Poll: Election 2019
Total Members Polled: 1601
Discussion
Zirconia said:
Don't think I have ever given Corbyn any credit, or Labour or the control by momentum or Len and his backup. They are already shown as charlatans in this forum. There are a few of the Labour politicians I think are good and honest, and other running scared of momentum. It is a mixed bag but with the existing leadership, awful organisation. That is not in dispute.
I picked on Boris because he is likely to win. Problem is he sets defined targets that are already shown to be wrong and that will haunt him. Like the ditch, or the 31st. etc. He now has to deliver on those or be seen to fail. I expect his desire to get those done will fail. Time will tell. This is going to run past the next election after exit.
I am not a financial expert and must defer to others that are, I have read your posts with interest but then I can probably find others that disagree (I haven't as it happens). Lacking the intimate knowledge of the financial stuff, business etc. I must go one what I can see in front of me. There will be a lot of people like me with a spare X.
I cannot in all good conscience vote for Tory this time around, I cannot see any merits in the people that lead them. What can I do about it? Sod all. But I am on the ride and cannot get off. I hope there is a soft landing at the end.
I'm not digging you out, and respect that you have been clear. I guess rather than a lengthy post I should have said "better Boris comes up with only 37,832 nurses than McDonnell's magic Accounting practice yielding errr zero".I picked on Boris because he is likely to win. Problem is he sets defined targets that are already shown to be wrong and that will haunt him. Like the ditch, or the 31st. etc. He now has to deliver on those or be seen to fail. I expect his desire to get those done will fail. Time will tell. This is going to run past the next election after exit.
I am not a financial expert and must defer to others that are, I have read your posts with interest but then I can probably find others that disagree (I haven't as it happens). Lacking the intimate knowledge of the financial stuff, business etc. I must go one what I can see in front of me. There will be a lot of people like me with a spare X.
I cannot in all good conscience vote for Tory this time around, I cannot see any merits in the people that lead them. What can I do about it? Sod all. But I am on the ride and cannot get off. I hope there is a soft landing at the end.
As for knowledge on Finance, yes others with knowledge, can and will come to a different intepretation. Forum brevity doesn't lend itself well to regulations or macro central bank action. In financial circles its possible to take a view (financial position), and change it over time given access to liquidity (optics is everything). Joe public much more difficult. Although, I'll take my accuracy as being largely credible given the latest Financial Stability Review from the ECB being bang on the issues I (and others) have highlighted for >1year on the other thread.
You are largely f
ked if you rely on mainstream media here. I've seen the FT completely misreport Carney, from being in the room. Education is a massive issue. And FWIW, my leave stance is not taken from a UK led perspective but inner workings of the EC etc.I said before vote for anyone, just not Labour or BREXIT party.
If Corbyn wins, I'll eat my hat and beers on me - but you cannot be a credible political party if the manifesto is quantifiable bulls
t. You only get to wealth redistribution and fairness if you pay for it. It is a fact that the conservatives paid down a compounding deficit WHILST increasing NHS spend. And to be fair to Brown and Darling, given the cards they were dealt it could've been worse.I don't want to endorse a liar, but I'd rather someone who banged a 1000 brass, than the alternative. I even have a view that if he coughed to it, most probably wouldn't care. But what do I know.
B'stard Child said:
ecsrobin said:
Biker 1 said:
Yet another rain forest's worth of campaign BS deposited in my letterbox by posty...........
Do the parties really think that bombarding me with a load of advertising st is going to make me vote for 'them'?? What a complete waste of paper - direct to the recycling bin. I would have expected the green party to be more careful with the Earth's resources.
I’m up to 10 from the Lib Dem’s in our house 3/4 more material than all other parties! Do the parties really think that bombarding me with a load of advertising s
t is going to make me vote for 'them'?? What a complete waste of paper - direct to the recycling bin. I would have expected the green party to be more careful with the Earth's resources.1 MRLP (the first one recieved)
1 Conservative
2 Labour (1 personally addressed to me and 1 to Mrs BC)
0 Fib Dum
0 Independants
18,000 majority for Conservatives here last time........ Not sure why any other party even bothers!!!!
8 x SNP
3 x Conservatives
2 x Lib Dems
Nothing from anyone else.
What is surprising is we have had no one at the door which is surprising but not exactly upsetting
In the local news, a number of Conservative advertising boards have been vandalised or had Boris fu** off sprayed on them.
SNP supporters were blamed which started a massive online argument but it was a bit of a give away when they wrote independence
Not the brightest bunch.
I really need to move away.
JagLover said:
Earthdweller said:
The UK and France are the only countries with Nuclear weapons
That is the deterrent.. the western conventional
Forces would be overrun by Russia in days
Magic Grandpa’s unilateral disarmament would be a disaster for Europe
It is very easy to overstate Russia's superiority in conventional weapons. This isn't 1944.That is the deterrent.. the western conventional
Forces would be overrun by Russia in days
Magic Grandpa’s unilateral disarmament would be a disaster for Europe
A large proportion of its armed forces of one million are conscripts serving just one year's service. If they came across a sizeable British, or French, army they would not be simply brushing them aside. They are more than capable though of overrunning the likes of the Baltic states, or Ukraine, if given free rein by the west.
With one light division and one heavy armoured division totalling 30k troops and 300 tanks you’d have to hope they were in the right place
JagLover said:
Earthdweller said:
The UK and France are the only countries with Nuclear weapons
That is the deterrent.. the western conventional
Forces would be overrun by Russia in days
Magic Grandpa’s unilateral disarmament would be a disaster for Europe
It is very easy to overstate Russia's superiority in conventional weapons. This isn't 1944.That is the deterrent.. the western conventional
Forces would be overrun by Russia in days
Magic Grandpa’s unilateral disarmament would be a disaster for Europe
A large proportion of its armed forces of one million are conscripts serving just one year's service. If they came across a sizeable British, or French, army they would not be simply brushing them aside. They are more than capable though of overrunning the likes of the Baltic states, or Ukraine, if given free rein by the west.
motco said:
I know it was a while ago, but people were saying that the British forces would simply chuck the Argentinians out of the Falklands in a few days, if not hours. It proved to be quite a task didn't it?
It does show however the limitations of conscript armies in fighting professional armies. Without much in the way of air support the British forces were able to defeat numerical superior conscript formations. At Goose green for example a numerically inferior British force attacked an entrenched Argentine force and inflicted over twice their own losses and captured 961 on top.
You cannot simply look at the size of the Russian army and say they would simply roll over everything when many of their soldiers would have had only a few months proper training at best.
Red 4 said:
Russian armed forces - 3.5 million.
UK armed forces - 228,000.
Not exactly a fair fight.
Well I take it you are including reserves in Russian armed forces. Most of whom would be former aforesaid Conscripts and would likely to take quite some time to be brought to military readiness. UK armed forces - 228,000.
Not exactly a fair fight.
Also the UK would not be fighting them alone if it came to a fight. I am not denying that the Russians do not have greater strength than the UK alone, only that they are not going to be attacking across the German plain any time soon.
If they could they would no doubt want to rebuild the old USSR, but they do not have greater ambitions than that.
Zirconia said:
I am getting a bacon cake hat ready. If I have to eat anything then rather a bacon cake hat then felt.
I'll take one, tastier than my Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap I'm sporting today. Its Public Enemy day in the stongle household today, my 5 year old (Flavour Flav) and me (Chuck D) are dancing to "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back", Countdown to Armageddon (opening track) seems somewhat apt...JagLover said:
motco said:
I know it was a while ago, but people were saying that the British forces would simply chuck the Argentinians out of the Falklands in a few days, if not hours. It proved to be quite a task didn't it?
It does show however the limitations of conscript armies in fighting professional armies. Without much in the way of air support the British forces were able to defeat numerical superior conscript formations. At Goose green for example a numerically inferior British force attacked an entrenched Argentine force and inflicted over twice their own losses and captured 961 on top.
You cannot simply look at the size of the Russian army and say they would simply roll over everything when many of their soldiers would have had only a few months proper training at best.
Goose green is not comparable in fairness
If the UK was to spread its tanks along that border there’d be one every 20km
If you take the Wehrmacht on the Eastern front, it was a battle hardened professional and highly competent fighting force.. far far superior to the Russian conscript army.
But for every Red Army soldier they killed their were 100 behind him
And they worked on the basis they had more men than the Germans had bullets
The point being, without the US might a British/French/EU force could only hold the Russians for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks at most
If, Labour unilaterally disarm and alienate the Yanks Europe is wide open for the taking
Edited by Earthdweller on Saturday 7th December 14:43
JagLover said:
Red 4 said:
Russian armed forces - 3.5 million.
UK armed forces - 228,000.
Not exactly a fair fight.
Well I take it you are including reserves in Russian armed forces. Most of whom would be former aforesaid Conscripts and would likely to take quite some time to be brought to military readiness. UK armed forces - 228,000.
Not exactly a fair fight.
Also the UK would not be fighting them alone if it came to a fight. I am not denying that the Russians do not have greater strength than the UK alone, only that they are not going to be attacking across the German plain any time soon.
If they could they would no doubt want to rebuild the old USSR, but they do not have greater ambitions than that.
JagLover said:
It does show however the limitations of conscript armies in fighting professional armies.
Without much in the way of air support the British forces were able to defeat numerical superior conscript formations. At Goose green for example a numerically inferior British force attacked an entrenched Argentine force and inflicted over twice their own losses and captured 961 on top.
You cannot simply look at the size of the Russian army and say they would simply roll over everything when many of their soldiers would have had only a few months proper training at best.
Russia - Active military 900,000Without much in the way of air support the British forces were able to defeat numerical superior conscript formations. At Goose green for example a numerically inferior British force attacked an entrenched Argentine force and inflicted over twice their own losses and captured 961 on top.
You cannot simply look at the size of the Russian army and say they would simply roll over everything when many of their soldiers would have had only a few months proper training at best.
UK - Active military 148,000
France - Active military 203,000
Germany - Active military 179,000
Other European forces stats are available but I think it's fair to say the Ruskies would overrun Europe.
Until the Yanks came to the rescue;
US - Active military 1.36 million.
Until the Ruskies brought in their reserves of 2 million.
Do not underestimate the might of Russian forces.
It is immense.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 7th December 14:42
Earthdweller said:
The EU’s eastern land border is 6k kilometres
Goose green is not comparable in fairness
If the UK was to spread its tanks along that border there’d be one every 20km
If you take the Wehrmacht on the Eastern front, it was a battle hardened professional and highly competent fighting force.. far far superior to the Russian conscript army.
But for every Red Army soldier they killed their were 100 behind him
The point being, without the US might a British/French/EU force could only hold the Russians for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks at most
If, Labour unilaterally disarm and alienate the Yanks Europe is wide open for the taking
As I keep saying it isn't 1944. Russia on its own is a great power but not a superpower. It has an economy smaller than that of Italy and a declining population of 145 million. Goose green is not comparable in fairness
If the UK was to spread its tanks along that border there’d be one every 20km
If you take the Wehrmacht on the Eastern front, it was a battle hardened professional and highly competent fighting force.. far far superior to the Russian conscript army.
But for every Red Army soldier they killed their were 100 behind him
The point being, without the US might a British/French/EU force could only hold the Russians for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks at most
If, Labour unilaterally disarm and alienate the Yanks Europe is wide open for the taking
They are a serious threat to their neighbours but there is no chance whatsoever of them overrunning the rest of Europe. For starters it is not just the relative size of the armies that matters but their ability to project power.
motco said:
JagLover said:
Earthdweller said:
The UK and France are the only countries with Nuclear weapons
That is the deterrent.. the western conventional
Forces would be overrun by Russia in days
Magic Grandpa’s unilateral disarmament would be a disaster for Europe
It is very easy to overstate Russia's superiority in conventional weapons. This isn't 1944.That is the deterrent.. the western conventional
Forces would be overrun by Russia in days
Magic Grandpa’s unilateral disarmament would be a disaster for Europe
A large proportion of its armed forces of one million are conscripts serving just one year's service. If they came across a sizeable British, or French, army they would not be simply brushing them aside. They are more than capable though of overrunning the likes of the Baltic states, or Ukraine, if given free rein by the west.
Russia are just being a bit mischievous. They're not trying to support one political side over another, rather try and disrupt our trust in politicians and make it harder for any party to get a strong mandate. A weak government spends more time dealing with domestic matters than foreign ones, meaning Russia gets less interference in its own foreign interests.
JagLover said:
As I keep saying it isn't 1944. Russia on its own is a great power but not a superpower. It has an economy smaller than that of Italy and a declining population of 145 million.
They are a serious threat to their neighbours but there is no chance whatsoever of them overrunning the rest of Europe. For starters it is not just the relative size of the armies that matters but their ability to project power.
Over running Europe isn't projecting power though, is it ?They are a serious threat to their neighbours but there is no chance whatsoever of them overrunning the rest of Europe. For starters it is not just the relative size of the armies that matters but their ability to project power.
It's over running a land mass that borders Russia.
I agree it would cause huge problems for logistics and problems with the resistance of the general population , etc but if we are playing Top Trumps armies the Russians win hands down.
Red 4 said:
Over running Europe isn't projecting power though, is it ?
It's over running a land mass that borders Russia.
I agree it would cause huge problems for logistics and problems with the resistance of the general population , etc but if we are playing Top Trumps armies the Russians win hands down.
That's exactly what it would be, yesIt's over running a land mass that borders Russia.
I agree it would cause huge problems for logistics and problems with the resistance of the general population , etc but if we are playing Top Trumps armies the Russians win hands down.
FN2TypeR said:
Red 4 said:
Over running Europe isn't projecting power though, is it ?
It's over running a land mass that borders Russia.
I agree it would cause huge problems for logistics and problems with the resistance of the general population , etc but if we are playing Top Trumps armies the Russians win hands down.
That's exactly what it would be, yesIt's over running a land mass that borders Russia.
I agree it would cause huge problems for logistics and problems with the resistance of the general population , etc but if we are playing Top Trumps armies the Russians win hands down.
YMMV.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff