it should be. If he'd had a top 10 time and Q3 hadn't been run, I'd be pissed off at not getting paid, so can't complain if it counts as a loss rather than being voided.

    Got a few bets in minds but Ladbrokes are being a little sleepy.

    Glad to see McLaren being a little bit sharper.

    Mr Dancer, I would think that bets "To Reach Q3" are paid out at the conclusion of P2, requiring qualification to compete in Q3 rather than actually taking part in that session

    Should be a good race for outside bets, literally anything could happen. Points for McLaren, Sauber and even Manor might be worth a punt. Alternately we could end up with 10 laps behind the safety car followed by a red flag and half points. Talking of which, the safety car is a back at any odds, it's got to be 1/100 to appear.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited October 2015
    Mr. Sandpit, glanced at a forecast (my thinking had been the same) and it may be dry.

    Edited extra bit: Safety Car is 1.39 on Betfair. May still be value but I dislike such stingy odds.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    More and more of my Conservative friends are starting to post pro-mass immigration posts on Facebook using the well worn shibboleths of the Left, including referring to 'myths' propagated by a xenophobic media.

    Very worrying. I'm starting to feel like parts of the party are leaving me.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Royale, seems odd to me.

    The 'xenophobic media' is mildly amusing given broadcast media's one-eyed slant on the subject.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    More and more of my Conservative friends are starting to post pro-mass immigration posts on Facebook using the well worn shibboleths of the Left, including referring to 'myths' propagated by a xenophobic media.

    Very worrying. I'm starting to feel like parts of the party are leaving me.

    Just respond to them. We should not allow the illiberal left to control the conversation by silencing the majority that disagrees via social pressure.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    @Morris_Dancer

    I've just bought Witcher III from Tesco's. And it's downloading the

    18gb

    Update file it needs to play.

    What a ridiculous state of affairs, when I need 18gbs of updates to even play the game.

    Harumph.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Good posts antifrank, although i don't think Cameron is quite as partisan as you imply or that the Conserative party is starting to have stress fractures along those lines.

    It's worth remembering that Davis, Fox and Patterson were all invited by Cameron to serve in cabinet. Davis quit (we'll never truly know why, and perhaps he felt Cameron wasn't listening to him anyway, but he did jump) and Fox was forced out by his own poor judgement.

    Paterson was the only one truly sacked, for which I'm still not clear, but he also demoted Gove - a longstanding ally. And IDS and Grayling are still there, as are Hands and Patel who are also on the Right.

    I think it's fairer to say that he's happy to have members from the Right in his team, so long as they keep their noses clean. If they do jump, he's less forgiving than perhaps he might be for those from his inner circle.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,997

    justin124 said:

    No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.

    That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.

    Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.

    Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.

    I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
    I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!

    I'd want to check the details but I don't th.
    The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"

    Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
    US/UK humbug and hypocrisy at its zenith!
    The winner takes it all.

    Of course when it comes to humbug it was the Russians who were the worst culprit. It was they who actively planned, initiated and engaged in the early invasions that started WW2 alongside the Germans and who were just as guilty of war crimes as the Germans in the first 18 months of the war. But in the end they were on the winning side so got away with it.
    To be fair, the Soviets never claimed that Nuremburg was about establishing moral superiority. Stalin was more than happy to (and proposed to) shoot 50,000 German officers / leaders and do without the admin of a trial.
    Churchill wanted to issue proscriptions a la Sulla or the second Triumvirate, after establishing identity the leading Nazis would have been shot out of hand.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    JEO said:

    More and more of my Conservative friends are starting to post pro-mass immigration posts on Facebook using the well worn shibboleths of the Left, including referring to 'myths' propagated by a xenophobic media.

    Very worrying. I'm starting to feel like parts of the party are leaving me.

    Just respond to them. We should not allow the illiberal left to control the conversation by silencing the majority that disagrees via social pressure.
    They respond just as intemperately and emotionally to criticism as those on the traditional Left.

    It's something to bring up privately in conversation. Not on facebook.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    All my Conservative friends are saying exactly the opposite as in...we have enough..any more must be tightly controlled.. and from the camps..
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    More and more of my Conservative friends are starting to post pro-mass immigration posts on Facebook using the well worn shibboleths of the Left, including referring to 'myths' propagated by a xenophobic media.

    Very worrying. I'm starting to feel like parts of the party are leaving me.

    That shouldn't surprise you, the modern conservative party is a social liberal party just with spending cuts and tax rises.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited October 2015
    Mr. 1000, there are quite a few patches, but I did play before any of them (PS4) and there are few serious bugs. It's mostly improvements and additions rather than mending woe.

    Also, there are 16 free pieces of DLC (small stuff, extra quests, alternate looks for characters/cards, and extra items [which you still have to buy]).

    You may be harrumphing now, but I predict that when you've gotten into the game, you'll rather like it.

    That said, I share your dislike of many patches, and day 1 patching, and that nonsense. I want the game to work from the disc and not have online patches become a crutch for unfinished products.

    Edited extra bit: still waiting for Ladbrokes to put up all their markets, perhaps halfway there now.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    This was the poster that was posted, to which - ironically - I can see several baseless anecdotes and unsubstantiated 'facts' in straight away:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/junayed_/status/650578014695243776
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Speedy said:

    Latest CBS 2016 polls, caveat emptor it's yougov :

    https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/658290468443152384

    https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/10/25/clinton-surges-early-states-carson-levels-trump-io/

    Iowa

    Hillary 46
    Sanders 43

    Trump 27
    Carson 27
    Cruz 12

    N.Hampshire

    Sanders 54
    Hillary 39

    Trump 38
    Carson 12
    Bush 8

    S.Carolina

    Hillary 68
    Sanders 25

    Trump 40
    Carson 23
    Cruz 8

    Iowa and NH positions exactly match Bloomberg, Carson leading Iowa, Trump NH, polls also suggest Clinton ahead in Iowa and SC, Sanders NH so again looks correct. Interesting that Cruz now third in 2/3 early states, Bush just 1
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    All my Conservative friends are saying exactly the opposite as in...we have enough..any more must be tightly controlled.. and from the camps..

    I think Sean Fear got it right the other day when he said there was a sharp divide opening up.

    But it's on immigration, not Europe.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    JEO said:

    justin124 said:



    No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.

    That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.

    Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.

    Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.

    I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
    I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!

    I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
    The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"

    Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
    US/UK humbug and hypocrisy at its zenith!
    You seriously think that there was nothing to prosecute at Nuremburg that was worse than what the Allies had done?

    The war guilt clause in Versailles is a far clearer case of victor's justice.
    It was certainly a stronger case than Nuremburg, but only in the sense that in the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is King. Germany was rightfully blamed for starting the first world war.
    That remains very contentious. Russia was as much to blame as anyone but Russia was (1) on the Allied side and therefore would have implicated the victors and (2) was in no position to pay.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Speedy said:

    More and more of my Conservative friends are starting to post pro-mass immigration posts on Facebook using the well worn shibboleths of the Left, including referring to 'myths' propagated by a xenophobic media.

    Very worrying. I'm starting to feel like parts of the party are leaving me.

    That shouldn't surprise you, the modern conservative party is a social liberal party just with spending cuts and tax rises.
    Yes, it's not far off being a fiscally dry New Labour - or, at least, it will be if Osborne wins.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    More and more of my Conservative friends are starting to post pro-mass immigration posts on Facebook using the well worn shibboleths of the Left, including referring to 'myths' propagated by a xenophobic media.

    Very worrying. I'm starting to feel like parts of the party are leaving me.

    I wouldn't worry too much. They will eventually change their minds when they see what happens to countries such as Sweden.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. SE, vielleicht. Lots of people come to a conclusion and look for the evidence, rather than examining the evidence and using it to reach a conclusion.

    F1: getting a bit bored waiting for Ladbrokes...
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656



    That remains very contentious. Russia was as much to blame as anyone but Russia was (1) on the Allied side and therefore would have implicated the victors and (2) was in no position to pay.

    Yes, but it was an entirely different regime in Russia post-war, that had nothing to do with the one involved in starting it.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    new thread

Sign In or Register to comment.