Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Great Corbyn leader rating divide

13

Comments

  • "Philip Hammond comes across very well, but the conservatives are automatons, slavishly parroting the latest soundbite. "

    Yeah, I'd agree with that in a lot of cases. They've learnt well from Big Al.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Jonathan said:


    It needed to be said. I am glad he said it.

    Otoh 'opportunistic little shit' Ed (© PB) prevented the UK from indulging in a doubtless tokenistic bombing of Assad, thus depriving the nation of the sight of a flushed Dave explaining why we bore no responsibility for the rise of ISIS. I'm sure PB Tories are suitably grateful.
    The views of the no-bombing crowd were to do nothing. Most offered no practical alternative, and few warned of the dangers of no action, instead priding themselves in having shafted the government.

    So we did nothing, and we have ended up with a massive migration problem that is somewhat threatening the EU's existence, the conflict spreading to neighbouring countries, and increased terrorism.

    Knowingly doing nothing is as much a decision and action as doing something. The no-bombing crowd hold some responsibility for the current situation, just as the crowd in favour of bombing would have to have been for the situation afterwards if it had gone ahead.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    It's probably been said down thread but interpretation of this sort of thing depends much on the eye of the beholder. Corbyn's rabble won't look past Ipsos-MORI
  • Jonathan said:


    It needed to be said. I am glad he said it.

    Otoh 'opportunistic little shit' Ed (© PB) prevented the UK from indulging in a doubtless tokenistic bombing of Assad, thus depriving the nation of the sight of a flushed Dave explaining why we bore no responsibility for the rise of ISIS. I'm sure PB Tories are suitably grateful.
    The views of the no-bombing crowd were to do nothing. Most offered no practical alternative, and few warned of the dangers of no action, instead priding themselves in having shafted the government.

    So we did nothing, and we have ended up with a massive migration problem that is somewhat threatening the EU's existence, the conflict spreading to neighbouring countries, and increased terrorism.

    Knowingly doing nothing is as much a decision and action as doing something. The no-bombing crowd hold some responsibility for the current situation, just as the crowd in favour of bombing would have to have been for the situation afterwards if it had gone ahead.
    Yes.

    That we did nothing for such trite and trivial reasons puts a lot of blood on Ed's hands.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Good morning all.

    OT: this article is not bad on the whole Syria/ISIS/ME tarbaby:

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/20/the-threat-is-already-inside-uncomfortable-truths-terrorism-isis/
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    watford30 said:

    Nimrods were getting old and dangerous. The RAF lost one in Afghanistan due to a massive fuel leak and subsequent explosion, and there was the increased risk of similar accident with another.

    Whenever people moan about the Nimrod MRA4 being cancelled, they never acknowledge that those aircraft have had a history of serious problems that have caused trouble for multiple programmes. I don't know if the Boeing P-8 Poseidon is the right aircraft, but it is probably better and cheaper than anything we would have built by going it alone.

    Keeping Sentinel running, buying Rivet Joint, buying the P-8, buying the extended range Reaper, keeping more Typhoons operational, are all good decisions. Whispers it quietly but maybe the MOD/Treasury are doing a decent job.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited November 2015
    LondonBob said:

    JackW said:

    I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.

    Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.

    No it is a daft position. The Syrian Civil War has been a conflict completely contrived by outside powers. As the wikileaks document from the US Ambassador in 2006 confirms.
    https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

    http://ericmargolis.com/2015/07/destroying-syria-to-make-it-safe-for-american-values/
    An estimated 250,000 have died in the Syrian Civil War, 40,000 of those have been foreign Salafists fighting for the rebels. I wish the Syrian people good luck in expelling these foreign invaders who have devastated their country. 100,000 Syrians have died fighting for their country, hopefully now that the SAA and allied government militias are making real progress the slaughter will stop. Their needs to a reckoning for the KSA, Turkey, Qatar, Israel as well as reform of 'our' own government, it is a wicked and terrible thing we have done.
    Absolutely correct and until people realize that the only hope for a future in that blighted country is to support the Assad government whatever America's allies (Israel Turkey and Saudi Arabia) might want this won't be resolved.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    edited November 2015
    JackW said:

    I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.

    Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.

    Haven't there been droughts in some US states for a number of years now? Have those droughts had similar effects? And, if not, why not? Perhaps Charles might care to look more closely and then come back with his considered views. As it is, he gives the impression of regurgitating the views of whoever last spoke to him. And, more importantly, the key quality we need from a royal family is to be, to be seen, to be a cipher and a symbol and not, really, to be heard at all, especially when the person we are hearing from is really not very bright but thinks he has some special insight largely because, I would guess, no-one around him challenges him and tells him that he is talking balls. Being dutiful and a bit dim are admirable qualities in a monarch; not so admirable in someone who seeks to pontificate on complex matters.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Jonathan said:


    It needed to be said. I am glad he said it.

    Otoh 'opportunistic little shit' Ed (© PB) prevented the UK from indulging in a doubtless tokenistic bombing of Assad, thus depriving the nation of the sight of a flushed Dave explaining why we bore no responsibility for the rise of ISIS. I'm sure PB Tories are suitably grateful.
    The views of the no-bombing crowd were to do nothing. Most offered no practical alternative, and few warned of the dangers of no action, instead priding themselves in having shafted the government.

    So we did nothing, and we have ended up with a massive migration problem that is somewhat threatening the EU's existence, the conflict spreading to neighbouring countries, and increased terrorism.

    Knowingly doing nothing is as much a decision and action as doing something. The no-bombing crowd hold some responsibility for the current situation, just as the crowd in favour of bombing would have to have been for the situation afterwards if it had gone ahead.
    Yes.

    That we did nothing for such trite and trivial reasons puts a lot of blood on Ed's hands.
    While firmly in the 'Ed was crap' camp, I think we're in danger of over-estimating the impact bombing would have had (and will have). People have been over-egging air power for decades. It's particularly ineffective against insurgencies, particularly with our Western RoEs.
  • Mr. Roger, based on where we are today, I agree.

    It's Assad or ISIS. A few years ago the FSA was a credible alternative.

    Assad's regime has done terrible things, but given those two options, he's Stalin to ISIS' Hitler.

    There is, however, the Kurdish issue. Trying to force them off land they won from ISIS would not be on, but letting them keep it (even if Assad would be ok with that, given he would at least still be around) would seriously irritate Turkey.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Matthew Holehouse
    Politicians call for break-up of newspapers to punish unflattering coverage. Sort of thing you hear in Latin America https://t.co/4gwyNRwgPx
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    glw said:

    watford30 said:

    Nimrods were getting old and dangerous. The RAF lost one in Afghanistan due to a massive fuel leak and subsequent explosion, and there was the increased risk of similar accident with another.

    Whenever people moan about the Nimrod MRA4 being cancelled, they never acknowledge that those aircraft have had a history of serious problems that have caused trouble for multiple programmes. I don't know if the Boeing P-8 Poseidon is the right aircraft, but it is probably better and cheaper than anything we would have built by going it alone.

    A certain defence contractor would have gone down the same route as before, and finding some ancient air frames lurking in a hangar, thought 'Ah ha, lets flog them to the MoD in a new guise'. Which rumour has it, is what happened before.
  • notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
    The Queen Mother......
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited November 2015
    glw said:

    watford30 said:

    Nimrods were getting old and dangerous. The RAF lost one in Afghanistan due to a massive fuel leak and subsequent explosion, and there was the increased risk of similar accident with another.

    Whenever people moan about the Nimrod MRA4 being cancelled, they never acknowledge that those aircraft have had a history of serious problems that have caused trouble for multiple programmes. I don't know if the Boeing P-8 Poseidon is the right aircraft, but it is probably better and cheaper than anything we would have built by going it alone.

    Keeping Sentinel running, buying Rivet Joint, buying the P-8, buying the extended range Reaper, keeping more Typhoons operational, are all good decisions. Whispers it quietly but maybe the MOD/Treasury are doing a decent job.
    I'd feel happier about that if the Yanks bought our tech more often, and were not so restrictive in their tech.

    As an example, the F35 was supposed to have two engine manufacturers. But congress cancelled the F136 engine being run by GE and Rolls Royce, leaving them with only one engine. And since then that engine has caused the program many problems.

    Rumours have it that the development and unit cost of that engine has also gone up a lot since the F136 was cancelled. That would not surprise me.

    Worse, the US insisted that development of the F136 had to take place in the US, and the tech could not be transferred back to the UK. Yet american companies got the benefit of the tech, and UK tech such as Rolls Royce's lift system and expertise has been transferred to the US.

    Edit: when the F136 was cancelled, the UK government should have threatened to totally pull out of the project in protest.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Matthew Holehouse
    Politicians call for break-up of newspapers to punish unflattering coverage. Sort of thing you hear in Latin America https://t.co/4gwyNRwgPx

    Or, sadly, Turkey. Erdogan's attempt to control the media has continued after he won the recent election.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    I'd feel happier about that if the Yanks bought our tech more often, and were not so restrictive in their tech.

    I generally agree, but we are more closely tied to the US defence industry than in the past, via BAE in the US and multiple US run programmes in the UK. I don't think we do too badly out of our relationship.
  • Mr. Jessop, indeed. Edrogan's a four letter word.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Mr. Roger, based on where we are today, I agree.

    It's Assad or ISIS. A few years ago the FSA was a credible alternative.

    Assad's regime has done terrible things, but given those two options, he's Stalin to ISIS' Hitler.

    There is, however, the Kurdish issue. Trying to force them off land they won from ISIS would not be on, but letting them keep it (even if Assad would be ok with that, given he would at least still be around) would seriously irritate Turkey.

    As I've said before, the answer is probably for the Kurds to have a semi-autonomous state in northern Syria, similar to the one they have in Iraq. Turkey were unhappy about it happening in Iraq, but they lived with it. I daresay they could be persuaded to live with it in Syria as well,, especially if it secures their borders and help their massive refugee problem.

    A separate Kurdish state would be a different matter.

    But that's only part of the answer. I hate the concept, but it might be best for Iraq and Syria to be split up. The populations clearly cannot live together. Yet evil consequences lie in that action as well.
  • What comes after 'damn lies' again?

    https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/668725037260779520
  • notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
    The Queen Mother......

    Ted Heath, Cyril Smith (just).*

    *Nothing else in common implied.
  • notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
    My 87 year old next door neighbour... (chairbound)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Mr. Divvie, or, if the UK had gotten involved, Obama may have as well, and the FSA (then still a fighting force) could have benefited.

    Our involvement in 2013 could have been disastrous (ISIS could have all Syria by now) or hugely helpful (we could have the FSA in charge, or at least the major rival to ISIS, rather than Assad).

    The FSA would never be a rival to ISIS, too many of them sympathise with ISIS (the FSA is a Sunni backed militant group) and the ones that don't are too few in number to really hold on to power vs ISIS.

    Our non-involvement was most definitely a net gain in 2013.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Jonathan said:


    It needed to be said. I am glad he said it.

    Otoh 'opportunistic little shit' Ed (© PB) prevented the UK from indulging in a doubtless tokenistic bombing of Assad, thus depriving the nation of the sight of a flushed Dave explaining why we bore no responsibility for the rise of ISIS. I'm sure PB Tories are suitably grateful.
    As I recall the Labour amendment was not to rule out tokenistic bombing, but delay it, and so if he is to be thanked for that it was unintentional, as reporting at the time indicated Cameron's taking of the defeat of labour's amendment and the government motion as having no wish for any action was not what Ed M expected.
  • Has Prince Charles been reading the New Scientist?

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27066-droughts-in-syria-and-california-linked-to-climate-change

    As a result of the drought, grain prices rose 27 per cent between 2008 and 2010, and mass migration into slums with few job opportunities meant that unemployment soared in a mostly young population – a recipe for unrest. Cities affected included Homs and Hama, where protests began in 2011.
  • notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
    The Queen Mother......

    Ted Heath, Cyril Smith (just).*

    *Nothing else in common implied.
    The Queen Mother was also far from being tee-total........
  • Jesus fucking wept. This man could be President in 12 months time

    Donald Trump, the leading candidate in the Republican presidential primary, tweeted a graphic with fake statistics about murders in the United States. The statistics are also racist and wildly inaccurate.

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/22/3724965/donald-trump-tweets-fake-racist-and-wildly-inaccurate-murder-statistics/
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Wasn't her tipple Dubonnet? Never tried it myself.

    notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
    The Queen Mother......

    Ted Heath, Cyril Smith (just).*

    *Nothing else in common implied.
    The Queen Mother was also far from being tee-total........
  • glw said:

    I'd feel happier about that if the Yanks bought our tech more often, and were not so restrictive in their tech.

    I generally agree, but we are more closely tied to the US defence industry than in the past, via BAE in the US and multiple US run programmes in the UK. I don't think we do too badly out of our relationship.
    Bae own a number of big US defence companies.
  • Mr. Eagles, a Corbyn-Trump situation would be like Arcadius and Honorius as emperors.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Chris_A said:

    I'm astounded the US government spends more public money on health than we do.

    Perhaps the NHS haters on here can explain why if the NHS is so bloated, inefficient, filled with useless managers, etc that we do so amazingly well on a pittance and achieve similar or better outcomes to countries which spend far more.

    https://twitter.com/EconBizFin/status/668467999653892096/photo/1

    If there is unsatisfied demand and limited supply you can either (a) ration by price or (b) ration by time.

    The US chooses route (a) we chose route (b). Both have pros and cons.

    There is also a specific issue in the US due to professional indemnity resulting in excessive consumption of diagnostic tools and proceedures.
  • kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:


    It needed to be said. I am glad he said it.

    Otoh 'opportunistic little shit' Ed (© PB) prevented the UK from indulging in a doubtless tokenistic bombing of Assad, thus depriving the nation of the sight of a flushed Dave explaining why we bore no responsibility for the rise of ISIS. I'm sure PB Tories are suitably grateful.
    Cameron's taking of the defeat of labour's amendment and the government motion as having no wish for any action was not what Ed M expected.
    I remember the stunned look on Ed's face when Cameron said that - his sixth form stunt had blown up in his - and the nation's face.

    Whether UK action would have made US action more likely I doubt, but it was not Ed's finest hour.....
  • Wasn't her tipple Dubonnet? Never tried it myself.

    notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
    The Queen Mother......

    Ted Heath, Cyril Smith (just).*

    *Nothing else in common implied.
    The Queen Mother was also far from being tee-total........
    I remember my mother liked it in the 70s - went fine with lemonade - tho the Queen Mother reputedly added gin......
  • notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
    My mother in law
  • Has Prince Charles been reading the New Scientist?

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27066-droughts-in-syria-and-california-linked-to-climate-change

    As a result of the drought, grain prices rose 27 per cent between 2008 and 2010, and mass migration into slums with few job opportunities meant that unemployment soared in a mostly young population – a recipe for unrest. Cities affected included Homs and Hama, where protests began in 2011.

    Of course New Scientist is talking complete and utter BS. There were extensive droughts as bad and worse than the most recent in both the 40s and the 60s and these didn't result in civil war nor in terrorism. They completely ignore the whole Arab Spring movement which was the real catalyst for the uprising.
  • Cyclefree said:


    JackW said:

    I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.

    Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.

    Haven't there been droughts in some US states for a number of years now? Have those droughts had similar effects? And, if not, why not? Perhaps Charles might care to look more closely and then come back with his considered views. As it is, he gives the impression of regurgitating the views of whoever last spoke to him. And, more importantly, the key quality we need from a royal family is to be, to be seen, to be a cipher and a symbol and not, really, to be heard at all, especially when the person we are hearing from is really not very bright but thinks he has some special insight largely because, I would guess, no-one around him challenges him and tells him that he is talking balls. Being dutiful and a bit dim are admirable qualities in a monarch; not so admirable in someone who seeks to pontificate on complex matters.
    Are people being forced off the land in the US? If so is there other work for them to do in that democratic and stable nation?
  • Mr. Eagles, a Corbyn-Trump situation would be like Arcadius and Honorius as emperors.

    Stop depressing me. The Sun's scandalous use of polling this morning has irked me no end.

    On a more positive note, you'll be delighted to know this Sunday a thread will be published by me that heavily features the Battles of Cannae and Zama.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    My father liked Campari :weary:

    Yuck.

    Wasn't her tipple Dubonnet? Never tried it myself.

    notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
    The Queen Mother......

    Ted Heath, Cyril Smith (just).*

    *Nothing else in common implied.
    The Queen Mother was also far from being tee-total........
    I remember my mother liked it in the 70s - went fine with lemonade - tho the Queen Mother reputedly added gin......
  • Roger said:

    LondonBob said:

    JackW said:

    I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.

    Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.

    No it is a daft position. The Syrian Civil War has been a conflict completely contrived by outside powers. As the wikileaks document from the US Ambassador in 2006 confirms.
    https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

    http://ericmargolis.com/2015/07/destroying-syria-to-make-it-safe-for-american-values/
    An estimated 250,000 have died in the Syrian Civil War, 40,000 of those have been foreign Salafists fighting for the rebels. I wish the Syrian people good luck in expelling these foreign invaders who have devastated their country. 100,000 Syrians have died fighting for their country, hopefully now that the SAA and allied government militias are making real progress the slaughter will stop. Their needs to a reckoning for the KSA, Turkey, Qatar, Israel as well as reform of 'our' own government, it is a wicked and terrible thing we have done.
    Absolutely correct and until people realize that the only hope for a future in that blighted country is to support the Assad government whatever America's allies (Israel Turkey and Saudi Arabia) might want this won't be resolved.
    Cobblers, but with any luck Corbyn will try to blame it all on America.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Bae own a number of big US defence companies.

    I know, as that's my point. There has been a lot of consolidation across the global defence industry and almost all the big players are now very multinational. Labelling things as British, American, French and so on is not as easy as it once was. So "we" profit from US defence spending, and even when a US company gets the order quite often a lot of work is done locally. I think the UK does quite well, and it's not all doom and gloom as some would have us think.
  • glw said:

    watford30 said:

    Nimrods were getting old and dangerous. The RAF lost one in Afghanistan due to a massive fuel leak and subsequent explosion, and there was the increased risk of similar accident with another.

    Whenever people moan about the Nimrod MRA4 being cancelled, they never acknowledge that those aircraft have had a history of serious problems that have caused trouble for multiple programmes. I don't know if the Boeing P-8 Poseidon is the right aircraft, but it is probably better and cheaper than anything we would have built by going it alone.

    Keeping Sentinel running, buying Rivet Joint, buying the P-8, buying the extended range Reaper, keeping more Typhoons operational, are all good decisions. Whispers it quietly but maybe the MOD/Treasury are doing a decent job.
    Agreed. Plus 2 rapid action brigades. And funds for special forces. We need more special and elite forces, like upgraded 'commandos' for instance.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    rcs1000 said:

    Tim_B said:

    So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.

    To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.

    But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."

    That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.

    It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.

    Schengen just codified what has been the case in Europe for most of the past war period. The Benelux countries abolished border controls in 1953, for example.

    And see how safe Belgium is as a result... A drop-in centre for Jihadis.
    The Belgium authorities turned a blind eye to what they knew was going on.

  • Has Prince Charles been reading the New Scientist?

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27066-droughts-in-syria-and-california-linked-to-climate-change

    As a result of the drought, grain prices rose 27 per cent between 2008 and 2010, and mass migration into slums with few job opportunities meant that unemployment soared in a mostly young population – a recipe for unrest. Cities affected included Homs and Hama, where protests began in 2011.

    Of course New Scientist is talking complete and utter BS. There were extensive droughts as bad and worse than the most recent in both the 40s and the 60s and these didn't result in civil war nor in terrorism. They completely ignore the whole Arab Spring movement which was the real catalyst for the uprising.
    A catalyst is what makes things happen faster. Isn't it possible for there to be more than one contributing factor?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/12011114/Brussels-Paris-attack-terror-alert-suspects-Salah-Abdeslam-manhunt-Monday-live.html#update-20151123-1027
    Once the dust has cleared, the Belgian police service is likely to face heavy scrutiny over how the Paris gang were allowed to go undetected and how Salah managed to give them the slip, writes Matthew Holehouse.

    In Brussels, a city of 1.2 million people, policing is divided by six rival forces, while the city is governed by 19 different mayors.

    Jan Jambon, the interior minister, has called for reforms and pledged to "clean up" Molenbeek, the now-notorious district where the plot originated.
    Floater said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Tim_B said:

    So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.

    To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.

    But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."

    That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.

    It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.

    Schengen just codified what has been the case in Europe for most of the past war period. The Benelux countries abolished border controls in 1953, for example.

    And see how safe Belgium is as a result... A drop-in centre for Jihadis.
    The Belgium authorities turned a blind eye to what they knew was going on.

  • Charles said:

    Chris_A said:

    I'm astounded the US government spends more public money on health than we do.

    Perhaps the NHS haters on here can explain why if the NHS is so bloated, inefficient, filled with useless managers, etc that we do so amazingly well on a pittance and achieve similar or better outcomes to countries which spend far more.

    https://twitter.com/EconBizFin/status/668467999653892096/photo/1

    If there is unsatisfied demand and limited supply you can either (a) ration by price or (b) ration by time.

    The US chooses route (a) we chose route (b). Both have pros and cons.

    There is also a specific issue in the US due to professional indemnity resulting in excessive consumption of diagnostic tools and proceedures.
    'Public money' is my money and yours. Its all our money before any govt confiscates it. Tell people just how much would have to come out of their pockets to equal France for instance and a few people might blink. And of course employers contribution. The French system is in deficit.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Scott_P said:

    @DAaronovitch: The @Ed_Miliband interview on @BBCr4today was profoundly depressing. 'I take full responsibility for getting everything right'. Oh Vanity.

    How much is Ed to blame for the current mess Labour find themselves in? A question for history perhaps, but personally I'd say a great deal.
    One of Ed's mistakes was to try and keep the party united, which he did do reasonably successfully.

    This was at a cost of increasing dissatisfaction of the membership, and (it must be said) increasingly muddled policy.

    The Golden Rule of Civil Wars is -- If you are going to have a Civil War, have it and get it over quickly.

    Ed's procrastination has made the forces in the Labour Civil War more evenly matched, and so the fight will now be bloodier than it would have been in 2010.

  • Mr. Eagles, one shall only be delighted if your grasp of history has improved somewhat.

    Mr. Cwsc, on civil wars, Julian the Apostate did it best. His opponent, his cousin (the incumbent emperor) grew gravely ill, named Julian as his heir, and died before the two armies ever clashed.
  • Mr. 1000, you also cannot prevent murder by making it illegal.

    Policing borders wouldn't stop illegal migration entirely, but it would make it much harder to achieve. Similarly, Merkel's idiotic pronouncement only spurred on the flow of migrants.

    Security questions aren't settled by "x would make [undesirable thing] harder to achieve". They're settled by "x would make more difference to [undesirable thing] than other things we could spend the money on", and also if your security decision-making is really good, "x would make a difference worth more than the cost".

    Meaningful border controls have a huge cost both in paying lots of people to stand around stopping people crossing them and in the lost time and energy spent waiting to cross them, so it's hard to imagine resurrecting 1945 borders passing the first test, let alone the second.
  • Has Prince Charles been reading the New Scientist?

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27066-droughts-in-syria-and-california-linked-to-climate-change

    As a result of the drought, grain prices rose 27 per cent between 2008 and 2010, and mass migration into slums with few job opportunities meant that unemployment soared in a mostly young population – a recipe for unrest. Cities affected included Homs and Hama, where protests began in 2011.

    They completely ignore the whole Arab Spring movement which was the real catalyst for the uprising.
    The existing political unrest in the Middle East, he observes, might have led to violence in Syria even without a drought.

    From the same article.......

    Many factors will have been involved, the drought one of them, and it may have been neither necessary nor sufficient - but it sure as heck hasn't helped......
  • Mr. Tokyo, 1945 borders?

    I don't want to partition Germany and resurrect Yugoslavia, old bean :p

    On a more serious note, you're right that borders bring a cost. But so does shutting down Brussels.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited November 2015

    glw said:

    watford30 said:

    Nimrods were getting old and dangerous. The RAF lost one in Afghanistan due to a massive fuel leak and subsequent explosion, and there was the increased risk of similar accident with another.

    Whenever people moan about the Nimrod MRA4 being cancelled, they never acknowledge that those aircraft have had a history of serious problems that have caused trouble for multiple programmes. I don't know if the Boeing P-8 Poseidon is the right aircraft, but it is probably better and cheaper than anything we would have built by going it alone.

    Keeping Sentinel running, buying Rivet Joint, buying the P-8, buying the extended range Reaper, keeping more Typhoons operational, are all good decisions. Whispers it quietly but maybe the MOD/Treasury are doing a decent job.
    Agreed. Plus 2 rapid action brigades. And funds for special forces. We need more special and elite forces, like upgraded 'commandos' for instance.
    There is an awful lot of spin going on this morning. Whilst some things, such as the decision to reverse the last defence review as regards maritime patrol aircraft, are to be welcomed others that are being paraded as positives are more nuanced. These two rapid reaction brigades, for example: early reading suggests that they will be created by scraping three armoured infantry brigades.

    The devil will be in the detail and in particular which programmes/systems/capabilities are cut/scraped to pay for the things Cameron is boasting about today. We shall see when the SDR is actually published and people have had time to dig into the fine print. One thing that leaps out at me is this boast that the UK will spend £178bn over ten years on military kit. Allowing for inflation I strongly suspect that is actually less than was spent by the last Labour government and is actually yet another cut, but I will need to do some digging to confirm this.
  • Mr. Tokyo, 1945 borders?

    I don't want to partition Germany and resurrect Yugoslavia, old bean :p

    On a more serious note, you're right that borders bring a cost. But so does shutting down Brussels.

    They shouldn't be shutting down Brussels either.
  • One thing that leaps out at me is this boast that the UK will spend £178bn over ten years on military kit. Allowing for inflation I strongly suspect that is actually less than was spent by the last Labour government and is actually yet another cut, but I will need to do some digging to confirm this.

    I think that 'wasted' would be a more meaningful word than 'spent', given what a complete mess military procurement under Labour was. (And not just under Labour, for that matter).
  • Scott_P said:

    @DAaronovitch: The @Ed_Miliband interview on @BBCr4today was profoundly depressing. 'I take full responsibility for getting everything right'. Oh Vanity.

    How much is Ed to blame for the current mess Labour find themselves in? A question for history perhaps, but personally I'd say a great deal.
    One of Ed's mistakes was to try and keep the party united, which he did do reasonably successfully.

    This was at a cost of increasing dissatisfaction of the membership, and (it must be said) increasingly muddled policy.

    The Golden Rule of Civil Wars is -- If you are going to have a Civil War, have it and get it over quickly.

    Ed's procrastination has made the forces in the Labour Civil War more evenly matched, and so the fight will now be bloodier than it would have been in 2010.

    Is it possible for Labour to have a civil war with a winner?
    Surely it's time for a split. Make it as amicable as possible, have an electoral agreement between the two halves and both agree to implement proportional representation (pref STV) once in power.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    edited November 2015

    There is an awful lot of spin going on this morning. Whilst some things, such as the decision to reverse the last defence review as regards maritime patrol aircraft, are to be welcomed others that are being paraded as positives are more nuanced.

    Scrapping Nimrod made sense, the mistake was not ordering a replacement, but it would have taken several years to make a decision anyway, so we are probably not as far behind as some will say.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    One thing that leaps out at me is this boast that the UK will spend £178bn over ten years on military kit. Allowing for inflation I strongly suspect that is actually less than was spent by the last Labour government and is actually yet another cut, but I will need to do some digging to confirm this.

    I think that 'wasted' would be a more meaningful word than 'spent', given what a complete mess military procurement under Labour was. (And not just under Labour, for that matter).
    Fair point, Mr. N, but then the Conservatives have also made a boast that they have sorted out Defence Procurement, have they not? Not that I believe a word of it, all the time BAE are in the game then money will be wasted - they are not called Big and Expensive for nothing.

    The mystery to me remains, and I have been asking this question in diverse quarters for decades, is how Japan with a smaller budget is able to fund a larger and, in many ways more capable, defence force than we can manage.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    I think that 'wasted' would be a more meaningful word than 'spent', given what a complete mess military procurement under Labour was. (And not just under Labour, for that matter).

    I'm certainly not someone who thinks we spend enough on defence, or that all the decisions that have been made recently are for the best. But it does seem that a long last the MOD is getting better at procurement.
  • Belgium is clearly dysfunctional as a result of trying to keep its two cultures happy with fragmentation of governance.

    Looks like it should be split up with the flemish part going to the Netherlands and the french speaking part to France.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    One thing that leaps out at me is this boast that the UK will spend £178bn over ten years on military kit. Allowing for inflation I strongly suspect that is actually less than was spent by the last Labour government and is actually yet another cut, but I will need to do some digging to confirm this.

    I think that 'wasted' would be a more meaningful word than 'spent', given what a complete mess military procurement under Labour was. (And not just under Labour, for that matter).
    Fair point, Mr. N, but then the Conservatives have also made a boast that they have sorted out Defence Procurement, have they not? Not that I believe a word of it, all the time BAE are in the game then money will be wasted - they are not called Big and Expensive for nothing.

    The mystery to me remains, and I have been asking this question in diverse quarters for decades, is how Japan with a smaller budget is able to fund a larger and, in many ways more capable, defence force than we can manage.
    Pension commitments? How much of the Defence Budget is going there? Money wasted on pointless projects. Skimming.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    One thing that leaps out at me is this boast that the UK will spend £178bn over ten years on military kit. Allowing for inflation I strongly suspect that is actually less than was spent by the last Labour government and is actually yet another cut, but I will need to do some digging to confirm this.

    I think that 'wasted' would be a more meaningful word than 'spent', given what a complete mess military procurement under Labour was. (And not just under Labour, for that matter).
    The UK has made serial procurement mistakes in an ultimately doomed attempt to retain sovereign defence manufacturing capabilities. Ultimately, defence is also subject to globalisation pressures.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    glw said:

    There is an awful lot of spin going on this morning. Whilst some things, such as the decision to reverse the last defence review as regards maritime patrol aircraft, are to be welcomed others that are being paraded as positives are more nuanced.

    Scrapping Nimrod made sense, the mistake was not ordering a replacement, but I would have taken several years to make a decision anyway, so we are probably not as far behind as some will say.
    Dumping the Nimrod programmed definitely made sense, it was insane from the outset. However, why it would have taken years to decide on an alternative I don't understand. There weren't that many options to chose from.

    No, I strongly suspect that MPA was sacrificed on the fast jet altar of the RAF.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/12011114/Brussels-Paris-attack-terror-alert-suspects-Salah-Abdeslam-manhunt-Monday-live.html#update-20151123-1136
    The Belgian federal police force may have failed to catch Europe's most wanted man, Salah Abdeslam, but it appears not to have not lost its sense of humour, Rory Mulholland reports from Brussels

    It tweeted its thanks to the nation's cats for their help during Sunday evening's raids across the country that aimed at catching terrorists reportedly about to carry out an attack. Many Belgians responded to a police appeal not to reveal locations of police raids on social media by tweeting pictures of cats.

    Pour les chats qui nous ont aidé hier soir... Servez-vous! #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/7O5ENF6nXa
    — Police Fédérale (@PolFed_presse) November 23, 2015
  • Cyclefree said:


    JackW said:

    I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.

    Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.

    Haven't there been droughts in some US states for a number of years now? Have those droughts had similar effects? And, if not, why not? Perhaps Charles might care to look more closely and then come back with his considered views. As it is, he gives the impression of regurgitating the views of whoever last spoke to him. And, more importantly, the key quality we need from a royal family is to be, to be seen, to be a cipher and a symbol and not, really, to be heard at all, especially when the person we are hearing from is really not very bright but thinks he has some special insight largely because, I would guess, no-one around him challenges him and tells him that he is talking balls. Being dutiful and a bit dim are admirable qualities in a monarch; not so admirable in someone who seeks to pontificate on complex matters.
    Are people being forced off the land in the US? If so is there other work for them to do in that democratic and stable nation?
    People were forced off the land in their millions in the 1920s and there was no other work for them to do. I don't recall the Great Civil War of the 1920s in the US.

    And I repeat, there were droughts and crop failures just as serious in both the 1940s and 1960s in Syria and Iraq. There were also the huge losses of water due to the damming of the great rivers by Turkey. To claim climate change is a factor in these problems is just another case of desperation by the AGW advocates.
  • One thing that leaps out at me is this boast that the UK will spend £178bn over ten years on military kit. Allowing for inflation I strongly suspect that is actually less than was spent by the last Labour government and is actually yet another cut, but I will need to do some digging to confirm this.

    I think that 'wasted' would be a more meaningful word than 'spent', given what a complete mess military procurement under Labour was. (And not just under Labour, for that matter).
    Fair point, Mr. N, but then the Conservatives have also made a boast that they have sorted out Defence Procurement, have they not? Not that I believe a word of it, all the time BAE are in the game then money will be wasted - they are not called Big and Expensive for nothing.

    The mystery to me remains, and I have been asking this question in diverse quarters for decades, is how Japan with a smaller budget is able to fund a larger and, in many ways more capable, defence force than we can manage.
    I'm speculating here and also assuming the premise is right but with the yen as it is pretty much everything in Japan is cheap. I doubt they pay soldiers much, especially bearing in mind that they don't expect to be fighting anyone any time soon.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:


    JackW said:

    I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.

    Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.

    Haven't there been droughts in some US states for a number of years now? Have those droughts had similar effects? And, if not, why not? Perhaps Charles might care to look more closely and then come back with his considered views. As it is, he gives the impression of regurgitating the views of whoever last spoke to him. And, more importantly, the key quality we need from a royal family is to be, to be seen, to be a cipher and a symbol and not, really, to be heard at all, especially when the person we are hearing from is really not very bright but thinks he has some special insight largely because, I would guess, no-one around him challenges him and tells him that he is talking balls. Being dutiful and a bit dim are admirable qualities in a monarch; not so admirable in someone who seeks to pontificate on complex matters.
    Are people being forced off the land in the US? If so is there other work for them to do in that democratic and stable nation?
    Isn't that precisely the point? The political and economic environment in the US meant that the consequences of a drought were better handled. It's the political and economic environment in Syria that was the issue not the droughts.



  • Labour ‘less electable under Jeremy Corbyn’ BMG poll for the Standard

    http://bit.ly/1lEh7Xc
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Cyclefree said:


    JackW said:

    I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.

    Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.

    Haven't there been droughts in some US states for a number of years now? Have those droughts had similar effects? And, if not, why not? Perhaps Charles might care to look more closely and then come back with his considered views. As it is, he gives the impression of regurgitating the views of whoever last spoke to him. And, more importantly, the key quality we need from a royal family is to be, to be seen, to be a cipher and a symbol and not, really, to be heard at all, especially when the person we are hearing from is really not very bright but thinks he has some special insight largely because, I would guess, no-one around him challenges him and tells him that he is talking balls. Being dutiful and a bit dim are admirable qualities in a monarch; not so admirable in someone who seeks to pontificate on complex matters.
    Are people being forced off the land in the US? If so is there other work for them to do in that democratic and stable nation?
    People were forced off the land in their millions in the 1920s and there was no other work for them to do. I don't recall the Great Civil War of the 1920s in the US.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain ? And various other union/anti-union actions. And then the Bonus Army.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited November 2015
    what is that chart telling us? Sympathy for fighters who go to fight for or against ISIS? We have had plenty of news stories about people (not all muslims) going to fight against ISIS?

    What are we being told?

    (Edit: and what are we being directed to infer?)
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    My father liked Campari :weary:

    Yuck.

    Wasn't her tipple Dubonnet? Never tried it myself.

    notme said:

    Tim_B said:

    notme said:

    Chris_A said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why is it expensive to prevent diabetes? The answer is for people to stop eating unhealthy food, advice that costs nothing.

    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.

    Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
    Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.

    Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
    Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
    Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
    It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.

    Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
    There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
    But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
    Fat is an elixir of life.
    When did you last see anyone over 80 who was fat?
    The Queen Mother......

    Ted Heath, Cyril Smith (just).*

    *Nothing else in common implied.
    The Queen Mother was also far from being tee-total........
    I remember my mother liked it in the 70s - went fine with lemonade - tho the Queen Mother reputedly added gin......
    Campari's fab, and one third of the finest cocktail known to mankind: the negroni.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited November 2015
    TOPPING said:

    what is that chart telling us? Sympathy for fighters who go to fight for or against ISIS? We have had plenty of news stories about people (not all muslims) going to fight against ISIS?

    What are we being told?

    (Edit: and what are we being directed to infer?)

    The question didn't specify ISIS just fighters in Syria.

    Plus sympathy doesn't equal support

    People might have sympathy for those brainwashed by ISIS but tha doesnt mean they support ISIS.

    Plus another person working for a different polling company has pointed out that the Mid point of the question/scale is "some sympathy" FFS

    Well The Sun front page would like you to infer something.
  • Scott_P said:

    @DAaronovitch: The @Ed_Miliband interview on @BBCr4today was profoundly depressing. 'I take full responsibility for getting everything right'. Oh Vanity.

    How much is Ed to blame for the current mess Labour find themselves in? A question for history perhaps, but personally I'd say a great deal.
    One of Ed's mistakes was to try and keep the party united, which he did do reasonably successfully.

    This was at a cost of increasing dissatisfaction of the membership, and (it must be said) increasingly muddled policy.

    The Golden Rule of Civil Wars is -- If you are going to have a Civil War, have it and get it over quickly.

    Ed's procrastination has made the forces in the Labour Civil War more evenly matched, and so the fight will now be bloodier than it would have been in 2010.

    That's all very well as long as you know that you are going to have a civil war. Was one inevitable? Absolutely not. But for the MPs lending Corbyn their votes, we would never have seen him as leader and without that, whatever the theoretical wishes of the membership, Labour would probably be tootling along under Cooper or Burnham. The power of the left would never have been realised because even if it existed - which given what has happened, it clearly did - without someone to rally round, it would never have been evident: polls would not have named a far-left candidate, never mind voters being given a chance to support them.

    Without understanding the extent of their own latent power, it's highly unlikely that the current efforts of the left, to grab control of CLPs and the NEC would have been successful, if it had even been tried in any organised way (which would have been more difficult without the leadership anyway).

    It was the fact that Corbyn ended up on the ballot, combined with the booster effect that the three-quidders gave him that has resulted in the Moderate Sandwich - moderate MPs squeezed by the leadership on one side and the membership on the other. While the three-quidders didn't elect Cobyn in the end - he had enough membership votes even without them - they were hugely important in allowing his campaign to reach terminal velocity.

    I don't think a civil war was inevitable though EdM's changes and vacillation as leader greatly increased the risk of one. Now, the risk is not of a civil war - that's already underway - it's whether it becomes a fight to the death or not.
  • Labour ‘less electable under Jeremy Corbyn’ BMG poll for the Standard

    http://bit.ly/1lEh7Xc

    I've never seen the point of those sorts of polls, that are just asking people to prognosticate. In practice they just seem to be asking people to regurgitate what the media is telling them.
  • Mr. Eagles, that's the issue with having a multi-point scale for what's ultimately a binary attitude (sympathy or no sympathy). You can't have neither sympathy nor no sympathy.

    Worth recalling the daftness of one pollster having multiple options but only one could be selected. They had lower taxes and higher spending (separately) then tax credit cuts, which obviously got a small share of the vote, to try and prove tax credit cuts had sod all support.

    Question and answer phrasing is as important, sometimes more so, than how the respondents are selected and filtered.
  • Labour ‘less electable under Jeremy Corbyn’ BMG poll for the Standard

    http://bit.ly/1lEh7Xc

    No. It's astonishing :-)
  • Mr. Herdson, the MPs were damned stupid. It's almost as if they didn't understand how their own rules worked.

    As I wrote at the time, how can the Labour Party aspire to run the country when it can't even run the Labour Party?
  • Labour ‘less electable under Jeremy Corbyn’ BMG poll for the Standard

    http://bit.ly/1lEh7Xc

    I'm curious how many every-day voters have an actual opinion on this. I see they've excluded DKs. Most voters seem pretty oblivious to politics at the best of times and this is asking about changes in the Labour party. Given the average voter can't name a single cabinet minister other than Cameron and maybe Osborne, how are they likely to have even noticed who the Labour leader is at the moment?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    While agree completely with the criticisms of the Sun and the polling that they've done, would it not be helpful for the likes of the Guardian/Independent to do their own polling without bias to see what the actual situation is?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Scott_P said:

    @DAaronovitch: The @Ed_Miliband interview on @BBCr4today was profoundly depressing. 'I take full responsibility for getting everything right'. Oh Vanity.

    How much is Ed to blame for the current mess Labour find themselves in? A question for history perhaps, but personally I'd say a great deal.
    One of Ed's mistakes was to try and keep the party united, which he did do reasonably successfully.

    This was at a cost of increasing dissatisfaction of the membership, and (it must be said) increasingly muddled policy.

    The Golden Rule of Civil Wars is -- If you are going to have a Civil War, have it and get it over quickly.

    Ed's procrastination has made the forces in the Labour Civil War more evenly matched, and so the fight will now be bloodier than it would have been in 2010.

    very vaguely on or off topic...

    of course the funny (!) thing is that that view of the civil war rule (and it has been shown that eventually one side wins and as you say it is best that that occurs as soon as possible) has been ignored by the west when it comes down to actual civil wars.

    eg in the Middle East - there is not a civil war there that we don't want to prolong or influence by involvement.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    The political story of the week is going to be the Autumn Statement and spending review on Wednesday. It is a very big day for McDonnell and indeed the Corbyn leadership.

    Osborne has a very, very difficult challenge on his hands seeking to cut spending and keep deficit reduction on track whilst being subject to huge pressures on WTCs, defence and security generally. There is already some indication of slippage in the year to date figures so he has very little flexibility. On a superficial level it should be a target rich environment for McDonnell and he needs to make his mark.

    He also needs to do so without losing the strategic argument by saying really stupid things that no more that 20% of the population will believe such as reducing the deficit is a political choice, not an economic one.

    In contrast I expect Corbyn to roll over on Thursday and support UK involvement in Syria in a way that is consistent with the UN resolution.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:


    JackW said:

    I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.

    Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.

    Haven't there been droughts in some US states for a number of years now? Have those droughts had similar effects? And, if not, why not? Perhaps Charles might care to look more closely and then come back with his considered views. As it is, he gives the impression of regurgitating the views of whoever last spoke to him. And, more importantly, the key quality we need from a royal family is to be, to be seen, to be a cipher and a symbol and not, really, to be heard at all, especially when the person we are hearing from is really not very bright but thinks he has some special insight largely because, I would guess, no-one around him challenges him and tells him that he is talking balls. Being dutiful and a bit dim are admirable qualities in a monarch; not so admirable in someone who seeks to pontificate on complex matters.
    Are people being forced off the land in the US? If so is there other work for them to do in that democratic and stable nation?
    Isn't that precisely the point? The political and economic environment in the US meant that the consequences of a drought were better handled. It's the political and economic environment in Syria that was the issue not the droughts.



    Yes that is the point I was making. If the US had been poorer, an autocratic state and less stable then the drought may have had a similar effect.
    You said "Haven't there been droughts in some US states for a number of years now? Have those droughts had similar effects?"
    Well I think that we can agree about the reason the US remained stable.
    The point of disagreement now is that you consider the drought in Syria wasn't a contributory factor. You then say "It's the political and economic environment in Syria that was the issue". Well wouldn't the drought affect the economic wellbeing of the people?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I read a pretty eye popping in the New York Times about Army top brass interfering with the Presidential intelligence report to make them seem less like failure in the training of the Iraqi army.
  • Mr. Herdson, the MPs were damned stupid. It's almost as if they didn't understand how their own rules worked.

    As I wrote at the time, how can the Labour Party aspire to run the country when it can't even run the Labour Party?

    I don't think they did understand: their failure to recognise the extent to which the three-quidders changed the game was a gross error of judgement, despite the 15% rule having been explicitly amended to keep out fringe candidates (whether that change was all that significant - Corbyn would still have failed to make the 12.5% barrier without loaned support - is beside the point: they still didn't understand their role).

    However, it was only the combination of that gross error with three weak mainstream candidates that allowed Corbyn to come through. Had someone else taken the campaign by the scruff of its neck early on, Labour wouldn't be where they are now.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited November 2015
    Mr. Herdson, that's unforgivable stupidity on their part.

    Edited extra bit: anyway, time to be off.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Mr. Herdson, the MPs were damned stupid. It's almost as if they didn't understand how their own rules worked.

    As I wrote at the time, how can the Labour Party aspire to run the country when it can't even run the Labour Party?

    However, it was only the combination of that gross error with three weak mainstream candidates that allowed Corbyn to come through. Had someone else taken the campaign by the scruff of its neck early on, Labour wouldn't be where they are now.
    Ah yes. And if only Devon Loch hadn't jumped....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Alistair said:

    I read a pretty eye popping in the New York Times about Army top brass interfering with the Presidential intelligence report to make them seem less like failure in the training of the Iraqi army.

    It really has been a staggering waste of money. An army needs to have a reason to fight and very few Iraqis seem to think that those in control in Baghdad are worth fighting for. The difference with the Kurds is marked.

    I was concerned when our Defence Secretary seemed to be promising more of the same this morning on the Today program. It does not seem a great use of our limited resources to me.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Mr. Herdson, the MPs were damned stupid. It's almost as if they didn't understand how their own rules worked.

    As I wrote at the time, how can the Labour Party aspire to run the country when it can't even run the Labour Party?

    What I want to know is which cretin decided to outsource leadership elections from knowledgeable politicians to an unrepresentative activist base.

    Of course, a legion of other cretins was required to get a populist pseudo-Marxist onto the ballot.

    As tales of self-wrought destruction go, this one is truly a doozy. It will be used in political science and modern history courses around the world for the next century at least (this is not, I believe, an exaggeration).
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''The political story of the week is going to be the Autumn Statement and spending review on Wednesday. It is a very big day for McDonnell and indeed the Corbyn leadership. ''

    Its an even bigger day for Osborne. Patience with his inability to balance the budget is starting to wear very thin.

    He's saying all the right things, and doing all the wrong ones.
  • Labour ‘less electable under Jeremy Corbyn’ BMG poll for the Standard

    http://bit.ly/1lEh7Xc

    No. It's astonishing :-)
    "It comes after shadow business secretary Angela Eagle, who deputises for Mr Corbyn, failed to fully endorse her leader.

    Asked if she thought he and shadow chancellor John McDonnell are suited for high office, she said: “I work with people the party gives me to work with.”"

    Not even trying to be polite about the leadership.
  • On topic, we seem to be getting a succession of overheated and overpromoted poll findings just now. For pollsters at least, the time for contrition is over very quickly.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    taffys said:

    ''The political story of the week is going to be the Autumn Statement and spending review on Wednesday. It is a very big day for McDonnell and indeed the Corbyn leadership. ''

    Its an even bigger day for Osborne. Patience with his inability to balance the budget is starting to wear very thin.

    He's saying all the right things, and doing all the wrong ones.

    LOL

    I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    'For pollsters at least, the time for contrition is over very quickly'

    Yes this is why I used to laugh when naive posters on here used to argue pollsters wouldn't do anything dodgy in case their 'reputations' were damaged. This is to misunderstand entirely what their business model is.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited November 2015
    I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)

    To be fair Osborne was constrained by the lib dems for those 5 years. He had limited influence. He ain't constrained now.

    Osborne is just where the left want him, falling between two stools. Not balancing the budget, and not satisfying those who want a spendathon either.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    taffys said:

    ''The political story of the week is going to be the Autumn Statement and spending review on Wednesday. It is a very big day for McDonnell and indeed the Corbyn leadership. ''

    Its an even bigger day for Osborne. Patience with his inability to balance the budget is starting to wear very thin.

    He's saying all the right things, and doing all the wrong ones.

    I think you are grossly underestimating just how hard it is. By 2008 our structural deficit probably exceeded the current deficit of £160bn. In the past major cuts could be hidden by inflation and apparent increases in nominal spending. In a time of almost zero inflation any cut looks far more severe and there seems little political appetite for it.

    The sad fact is that our economy is still extremely badly balanced with government spending about £100bn more than the economy can bear in taxes. The scale of the problem remains deeply daunting and on a different scale from what any Chancellor has had to deal with in the last 50 years.

    I fear that the chances of us going into the next recession with a balanced budget, let alone having made any impact on the debt mountain overhanging us, Aberfan like, are vanishingly slim.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    taffys said:

    I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)

    To be fair Osborne was constrained by the lib dems for those 5 years. He had limited influence. He ain't constrained now.

    Osborne is just where the left want him, falling between two stools. Not balancing the budget, and not satisfying those who want a spendathon either.

    Constrained ?

    The man's a politician, are you saying he can't cut a deal in areas where he and the LDs shared views ? fact is he's Brown's mini-me. He dabbles in everything and ignores the day job.

    We have now had 18 years of political CoEs trying to get their boss' job, time for a reformer.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    DavidL said:

    taffys said:

    ''The political story of the week is going to be the Autumn Statement and spending review on Wednesday. It is a very big day for McDonnell and indeed the Corbyn leadership. ''

    Its an even bigger day for Osborne. Patience with his inability to balance the budget is starting to wear very thin.

    He's saying all the right things, and doing all the wrong ones.

    I think you are grossly underestimating just how hard it is. By 2008 our structural deficit probably exceeded the current deficit of £160bn. In the past major cuts could be hidden by inflation and apparent increases in nominal spending. In a time of almost zero inflation any cut looks far more severe and there seems little political appetite for it.

    The sad fact is that our economy is still extremely badly balanced with government spending about £100bn more than the economy can bear in taxes. The scale of the problem remains deeply daunting and on a different scale from what any Chancellor has had to deal with in the last 50 years.

    I fear that the chances of us going into the next recession with a balanced budget, let alone having made any impact on the debt mountain overhanging us, Aberfan like, are vanishingly slim.
    Has he done anything much to rebalance the economy ?

    Construction and Production are still below Labour's tenure.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''I fear that the chances of us going into the next recession with a balanced budget, let alone having made any impact on the debt mountain overhanging us, Aberfan like, are vanishingly slim. ''

    I disagree. Anybody who read the appalling details of the public sector rich list will question the resolve of Osborne to slash the public sector in the right places.

    This is still going on after six years of his chancellorship?? do me a favour.
  • Anorak said:

    Mr. Herdson, the MPs were damned stupid. It's almost as if they didn't understand how their own rules worked.

    As I wrote at the time, how can the Labour Party aspire to run the country when it can't even run the Labour Party?

    What I want to know is which cretin decided to outsource leadership elections from knowledgeable politicians to an unrepresentative activist base.

    Of course, a legion of other cretins was required to get a populist pseudo-Marxist onto the ballot.

    As tales of self-wrought destruction go, this one is truly a doozy. It will be used in political science and modern history courses around the world for the next century at least (this is not, I believe, an exaggeration).
    I believe the Liberals were the first to go down the mass-membership election road, in 1976.

    But Labour's problem is that the Corbynites *are* representative of the activist base. They're just not representative of the passivist base, nor were they remotely interested in appealing to the floating voter.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    taffys said:

    I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)

    To be fair Osborne was constrained by the lib dems for those 5 years. He had limited influence. He ain't constrained now.

    Osborne is just where the left want him, falling between two stools. Not balancing the budget, and not satisfying those who want a spendathon either.

    Constrained ?

    The man's a politician, are you saying he can't cut a deal in areas where he and the LDs shared views ? fact is he's Brown's mini-me. He dabbles in everything and ignores the day job.

    We have now had 18 years of political CoEs trying to get their boss' job, time for a reformer.
    I pointed out early today that Osborne's honeymoon was over, his record is going to come under scrutiny now. Some will argue that he did better under the coalition which is extremely damning.

  • On topic, we seem to be getting a succession of overheated and overpromoted poll findings just now. For pollsters at least, the time for contrition is over very quickly.

    Boring polls don't sell.
This discussion has been closed.