UK General Election 2015
Discussion
turbobloke said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
HonestIago said:
It honestly baffles me that someone hasn't done the decent thing and bumped him off. He has to be one of the most hated British politicians of all time.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/12/06/prime-ministe...
YouGov said:
In the poll, conducted by YouGov for The Times, Margaret Thatcher is rated a ‘great Prime Minister’ by 23%, more than four times the number who call any other ex-PM great (Tony Blair is next, with 5%). Overall, nearly half of British people (48%) think Thatcher was either a good or a great PM. Meanwhile the public has the least regard for Gordon Brown, with just 12% saying he was either good (11%) or great (1%).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22063509Really?
eccles said:
BlackLabel said:
Dave's "An alliance between people who want to bankrupt Britain & people who want to break up Britain" line is very clever and could be quite effective.
Labour in Scotland aren't helping Miliband either. They have stopped saying 'vote Labour', and are now saying 'don't vote for the SNP otherwise the Tories will get in'. That kind of politics is bound to fail.
Isn't that exactly what the tories have been doing? 'vote UKIP, get Labour' ring any bells?Labour in Scotland aren't helping Miliband either. They have stopped saying 'vote Labour', and are now saying 'don't vote for the SNP otherwise the Tories will get in'. That kind of politics is bound to fail.
In fact Finkelstein has an article on almost exactly that in todays Times. Well worth a read if you have access and are interested in that sort of thing
MGJohn said:
Those we entrust to this Nation's well being assure us beneficially, the UK needs immigrants. Racist to hold other views on the subject.
Not aware that anyone has suggested that. It is some of the other views that have been expressed fall into that categoryMGJohn said:
I recently picked a close relative up at Heathrow's Terminal 5 arrivals. I was surprised by what I saw there. Correction mildly shocked because at my age I believed I had seen it all. I had not
So what did you see that so shocked you?Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Saturday 14th March 21:14
Axionknight said:
Really racking those posts up JALI, imagine if you liked talking about cars - it'd be flying up!
Just like driving them thanks.Only need to talk about them if I need help to fix one.
Unlike some I don't like to boast about being a driving god (though obviously I am), or slag off other peoples choices of car. In fact that's why I left the first time
turbobloke said:
Scuffers said:
you know it's all tosh anyway...
as soon as the votes are counted, they will all be scurrying round offering deals.
For some reason, jostling around a trough comes to mind. Oink!as soon as the votes are counted, they will all be scurrying round offering deals.
turbobloke said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
turbobloke said:
Scuffers said:
you know it's all tosh anyway...
as soon as the votes are counted, they will all be scurrying round offering deals.
For some reason, jostling around a trough comes to mind. Oink!as soon as the votes are counted, they will all be scurrying round offering deals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31892954
julian64 said:
Not unlimited, and the 40% is not a giveaway, deferred at best. So 3/10.
But I think you willfully misunderstand. I'll be okay thanks, but you have to ask yourself who will pay my pension when the new investors for the ponzy scheme don't materialise?
Firstly it's Ponzi, not PonzyBut I think you willfully misunderstand. I'll be okay thanks, but you have to ask yourself who will pay my pension when the new investors for the ponzy scheme don't materialise?
Secondly whilst the state pension scheme has elements in common with a Ponzi scheme, it is not one
Thirdly the changes proposed do not impact the state pension
So do you think your private pension is invested in a Ponzi scheme? More fool you then. Mine isn't
Interesting. At this moment the best odds you can get on who will win most seats at the next election (ignoring the other parties for the moment)
UKIP 33-1
Lib Dems 250-1
Some people are betting good money on UKIP to win most seats at the next election. Wow
What odds did you get Dandarez?
UKIP 33-1
Lib Dems 250-1
Some people are betting good money on UKIP to win most seats at the next election. Wow
What odds did you get Dandarez?
Axionknight said:
So, a Tory is more likely to be a nonce than a UKIP member is, as there's more of 'em - good to know......Quick, phone the Daily Mirror!
Back to those figures showing what we want them to, again.
You still can't get it right Back to those figures showing what we want them to, again.
There are likely to be more Tory nonces than Kippers because there are more of them
But that does not mean (and no other evidence has been posted to suggest) that a Tory is more likely than a Kipper to be a nonce
Scuffers said:
you on the other hand, have yet again quoted a report from LSE, that well known brought and paid for mouthpiece for the EU,
From memory, the organisations that you and your fellow travellers have so far accused of being unfairly biased towards the EU and/or against UKIP, include:All major newspapers
BBC
C4 news
CBI
IOD
Chamber of Commerce
Federation of Small Businesses
LSE
All PPE graduates
All significant political parties apart from UKIP
All political polling companies
Open Europe
Apart from UKIP, are there any organisations you DO believe are unbiased?
Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Monday 23 March 16:53
Scuffers said:
Zod said:
It's not an LSE report. It was produced by Open Europe. Open Europe is not funded by the EU, but entirely by individual donations from more than one million people.
Oh I do apologize, it's a bunch of self-serving rich folk with no axe to grind whatsoever!As I asked, anyone you do trust to be impartial?
Any concerns about cosmic rays? Satellites beaming into your head? Can the CIA and NSA be trusted not to be pro-EU?
Scuffers said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Any concerns about cosmic rays? Satellites beaming into your head? Can the CIA and NSA be trusted not to be pro-EU?
come again?have to just entered the twilight zone?
you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what all these think-tanks are bent towards.
for the life of me I can't see why they exist except as lobbyists, usually paid for by some big vested interest.
but I guess that's OK so long as you agree with their agenda?
Odd thing is that you disqualify fro impartiality anyone that receives EU mobey, but that of course disqualifies UKIP as impartial as well
MGJohn said:
Scuffers said:
and lest some forget, VAT and the EU brought is the biggest tax scam to date, the VAT Carousel.
we as a country need to dial back the state, cut state spending by half, and spend money on the stuff we actually need, not just throw money at everything.
NHS is a joke BECAUSE of the money thrown at it, not despite.
it's the biggest customer for drugs in the world, yet can't seem to negotiate it's way out of a paper bag, it's one of the biggest employers on the planet, yet can't manage staffing levels and pays billions to agencies.
only today another story about the two proton beam machines they are buying to be commissioned in 4 years time, but we are apparently paying 5 times the going rate for them today?
Then look at defence spending, rather than manage it properly, we cut the budget, sack soldiers but have wasted billions on building two ships that we still can't get right due to more design changes than you can throw a stick at, it would have been cheaper and a lot faster to just buy 2 Nimitz class ones from the yanks along with F18's to put on them.
let's face it, governments got way too big, nobody has a clue what's going on and the money just pours out the sides.
we need a revolution, and soon!
Thanks a bunch scuffers, that's cheered me up no end ...... we as a country need to dial back the state, cut state spending by half, and spend money on the stuff we actually need, not just throw money at everything.
NHS is a joke BECAUSE of the money thrown at it, not despite.
it's the biggest customer for drugs in the world, yet can't seem to negotiate it's way out of a paper bag, it's one of the biggest employers on the planet, yet can't manage staffing levels and pays billions to agencies.
only today another story about the two proton beam machines they are buying to be commissioned in 4 years time, but we are apparently paying 5 times the going rate for them today?
Then look at defence spending, rather than manage it properly, we cut the budget, sack soldiers but have wasted billions on building two ships that we still can't get right due to more design changes than you can throw a stick at, it would have been cheaper and a lot faster to just buy 2 Nimitz class ones from the yanks along with F18's to put on them.
let's face it, governments got way too big, nobody has a clue what's going on and the money just pours out the sides.
we need a revolution, and soon!
.. The truth can upset and then some.
Britain, still excelling at getting far too many things wrong.
NHS drug and equipment purchases. I have had dealings with other Government agencies purchasing. Have not got a clue and guess who pays ....
That post has less relationship to truth than the pitch of a PPI compensation salesman(as usual from Scuffers to be honest)
Take the quote about the 2 carriers
scuffers said:
wasted billions on building two ships that we still can't get right due to more design changes than you can throw a stick at, it would have been cheaper and a lot faster to just buy 2 Nimitz class ones from the yanks along with F18's to put on them.
As far as I can see, the RN carriers will cost £6.2bn for two Whereas the first 2 USN carriers at a similar build state (Gerald Ford and JFK) will cost $25.6bn
Or £17.25bn at todays rates.
So roughly 3x the cost, even before you include the F18s that Scuffers thinks the USN will throw in
And they cost 3x as much to operate due to crew size
And many times more to decommission due to the nuclear plant
So this is Kipper maths
£17.25bn < £6.2bn
I don't get it myself, but I don't have the advanced education of Kippers
Scuffers said:
Are you for real?
The new us ford carriers are not want i said, i was talking about the previous nimitz class, and second hand would cost nothing like 17bn.
As for ours costing 6.2, in your dreams, and we still don't have any planes to out in them.
Apart from the fact that the Nimitz carriers are not for saleThe new us ford carriers are not want i said, i was talking about the previous nimitz class, and second hand would cost nothing like 17bn.
As for ours costing 6.2, in your dreams, and we still don't have any planes to out in them.
If they were for sale it would be because they are getting obsolete (which is why the Americans are replacing them)
And then do the maths on how much it would cost us to man them. I believe you will find that the cost of manning two (may even be one, can't remember) would pay for both of our carriers inside a decade
As for the cost, I don't know, but thats what the MOD are saying. Do you have inside information?
And as far as I can see the planes and ships will be ready at roughly the same time
Scuffers said:
look, I may not be a defence expert, but it;s pretty clear I have a better understanding of this subject than you!
So you're not a defence expert, but you feel qualified to say that the MOD and the RN have got it all wrong. WowPersonally I have taken advice from someone who does know about carriers, but wishes to remain anonymous, so thanks to him for the rest
Scuffers said:
the Yanks want us to have carriers, especially ones that can cross-deck with them and other NATO members, hence why they were almost despondent when we change plans again not to fit the new ones with CAT/Trap's (and thus place all our eggs in the F35B basket), hell they even offered a (cheap) fixed price deal on the new EMALS (developed for the Ford class carriers).
Their plan is to replace their current Nimitz carriers over the next 20 years with the new ones, but if we were serious about it, they would be happy to accelerate their programme to be able to sell out one of the later Nimitz class (last one was commissioned in 2009 and they have an expected life of ~50 years).
the ones we are building are nothing more than a political jobs creation scheme now, started with good intentions, but as usual, screwed every step along the way.
the budget was £4m for two ships back when they started (2007/8), it's now quoted at £6.2M but likely to exceed that by some way, and that's without any viable aircraft on it.
currently, F35B programme is still way behind, and it's unit cost of some $142M is likely to increase before it's fit for service, in comparison, the F18 super Hornet is available now, at a cost of ~$60m a unit (and the yanks have 100's of used ones available).
so, that's less than half the price for something avaliable now, with a good track record, made in vast numbers vs. who knows when and at what cost?
The US do want us to have carriers it is true. It is also true that that they offered a fixed price deal on the EMALS catapults (cheap is subjective). Though as those catapults are still way behind where they are supposed to be in terms of relaibility it may not have been such a good dealTheir plan is to replace their current Nimitz carriers over the next 20 years with the new ones, but if we were serious about it, they would be happy to accelerate their programme to be able to sell out one of the later Nimitz class (last one was commissioned in 2009 and they have an expected life of ~50 years).
the ones we are building are nothing more than a political jobs creation scheme now, started with good intentions, but as usual, screwed every step along the way.
the budget was £4m for two ships back when they started (2007/8), it's now quoted at £6.2M but likely to exceed that by some way, and that's without any viable aircraft on it.
currently, F35B programme is still way behind, and it's unit cost of some $142M is likely to increase before it's fit for service, in comparison, the F18 super Hornet is available now, at a cost of ~$60m a unit (and the yanks have 100's of used ones available).
so, that's less than half the price for something avaliable now, with a good track record, made in vast numbers vs. who knows when and at what cost?
They have not however ever offered to sell us a Nimitz. nor could they because they need them to keep up the numbers until the new ones come on line. In fact it is enshrined in law- para b at this link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/5062
Obama had to get congressional approval to dip below the 11 temporarily.
So they will only become available when they are are at or near end of life. I understand one will be sold off slightly earlier but will need a change of nuclear fuel and modernisation before it is usable (which would cost $3bn). The US carriers nuclear plant also comes with a £1bn disposal cost (both those figures at http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm)
But that is dwarfed by operating costs.
The British ships have a ships crew (I am ignoring air wing to get around any discrepancies in number of aircraft carried) of 680. A Nimitz has 3200
Now as well as a crew for each ship they also have essentially to have the equivalent of another one in training, on leave, admin etc
The pay of RN can be found at
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/pay-benefits-a...
Hard to tell where the mean might be given the numbers on board, but lets take a stab at £30k. But on top of that there are pensions, food costs, admin, etc. Shall we call it £40k?
So that means the difference in cost of manning 2 QEC carriers vs 2 Nimitzs is
4 * (3200-680) * £40k= £403.2m per annum
Offsetting that we have fuel usage. I can't see the fuel usage for QEC and my friend does not know, but hes suggested comparing with Queen Mary II (which has similar power plant) which gives 150 tonnes of fuel per day. Marine diesel is currentlt $591 per tonne. So at todays exchange rate and assuming one ship is operational at a time, that gives fuel costs of £22m per annum
So, Scuffers great idea to buy 2 Nimitz class carriers
1) Won't work because the USN would not sell them to us
2) Would be obsolete if they did
3) Would only last 20 years at most
4) they would be at the cost of British jobs in ship-building, lots of technologies
4) would leave us behind in the technology for building the next ones
6) Over those 20 years would cost
(403.2m-22m)*20 + 2 * (3000m+1000m)*0.67= 12bn even if the USN gave us the carriers for free, thus £5.8bn MORE than building the 2 carriers ourselves
7) they would only last 20 years instead of the design life of 50 for QEC
So about 3x the cost per year
I agree Scuffers, you aren't a defence expert. Thats why those that are make the decisions and not you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff