Page 4 of 5
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:39 pm
by citizenJA
rebeccariots2 wrote:citizenJA wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote:
(my bold)
How does that work, then.
"...polling better than public polls suggest..."The Lib Dems are polling more strongly than public polls suggest.
Sure, enough, RR2, that's what the website title actually has printed.
jesus christ almighty
The Lib Dems have been doing their own private polling - that's why the headline seems really contradictory - if that's what you meant. I know it feels ludicrous in every other way as well.
I understand, RR2, please excuse me if my incredulous response was too snarky. Isn't that a good word, snarky? Actually, in times of trouble, snarky isn't good. It's off-putting, maybe. I'll save snarky for times of prosperity for all. Snarky is best indulged when we're not frightened by government.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:41 pm
by rebeccariots2
There is nothing new about the divisions within Labour over electoral reform. Indeed, no issue split the party more in this parliament than whether to adopt the Alternative Vote (albeit a non-proportional system). But the divide between tribalists and pluralists, much discussed in 2010, has been reawoken by the fragmentation of the party system. According to one conception, Labour's future lies in acting as the head of a broad progressive movment, governing in partnership with the Lib Dems and the Greens. According to another, it remains the only legitimate vehicle for left-wing politics and should fight tooth and nail to retain the FPTP system that makes future majorities possible.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:43 pm
by Spacedone
More on the Telegraph and HSBC from the Media Standards Trust who have looked at whether the accusations by Peter Oborne are true.
http://mediastandardstrust.org/mst-news ... c-scandal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They should that the Telegraph produced by far the least number of articles to mention HSBC, 16 in total. Of those 16 just 1 article was about HSBC (and that was pretty much a press release from the HSBC Chief Exec) with the rest being about HMRC (3) or politicians such as Miliband (12).
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:45 pm
by rebeccariots2
ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 10 hrs10 hours ago
Latest Lord Ashcroft marginals polling finds it’s not going to be as easy for UKIP to take CON seats as was thought
http://bit.ly/1Le1Ule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And the Indy headline on that same poll is:
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:45 pm
by Spacedone
rebeccariots2 wrote:
There is nothing new about the divisions within Labour over electoral reform. Indeed, no issue split the party more in this parliament than whether to adopt the Alternative Vote (albeit a non-proportional system). But the divide between tribalists and pluralists, much discussed in 2010, has been reawoken by the fragmentation of the party system. According to one conception, Labour's future lies in acting as the head of a broad progressive movment, governing in partnership with the Lib Dems and the Greens. According to another, it remains the only legitimate vehicle for left-wing politics and should fight tooth and nail to retain the FPTP system that makes future majorities possible.
There are people out there that still think the Lib-Dems are progressive?
I'm not tribalistic, I just hold grudges.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:49 pm
by rebeccariots2
What on earth gets into - or deserts - these people who think it's OK to tweet such vile stuff - and publicly....?
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:50 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 10 hrs10 hours ago
Latest Lord Ashcroft marginals polling finds it’s not going to be as easy for UKIP to take CON seats as was thought
http://bit.ly/1Le1Ule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think UKIP have a few better seats than those- Clacton, Great Yarmouth, Thanet South, maybe Rochester and Strood. Plus Thurrock and Great Grimsby and Rotherham.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:51 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Free speech as the DT take down my link to Guardian story about Barclay Brothers loan from HSBC.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:53 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
The DT responds!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/tele ... aders.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This newspaper makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary, allegations that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party. We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets.
Utterly graceless.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:54 pm
by rebeccariots2
Spacedone wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote:
There is nothing new about the divisions within Labour over electoral reform. Indeed, no issue split the party more in this parliament than whether to adopt the Alternative Vote (albeit a non-proportional system). But the divide between tribalists and pluralists, much discussed in 2010, has been reawoken by the fragmentation of the party system. According to one conception, Labour's future lies in acting as the head of a broad progressive movment, governing in partnership with the Lib Dems and the Greens. According to another, it remains the only legitimate vehicle for left-wing politics and should fight tooth and nail to retain the FPTP system that makes future majorities possible.
There are people out there that still think the Lib-Dems are progressive?
I'm not tribalistic, I just hold grudges.
That's endearingly honest of you spacedone.
It's an interesting article though. The issue of proportional representation is most likely going to get ever more in our faces. I'd like to see the constitutional convention / discussion that Miliband and, I think, the Lib Dems are in favour of - and the kind of voting systems we need for the UK of now and the future given the increasing number of parties and further devolution should be part of the discussion.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:57 pm
by TechnicalEphemera
Tubby Isaacs wrote:The DT responds!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/tele ... aders.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This newspaper makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary, allegations that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party. We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets.
Utterly graceless.
Foremost in those values is securing large wedges of cash from HSBC.
Corporate lackeys they can bite my shiny metal ass.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:59 pm
by TechnicalEphemera
That lib dem private polling is hysterical.
Once you start quoting imaginary private polling to claim you are going to do well in elections your credibility is utterly shot. The same denial that Labour activists were into in 1983.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:00 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Love the way they've basically said their ex-top political writer is basically "BBC, Guardian, Labour Party".
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:00 pm
by HindleA
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... t-47802968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Guardian view on welfare reform: In Dire Straits
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:04 pm
by ohsocynical
Ian retweeted
tom_watson @tom_watson Feb 18
@DPJHodges Please get the emails Dan. Make us proud of you again. Stand up to your proprietor like Peter Oborne did.
OW !!!!!
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:07 pm
by citizenJA
rebeccariots2 wrote:
There is nothing new about the divisions within Labour over electoral reform. Indeed, no issue split the party more in this parliament than whether to adopt the Alternative Vote (albeit a non-proportional system). But the divide between tribalists and pluralists, much discussed in 2010, has been reawoken by the fragmentation of the party system. According to one conception, Labour's future lies in acting as the head of a broad progressive movment, governing in partnership with the Lib Dems and the Greens. According to another, it remains the only legitimate vehicle for left-wing politics and should fight tooth and nail to retain the FPTP system that makes future majorities possible.
Yeah, okay, pardon my French, but bullshit.
Save the NHS, securely tenured, affordable place to live, functional education system teaching us all & dignified employment & conditions.
Vote Labour.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:17 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Wintour!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ition-role" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lib Dem polling brings hope of future coalition role
No comments allowed.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:20 pm
by ohsocynical
Work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith. 'His faith-based claims that he could iron out every perversity of social security were never believed by the experts, who cautioned that he would achieve a modest rationalisation at best.'
In sum, real welfare reform – as distinct from very real welfare cuts – has not occurred. As we come towards what must, surely, be the end of Mr Duncan Smith’s five-year tenure in office, the debate is still characterised by the sort of campaigning slogans associated with opposition. This week the Conservatives have signalled that they will carry on in the same vein if they win again. David Cameron put his name to a work-for-your-welfare scheme, even though a DWP pilot had recently established that, while this may succeed in bullying some off the benefit rolls, it has no effect on unemployment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... t-47802968
Not so flattering this time!
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:23 pm
by HindleA
"leave to languish "support" category.aaaaaaaaaarghhhhhh
Awful editorial,lacking basic understanding of the system.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:26 pm
by pk1
Ahhhh, that will be the polling that Clegg anticipated would declare them to be on 13% then......
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:29 pm
by citizenJA
Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB)
February 17, 2015
GE2010 Ipsos-MORI.
Just 27% of those living in marginals realised that their seat was key battleground
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/ ... 44/photo/1
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:29 pm
by LadyCentauria
rebeccariots2 wrote:This is it ... my final quote from the jaw dropper.
And the savings?
GDS had boasted that its new services and the new portal would create £1.7bn savings on services that cost £6bn to £9bn to run. That’s predicated on being able to lay off civil servants, as users could self-service. The National Audit Office was sceptical – "the evidence for savings is hard to follow”, it told the Cabinet Office in 2013 – and twice asked GDS to tone down its claims.
But it's worse than that.
"Nobody talks about savings any more,” says one source familiar with the transition process, who added: "If the site doesn't meet user needs because it was rushed out, and it doesn't save money because they've not actually switched off the [old] sites, what is it for?”
With an election looming, the Cabinet Office might just have created an excellent stick with which to beat the Coalition and its trendy “digital revolution”.
There are a lot of comments under that article which are well worth reading, too – struck a lot of chords with me. I recently needed some information and, in order to find it, had to go trawling through money-advice and law forums looking for a clue as to which particular volume and chapter of the DWP Decision Makers' Guide might hold it, because searching .gov.uk didn't turn it up for me. The .gov.uk site just has a list of links to the pdf each volume so you need to know where what you need to know is before you can find out what you need to know. And there is no reason that 'the ordinary punter' should have known that the general pages hadn't told me the whole story, so had I taken that at face value I could have landed up in a whole heap of trouble as I wouldn't have known that there was something I needed to know, let alone that it was deep down in the DWP DMG – which most people wo'n't even have heard of or suspected they might need to look at - if you follow...
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:36 pm
by citizenJA
The Liberal Democrats believe women and young voters switching from the Conservatives will help them secure enough seats to play a key role in another coalition government after the general election.
Wintour's first sentence.
Nothing in that sentence will likely come to pass, but everyone has the right to believe what they like.
Don't inflict belief systems onto others, but that goes without saying, usually, not lately...
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:47 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Michael Sylvain @onebuttonmonkey 2m2 minutes ago
Dear The Telegraph. If I want to complain about your idiotic editorial should I write to your editor or to your head of advertising?
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:51 pm
by GetYou
citizenJA wrote:Have I understood this article correctly, please?
IDS has used his position as DWP minister to move, through legislation penalising housing benefit recipients for something never existing prior to current government fabricating it ('spare room subsidy'), 200,000 social housing sector tenants out of the social housing sector. This has cost more in every way possible. 200,000 former social housing sector tenants are no longer in social sector housing. They're now in private sector, Tory MP landlord accommodation everyone pays more for than prior their exodus. Out of London & into private sector housing.
Is that about it? Is this correct?
Yes JA, that's a reasonable summary. I've yet to see any HB figures specifically for households rehoused as a result of the bedroom tax, but this is certainly a factor in the increase in HB in London.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:53 pm
by diGriz
rebeccariots2 wrote:
What on earth gets into - or deserts - these people who think it's OK to tweet such vile stuff - and publicly....?
Twitter is a form of intellectual Darwinism. It's good to weed out undesirable minds from the powers-that-be gene pool.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 9:54 pm
by RogerOThornhill
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Love the way they've basically said their ex-top political writer is basically "BBC, Guardian, Labour Party".
If I may be Orwellian for a moment, he's become an unperson...
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:03 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
RogerOThornhill wrote:Tubby Isaacs wrote:Love the way they've basically said their ex-top political writer is basically "BBC, Guardian, Labour Party".
If I may be Orwellian for a moment, he's become an unperson...
Nicked that for a tweet.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:09 pm
by rebeccariots2
Final paras:
But they can pose as fearless “outsiders” only because the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats speak like robots. Surprise them with a choice, and they’ll do anything but make it. Ambush them with a potential “gaffe”, and they’ll try their best to skate around it. Read out one of their colleagues’ comments, and they’ll fudge about what they might have meant. In this environment, even London’s eccentric Mayor, Boris Johnson, looks and sounds like a beacon of integrity.
The boom in what used to be considered “fringe” parties is down to the fact that they cut through – to older voters worried about change, to Scots who despise what they see as untrustworthy “Westminster” politics, to young people impatient for a better, more sustainable way of doing things.
That’s partly because the world becomes ever more complex, raising the price and appeal of simplicity. But the rise of the insurgents is also due to the way the more established parties talk. If only. If only they could summon up a bit of imagination, speculation, fantasy – and even magic. Then they might be able to make voters dream some more believable dreams.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:09 pm
by LadyCentauria
TechnicalEphemera wrote:mikems wrote:Who is behind the fiasco of Government IT? It's old Mankie Fraud himself. Last year there was some comment here about him not having any idea about IT development, agile or not, and that a disaster was in the offing. I remember saying that agile production absolutely depends on close and constant contact with users and that government departments were probably amongst the organisations least capable of it.
Well I think the issue is Maude knows the buzzwords and sees himself as some sort of expert. Problem is his expertise is a veneer.
Hence the stupidity of mandating Agile methodology for UC, a totally unsuitable project for it. He made it worse by trying to retro fit the methodology half way through the project.
I suppose we should be glad he doesn't work for Airbus or Boeing.
The GOV thing is a spectacular fiasco, oddly website functionality like that strikes me as exactly the sort of project that Agile excels at. So if they can't get that right what can they do? Maybe you are right and they never engaged with real users.
Just reminds me of a Select Committee meeting I watched (can't remember if it was W&P or PAC) with IDS and bods from the UC team. They were talking about how the process was both Agile and Waterfall at the same time. But as they seemed to have even less understanding of either methodology than me it just left me thinking their 'method' involved spectacularly jumping off the nearest cliff without looking first, at the slightest sign of any problems. Then drowning...
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:14 pm
by TheGrimSqueaker
RogerOThornhill wrote:Tubby Isaacs wrote:Love the way they've basically said their ex-top political writer is basically "BBC, Guardian, Labour Party".
If I may be Orwellian for a moment, he's become an unperson...
And if I may be Kafkaesque, I think his situation is not dissimilar to Gregor Samsa, although he has metamorphosed into a convenient squirrel for the Barclay brothers rather than an insect.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:44 pm
by dfhodges
RogerOThornhill wrote:citizenJA wrote:yahyah wrote:Dan Hodges ✔ @DPJHodges
Follow
Massive problem for Labour now. Will surely have to give PWC donation back. Especially after Hodge comments.
I bet that made his day.
His heart's not in it. I wasn't even vaguely annoyed with his tweet. He's going to have to do better than that.
Given that the donation was in the form of PwC staff time, how can they possibly give it back?
And he's now calling PwC tax avoiders - bet they'll love that given there's ben no suggestion of anything they've done as a company.
Moron.
You smell of poo.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:48 pm
by ErnstRemarx
ohsocynical wrote:
See. It's even happening down south, in John Redwood's constituency. I wonder what he tells them?
I imagine that they're lectured on the long term economic plan (yet to be spelled out) and how their moral inadequacies and lack of market savvy has led to their decline, as they are bad people who don't get it. All delivered in a monotone drone that would make the original Spock sound like Chubby Brown.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:52 pm
by ErnstRemarx
I don't suppose I should say so, but I think the 'Bear' is a beautiful aircraft...
http://www.airforceworld.com/bomber/eng ... mber-2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:56 pm
by ErnstRemarx
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Hodges has spotted a killer quote.
"“Let’s talk about the difference between him [the Prime Minister] and me. None of these people have given a penny on my watch, and he’s up to his neck in this.""
And reaches this conclusion.
"There’s not getting around the fact Ed Miliband appears to have deliberately mislead the House of Commons. He implied that as Labour leader he had ended the practice of accepting donations from companies and individuals who practiced tax avoidance"
Note non-existent sub-editing too.
Not just a moron, but an illiterate moron too. Perhaps his man love for David has blinded him to the need to post stuff which won't make onlookers point and laugh.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:56 pm
by WelshIan
Willow904 wrote:
I still haven't been able to find out what the official school leaving age is, whether Labour's rise to 17 in 2013 and then 18 in 2015 has ever come into law. You'd think, even with my modest internet skills, this information would be easy to find.
Hi Willow
The school leaving age is still 16, but you have to remain in education or training until your 18th birthday. This says it's been implemented:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/ ... pation-age" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and this has percentages of 16 and 17 year olds by LA and region with an offer of education or training as at September 2014 (and for each year back to Sept 2010):
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -year-olds" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
92.8% have had an offer made (although it doesn't say how many take the offer up, drop out, etc), and there are some LAs with a surprisingly large number of children that they have no information on. Overall, 5% had not been contacted (because they had moved with no forwarding address) or had no offer made, which is about 60,000 children.
In September 2010, the figure was 93.9% with only 1.6% not contacted, 19,000 children.
When a child up to age 16 changes school/moves from an LA, the LA has a duty to know where that child has gone. With the change in legislation, I wonder if that duty has been extended to 16/17 year olds? That is a big increase in children where the LA doesn't know where they are.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:01 pm
by StephenDolan
dfhodges wrote:RogerOThornhill wrote:citizenJA wrote:His heart's not in it. I wasn't even vaguely annoyed with his tweet. He's going to have to do better than that.
Given that the donation was in the form of PwC staff time, how can they possibly give it back?
And he's now calling PwC tax avoiders - bet they'll love that given there's ben no suggestion of anything they've done as a company.
Moron.
You smell of poo.
Coming soon.
Why the kraft creme egg chocolate controversy is bad news for Ed Miliband.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:03 pm
by TheGrimSqueaker
I get what you say. Saw one flying at the RIAT a few years back (a few? Just checked, and it is 21 years ago. Jeez I feel old.) and that is one very impressive piece of kit!! And as somebody said elsewhere tonight (sort of) the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:10 pm
by ErnstRemarx
citizenJA wrote:Have I understood this article correctly, please?
IDS has used his position as DWP minister to move, through legislation penalising housing benefit recipients for something never existing prior to current government fabricating it ('spare room subsidy'), 200,000 social housing sector tenants out of the social housing sector. This has cost more in every way possible. 200,000 former social housing sector tenants are no longer in social sector housing. They're now in private sector, Tory MP landlord accommodation everyone pays more for than prior their exodus. Out of London & into private sector housing.
Is that about it? Is this correct?
Yes. It's precisely what I asked when the Bedroom Tax came Bury.
Specifically, I asked the following questions - in a very public, and very Tory forum:
1. How many people in the borough will be hit by this legislation?
Answer from council officers: about 1000 people.
2. Do we have sufficient social housing/council housing stock to downsize those deemed to have to pay the tax?
Answer: no.
3. Can the private sector take up th eslack in such a case?
Answer: probably not.
4. Will any money be saved, given that smaller private rentals will be at a premium, and cost more than social housing in any case?
Answer: no.
That's what I was told in that meeting. The Tories chunnered on about 'fairness' - for whom, precisely? - and benefit fraud (quite why, I didn't know, as it had no relevance). It's been clear for a few years now, so I'm hardly surprised at the indings. It was
always going to cost more money, given the paucity of available dwellings, and therefore would always cost more than leaving be.
But it wasn't done for that reason. It was done so the Tories could be seen being 'tough' (ie, ludicrously inhumane) about those on housing benefit. It was always meant to be a punishment, as its terms made clear. Any sensible government would not have made it retrospective, but might have tied it to new lets, whilst building council/social housing like fuck to accommodate demand.
That was never going to happen. So, it remains on the statute book; one of the most mean-minded, petty, partisan and draconian pieces of legislation ever to disgrace a government. So, par for the course for the Tories.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:13 pm
by TechnicalEphemera
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
I get what you say. Saw one flying at the RIAT a few years back (a few? Just checked, and it is 21 years ago. Jeez I feel old.) and that is one very impressive piece of kit!! And as somebody said elsewhere tonight (sort of) the more things change, the more they stay the same.
What a brilliant photograph.
The Bear is indeed a fantastic aircraft. Fastest turboprop ever, on a par with the B-52 and similar vintage. I love the outrageous sweep angle.
As for the Lightning, it had a duration of something stupid like 40 minutes but nothing to this day beats it in the climb (AFAIK). Its modern namesake is by all accounts a complete dog.
Of course I am holding out for a low altitude fly past of the HoC by a TU-160 if Putin really wants to wind us up. We wouldn't even see that coming and I don't think we have anything that could realistically catch it.
The catch, I believe it takes 50 hours of maintenance to get 1 hour of flight out of it.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:16 pm
by pk1
@britainelects: Plaid Cymru GAIN Hengoed (Carmarthenshire) from Labour.
WTF
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:27 pm
by TheGrimSqueaker
TechnicalEphemera wrote:TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
I get what you say. Saw one flying at the RIAT a few years back (a few? Just checked, and it is 21 years ago. Jeez I feel old.) and that is one very impressive piece of kit!! And as somebody said elsewhere tonight (sort of) the more things change, the more they stay the same.
What a brilliant photograph.
The Bear is indeed a fantastic aircraft. Fastest turboprop ever, on a par with the B-52 and similar vintage. I love the outrageous sweep angle.
As for the Lightning, it had a duration of something stupid like 40 minutes but nothing to this day beats it in the climb (AFAIK). Its modern namesake is by all accounts a complete dog.
Of course I am holding out for a low altitude fly past of the HoC by a TU-160 if Putin really wants to wind us up. We wouldn't even see that coming and I don't think we have anything that could realistically catch it.
The catch, I believe it takes 50 hours of maintenance to get 1 hour of flight out of it.
Saw 'that' Lightning takeoff at airshows many a time when I were a yoof, unforgettable. And, sure, she had short legs but that was why we pioneered air to air refuelling in this country.
As ladies frequent this board I shall refrain from expressing my opining of the modern namesake.
A Tu-160 at low level? Typhoon has a near 300 mph advantage on that at sea level, 200 mph at altitude, so I suspect could do a pretty decent job of catching it.
Anyway ...... night all.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:31 pm
by ErnstRemarx
citizenJA wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote:I wondered what this was about ....
Tom Blenkinsop @TomBlenkinsop 52m52 minutes ago
Greens now want to move North East England...into Scotland. Dear me.
so I did a little digging and here's the petition he's talking about
Allow people in North East England to join Scotland
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/66679
It doesn't have many signatures - and appears to predate the Scottish Independence referendum ... anyone have any ideas why this is suddenly in the news again?
A devastating exchange between the Labour party MPs including Tom Blenkinsop, Hilary Benn & John Healey linked below.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 1040001232
I'm awed by power words have, truly.
Spoken & written, words tell the story.
Violence is absurd, it's failure.
Indeed. It's absurd how the meeja have ignored Hilary Benn - he's a great and authoratitive speaker (from personal experience) and he's on good form there:
This: "On current trends, the revenue support grant will disappear entirely by 2019-20. When the Minister replies, will he confirm that that is the case? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of that on the viability of local authority services, particularly in the areas most reliant on Government support? Indeed, I ask Members to pause for a moment and contemplate their local authority’s budget without any revenue support grant whatsoever. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee was very clear when she said recently:
“Further cuts could not just undermine the entire viability of most optional services, but might threaten some statutory services in these areas.” "
Is completely accurate. Our officers have predicted that we'll get
NO MONEY WHATSOEVER from the Tories by that date should they be re-elected. Google "graph of doom" and variations on "UK councils" to see what that means. THe funds dry up (on purpose) but demand keeps rising, particularly for children's and adult services. Result: you can't even fulfill basic statutory demands. Result of that? You hand back the keys fof your council to Jabba in all likelihood, as he has the money, and you don't. End result: bye bye local democracy - no point electing councillors who can't do anything is there?
C'mon people - get mad at this. They're proposing to kill off any vestige of local democracy, to transfer it all down to fat Eric's department in London, and no-one seems to get it. This is fucking outrageous, and if it happened in another western democracy - or particularly in an African or south American country - the entire meeja would tut-tut about it.
Funny how when it's going to happen here, in the UK, in your area, they're so unconcerned.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:33 pm
by AnatolyKasparov
pk1 wrote:@britainelects: Plaid Cymru GAIN Hengoed (Carmarthenshire) from Labour.
WTF
All the more so since it was in fact a Labour hold - the Plaid "gain" was the concurrent Community Council (ie Welsh "parish") election
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:35 pm
by TechnicalEphemera
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:TechnicalEphemera wrote:TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
I get what you say. Saw one flying at the RIAT a few years back (a few? Just checked, and it is 21 years ago. Jeez I feel old.) and that is one very impressive piece of kit!! And as somebody said elsewhere tonight (sort of) the more things change, the more they stay the same.
What a brilliant photograph.
The Bear is indeed a fantastic aircraft. Fastest turboprop ever, on a par with the B-52 and similar vintage. I love the outrageous sweep angle.
As for the Lightning, it had a duration of something stupid like 40 minutes but nothing to this day beats it in the climb (AFAIK). Its modern namesake is by all accounts a complete dog.
Of course I am holding out for a low altitude fly past of the HoC by a TU-160 if Putin really wants to wind us up. We wouldn't even see that coming and I don't think we have anything that could realistically catch it.
The catch, I believe it takes 50 hours of maintenance to get 1 hour of flight out of it.
Saw 'that' Lightning takeoff at airshows many a time when I were a yoof, unforgettable. And, sure, she had short legs but that was why we pioneered air to air refuelling in this country.
As ladies frequent this board I shall refrain from expressing my opining of the modern namesake.
A Tu-160 at low level? Typhoon has a near 300 mph advantage on that at sea level, 200 mph at altitude, so I suspect could do a pretty decent job of catching it.
Anyway ...... night all.
Wouldn't bet on your Typhoon. How long can it sustain that speed versus the Blackjack? At low level we won't see it in time to get near it.
At the height of the Cold War three Vulcan bombers flew a penetration attack on the USA against a fully alert air defence (who were expecting them). They landed unmolested at the nearest USAF base to Washington DC. The TU-160 is a much tougher nut.
Mind you also at the height of the Cold War some nutter landed a light aircraft in Red Square.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:36 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
C'mon people - get mad at this. They're proposing to kill off any vestige of local democracy, to transfer it all down to fat Eric's department in London, and no-one seems to get it. This is fucking outrageous, and if it happened in another western democracy - or particularly in an African or south American country - the entire meeja would tut-tut about it.
It's happened here already and the media told us we were a bunch of third worlders, and it was for our own good.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:44 pm
by ErnstRemarx
Tubby Isaacs wrote:The DT responds!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/tele ... aders.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This newspaper makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary, allegations that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party. We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets.
Utterly graceless.
I wonder which one of the Barclay brothers dictated that one over the phone to the hapless editor in chief?
Even the Torygraph subbers are going to see that as the crock of shit that it is.
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:44 pm
by PaulfromYorkshire
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:citizenJA wrote:edited out a superfluous DanHodges
We can but dream!!
It's hard to know which is more superfluous in that phrase, the adjective or the noun
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:45 pm
by citizenJA
goodnight, my friends.
thank you for being here.
love
JA
Re: Thursday 19th February 2015
Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 11:47 pm
by rebeccariots2
pk1 wrote:@britainelects: Plaid Cymru GAIN Hengoed (Carmarthenshire) from Labour.
WTF
Plaid are pretty strong in Carmarthenshire. Labour not very well liked in some quarters because of some council shenanigans similar to Pembs CC. Not that surprised by that.
