Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Old 28th Nov 2016, 14:01
  #7581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 372
(Are you sure that you are on the correct thread? This is 'UK politics' ...)
Trossie is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 14:08
  #7582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
" a packet of fags costs about £7...that money can feed a family for a day, so why doesn't it ? "

Leaving aside your absolute conviction, albeit one without any foundation, as to why everybody who uses a food bank is a smoker, in your enthusiasm to condemn those who do, you have missed out a few trivial financial details........... such as heating and clothing and accommodation for such families.

These unfortunate people probably have a far more comprehensive understanding of budgeting than, say, yourself.

On the subject of which, saving a stately home, and chucking a few million quid in the direction of "Trident" would appear to be higher on the caring Tories priorities than, say, this demographic....

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...se-to-collapse

To save the inevitable "leftie traitor ! our defence is sacrosanct ! " brigade setting a new world record for their collective BP readings, I will reiterate, that, in my less than humble opinion, whilst we need a defence capability, and submarines for more conventional forms of attack / defence, I also feel the biggest threat to the UK comes from cyber attacks and terror organisations. Not from a nuclear attack.
I'm rather surprised at your last comment knc, do you not think Russia's standing army and military reservists (close to 2million I believe) are a major threat to mainland Europe or indeed the U.K.?

Do you think Putin maintains such large numbers to distribute food parcels around the world?
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 18:18
  #7583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 71
Posts: 150
Taken me a while to respond to the Defence lesson from KnC but it has taken me that long to stop laughing.
Geordie_Expat is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 20:51
  #7584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
The Kranky getting spectacularly wrong again

SNP minister denies diplomatic shambles over Nicola Sturgeon Brexit special deal plan
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 05:57
  #7585 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 930
For UKIP voters everywhere.....and more than a few Tories

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-ukip-cartoon

yellowtriumph.

The Russians have historically maintained a large military infrastructure. Explain please, why, and we know about Putin's excursions elsewhere, you feel they would suddenly feel inclined to have an excursion across the West German plains and thereafter to the UK.

"Taken me a while to respond to the Defence lesson from KnC but it has taken me that long to stop laughing

I do apologise for the complexity contained in the links I provided, hence your delay in reply I presume, as to why I am, apart from being opposed to nuclear weapons, far less concerned about their usage than I am about, as I said, terrorism and the growing threat of cyber warfare. Why reduce a country to rubble when, with the utter dependence countries have on IT to function, you can reduce a country to capitulation with very little damage to the infrastructure thereafter.

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 29th Nov 2016 at 06:48.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 07:59
  #7586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 372
Jeremy Corbyn to attend Darth Vader?s funeral
Trossie is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 08:19
  #7587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Our interest KNC what do you think will be the source of the terror threat that the UK is under?
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 08:35
  #7588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Meanwhile as the Left sneer and snipe in their own inimitable style, it is afterall a classic 'talking head' trait, they miss the underlying danger

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...as-ukip-leader

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/owen..._13283408.html

Ukip leadership announcement: Paul Nuttall named new party leader to replace Nigel Farage | The Independent

while the Labour party and it sheeple followers seek to belittle, their own party already unelectable and led by a 'dead man walking' slide ever closer to the plughole of obscurity.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 10:13
  #7589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
For UKIP voters everywhere.....and more than a few Tories

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-ukip-cartoon

yellowtriumph.

The Russians have historically maintained a large military infrastructure. Explain please, why, and we know about Putin's excursions elsewhere, you feel they would suddenly feel inclined to have an excursion across the West German plains and thereafter to the UK.

"Taken me a while to respond to the Defence lesson from KnC but it has taken me that long to stop laughing

I do apologise for the complexity contained in the links I provided, hence your delay in reply I presume, as to why I am, apart from being opposed to nuclear weapons, far less concerned about their usage than I am about, as I said, terrorism and the growing threat of cyber warfare. Why reduce a country to rubble when, with the utter dependence countries have on IT to function, you can reduce a country to capitulation with very little damage to the infrastructure thereafter.
I'll do my best knc, but you'll have to take my post at face value as we don't know one another. I have posted this elsewhere possibly on JB, but I'll repeat it.

I won't go into detail, because it would be boring rather than anything at all secretive or sensitive, but I once found myself having a cup of tea with the Head of BAOR sometime in the early 1980's. As in the head of the British Army in Germany, you know the bloke actually in charge. There we were, me in my normal workday clothes and him in his civvy suit as these people tend to be when out of the office, standing opposite each other engaged in conversation both of us with a cup of tea in our hands.

I asked him why the Soviets (so obviously pre Soviet break up) had not invaded western Europe.

His answer really was succinct and pretty simple. The nuclear deterrent he said. He went on to explain what we all take for granted now as the likely scenario, The Soviets could roll across the plains of Germany any day they wished and we would not be able to stop them, we could be a nuisance for a few days but nothing more. It was only Nato's policy of ambiguity over the use of nuclear weapons that stopped them trying. Would we or wouldn't we? He went on to say that the Soviets would love a 'no first use' agreement with western Europe as they knew we would stick to it no matter what and subsequently they would wait a decent amount of time and then set off westwards confident that victory would be theirs.

So there it was, from the horses mouth. I don't think anything much has changed - you obviously do (?) I was inclined to accept the Head of BAOR's view, pretty important bloke and all that and likely to be 'in the know'.

Last edited by yellowtriumph; 29th Nov 2016 at 13:15.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 11:18
  #7590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post
I asked him why the Soviets (so obviously pre Soviet break up) had not invaded western Europe.

His answer really was succinct and pretty simple. The nuclear deterrent he said.
I was based at RAF Bruggen from early 81 to mid 84 a a young aircraft technician. The role of the Station and its 4 Sqn's of strike attack Jaguars was to train for war with the end game being the deployment of the aircraft carrying tactical nuclear weapons to unspecified targets to the east.

The fact that the Soviets never came was without doubt down to a whole host of similar conventional and strategic defences all along the German East West borders.

The current day use or need of a nuclear capability is all in the eye of the beholder, those of a more blinkered viewpoint will espouse the cost of it all while those of us with a more rounded experience based outlook will look at it as something and quite probably the main thing that has kept the pot from boiling over for many many years.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 11:45
  #7591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,652
Going back to the comments on foodbanks here is a clip from this article on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger...United_Kingdom

Comparison to other countries[edit]

Food bank use in Germany and France is much higher than in Britain. In 2014, 1.5 million people a week used food banks in Germany[23] and there are twice as many food banks in France as there are in Britain.[2]

A 2012 survey by the OECD found that 8.1% of Britons answered yes to the question ĎHave there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?í, which is less than neighbouring France (10%) and the EU (11.5%) and OECD (13.2%) average, as well as the United States (22%). However it is more than Germany.[49]

I think it is poor government that there is a need for foodbanks. Hopefully Mrs May won't be focused on those just about getting by but also those who are not getting by for a significant part of their lives.

On the other hand don't get me started on single mums who continue to procreate because it is their "right" when they have no means of support other than my taxes.

Fully agree with yellowtriumph (I didn't sell you a canary yellow Spitfire once did I?) and sffp above on the validity of an effective nuclear deterrent against regimes with a view to the long game. Pity that the "shapes" are rented from the cousins rather than being home produced.
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 13:22
  #7592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 299
I have never sat in a Spitfire of any colour, yet alone owned one I'm afraid.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 15:19
  #7593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,428
LNS

there are twice as many food banks in France as there are in Britain
They certainly seem to be more visible in France than I remember them being in the U.K. There are often items about them on the national news, especially at this time of winter, and the volunteers are often out in force - We gave at our local supermarket last week. Whether that is down to the French idea of solidarity/community or because the benefits system seems to be harsher than the UK and therefore there is more need for charity I'll leave open for debate.
wiggy is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 20:25
  #7594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
Our interest KNC what do you think will be the source of the terror threat that the UK is under?
The most recent terrorist murder in the UK that I'm aware of was carried out by a #brexit support who'd been radicalised by the Wail, Express etc (if you're bothered about looking for an excuse for him).
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 20:27
  #7595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
Going back to the comments on foodbanks ...
When I was a child in the 1960s we were encouraged to bring stuff to the Harvest Festival service for distribution to "the poor". I suspect the difference might simply be that they weren't actually called "food banks" in those days.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 20:34
  #7596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Indeed the most recent attack was commitment by a Scotsman who moved to England decades ago and who had extremist views for 25/30 years who lived a fairly reclusive life & who suffered with OCD.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-jo-cox-murder

Not to miss an opportunity to associate the English flag with the extreme right, they have a prominently placed picture of the St George flag in an attempt to make the Guardians most hated country (England) out to be a a nation full of racists which has been debunked many a time.

Apart from one isolated right wing terror attack, where else do we think the biggest risk lies? Is it the scientologists?

Or shall we just pussyfoot around the obvious and look for any evidence that's feeds the rhetoric of all Brexit supporters or all English people being racists? When you consider the shock & awe tactics as well as the tradionally much higher body count when the 'ones who we dare not mention' attack vs an isolated attack then I think some people have their priorities wrong.

Last edited by HeartyMeatballs; 29th Nov 2016 at 20:56.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 20:58
  #7597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
The amount of political capital being made from the Jo Cox murder is quite sickening.
engineer(retard) is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 06:22
  #7598 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 930
"I was based at RAF Bruggen from early 81 to mid 84 a a young aircraft technician. The role of the Station and its 4 Sqn's of strike attack Jaguars was to train for war with the end game being the deployment of the aircraft carrying tactical nuclear weapons to unspecified targets to the east.

First, thank you for telling us what Bruggens role was intended to be.....despite my two tours there, and those deliriously happy days ( wasted ) sat around on "Q" on my last tour, I really had no idea as to what we were there for.

Secondly, thankfully I had left in 1980..... before you arrived.

By then however, my eyes and mind had long been opened to the benefits of mainland Europe, in contrast to our "decidedly reluctant to progress " life in the UK.


The fact that the Soviets never came was without doubt down to a whole host of similar conventional and strategic defences all along the German East West borders.

Ah, the Cold War encapsulated and, as always, with your usual razor sharp grasp of reality. True, there were a few installations dotted around Europe like the ones you mention, but, as the rest of us knew, there was no need for them to invade....they had nothing to gain.

The current day use or need of a nuclear capability is all in the eye of the beholder, those of a more blinkered viewpoint will espouse the cost of it all while those of us with a more rounded experience based outlook will look at it as something and quite probably the main thing that has kept the pot from boiling over for many many years

I take it you are being serious, or desperately trying to be, by including your perception of yourself in the underlined above .....although as your "more rounded experience " consists of how many years of sycophantic obedience and deference, I think "well rounded" is not really the most applicable term.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate macho posturing. There is no politician who would dare try and implement their removal however, even if they truly wished to due to the economies of those areas in the UK for whom it is their only real source of employment. The arms industry have long had a very effective lobby here...nuclear weapons have generated very healthy profits for this sector.

And then there's the military.

Long since adept at utilising your beloved "Project Fear". in order to justify their expectations that as much of the UK's GDP should be spent purely on defence, they are unlikely to want to give up further acquisitions of such magnitude. This, despite the fact there are now I believe plenty of weapons available to do a lot of damage without the little matter of radiation to contend with thereafter.

"Trident" is, and will be, a grossly unwarranted expenditure and unrequired item in our defence capability. Conventional submarines, for attack and defence, fine, but no nuclear subs.

As I said, I believe cyber warfare proses a far greater risk to the UK, and other nations, that the virtually non existent threat of nuclear war.

" Hopefully Mrs May won't be focused on those just about getting by but also those who are not getting by for a significant part of their lives" .

And I think you can rest assured, May will happily continue with Dave and George's stirling efforts to decimate the lives of many with draconian cuts, any "concern" being a purely cosmetic sound bite when uttered.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 06:35
  #7599 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,074
Tories open near record poll lead | The Independent

The Conservative poll lead has risen to sixteen per cent, with the Tories above Labour in every social group, including working class voters.

A Guardian / ICM poll showed put the Conservatives at 44 per cent, compared to Labourís 28, its highest rating since 1992. In the South of England, the Tories on 49 per cent compared to Labourís 24 per cent. They are 20 points ahead with over 65s, and 10 points ahead in the north of England.

To make matters worse for Labour, in general elections in the last fifty years, only once has the Conservative polling figure been overstated........,,
ORAC is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 07:49
  #7600 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,074
Even worse news for Labour - looks like the SNP and UKIP have finished off their hopes of ever regaining power. If you add in the 16% lead the Conservatives already have.....

UK Polling Report

"......We can also look at what difference the boundaries would make to the leads each party needs to win an election.
  • Currently the Conservatives need to have a lead of 5.7% to get an overall majority (hence the 6.5% lead they actually got translating into only a tiny majority). On the proposed boundaries the Tories would get an overall majority with a lead of only 1.9%.
  • In contrast Labour currently need a towering lead of 12.6% to win an overall majority, and the boundary changes would move that target even further away, requiring a lead of 13.5%. To even be the largest party Labour would need a lead over the Conservatives of 4.7% (up from 3.9% on the current boundaries).
One might reasonably wonder why, if the review makes nearly all the seats the same size, it still leaves the Conservatives in a better position than Labour. This is because different seat sizes is only one part of how votes translate unevenly into seats. The crucial part in explaining the present Conservative advantage is the distribution of the vote and the impact of third parties. The collapse of the Liberal Democrats and the growth of the SNP and UKIP means the system now favours the Conservatives. The Lib Dems are primarily strong in areas that would otherwise be Tory… but now win very few seats, UKIP have largely taken votes from the Tories, but this has not translated into many seats. In contrast the SNP are now utterly dominant in an area that previously returned a large number of Labour MPs...........,"
ORAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.