Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON majority still an 80% betting chance

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON majority still an 80% betting chance

So that was the big set-piece of the campaign and I thought it was good programme well put together with a really excellent audience. TMay found herself having to answer direct question for just about the first time and looked the better for it. Platitudes weren’t going to work in this context.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    Is this the day the polls turned?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Is this the day the polls turned?

    turned back? :p
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    edited June 2017

    If Tory press has any sense they drop the IRA bollocks but go big on Corbyn NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER being prepared to press the button.

    The silly old Tosser

    YEP,the last week,the press and the tories campaign must go big on that.
    My slight worry is that it won't resonate as much as it should because our press like to "go big" on trivia like Ed Miliband not being able to eat a bacon sarnie well.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Corbyn anti nuclear? I'm shocked. Never thought I'd hear that. Not in a million years.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    Unbelievable meltdown by corbyn!!!!

    150 maj may be on!!!!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Ave_it said:

    Unbelievable meltdown by corbyn!!!!

    150 maj may be on!!!!

    Meltdown... *slow claps*
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    Impressed by TMay tonight. I think TSE may have overplayed how crap she is.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Michael Fallon already on attack over Corbyn non use of nuclear.

    He will be all over the media on this tomorrow and he does not take prisoners
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    FPT

    The issue of Trident isn't simply just the mechanics of deterrent.

    https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/870745616133103616
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Ave_it said:

    Unbelievable meltdown by corbyn!!!!

    150 maj may be on!!!!

    LOL - some of the mood swings on this site.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn anti nuclear? I'm shocked. Never thought I'd hear that. Not in a million years.

    FPT
    The step change fallacy, curiously beloved by PBers. There are not two sets of people, those who know what JC's stance on nukes is and those who do not: there is a continuum all the way from people who have written PhDs and presented documentaries on JC and nuclear disarmament, to people who have never heard of Jeremy Corbyn. Somewhere on that continuum it is highly probable that there are voters who will have been nudged just enough in the right direction for their vote to be affected. It doesn't even have to be a lot of people because - again - things tend to happen in tiny increments, not in macro changes.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Well, I suppose a week is a long time in politics, but frankly, I think this is over.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    To be fair we will still only be 5% clear but it's nice to have something positive for once ☺
  • Surely the Tories should do an updated '3am phone call' attack ad with Corbyn's quotes and a mushroom cloud over Manchester?

    Who do you trust your family's security with?

    Corbyn Too Big A Risk.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Tories down to 359 seats with Chris Hanretty's forecast:

    http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited June 2017
    Betfair s moved only a tick.
    Election Result
    Con maj 1.24 1.25
    NOM 6 6.2
    Lab maj 28 29.
    Other maj back 1000
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.119040708
    Time to pile in?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957

    Well, I suppose a week is a long time in politics, but frankly, I think this is over.

    1) Don't underestimate the crapness of Mrs May

    2) I'm fairly certain most of the polls released tomorrow will have fieldwork that ended before tonight's QT, so expect a lot more bed wetting
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Did anyone else notice that May gave a clue to the social care cap rate?

    She said it should be set, after consultation etc etc, at a level that does not draw upon money from the general tax payer.

    Somebody in government knows what that number is.

    I'm guessing it is at least £200K.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Messages coming through, one Corbynite not impressed by his answers on Trident, he's young so he didn't know the stance beforehand. A Tory who was relieved. Two floating voters who are off the fence in favour of May, both of them thought she was much better than the media were making out she was. A couple of mainstream Labour types who were reminded why they dislike Corbyn and will continue to oppose him even if he manages to do better than Ed.

    Whisper it, but I think this is a turning point for the Tories. I think the Corbyn surge will begin to peter out and some of those Lab -> UKIP -> Con will come back after those comments on defence. More than anything else they are patriots and those Trident answers were very poor.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    If Corbyn wins, how much time off in lieu has he accrued over the last month? He'll be able to go on a long holiday before the Brexit negotiations start.
  • chrisbchrisb Posts: 101

    The issue of Trident isn't simply just the mechanics of deterrent.

    https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/870745616133103616

    The same could be said of foreign aid. I was hoping May might have made that point when questioned on it tonight.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    MaxPB said:

    Messages coming through, one Corbynite not impressed by his answers on Trident, he's young so he didn't know the stance beforehand. A Tory who was relieved. Two floating voters who are off the fence in favour of May, both of them thought she was much better than the media were making out she was. A couple of mainstream Labour types who were reminded why they dislike Corbyn and will continue to oppose him even if he manages to do better than Ed.

    Whisper it, but I think this is a turning point for the Tories. I think the Corbyn surge will begin to peter out and some of those Lab -> UKIP -> Con will come back after those comments on defence. More than anything else they are patriots and those Trident answers were very poor.

    What was that? Tipping point? :p

    Sorry.. couldn't resist :D
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited June 2017

    Did anyone else notice that May gave a clue to the social care cap rate?

    She said it should be set, after consultation etc etc, at a level that does not draw upon money from the general tax payer.

    Somebody in government knows what that number is.

    I'm guessing it is at least £200K.

    There's almost no point in doing it, if it's not in the £200k ballpark.

    The proposed £72k cap was costed at something like £10bn a year of public money, to facilitate inheritances of the rich.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn anti nuclear? I'm shocked. Never thought I'd hear that. Not in a million years.

    The issue is that all those Lab -> UKIP -> Con voters that Corbyn had won back are now in danger of reconsidering.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Did anyone else notice that May gave a clue to the social care cap rate?

    She said it should be set, after consultation etc etc, at a level that does not draw upon money from the general tax payer.

    Somebody in government knows what that number is.

    I'm guessing it is at least £200K.

    100 would be a good number, but obviously it is higher than 72.

    I'd have alot more respect for Labour and Corbyn if they'd just scrapped trident as a manifesto commitment. Having a nuclear deterrent and publicly stating you won't use it is a complete waste of money and makes you more vulnerable than not having one.
  • GideonWiseGideonWise Posts: 1,123
    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2017
    The Conservatives need to press home their advantage of tonight by conflating Corbyn's ludicrous position on nuclear deterrence with his ludicrous positions on everything else. So, forget trying to paint him as actively a terrorist sympathiser (although his record on that is vile), and instead paint him as naive beyond belief: a 'nice guy' (professional politicians should be able to say this without throwing up) who is so naive about deterrence, defence and terrorism that he would be a danger to our security, and by extension to our economy.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Been on 100+ majority from the start, and haven't wavered. The country simply isn't ready for PM JC. However, am very encouraged by this campaign. Certain issues have cut through, which simply didn't get a hearing a month ago. Moreover, the Labour Party is alive and kicking, which was not exactly nailed on. The government will have to be on its toes, and we will be in with a chance in 4/5 years. May even join the Party, for the first time.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    We've been told endlessly she doesn't have a mandate.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,261
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    Did anyone else notice that May gave a clue to the social care cap rate?

    She said it should be set, after consultation etc etc, at a level that does not draw upon money from the general tax payer.

    Somebody in government knows what that number is.

    I'm guessing it is at least £200K.

    100 would be a good number, but obviously it is higher than 72.

    I'd have alot more respect for Labour and Corbyn if they'd just scrapped trident as a manifesto commitment. Having a nuclear deterrent and publicly stating you won't use it is a complete waste of money and makes you more vulnerable than not having one.
    I would agree it would be better if he doesn't believe in the system to put forward removing it and not paying for something he will never ever use. It's not much of a deterrent if the enemy knows you will never use it.

    But he can't do that because the majority of his MP's and the Unions back Trident.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    It gives an internal mental justification to tick the filthy Tory box.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    New forecast from Stephen Fisher puts Tories on 360 seats:

    https://electionsetc.com/2017/06/02/combined-forecast-for-ge2017-third-update/#more-2436
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Curiously I don't think nuclear weapons offer any deterrent theses days to mad bastards like Kim Jong il, Isis or increasingly some others bent on martyrdom.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Surely the Tories should do an updated '3am phone call' attack ad with Corbyn's quotes and a mushroom cloud over Manchester?

    Who do you trust your family's security with?

    Corbyn Too Big A Risk.

    Even though I personally think the nuclear issue is very important, I think the real issue with Corbyn is what he would do with terrorist incidents.

    When asked about shooting terrorists if we had a Paris like attack he was more concerned with establishing a principle rather than acting. When asked about a drone strike if we located the head of IS he ruled it out.

    Back in 2011 the government got a lot of stick from the press and Labour about Brits stranded in Libya, but secretly a rescue mission was already underway to round up Brits and fly them out of Libya from the a commandeered airfield in the desert. That was a very high-risk mission, but was carried out perfectly. A lot of lives were at risk, and more risked in sending UK forces into Libya. I can not see Corbyn being up to such a challenge. He'd flunk it, and lives would potentially be lost.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited June 2017
    "What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"

    Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.

    Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button. May and Corbyn are both sane moral people and neither would press the button. I suspect Churchill, Thatcher or Blair would - but perhaps I malign them.

    In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness".
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001

    Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?

    Corbyn's refusal to use it made it an election issue
  • TypoTypo Posts: 195

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    Brexit PM handing over to Davidson?
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Messages coming through, one Corbynite not impressed by his answers on Trident, he's young so he didn't know the stance beforehand. A Tory who was relieved. Two floating voters who are off the fence in favour of May, both of them thought she was much better than the media were making out she was. A couple of mainstream Labour types who were reminded why they dislike Corbyn and will continue to oppose him even if he manages to do better than Ed.

    Whisper it, but I think this is a turning point for the Tories. I think the Corbyn surge will begin to peter out and some of those Lab -> UKIP -> Con will come back after those comments on defence. More than anything else they are patriots and those Trident answers were very poor.

    What was that? Tipping point? :p

    Sorry.. couldn't resist :D
    What will we name it. Cleggasm. Millifandom. I like Corbymania, it reminds me of wrestlemania and that seems funny alongside him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Jonathan said:

    Curiously I don't think nuclear weapons offer any deterrent theses days to mad bastards like Kim Jong il, Isis or increasingly some others bent on martyrdom.

    Even if not the fact is you could completely obliterate most of northern Syria, northern Iraq and North Korea if you absolutely had to and it literally was you or them
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352

    Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?

    French Nukes made by French workers.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,721
    TBH I am depressed.

    There is as much chance of Lab stopping an increased TM Maj as Corbyn nuking a dung beetle

    Fookin Nil None Zero F Fookin All,

    I am off for a lie down just cashed out on a £200 profit.

    Lets move on from Corbyn now I cannot do any more canvassing as i cannot defend that stupid nuclear answer.

    My Account has not been hacked BTW
  • TMA1TMA1 Posts: 225

    Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?

    Corbyn's refusal to use it made it an election issue
    It isn't an issue untill you have a left wing bigot as LOTO.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    If Tory press has any sense they drop the IRA bollocks but go big on Corbyn NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER being prepared to press the button.

    The silly old Tosser

    YEP,the last week,the press and the tories campaign must go big on that.
    My slight worry is that it won't resonate as much as it should because our press like to "go big" on trivia like Ed Miliband not being able to eat a bacon sarnie well.
    It should give a new lease of life to
    everybody's favourite viral video
    (now over 5.5m views).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    All the Tories need to do for next six days is show the clip of the last two minutes of the 7 mins that Corbyn was quizzed on Trident.

    Repeat, repeat, repeat.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2017

    TBH I am depressed.

    There is as much chance of Lab stopping an increased TM Maj as Corbyn nuking a dung beetle

    Fookin Nil None Zero F Fookin All,

    I am off for a lie down just cashed out on a £200 profit.

    Lets move on from Corbyn now I cannot do any more canvassing as i cannot defend that stupid nuclear answer.

    My Account has not been hacked BTW

    If you'd selected Yvette Cooper as leader she'd be heading for Downing Street in a few days. I said so at the time of the leadership election.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?

    Sanders did not make the final round against Trump, Hillary did, nor did Melenchon against Macron, Le Pen did, Corbyn is literally one election away now from having the nuclear codes
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    edited June 2017
    Barnesian said:

    "What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"

    Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.

    Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button.

    In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"

    This is an issue where the British public fully expect the PM to be prepared to bluff, lie or we might as well just scrap the whole system.

    If you keep the system, you need to keep the bluff.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?

    Because in France and the US defending your country goes without saying no matter what side of politics you are on.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    TBH I am depressed.

    There is as much chance of Lab stopping an increased TM Maj as Corbyn nuking a dung beetle

    Fookin Nil None Zero F Fookin All,

    I am off for a lie down just cashed out on a £200 profit.

    Lets move on from Corbyn now I cannot do any more canvassing as i cannot defend that stupid nuclear answer.

    My Account has not been hacked BTW

    You seem surprised. What on Earth did you expect? He has been consistent for years.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    surbiton said:

    TMA1 said:

    glw said:

    MaxPB said:

    glw said:

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.

    That's wrong.

    France, China, Israel (cruise missiles), and India all have sub launched nuclear weapons. Pakistan is developing them. So it is believed is North Korea.
    France have an air delivered nuclear deterrent, much cheaper than ours iirc.
    France has both, but the SLBMs are the bulk of the French nuclear arsenal.
    Correct. The bollox people talk is incredible. They also did have land based missile silos and the french ... who value their place in the world - unlike the nasty lying fecker Corbyn and hia pea brained supporters ... seemed content with it.
    I think the missile boats, which are onto their second generation , last one completed as recently as 2010, have replaced them.

    But hey lets pay fealty to the french to protect us eh?
    OK. How much did they spend on them ? I bet much less than £100bn. Our Military Industrial Complex and Len McCluskey is bleeding us dry !
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?

    French Nukes made by French workers.
    American Nukes for British subs!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    MaxPB said:

    Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?

    French Nukes made by French workers.
    American Nukes for British subs!
    Our nukes, their missiles.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Curiously I don't think nuclear weapons offer any deterrent theses days to mad bastards like Kim Jong il, Isis or increasingly some others bent on martyrdom.

    Even if not the fact is you could completely obliterate most of northern Syria, northern Iraq and North Korea if you absolutely had to and it literally was you or them
    I want no part in mass murder of people who were not involved, and that is what that would be.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The Conservatives need to press home their advantage of tonight by conflating Corbyn's ludicrous position on nuclear deterrence with his ludicrous positions on everything else. So, forget trying to paint him as actively a terrorist sympathiser (although his record on that is vile), and instead paint him as naive beyond belief: a 'nice guy' (professional politicians should be able to say this without throwing up) who is so naive about deterrence, defence and terrorism that he would be a danger to our security, and by extension to our economy.

    Thread...

    https://twitter.com/matthewdancona/status/870753908112621568
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited June 2017
    Tom Cruise and Zac Efron on Graham Norton now just 40 minutes after May and Corbyn were on with David Dimbleby, good line from Norton 'Corbyn's hobbies is looking at manhole covers but Farron thinks looking at manholes is a sin'
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    "What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"

    Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.

    Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button.

    In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"

    This is an issue where the British public fully expect the PM to be prepared to bluff, lie or we might as well just scrap the whole system.

    If you keep the system, you need to keep the bluff.
    Our last bit is the sane you.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
    IIRC Abbott wanted to wipe the DNA of innocent people.

    Under current rules if you're arrested for a trigger offence, your DNA is taken.

    But if no charges are brought or the person is found not guilty, Abbott wanted that person's record wiping.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    Typo said:

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    Brexit PM handing over to Davidson?
    Tories third female leader and PM. First gay leader and PM - how to wind up Labour.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    Trident could hurt Corbyn far more than IRA stuff ever would. Simply put, if you don't have your own nukes that you are willing to use, you are reliant on one of the other great powers for protection. The rest of Europe sleeps easy because of NATO protection. how many countries do not have nukes or the protection of other countries' nukes, and manage to remain free of control from other great powers. Brazil perhaps? Struggling to think of others?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    Just backed the Tories most seats at 1.11 on Betfair

    Reckon that's free money now. 10%+ tax free return in 6 days
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    IIRC Abbott wanted to wipe the DNA of innocent people.

    Under current rules if you're arrested for a trigger offence, your DNA is taken.

    But if no charges are brought or the person is found not guilty, Abbott wanted that person's record wiping.
    Sounds like a good thing. Probably should exempt people on control orders though?
  • BigIanBigIan Posts: 198

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    Shortly after she's got the Brexit dirtywork out of the way.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008

    The Conservatives need to press home their advantage of tonight by conflating Corbyn's ludicrous position on nuclear deterrence with his ludicrous positions on everything else. So, forget trying to paint him as actively a terrorist sympathiser (although his record on that is vile), and instead paint him as naive beyond belief: a 'nice guy' (professional politicians should be able to say this without throwing up) who is so naive about deterrence, defence and terrorism that he would be a danger to our security, and by extension to our economy.

    This.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    surbiton said:

    An ex Conservative Defence Secretary on Trident

    #1 Corbynista ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH9F-1guiyE

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    TBH I am depressed.

    There is as much chance of Lab stopping an increased TM Maj as Corbyn nuking a dung beetle

    Fookin Nil None Zero F Fookin All,

    I am off for a lie down just cashed out on a £200 profit.

    Lets move on from Corbyn now I cannot do any more canvassing as i cannot defend that stupid nuclear answer.

    My Account has not been hacked BTW

    I'll beginning to feel sorry for you john.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164

    IIRC Abbott wanted to wipe the DNA of innocent people.

    Under current rules if you're arrested for a trigger offence, your DNA is taken.

    But if no charges are brought or the person is found not guilty, Abbott wanted that person's record wiping.
    I'd be curious to know how often innocent people are then done for something else due to their DNA being on the database.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    That seems ludicrous. Another above a 20 seat majority would be the Tories' best result for 30 years. Repeat 30 years. If she does a fairjjob in the next parliament why would she be threatened? And who replaces her? Don't tell me it's just got to be some smug Cameroon or an Osbornian bottom feeder.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?

    French Nukes made by French workers.
    American Nukes for British subs!
    Our nukes, their missiles.
    Yes the French make their own missiles, we gave up investing.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited June 2017
    @bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    The Conservatives need to press home their advantage of tonight by conflating Corbyn's ludicrous position on nuclear deterrence with his ludicrous positions on everything else. So, forget trying to paint him as actively a terrorist sympathiser (although his record on that is vile), and instead paint him as naive beyond belief: a 'nice guy' (professional politicians should be able to say this without throwing up) who is so naive about deterrence, defence and terrorism that he would be a danger to our security, and by extension to our economy.

    This.
    Maybe Lynton Crosby is reading this thread.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    TBH I am depressed.

    There is as much chance of Lab stopping an increased TM Maj as Corbyn nuking a dung beetle

    Fookin Nil None Zero F Fookin All,

    I am off for a lie down just cashed out on a £200 profit.

    Lets move on from Corbyn now I cannot do any more canvassing as i cannot defend that stupid nuclear answer.

    My Account has not been hacked BTW

    I'll beginning to feel sorry for you john.
    Leftie wobbles are no where near as good as PB Tory wobbles. We have the best wobbles, don't we folks?
  • woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    Just bought Conservative seats at 368, think this could be peak Corbyn.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Typo said:

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    Brexit PM handing over to Davidson?
    Tories third female leader and PM. First gay leader and PM - how to wind up Labour.
    Heath has already won that prize.
    Although whether he was a proper Tory PM is more debatable.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    The Conservatives need to press home their advantage of tonight by conflating Corbyn's ludicrous position on nuclear deterrence with his ludicrous positions on everything else. So, forget trying to paint him as actively a terrorist sympathiser (although his record on that is vile), and instead paint him as naive beyond belief: a 'nice guy' (professional politicians should be able to say this without throwing up) who is so naive about deterrence, defence and terrorism that he would be a danger to our security, and by extension to our economy.

    Yes, nice but dim.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
    MaxPB said:

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
    That's why one of my Tory friends is abstaining.

    He doesn't want to give anything that endorses that manifesto or makes Nick Timothy look like a master strategist.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    IIRC Abbott wanted to wipe the DNA of innocent people.

    Under current rules if you're arrested for a trigger offence, your DNA is taken.

    But if no charges are brought or the person is found not guilty, Abbott wanted that person's record wiping.
    Seems fine to me.

    The police should not have the power to build a covert database of innocent citizens.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    "What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"

    Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.

    Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button.

    In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"

    This is an issue where the British public fully expect the PM to be prepared to bluff, lie or we might as well just scrap the whole system.

    If you keep the system, you need to keep the bluff.
    Everyone knows it's a bluff. That's why it is a waste of money.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Boris going on about the logic of deterrents.

    I'm the age of suicide bombers, that logic no longer applies


    Food for thought.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    "What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"

    Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.

    Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button.

    In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"

    This is an issue where the British public fully expect the PM to be prepared to bluff, lie or we might as well just scrap the whole system.

    If you keep the system, you need to keep the bluff.
    Everyone knows it s a bluff. That's why it is a waste of money.
    Is it? May has said she would use it. Who knows if she's bluffing or not...
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Typo said:

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    Brexit PM handing over to Davidson?
    Tories third female leader and PM. First gay leader and PM - how to wind up Labour.
    First gay leader ? Not even the first Tory gay leader !
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830

    IIRC Abbott wanted to wipe the DNA of innocent people.

    Under current rules if you're arrested for a trigger offence, your DNA is taken.

    But if no charges are brought or the person is found not guilty, Abbott wanted that person's record wiping.
    That's fair enough, and it was wrong of May to mischaracterise her position.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    "What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"

    Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.

    Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button.

    In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"

    This is an issue where the British public fully expect the PM to be prepared to bluff, lie or we might as well just scrap the whole system.

    If you keep the system, you need to keep the bluff.
    Everyone knows it's a bluff. That's why it is a waste of money.
    In very extreme cases, you might use it to a limited extent.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    That seems ludicrous. Another above a 20 seat majority would be the Tories' best result for 30 years. Repeat 30 years. If she does a fairjjob in the next parliament why would she be threatened? And who replaces her? Don't tell me it's just got to be some smug Cameroon or an Osbornian bottom feeder.
    Success equals performance minus anticipation.

    A 40 seat majority against Corbyn is a bit shite.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Jonathan said:

    Boris going on about the logic of deterrents.

    I'm the age of suicide bombers, that logic no longer applies


    Food for thought.

    Still applies to North Korea and Iran, doesn't it
  • chloechloe Posts: 308
    edited June 2017
    RobD said:

    TBH I am depressed.

    There is as much chance of Lab stopping an increased TM Maj as Corbyn nuking a dung beetle

    Fookin Nil None Zero F Fookin All,

    I am off for a lie down just cashed out on a £200 profit.

    Lets move on from Corbyn now I cannot do any more canvassing as i cannot defend that stupid nuclear answer.

    My Account has not been hacked BTW

    I'll beginning to feel sorry for you john.
    Leftie wobbles are no where near as good as PB Tory wobbles. We have the best wobbles, don't we folks?
    I need to see the polls moving before I stop wobbling!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008

    MaxPB said:

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
    That's why one of my Tory friends is abstaining.

    He doesn't want to give anything that endorses that manifesto or makes Nick Timothy look like a master strategist.
    A small majority and this campaign should teach that lesson.

    The Cabinet to ensure it is learnt.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    "What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"

    Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.

    Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button.

    In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"

    This is an issue where the British public fully expect the PM to be prepared to bluff, lie or we might as well just scrap the whole system.

    If you keep the system, you need to keep the bluff.
    Everyone knows it s a bluff. That's why it is a waste of money.
    Is it? May has said she would use it. Who knows if she's bluffing or not...
    On Brussels ?
  • TypoTypo Posts: 195

    Typo said:

    The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?

    No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.

    It's a question of

    1) When she goes in the next Parliament

    2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
    Brexit PM handing over to Davidson?
    Tories third female leader and PM. First gay leader and PM - how to wind up Labour.
    Somewhere Harriet Harman's head is exploding.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    Jonathan said:

    Boris going on about the logic of deterrents.

    I'm the age of suicide bombers, that logic no longer applies


    Food for thought.

    I doubt they have the sophistication, territorial space, radioactive material and nuclear expertise to be able to pull it off before a swat team demolishes their construction to smithereens.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Surely the Tories should do an updated '3am phone call' attack ad with Corbyn's quotes and a mushroom cloud over Manchester?

    Who do you trust your family's security with?

    Corbyn Too Big A Risk.

    Yes, but with Birmingham rather than Manchester. That's where the marginals are, and the more northern city is getting over a real terrorist attack right now.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,721
    AndyJS said:

    TBH I am depressed.

    There is as much chance of Lab stopping an increased TM Maj as Corbyn nuking a dung beetle

    Fookin Nil None Zero F Fookin All,

    I am off for a lie down just cashed out on a £200 profit.

    Lets move on from Corbyn now I cannot do any more canvassing as i cannot defend that stupid nuclear answer.

    My Account has not been hacked BTW

    If you'd selected Yvette Cooper as leader she'd be heading for Downing Street in a few days. I said so at the time of the leadership election.
    YC couldnt even pick a colour of the nuclear button

    "Red has its Merits but so does Green its an important question and we should consider each option on its merits"

    Mrs Balls is dire thats why we ended up with this stupid pacifist
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    RobD said:

    TBH I am depressed.

    There is as much chance of Lab stopping an increased TM Maj as Corbyn nuking a dung beetle

    Fookin Nil None Zero F Fookin All,

    I am off for a lie down just cashed out on a £200 profit.

    Lets move on from Corbyn now I cannot do any more canvassing as i cannot defend that stupid nuclear answer.

    My Account has not been hacked BTW

    I'll beginning to feel sorry for you john.
    Leftie wobbles are no where near as good as PB Tory wobbles. We have the best wobbles,
    don't we folks?
    Rob,reading this site for the last two weeks ,isn't helping my health ;-)

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited June 2017
    surbiton said:

    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    "What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"

    Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.

    Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button.

    In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"

    This is an issue where the British public fully expect the PM to be prepared to bluff, lie or we might as well just scrap the whole system.

    If you keep the system, you need to keep the bluff.
    Everyone knows it s a bluff. That's why it is a waste of money.
    Is it? May has said she would use it. Who knows if she's bluffing or not...
    On Brussels ?
    Negotiations haven't even started yet! I was more thinking on France. :p
  • Why is Newsnight interviewing people about the debates in a funny little room with a parade of oddballs and weirdos wandering in the background?

    One of them has even bluffed his way into being interviewed on air, it seems.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
    tlg86 said:

    IIRC Abbott wanted to wipe the DNA of innocent people.

    Under current rules if you're arrested for a trigger offence, your DNA is taken.

    But if no charges are brought or the person is found not guilty, Abbott wanted that person's record wiping.
    I'd be curious to know how often innocent people are then done for something else due to their DNA being on the database.
    I think it is very low, except for serious sexual offences and aggravated burglary type crimes.
This discussion has been closed.