UK General Election 2015

[Scuffers]

steveT350C said:

Lib Dem Candidate for Ashfield arrested on suspicion of child sex abuse.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/26/li...

that's OK, he's not a UKIP candidate so he'd be fine!

[Axionknight]

A bit of buggery eh? Terrible stuff old chap.

[Axionknight]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Back to the main subject, its interesting to compare polls now with the actual result in 2010

Depends on which pol you pick of course but to take typical recent numbers:

Tories - 3%
Labour + 5%
Lib Dems - 15%
UKIP + 12%
Greens + 5%
Others -1%

(I know that doesn't add up to 0 - rounding errors as all the polls are rounded to integers)

So the interesting thing is that Tories have not actually lost much overall. But labour have caught up
So assuming the increase in Greens share is at Labour's expense

For every 10 voters the Tories have to lost to UKIP, they must presumably have gained approx 7 from the LibDems
and for every 10 votes Lab have gained from Lib Dems they must have lost 3 to UKIP

Those are guestimates I know but it needs to be something like that on movements I think

IMO it says a lot about the current leanings of the Tory party when the supporters of the left leaning Lib Dems are flocking to them with their vote. If you're correct of course.

[Scuffers]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Back to the main subject, its interesting to compare polls now with the actual result in 2010

Depends on which pol you pick of course but to take typical recent numbers:

Tories - 3%
Labour + 5%
Lib Dems - 15%
UKIP + 12%
Greens + 5%
Others -1%

(I know that doesn't add up to 0 - rounding errors as all the polls are rounded to integers)

So the interesting thing is that Tories have not actually lost much overall. But labour have caught up
So assuming the increase in Greens share is at Labour's expense

For every 10 voters the Tories have to lost to UKIP, they must presumably have gained approx 7 from the LibDems
and for every 10 votes Lab have gained from Lib Dems they must have lost 3 to UKIP

Those are guestimates I know but it needs to be something like that on movements I think

very much a case of who's pole do you want to believe, the spread between them is pretty large at the moment,

TNS-BMRB:

Conservative 33% +5
Labour 32% -3
UKIP 17% -1
Liberal Democrats 7% +1
Green 4% -3
Others 7% +2

Opinium:

Conservative 36% +3
Labour 33% -2
UKIP 14% +0
Liberal Democrats 7% +0
Green 6% -1
Others 5% +0


Populus:

Labour 34% +2
Conservative 31% +2
UKIP 17% -1
Liberal Democrats 9% +1
Green 5% -1
Others 4% -3

ICM:

Conservative 36% +0
Labour 35% +0
UKIP 9% +0
Liberal Democrats 8% +0
Green 4% +0
Others 8% +0

Ipsos Mori:

Labour 34% -2
Conservative 33% -1
UKIP 13% +4
Liberal Democrats 8% +2
Green 6% -1
Others 6% -2

Yougov:

Labour 35% +1
Conservative 33% -1
UKIP 14% +0
Liberal Democrats 8% +1
Green 5% +0
Others 5% -1

ComRes:

Conservative 35% +2
Labour 35% +0
UKIP 10% -6
Liberal Democrats 8% +1
Green 7% +3
Others 6% +1

so, that's
LibDems 7-9%
UKIP 10-17%
Greens 4-7%
Lab 32-35%
Tory 31-36%

basically, they have not a clue, especially with UKIP's share.

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

so, that's
LibDems 7-9%
UKIP 10-17%
Greens 4-7%
Lab 32-35%
Tory 31-36%

basically, they have not a clue, especially with UKIP's share.

UKIP's 9-17%, not 10-17%.

And on the contrary, those look pretty consistent to me, except for UKIP, which has returned anomalous results.

[JustAnotherLogin]

wc98 said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Since the most interesting aspects of performance will be classified so neither you nor I will know, lets leave that.

But care to back up the assertion on the weather window vs the harriers. That's not what I've been told

is that in relation to operation from us carriers or our carriers ? reports i have read state limited landing capability compared to harriers in rough weather due to extended length of deck required for take off/landing, as it is not a true vtol aircraft ?

Ours

My understanding was that ours are actually more flexible than the US ones because catching a catapult is tricky.

I thought the only issue was trying to return with a full load in certain conditions, and they have come up with this new idea of a "rolling vertical" landing to resolve that so they don't have to dump weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRVL

Any link to anything else?

[Scuffers]

Greg66 said:

UKIP's 9-17%, not 10-17%.

And on the contrary, those look pretty consistent to me, except for UKIP, which has returned anomalous results.

yup, messed that up!

that's a huge margin of error, almost 100% more from 9 to 17.

I wonder just how many people when asked won't admit they are likely to vote UKIP for fear of being labeled/branded.

[McWigglebum4th]

arp1 said:

Just trying to find out why the democratic will of the British people doesn't include the scottish people if they vote (majority wise) Snp... Just wondering wigs

Because everyone in england hates the scottish


Oh wait


That is the answer you want to hear

[Zod]

arp1 said:

Just trying to find out why the democratic will of the British people doesn't include the scottish people if they vote (majority wise) Snp... Just wondering wigs

It does, but they are a minority, so if they don't agree with enough of the other British people to form a majority, they don't count.

In any case, the democratic will of the Scots is to remain part of the UK, as demonstrated by the referendum, so if the majority of Scots MPs post-GE are SNP, and the SNP uses a shoddy support deal for a Labour minority government as a way to try to gain independence, they will traduce the democratic will of the Scottish people.

[wc98]

Guam said:

The Welsh?

pmsl at that . i like the welsh by the way !

[wc98]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Ours

My understanding was that ours are actually more flexible than the US ones because catching a catapult is tricky.

I thought the only issue was trying to return with a full load in certain conditions, and they have come up with this new idea of a "rolling vertical" landing to resolve that so they don't have to dump weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRVL

Any link to anything else?

from your wiki link "A number of defence analysts have suggested that operational SRVL landings may only be possible within a limited range of sea states.[4]"
there are still a myriad of issues to be resolved including this as stated in the link it is being worked on, certainly not resolved. like i said,it might only be a matter of money,and when the tax payer is footing the bill is suppose it is a limitless supply.

[FiF]

The Spectator - Is the era of stable government over

Various views on these comments from various people. Matt Goodwin isn't saying anything that's not been said many times over. Matthew Parris I agree with, (feels a bit faint agreeing with that jerk) but government will be stable thanks to civil service, politics will be unstable. However Prof Vernon Bogdanor is on the money, May 7, anything can happen and it's all driven by social change.

[JustAnotherLogin]

wc98 said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Ours

My understanding was that ours are actually more flexible than the US ones because catching a catapult is tricky.

I thought the only issue was trying to return with a full load in certain conditions, and they have come up with this new idea of a "rolling vertical" landing to resolve that so they don't have to dump weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRVL

Any link to anything else?

from your wiki link "A number of defence analysts have suggested that operational SRVL landings may only be possible within a limited range of sea states.[4]"
there are still a myriad of issues to be resolved including this as stated in the link it is being worked on, certainly not resolved. like i said,it might only be a matter of money,and when the tax payer is footing the bill is suppose it is a limitless supply.

You really are stretching it now

And if you read properly you will see that it is only needed in the first place to bring back more weapons and fuel. Which in war you don't do. So it is just about saving money, not restricting its warfighting capability at all

http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2300/Carr...

And I see you still haven't managed to post any link to back up this or any of your other claims apart from some out of date reports for which the problems have been resolved

Why do you choose to knock UK industry and our armed services in this way without any real evidence?

[Axionknight]

JustAnotherLogin said:

You really are stretching it now

And if you read properly you will see that it is only needed in the first place to bring back more weapons and fuel. Which in war you don't do. So it is just about saving money, not restricting its warfighting capability at all

http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2300/Carr...

And I see you still haven't managed to post any link to back up this or any of your other claims apart from some out of date reports for which the problems have been resolved

bWhy do you choose to knock UK industry and our armed services in this way without any real evidence?

Must be a fan of our current coalition if that's the case.... Skinning spending on our armed forced to the bone, to the point of wanting to include pension costs into the overall spending budgets to meet NATO targets of 2%/GDP, no matter, spend on foreign aid, along with handing our cash over to the unaccountable EU is on the up, all is saved!

[hidetheelephants]

Interesting as this is, it's perhaps better suited to a thread of its own or even the existing F35 thread?

[Scuffers]

hidetheelephants said:

Interesting as this is, it's perhaps better suited to a thread of its own or even the existing F35 thread?

Maybee...

just to complete the point, F35B's troubles continue...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974717/Pe...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lightning-fig...

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/...

and this is the ONLY option for the new carriers...(because of no CAT/Trap)

[wc98]

JustAnotherLogin said:

You really are stretching it now

And if you read properly you will see that it is only needed in the first place to bring back more weapons and fuel. Which in war you don't do. So it is just about saving money, not restricting its warfighting capability at all

http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2300/Carr...

And I see you still haven't managed to post any link to back up this or any of your other claims apart from some out of date reports for which the problems have been resolved

Why do you choose to knock UK industry and our armed services in this way without any real evidence?

the original links i posted are still valid ,it would appear you do not think so.here we have a difference of opinion. nothing you have posted has changed my mind regarding the reality of the situation which is the project is massively over budget, several years late and many of the systems and capabilities that set this aircraft apart from the current generation do not fking work as intended.

that would usually be enough to convince someone that there were problems with a project.

i am not knocking any industry and certainly not the armed services ,where did i say that ? the problem lies squarely at those involved in the initial and subsequent procurement process/es. have a look at how it works in the us when it comes to the farming out of defence contracts ,kick backs and pay to play etc and it is no wonder the project has been a monumental fk up.

edited to add, (from the link you provide again) the projected time of operational use for the carrier and f35 b will be ten years overdue ,do you call that success ?

Edited by wc98 on Friday 27th March 19:50

[anonymous-user]

Away from fighter jets-I was thinking during the leader's debates-the leader's always get hammered on broken promises from all sides, but they were really truthful would they stand a chance in the GE?

I mean if Cameron stood up when he made his pledge on immigration and said-"actually, we don't think we can get it down-in fact we'll be lucky if we keep it steady" would he even be here right now?

Sometimes I think the politicians are placed in a tight spot-they can promise the moon and get elected then get nailed over broken promises-or tell the truth and not get in.

[Scuffers]

cookie118 said:

Sometimes I think the politicians are placed in a tight spot-they can promise the moon and get elected then get nailed over broken promises-or tell the truth and not get in.

Nail >>> Head

this is the outcome of years of crap dumbed-down media coverage, to the point now where anything mildly complex is just too much for them to deal with/report so we end up arguing about bacon sandwiches.

[JustAnotherLogin]

wc 98.


I will just close by saying I never said either programme was perfect, and the carrier is not 10 years late

Apart from that I think others are right it is time to quit this subject here.