Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[ubersonic]

How is that stabbing him in the back? Ed disagrees with David; that's not back-stabbing.

Disagreeing with him is one thing, publicly condemning him and trying to use him and his past actions as an example of why you're better and should be the next PM is back stabbing, especially when they have no clue you're about to throw them under the bus.

Do you think Labour were right to invade Iraq?

No, but my brother wasn't one of the chief architects of it and I'm not standing on a podium telling people he made a colossal screw up.

So who would we nuke if a terrorist organisation detonated a nuke in the UK?

Cobra island, or SPECTRE HQ. Because that's never going to happen outside of fiction. Our nukes are a deterrent to stop other countries ever using theirs against us.

 

[Mr Jack]

Disagreeing with him is one thing, publicly condemning him and trying to use him and his past actions as an example of why you're better and should be the next PM is back stabbing, especially when they have no clue you're about to throw them under the bus.

I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that rejecting the Iraq War was a personal attack on David from. Or the idea that David was one of its chief architects. David Miliband's only involvement was that he voted for it. He was no more "thrown under the bus" than anyone else in the Labour party.

I'm also not sure why you'd think that he had no idea what Ed might say in his speech.

This is what he said:

But just as I support the mission in Afghanistan as a necessary response to terrorism, I've got to be honest with you about the lessons of Iraq.

Iraq was an issue that divided our party and our country. Many sincerely believed that the world faced a real threat. I criticise nobody faced with making the toughest of decisions and I honour our troops who fought and died there.

But I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that.

Wrong because that war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances and because we undermined the United Nations.

America has drawn a line under Iraq and so must we.​

How is that calling out David and publicly condemning him?

 

[Schlong&Stable]

On the subject of nuclear weapons I think our arsenal is actually quite modest, we have 170.est compared to say the 4,804 the US possesses.

Based on most recent estimates even 100 small 15kt weapons detonated over cities (80-100kt is our yield for trident) is enough to cause a global famine & possibly the destruction of the species.

We could essentially half our existing arsenal & retain just as deadly deterrent.

Source? Most assessments I've read suggest that the global impact of a limited nuclear exchange would be negligible. I struggle to imagine how even a hundred low yield weapons could cause global catastrophe. That wouldn't even be enough fire-power to completely destroy the UK.

Our current nuclear arsenal is about adequate to deter the likes of Russia, China and so forth. Cutting it in half would massively erode the threat of MAD.

 

[silvagti]

I don't get why the newspapers today are full of stories claiming that Labour are working on a deal with the SNP to get rid of trident?

Even if the SNP win all of the seats in Scotland (unlikely) in any Westminster vote both Labour and the Conservatives will be in favour of re-instating a nuclear deterrent so it'll go ahead regardless of what the SNP do. At worst they might move Trident out of Scotland to somewhere else in the UK?

Just sounds like scaremongering and more propaganda from the Conservatives.

 

[ubersonic]

I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that rejecting the Iraq War was a personal attack on David from

Not exactly a personal attack, but throwing him under the bus out of the blue in order to appeal to voters was definitely a knife in the back.

look at this bit:

"But I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that.

Wrong because that war was not a last resort"

Lets re-phrase it to what he is technically saying:

"But I do believe that Tony, David and the others were all wrong. They made a big mistake to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that (but remember I wasn't involved in the decision!).

Wrong because they rushed into it, with poor judgement and poor planning instead of instead seeking more peaceful alternatives that would have been better for both the UK and the middle east in the long run,"

Knife, inserted.

 

[eatcustard]

Latest poll of polls from the BBC say
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015

Tory 33
Labour 33
UKip 14
Lib Dem 8
Other 6
Green 5

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I quote like the lib-cons arrangement tbh.

Shame we can't vote for that.

As do I, and the more people I talk to I keep getting the same response.

Yes there are some extreme views on stuff but the majority I speak to seem to believe that the current arrangement is far better than the alternatives. Most utterly dread Labour/SNP and are only a smidge less scared by a Tory majority. (or Tory propped up by UKIP if by some freak UKIP actually get more than a few MPs.)

I guess the FPTP system never really catered for coalitions, maybe someone will be brave enough as part of election reform to allow an extra category of "maintain the same" or something similar on election votes.

I dont really see much benefit on local MPs, bout time we scrapped that and voted nationally for parliament, and gave more sensible local powers to locally elected officials.

 

[ubersonic]

Source? Most assessments I've read suggest that the global impact of a limited nuclear exchange would be negligible. I struggle to imagine how even a hundred low yield weapons could cause global catastrophe. That wouldn't even be enough fire-power to completely destroy the UK.

Not sure what you have been reading but if you do a forum search people have had this discussion a few times to save you searching here is a really good explanation:

A pre-emptive nuclear strike on the EU and UK, in order to be successful would need to destroy all enemy military targets, including nuclear capability, communications, airfields, bases - everything.

Many of these things are in cities, or nearby cities - which means that in the exchange these cities would be targeted and destroyed.

In a nuclear explosion, most of the energy of the bomb is released as pure heat, the nuclear tests of the 1950s and beyond were all carried out in deserts and in the atmosphere where nothing flammable really exists. If you "nuke" a large city with a modern nuclear weapon, a city full of materials, chemicals, plastics, woods, factories, etc - it releases so much debris into the atmosphere. If you do this to many cities at once (for example all the EU and the UK, a lot of cities) the result is that so much stuff ends up in the atmosphere, the temperature of the planet - the whole northern hemisphere drops so much, that;

The temperature in the northern hemisphere drops 10-20 degrees in the first 6-12 months, due to the smoke in the atmosphere.
All crops fail and can't be re-grown, no food. (this is happening to most of the planet)
The atmosphere is full of radioactive dust, water is poisoned and remains poisoned for a long time.
Due to reliance on food-aid, nearly all 3rd world countries perish, due to America having no crops to provide aid.

Basically the effect on the climate, of unleashing that many nuclear weapons upon that many cities in one go - wouldn't be that far off an extinction level event, nobody needs to retaliate - and this is why in the 1980s, the scientific community including Russian and American scientists all agreed, that a pre-emptive strike is suicide, even if the other side doesn't get a single warhead away.

And here's the abstract: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2013/EGU2013-1824.pdf

 

[robgmun]

Latest poll of polls from the BBC say
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015

Tory 33
Labour 33
UKip 14
Lib Dem 8
Other 6
Green 5

TNS-BMRB Opinion Poll (2nd - 7th April)
LAB - 33% (+1)
CON - 30% (-3)
UKIP - 19% (+3)
LDEM - 8% (-)
GRN - 4% (-1)

 

[scorza]

Not exactly a personal attack, but throwing him under the bus out of the blue in order to appeal to voters was definitely a knife in the back.

look at this bit:



Lets re-phrase it to what he is technically saying:



Knife, inserted.

LOL another bizarre theory from ubersonic, revisionist historian. Whether you are correct or not (you aren't), the general public view is that the "stab in the back" was running for the Labour leadership. I've just listened to the Jeremy Vine show where 20 minutes was spent discussing Ed stabbing David in the back - not a single person mentioned the Iraq war.

 

[ubersonic]

LOL another bizarre theory from ubersonic, revisionist historian.

Just stating facts man.

Getting on stage in front of the world and telling people your brother made a big mistake (that resulted in many UK and Iraqi deaths) and that he was wrong to do it, is a stab in the back no matter how you want to try and twist it.

Especially when you go on to say: "For a whole range of reasons it was wrong. We said there would be weapons of mass destruction - there weren't. We didn't build a sufficient alliance with others, and I'm afraid I think we undermined the structures of the UN.".

The fact that the normally cool and calculated David then refused to applaud his brothers speech and snapped at somebody who did showed exactly how he felt about it.

 

[SciNeT]

Latest poll of polls from the BBC say
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015

Tory 33
Labour 33
UKip 14
Lib Dem 8
Other 6
Green 5

Didn't UKIP only poll 3% of the vote at the last election? If 14% of the vote turns out to be correct then that's staggering growth over one parliament, has any other modern party grown this fast? How many million voters is 14%?

 

[ubersonic]

How many million voters is 14%?

6.4 million.

Assuming they do get 14%, in the runup to the election people tend to gravitate back from fringe parties, and the Tories always poll lower than reality because people don't like to admit to voting for them lol.

Incidentally, it was UKIPs predecessor UKRP that stole Tory votes in 1997 and caused Blairs win to become a landslide. History appears to be repeating (except this time it's more likely to be a narrow victory if Miliband gets in).

 

[scorza]

Just stating facts man.

Getting on stage in front of the world and telling people your brother made a big mistake (that resulted in many UK and Iraqi deaths) and that he was wrong to do it, is a stab in the back no matter how you want to try and twist it.

Especially when you go on to say: "For a whole range of reasons it was wrong. We said there would be weapons of mass destruction - there weren't. We didn't build a sufficient alliance with others, and I'm afraid I think we undermined the structures of the UN.".

The fact that the normally cool and calculated David then refused to applaud his brothers speech and snapped at somebody who did showed exactly how he felt about it.

Well no, you're not simply stating facts, you've drawn your own inferences from events and are trying to present them as facts.

 

[Hades]

Whoever wins is going to benefit considerably by the end of their term from the oil that has just been discovered in the south of England. The economy is likely to be on the up in the. next few years as a result.

Oh and can we declare independence from Scotland now that we have our own oil please

 

[do_ron_ron]

Whoever wins is going to benefit considerably by the end of their term from the oil that has just been discovered in the south of England. The economy is likely to be on the up in the. next few years as a result.

Oh and can we declare independence from Scotland now that we have our own oil please

Perhaps you missed the "only a tiny fraction of this oil is recoverable" statement. This is not going to turn Surrey into another Texas.

 

[ubersonic]

That assumes a massive turnout, no? Based on the 2010 turnout, 14% would mean 4.2m votes.

It's 14% of the amount of people registered to vote, his question was how many voters is 14%, not will they all actually vote

 

[Hades]

Perhaps you missed the "only a tiny fraction of this oil is recoverable" statement. This is not going to turn Surrey into another Texas.

We have seen vast improvements in the technology to recover oil over the last few decades. I expect that to continue. No it isn't another Texas but it is significant.

 

[scorza]

I suggest the NIMBYs in that part of the world will ensure that 0% of that oil is recoverable.

 

[robgmun]

5-15bn barrels with today's tech could be pretty tasty, considering North Sea Oil has produced 45bn barrels in 40 years. Presumably onshore drilling is cheaper than offshore?

Certainly easier and safer, not sure about cheaper through