FT General Election Poll 2019

[purpleronnie]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Get in Farage you beautiful man. My wedge on tory majority looking good. Don't implode now please. 

what odds?, assumed it was a foregone conclusion even b4 farage's U-Turn.

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

what odds?, assumed it was a foregone conclusion even b4 farage's U-Turn.

2.25 @ skybet

 

1.62 now. FeelsGoodMan. 

[RoboFox]

Ah, the old Trident thing has popped up again. 

 

"Anyone who isn't willing to fire a nuclear missile at a large area killing potentially millions of innocent civilians in the process isn't fit to become Prime Minister."

 

More bonkers rhetoric from the usual candidates. 

 

Trident is a big fat £40b white elephant. The missiles aren't even ours, they belong to the US and the UK cannot use them without permission from the White House. 

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Ah, the old Trident thing has popped up again. 

 

"Anyone who isn't willing to fire a nuclear missile at a large area killing potentially millions of innocent civilians in the process isn't fit to become Prime Minister."

 

More bonkers rhetoric from the usual candidates. 

 

Trident is a big fat £40b white elephant. The missiles aren't even ours, they belong to the US and the UK cannot use them without permission from the White House. 

.... What? 

[purpleronnie]

10 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

2.25 @ skybet

 

1.62 now. FeelsGoodMan. 

Never even thought about betting it doh!...well at least someone will benefit from a Tory majority.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Ah, the old Trident thing has popped up again. 

 

"Anyone who isn't willing to fire a nuclear missile at a large area killing potentially millions of innocent civilians in the process isn't fit to become Prime Minister."

 

More bonkers rhetoric from the usual candidates. 

 

Trident is a big fat £40b white elephant. The missiles aren't even ours, they belong to the US and the UK cannot use them without permission from the White House. 

...yeah, the UK does have absolute unilateral launch authority should it be needed, even if the UK is destroyed, viz. the Letters of Last Resort.

 

Doesn't mean that the idea of willingness to launch a nuclear strike on behalf of the UK should be a prerequisite for the PM job though, as you say - a situation where such would actually be required would almost certainly be where a larger nuclear-equipped nation has targetted the UK already with overwhelming conventional or nuclear firepower, and as such it would be merely an act of spite rather than an act of a winnable war.

 

Also, anyone with fingers anywhere near nuclear launch authority should be made to watch Threads in full before they get the position, just so they get at least something of an idea of what such an exchange would look like afterwards.

[RoboFox]

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

.... What? 

The UK Trident is not independent. In reality, the US—which leases its missiles to the UK from a common US pool, and whose technical design and support for every part of the weapon system to target and launch them is critical—can frustrate the UK from using Trident if it disapproves.

 

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/counting-the-costs-of-an-independent-nuclear-deterrent/

Edited 11 November 2019 by RoboFox

[RoboFox]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...yeah, the UK does have absolute unilateral launch authority should it be needed, even if the UK is destroyed, viz. the Letters of Last Resort.

 

Doesn't mean that the idea of willingness to launch a nuclear strike on behalf of the UK should be a prerequisite for the PM job though, as you say - a situation where such would actually be required would almost certainly be where a larger nuclear-equipped nation has targetted the UK already with overwhelming conventional or nuclear firepower, and as such it would be merely an act of spite rather than an act of a winnable war.

 

Also, anyone with fingers anywhere near nuclear launch authority should be made to watch Threads in full before they get the position, just so they get at least something of an idea of what such an exchange would look like afterwards.

Maybe I got the wrong end of the uranium rod, then. 

 

Even so, lets be honest, if we've gotten to the point where nuclear weapons are required, we're ****ed anyway. What's the point?

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

The UK Trident is not independent. In reality, the US—which leases its missiles to the UK from a common US pool, and whose technical design and support for every part of the weapon system to target and launch them is critical—can frustrate the UK from using Trident if it disapproves.

 

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/counting-the-costs-of-an-independent-nuclear-deterrent/

decision making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK; only the Prime Minister can authorise the launch of nuclear weapons, which ensures that political control is maintained at all times

 

the instruction to fire would be transmitted to the submarine using only UK codes and UK equipment; making the command and control procedures fully independent

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know

 

 

 

 

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Maybe I got the wrong end of the uranium rod, then. 

 

Even so, lets be honest, if we've gotten to the point where nuclear weapons are required, we're ****ed anyway. What's the point?

The point is that people know if we get to the point of needing to fire them EVERYONE is ****ed anyway. Hence why we will (hopefully) never get to that point. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Maybe I got the wrong end of the uranium rod, then. 

 

Even so, lets be honest, if we've gotten to the point where nuclear weapons are required, we're ****ed anyway. What's the point?

Yeah, I mean, there's no denying they're American missiles and the US would likely be really annoyed with the UK should the UK go for it unilaterally...but the platforms and authority themselves are entirely UK controlled. Can see where the mixup was, though.

 

Do agree with the second sentence.

 

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

The point is that people know if we get to the point of needing to fire them EVERYONE is ****ed anyway. Hence why we will (hopefully) never get to that point. 

I think this was covered on here way back in the mists of time, but the deterrence argument only requires two reasonably equal and opposed powers holding the weapons in the first place with enough firepower to cause everyone to be fvcked. Game theory is pretty solid on that one.

 

The reason the UK holds onto nuclear weapons is purely because it's the price to pay to sit at the top table and that is because there are those who think that political influence is better wielded through the barrel of a gun (or the threat of one) than "soft" power.

Edited 11 November 2019 by leicsmac

[David Guiza]

Not convinced the Farage decision changes an awful lot either way, does it?

 

Anybody who has lost faith in Labour due to their Brexit stance was not going to vote Labour anyway, presumably, and neither would they vote LibDems or Green if that's their reasoning. So in reality the BXP are splitting some Tory voters and taking ex-Labour voters who weren't going to vote Labour anyway?

 

I still think it will be a similar outcome to the 2017 election, perhaps slightly more in favour of the Tories but not massively so.

[Innovindil]

6 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Not convinced the Farage decision changes an awful lot either way, does it?

 

Anybody who has lost faith in Labour due to their Brexit stance was not going to vote Labour anyway, presumably, and neither would they vote LibDems or Green if that's their reasoning. So in reality the BXP are splitting some Tory voters and taking ex-Labour voters who weren't going to vote Labour anyway?

 

I still think it will be a similar outcome to the 2017 election, perhaps slightly more in favour of the Tories but not massively so.

It gets the tories a shot at an extra 40 seats from the last calculations. That *could* change everything. 

[Jon the Hat]

Isn't the problem that we hardy know whay Corbyn would do under any circumstances? but the chances are it would be the wrong thing.  He has a history of backing the wrong horse doesn't he? 

Friends with terrorists?  CHECK.  Failure to get rid of Anti-Semites from the party?  CHECK.  Idolises Socialist policies which have literally failed everywhere over Capitalism which had led the vast majority of the world from poverty? CHECK.  

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It gets the tories a shot at an extra 40 seats from the last calculations. That *could* change everything. 

Yes - I am hoping they will also withdraw from a few critical seats close to the time.

[David Guiza]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It gets the tories a shot at an extra 40 seats from the last calculations. That *could* change everything. 

No more of a shot than they already had though? 

 

If one is voting based on wanting Brexit done ASAP then they were never going to vote Labour. Seems to me that the likelihood is that BXP will take just as many potential voters from the Tories as they do from Labour in the marginal seats.

 

Losing voters to the LibDems (or Greens) seems like a far greater risk to Labour, take Kensington for example where Labour have a majority of 20 (which is insane), that constituency voted by 68% to remain. They're hardly going to be flocking in number to vote for the Brexit Party, whereas some of those Labour voters may switch to LibDems and ultimately give the Tories the majority they need. 

 

Where Labour hold marginal seats in Brexit voting consistencies, it seems just as likely that they'll gain blue as red.   

 

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Isn't the problem that we hardy know whay Corbyn would do under any circumstances? but the chances are it would be the wrong thing.  He has a history of backing the wrong horse doesn't he? 

Friends with terrorists?  CHECK.  Failure to get rid of Anti-Semites from the party?  CHECK.  Idolises Socialist policies which have literally failed everywhere over Capitalism which had led the vast majority of the world from poverty? CHECK.  

Boris is hardly the rational person you want in said situation either, he'd be marching around the button in his Churchill fancy dress costume using questionable language from early 20th century.

 

I wouldn't trust either of them with my weekly shop at times let alone something as fundamentally important to human civilization as that. 

 

 

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

No more of a shot than they already had though? 

Just going by the report I saw on the advantages of a tory/BP pact. No idea if it's true in reality. 

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Not convinced the Farage decision changes an awful lot either way, does it?

 

Anybody who has lost faith in Labour due to their Brexit stance was not going to vote Labour anyway, presumably, and neither would they vote LibDems or Green if that's their reasoning. So in reality the BXP are splitting some Tory voters and taking ex-Labour voters who weren't going to vote Labour anyway?

 

I still think it will be a similar outcome to the 2017 election, perhaps slightly more in favour of the Tories but not massively so.

Huge change in many of the Tory/Lib Dem marginals across the south east. BP could have severely hampered the effort down there.

 

Research shows it could go either way in the North - no one really knows.

 

Delighted Farage was bluffing though. 

[LiberalFox]

I thought Corbyn said last time that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, which amounts to largely negating the deterrent provided by our nuclear arsenal. I don't consider the deterrent truly independent given the missile system is designed, built and maintained in the US. I don't trust our ability to launch a nuclear strike unilaterally. 

[Jon the Hat]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Huge change in many of the Tory/Lib Dem marginals across the south east. BP could have severely hampered the effort down there.

 

Research shows it could go either way in the North - no one really knows.

 

Delighted Farage was bluffing though. 

That's Lord Farage, Her Majesties Ambassador to the United States of America to you Matt!

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I thought Corbyn said last time that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, which amounts to largely negating the deterrent provided by our nuclear arsenal. I don't consider the deterrent truly independent given the missile system is designed, built and maintained in the US. I don't trust our ability to launch a nuclear strike unilaterally. 

He would probably aim them at our allies.

[FerrisBueller]

Farage peerage incoming.

[Facecloth]

https://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-accused-of-covering-up-boris-johnson-remembrance-day-gaffe-by-using-2016-footage/

 

Bloody lefty biased BBC 

[Mike Oxlong]

I’m surprised that the again repeated view of Baroness Warsi, expressed in an interview today, that the Conservative Party is institutionally racist hasn’t received more coverage in the media 

 

 

Edited 11 November 2019 by Mike Oxlong

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I’m surprised that the again repeated view of Baroness Warsi, expressed in an interview today, that the Conservative Party is institutionally racist hasn’t received more coverage in the media 

Probably because she's about the only one saying it.

 

Muslims are being promoted to positions like Chancellor in the Conservative party rather than leaving it.