British Politics Thread.

[Kirsten]

18878

[Al Shut]

well people hardly know any other UKIP member, I suspect they will dwindle in to obscurity.

My money is on obscurity, not for the lack of Farage but because they lost a major topic. That is if the Tories follow through on the whole Brexit thing.

[CoffeeGrunt]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/03/government-faces-worldwide-hunt-for-trade-negotiators-experts-wa/

As-predicted, the government is now looking to start recruiting more bureaucrats and legislators to handle the transition to independence. However, due to the lack of local applicants, we're hiring in persons from outside to ensure we have the correct numbers and it's done properly.

We currently have 40, and the current estimate puts us as requiring hundreds, the EU employs 550 for example. Assuming an average London annual salary (http://www.monster.co.uk/career-advice/article/uk-average-salary-graphs)of about £35,000, that's £5,600,000 a year extra, and that's only for trade negotiators.

Thank God we voted to cut away all that bureaucracy and cost...

[Mr Mystery]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/03/government-faces-worldwide-hunt-for-trade-negotiators-experts-wa/

As-predicted, the government is now looking to start recruiting more bureaucrats and legislators to handle the transition to independence. However, due to the lack of local applicants, we're hiring in persons from outside to ensure we have the correct numbers and it's done properly.

We currently have 40, and the current estimate puts us as requiring hundreds, the EU employs 550 for example. Assuming an average London annual salary (http://www.monster.co.uk/career-advice/article/uk-average-salary-graphs)of about £35,000, that's £5,600,000 a year extra, and that's only for trade negotiators.

Thank God we voted to cut away all that bureaucracy and cost...

And to cut immigration

oh wait

And to save all that munneh we pump into the EU

oh wait

[Psychosplodge]

We should never really have been in the position where the country lost that skill set.

[CoffeeGrunt]

We should never really have been in the position where the country lost that skill set.

The country never had it to begin with. The article speculates that most countries don't even have nearly that many. It's mainly a requirement in order to process a massive amount of legislation in a short amount of time, rather than keeping existing legislation ongoing.

Bear in mind that the value the country gets out of renegotiating its trade deals comes from these people, so the thinking would be directed towards sinking money into getting professionals who have good contacts and good trading skills, and getting a lot of them, so we can secure better deals. Skimping on this would delay the process and get us worse deals.

Like I said, it's one part of many expenses in the time to come.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm sure we had trade negotiators at somepoint.

[Haighus]

According to CG's article, there are only about 200 true trade negotiators in the entire world, that is less than the number of countries. A skill-set that rare, they are gonna get paid a whole lot more than the London average salary I reckon. Apparently even the EU commission has been accused of not having good enough trade negotiators to construct a proper trade deal.

[Morgrim]

I was reading an article about that today. Apparently, and it strikes me as oddly, some of the best negotiators in the english-speaking world are New Zealanders. As in the UK is looking strongly to there, as there are a disproportionate amount of kiwis in the limited pool.

[Haighus]

Perhaps it's the Kiwi charm...? Does seem like an odd example to have most of the negotiators, I would've thought it would be somewhere like the US who likes to craft horrendously complex law...

- - - Updated - - -

After the utter mess that was the campaigns prior to the referendum, I think it would be worth everyone signing
this petition (https://www.change.org/p/restore-truthful-politics-create-an-independent-office-to-monitor-political-campaigns?recruiter=398199128&utm_source=petitions_show_components_action_panel_ wrapper&utm_medium=copylink) in an attempt to prevent such a thing happening again. Politicians seem to be incapable of being honest themselves, perhaps a body that forces them to be during campaigns would help.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'd sign it if I felt it'd change anything. Too late now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I'm sure we had trade negotiators at somepoint.

That's what is stated if you read the article and my analysis of it. ;)

We have 40, which is pretty high, because we're a nation that makes a lot of money through trade and middle-manning trade. However, the expected amount we'll need to properly process the transition to independence is at least five times that.

It's like saying, "we had doctors at some point." Yes we did, and still do, and they still do their job. However, it doesn't stop us having to pull in a tonne of foreign ones to shore up the inadequacies of our own workforce and keep things running.

[Haighus]

I'd sign it if I felt it'd change anything. Too late now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Very true, but it could make a difference for upcoming votes. Like the general election which is probably just around the corner. It is too late to make a difference for the referendum sure, but the referendum is just the worse example of a continuing and worrying trend in sensationalist politics. A regulatory body akin to the Advertising Standards Authority would help mitigate that.

[Mr Mystery]

The Grand Tory 'Pick-A-*******' Competition of 2016.

Liam Fox - out.

Stephen Crabb - chose to withdraw, having come fourth.

So it's down to the man who just recently lied through his teeth causing economic woes, a lunatic who wants to rip up the human rights act, and a third lunatic who backs the ending of Minimum Wage and Maternity Pay.

Folks.....we're doomed.

[Kirsten]

it is ludicrous that Fox stood in the first place, he had zero chance, same with Crabb.

[grimmas]

I saw a headline in the Guardian likening the Tory Leadership contest as being The X-Factor to choose the Antichrist. I had a little chuckle at that.

They are the Daily Mail for the left but they do have a certain turn of phrase.

Also I had a watch of Russia Today and apparently the drop in sterling is nothing to do with uncertainty over Brexit but rather a calculated attack by the US Federal Government to punish us for going against Barack Obama's wishes. Priceless, those crazy Russkies. Cheered me right up though.

[Psychosplodge]

That's what is stated if you read the article and my analysis of it. ;)

Probably should have done that.

[Haighus]

So the Chilcot report has been finally published and it would appear to be pretty damning (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36724704). It has no legal ability to prosecute anyone, but I think it questions the legality of Tony Blair's decision in the strongest terms it is capable of doing. It also seems to point out that the decision, ultimately, was Tony Blair's.

[Mr Mystery]

Labour now have 500,000 members. Higher than Tony Blair's zenith. And more than triple the Tory's 150,000.


But of course Jeremy Corbyn is sooooooooo unelectable.

[Denzark]

There may be. A proper mix. Some will be tories who think he is the best thing since sliced bread. And some are people like this:

18896

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why some traditional labour voters think he is a muppet.

[Psychosplodge]

Labour now have 500,000 members. Higher than Tony Blair's zenith. And more than triple the Tory's 150,000.


But of course Jeremy Corbyn is sooooooooo unelectable.

You're still missing the point. He has to appeal to the politically inactive. The traditional voters and the floating voters. I doubt anyone with the motivation to join a political party falls under that.
And when you literally hear the traditional voters refer to him as unelectable you have a problem. Even if all they do is stay at home it could lose labour seats in the North.

[Mr Mystery]

I've seen absolutely no evidence that 'traditional Labour voters' won't vote for him.

None at all.

[Psychosplodge]

You also dismissed it when I said the same people were talking about voting leave.
Labour are still ignoring their traditional supporters.

[Mr Mystery]

Traditional, socialist voters?

People in precarious financial positions who want a party that stands up for them?

And that's not Corbyn??

[Psychosplodge]

Surprising I know, but if they're saying they won't vote for him theres a problem.

[Mr Mystery]

Probably because of the savaging he gets in the press for not being owned by the press.

But here we have a very serious potential game changer. Momentum keeps gathering activists to spread his message - and that's something the press can't counter. They keep saying he's utterly unelectable - but the outcomes are suggesting he's anything but.

I'm genuinely excited by this. A long-serving politician that isn't owned by the press, isn't part of the 'political elite'. A man who has been on the right side of history his entire career?

The very fact the press are bricking it about him speaks volumes.

[Psychosplodge]

Momentum are acting like they're run by chuffing goebbals with how their representatives come across. Very combative, very aggressive, very with us or against us. Maybe that's part of his problem.

[Mr Mystery]

Who knows?

But this is an exciting time politically for Labour. They need to move away from 'Diet Tory, we know best' elitist politicians and get back to not just representing the 'every man', but being the every man.

They need to be more vocal - as Corbyn very much is - that it's not migrants and asylum seekers and assorted them's that are harming the UK - it's Tory Austerity, and the deck being stacked accordingly.

[Psychosplodge]

It was the centre ground that got them elected though.
Its not going to matter either way though if the Scots vote SNP again though is it?

[Mr Mystery]

Who knows?

And the move to the centre was nigh-on 20 years ago now dude.

I couldn't vote in that Election. I was only 17. But my word I feel we need Lefties in Parliament - the current choice is pathetically non-existent in practice. And I am so far from being alone in that sentiment it's not even funny.

SNP? As mentioned before, there may be a gathering backlash against North of the Wall - I think the indyref2 rhetoric might be getting a bit much for some, regardless of the EU Ref outcome. The main issue up there was lack of credible opposition. Tories traditionally don't do terribly well in Scotland, and Labour were a mess - and everyone but the SNP was offering 'same stuff, slightly different seasoning'.

Will Corbyn have enough clout to reclaim Scotland? Who knows. But then....every Labour Government would've still be a Labour Government without the Scottish seats...reduced majority of course, but still in power.

Plus, we're only at the beginning of a potential, full-on Tory self-destruct...who knows where we'll be in the next 6 months?

[Psychosplodge]

Didn't tories used to do very well outside of Glasgow traditionally?

[Mr Mystery]

Not so much - certainly not since 1997, when if memory serves, they had not a single MP in Scotland?

[Psychosplodge]

About a third to half the seats in the 20th century till the 80s.

[Mr Mystery]

And it's that 'until the 80's. Before the dark times. Before Thatcher'....

Lot of damage was done, and the Tories changed permanently under that nasty piece of work.

- - - Updated - - -

But, changing tack somewhat....


Opening her Conservative leadership speech, Andrea Leadsom says: "I truly believe we can be the greatest nation on earth."

In what could be seen as a jibe at Chancellor George Osborne, she says "prosperity should be our goal, not austerity", adding that she wants to spread prosperity to every corner of the country.

She says she wants higher pay for the many, and a country where anyone who aims high "can achieve their dreams".

"Let's banish the pessimists," she adds.


Promises promises.....but not trusting any Tory MP, I fear that may be all they are.

Otherwise, I'm 100% for social mobility and opportunity for all.

[Psychosplodge]

She's apparently been kept out of the cabinet because she fell out with Osbourne. So it's not much of a surprise shes having a dig at him now.


I truly believe we can be the greatest nation on earth.


Well clues in the name int it? Great Britain.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Nice ideals, but how will she deliver them?

[Psychosplodge]

With a big stick? :confused:

[Mr Mystery]

Dunno.

But if she can deliver, or at least try to deliver social mobility once again, I think I could support that.

Simply put, the current and widening divide between the have's and the have not's just isn't sustainable. If you want to reduce the welfare state, you need to get people not just into work, but work which pays enough that they don't need benefits. That's how the system is meant to work - a safety net for the momentarily unfortunate, and those whom through no fault of their own find their employment prospects limited (illness, disability etc).

That we have 'working tax credits' is scandalous - it basically means we've got to the point where a person can be in full time work, but still not be paid enough for them to survive.

As I've said before, this needs the two pronged approach. We need to reduce the amounts benefits pay, to the point where they're not a credible alternative to joining the work force, whilst ensuring and encouraging employers to play and pay fair.

At that crux point, you're earning more tax receipts, and paying less out the kitty. I'm sure all politicians are keen to see both of those, but they seem to feel the approach needs to be mutually exclusive.

[Psychosplodge]

Its because they did away with selective grammar schools. That was how the working class got their foot up.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Problem is that they're reducing the amount benefits pay and also how easy it is to get them, but in areas deprived of jobs to do, it just means they're squeezing people who can't fix their situation.

- - - Updated - - -

Basically this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEWYvdtxqHE

[Mr Mystery]

Its because they did away with selective grammar schools. That was how the working class got their foot up.

It's more they didn't get rid of the rest of the 'elitist' system as well.

Kent still has Grammar schools. Bro and I never sat the 11+, because it pretty much only exists in Kent. Outcome? NO GRAMMAR SKOLL FUR U.

Yet there were kids whose brothers passed the 11+ getting into Grammars, despite failing it themselves.

Then you have the concept of 'elite' Universities, where a First from Oxbridge is worth more than a First from say, University of Gwent because reasons.

I'm all for a meritocracy - but you have to have as even a playing field as is humanly possible.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think it's for the same reason that a burger from McDonalds isn't considered to be as good as a burger from a dedicated burger joint: it costs more, and is of a much higher quality because they hire professionals to make it, and have a better process of ensuring quality.

See also: any other industry where multiple competitors offer a similar product, with a disparity in quality. A Ferrari is better than a Fiesta. A Challenger II is better than an Abrams. Etc, etc.

OxBridge sink a lot of money into the best professors and materials, and different Unis have different curriculums. Like it or not, that disparity in quality affects the education you get, and how valuable it is in the end.

[Psychosplodge]

A Challenger II is better than an Abrams. Etc, etc.
.

It's a good job the yanks are all asleep or we'll have a massive tangent.

[Mr Mystery]

I think it's for the same reason that a burger from McDonalds isn't considered to be as good as a burger from a dedicated burger joint: it costs more, and is of a much higher quality because they hire professionals to make it, and have a better process of ensuring quality.

See also: any other industry where multiple competitors offer a similar product, with a disparity in quality. A Ferrari is better than a Fiesta. A Challenger II is better than an Abrams. Etc, etc.

OxBridge sink a lot of money into the best professors and materials, and different Unis have different curriculums. Like it or not, that disparity in quality affects the education you get, and how valuable it is in the end.

I dunno dude. I see where you're coming from, but a Degree is more 'set' than a Burger in terms of quality (man, this is tangential! Anyone joining this thread for the first time, this isn't our usual discussion level!). A First is a First is a First, because the courses are the same, and far more standardised.

A better comparison would be two people make a Big Mac. They have exactly the same ingredients. They have exactly the same equipment. At the end, both produce a 'perfect' Big Mac - to the point they actually look like the photos of the food, and not the slop you actually normally get served. Yet one wins because they're from the Kensington McDonalds, and the other from the Skegness McDonalds.

[Kirsten]

it is also worth noting that Oxbridge do not top league tables by subject. when I went to Durham it was the best in Britain for Ancient History degrees, Oxford was something like 4th. our professors were the best in the world, at the forefront of new discoveries, advising film makers, translating for other people, all sorts.

[Psychosplodge]

It is very much reputational rather than actual quality.

[Mr Mystery]

And that's what we need to end.

The issue isn't so much selective Grammars, but the end product.

Primary School - doesn't make a huge difference further down the line, but if you have Grammars, set you up for the 11+.

Secondary - Private is preferable, then Grammar, then Comprehensives (dunno about Academies....)

University? Doesn't matter how well you did at your local Comp - those with the connections or advantages to get into the Grammar or Private come before you in the selection queue. And because their reputation can secure job offers over a tied qualification, that's you on the back foot regardless of your work ethic and natural talent, because reasons.

[Psychosplodge]

There's been claims that May is trying to rig the ballet by having supporters vote for Gove so the final contest is a head to head between those two.

[Mr Mystery]

Wouldn't surprise me.

I'm really sick of career politicians right now. I mean, I don't object to long serving Politicians. They're needed to provide some kind of stability and meaning to Party Politics.

But when they start pathetic little coups (Corbyn), or start trying to rig their own election (May), we need to say enough is enough.

I don't particularly endorse any of the Tory candidates, but FFS - we live in a democracy, and it's shameful enough we're about to get a new PM without any kind of public mandate. But when one of them pulls every dirty trick to get that job? Suffice to say I question whether they have the right moral centre to even be considered the right material for PM.

[Denzark]

B FFS - we live in a democracy, and it's shameful enough we're about to get a new PM without any kind of public mandate.

Is this not the norm though? Do we want/need the expense of a general election every time a PM resigns/dies/goes to prison?

Would a company CEO not be put in place until the next meeting where the board is ratified by I don't know, the executive or the shareholders?

Given that the Country does not vote for a PM in the way the Colonial Cousins vote towards a president, does it matter how the individual parties elect a leader (who is automatically PM?)

Does the fixed term parliaments act not rule on this? (actual not rhetorical question).

[Mr Mystery]

When they direct the overall leaning of their party? Yes. Absolutely. They're not terms I particularly like as they're inaccurate, but consider if Labour won power under a 'moderate' Leader - one very slightly left of centre. They then step down or are forcibly removed by their party, replaced with a Clone Of Lenin? An extreme example to be sure, but one used purely for illustrative purposes.

The Tories got in on PM Cameron - a man I can't say I have any time for, but not exactly 'Hard Right'. If his replacement isn't of a similar political leaning, we just get stuffed. Again.

And remember how the right wing kicked up such a fuss about 'unelected' PM Brown? Yeah? You remember that?

Funny, eh?

[Psychosplodge]

The PM is merely the head of the most populous party in parliament, or the one in a coalition if they can't reach the 50% right?
You have literally never voted for the prime minister unless you are their constituent.
Brown was as elected as any other PM.

The fixed term parliament act would be voted down in a heartbeat if it suited the majority.

[Denzark]

A good point about Brown.

For me it makes me remember my first ever GE I could vote in - 1997 when the Blair got in. Some of my fellow sixth formers and I wandered down to the polling station. On the way back, a perfectly intelligent lass doing 4 A-levels whispered to me: 'I couldn't see John Major on the paper'.

People don't - or shouldn't - vote for a party just based on leader. They should vote for which candidate will represent their constituency the best, with manifestos being taken as aspirations should the economic and geopolitical situation in which they were made, remain the same.

This is why I would be hugely surprised (in the event of a snap GE by the next PM) if Corbyn manages to get a majority - because more people in the UK think he is an old skool socialist throwback bampot - than don't.

Because of this I can't really see a point in a new GE. I voted for a party - not the party leader - on the basis that I knew the fixed term parliaments act meant I was stuck with the result for 5 years in all probability.

[Mr Mystery]

But part of that is likely to be 'so who's head honcho'.

I could (and indeed did) vote for the Tories. I did so in the last general election, to thwart UKIP in my region (or at least contribute to their demise). T Wells is a True Blue town, so when I'm 'happy enough, at least they're not UKIP' about the Tories, and voting Labour was pointless, the fact it would likely be Cameron as PM was a known quantity.

I might not much like the man, but at least he's not the nuttiest fruitcake in the party. I was 'ok' with him. Just about.

Now, had Theresa May been their Leader, or Farage not UKIP leader...that completely changes my perspective, as I consider both to be dangerously right-wing individuals, and a genuine threat to what little social harmony we have in the UK.

So to see Theresa 'I want to scrap the Human Rights Act, but won't say precisely why' May doing her best to rig an otherwise democratic election seriously alarms and worries me.

[Denzark]

It's funny you say that because I've been looking at May as the least right wing of the candidates and also the least likely (from some of the mouth music) to 'press the article 50 button'.

But again - I know Corbyn has grass roots support - do you think it can translate to a parliamentary majority - or enough share so that he can form a coalition?

All the arm chair activists who signed up (to labour) and probably paid by paypal - when it comes to hauling their arse to the polling station, have serious form for falling short.

[Mr Mystery]

Who knows?

But those writing off Corbyn seem overly dismissive of the grass roots movement to keep him where he is.

Theresa May seriously worries me. From wanting to ditch the Human Rights Act, to trying to rig her own election to the top job....that's really not someone who should be allowed anywhere near the top job. Dishonest and dangerous.

[Kirsten]

all of them standing now are dishonest and dangerous now. May is probably the worst, but Gove and Leadsom will still be a disaster

[Denzark]

It is a large movement for sure. I am not sure in the current British political system if of itself it is sufficient to govern credibly. If the Labour MPs who gave a vote of no confidence (80% of those who voted) have the balls to follow through and split the party, we will see a real proportion of whether Corbyn labour is endorsed by the electorate more than non-Corbyn/new Labour (whatever the non-corbynites are called).

- - - Updated - - -

PS how is May worse than Gove with his idiot wife who fancies herself a kingmaker? (serious question).

[Mr Mystery]

Because Gove is really quite spectacularly unlikely to win?

[Psychosplodge]

Looks like we're having our second female PM.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Oh sh*t, and a Tory one at that. Will lightning strike the working class twice?

[Al Shut]

I'll have to admit, on first sight I can't tell them apart.

[Psychosplodge]

Ledsom has withdrawn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

[Mr Mystery]

Not especially surprised.

Wonder how many people have accidentally spoonered her surname?

[Psychosplodge]

oops.

*shrugs*

****s knows whats going to happen now. How long is the labour contest going to take?

[Mr Mystery]

Not long.

I'm fully expecting Angela Eagle to be annihilated in the polls.

[Psychosplodge]

Entirely possible if the people voting are conservatives/people that sound like the local momentum spokeswoman they keep having on the radio.
But that might lead to the same happening at the next election...
And what are the rest of the MPs going to do?

[Mr Mystery]

Well, the MP's can either.....

1. Get with the will of the party - there's an increasing call for a socialist alternative.
2. Realise they can't get with the will of the party, and therefore likely aren't the right people for the job, and stand down triggering a new nomination and a by-election., and to hell with their precious career.

[Psychosplodge]

You mean like Corbyn should have done years ago? Once they've got their feet under the table I don't see that happening do you?

The problem is a purely socialist alternative will struggle to provide a serious opposition to the tories and does none of us a favour like that.

[Kirsten]

Eagle is rightly facing a no confidence vote in her own constituency so this challenge wont last the week

[Mr Mystery]

Again, I disagree. There's a large amount of support for Corbyn - and that can't all be put down to 'people thinking he's a nice, principled chap'.

He's got a massive mandate from the Labour Party. Angela Eagle has said she'll 'heal the rift'. That'd be the rift you've utterly failed to engineer then, yeah?

People keep saying 'oh he doesn't appeal to Labour heartlands' etc....but haven't provided even a shred of evidence to support that. Membership is stupidly high. He's not lost a seat or Mayoral election yet as Leader.

The media have been determined to savage him, and it just hasn't worked. At all.

Serious opposition? He's stopped their schemes on 20 occasions so far. Go look them up. That is effective opposition. Whether you're in power or not, being able to prevent the worst excesses is the shadow cabinet doing what it's there for.

[Psychosplodge]

I provided the same evidence I provided about the labour voters and the referendum Mystery its the same people saying they won't vote for him, that said they were voting out.

*shrugs*

[Mr Mystery]

So.....32% of members then, yeah?

In other words, 68% back him, and he's bringing in new members all the time?

Such a terribad, unelectable leader. Look at him. Reaching out to people. The fool :p

- - - Updated - - -


Eagle is rightly facing a no confidence vote in her own constituency so this challenge wont last the week

I missed that!

[Psychosplodge]

Yes because they're probably members Mystery :rolleyes:
They're the people you need at the election.
I mean ffs they're arguing about whether he'll even appear on the ballet, and the precedent is that kinnock solicited nominations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36761370

[Mr Mystery]

Soliciting nominations, and needing them are two distinct and differing things, no?

And I still don't get why he'd need them? The whole issue here is that there's an attempted coup not by the Labour Party, but by MPs, who are choosing to ignore the incredible mandate handed to him by the party.

The PLP really need to wake up and remember they are not The Labour Party. Just it's representatives.

[Psychosplodge]

*shrugs*

I suppose if he's still leader the next election we'll see?

But if May wins it and turns into the next thatcher I'm blaming the corbynites.

[Mr Mystery]

She already is The Next Thatcher. She's a horrific harridan.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes but there's less than a term left at the moment.

[Mr Mystery]

Never underestimate the damage potential of any Tory.

I'm interested/terrified to see her new Cabinet. Will Gideon still have the purse strings? How much of a kicking is Gove going to take? Will Cameron feature at all, or sail off into the sunset (I would!)

[Denzark]

A lot will depend on whether or not the 184 (or whatever) Labour MPs who voted showing they have no confidence in Corbyn, have the integrity to leave the current Labour set up and form their own centre left party. Which will ensure Corbyn leads the Labour party with a huge mandate, but sweet fanny adams in terms of MPs in his party.

Apparently a recent poll published in the DT shows labour instantly get 12 point jump in Corbyn is not the possible PM - 36% to 48% of those polled.

[Mr Mystery]

Ah, the Torygraph.

Guess they asked their employees :p

[Denzark]

I would hope DT employees would not see 36%-48% voting for a labour government, although there has been a lot of lefty tosh in there recently since they got rid of experienced, world weary cynical hacks and replaced them with media savvy yoot and social media 'bloggers' and the like.

[Mr Mystery]

AKA the upcoming voting generation, yeah?

[Psychosplodge]

Don't they actually have to vote not just ***** about the result to be called that?

[Denzark]

Don't they actually have to vote not just ***** about the result to be called that?

Yes, they have to get off their arses and get to the polling station. Clearly for some it is all too difficult.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Said it before, I'll say it again. Being around that age and talking to a lot of them, most of the people I know who didn't vote did so because they were either at work all day, or simply didn't feel informed enough to make an educated decision.

[Psychosplodge]

7am-10pm? That's a bloody long day.

The second I kinda feel they should have spoilt their papers. Though everyones entitled to not take part, I just kinda feel if you should make the effort to show your dissatisfaction,

[CoffeeGrunt]

To be fair, given the faff I had trying to get my vote in, on top of not knowing if it was even counted, I wouldn't be surprised. Not to mention that Young voters have always been the lowest voting group (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226739/Electoral-Registration-Analysis-CO.pdf):
https://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1424786265733/turnout_in_elections_1970s.svg

[Denzark]

Said it before, I'll say it again. Being around that age and talking to a lot of them, most of the people I know who didn't vote did so because they were either at work all day, or simply didn't feel informed enough to make an educated decision.

If I was to give the benefit of the doubt and say the first bit is a reasonable excuse, and then concede - yeah - if you were an ambulance driver and had been washing claret out the back of the wagon, you might not be inclined to vote - then CG, you will know which of those people who couldn't go to a polling station in a 15 hour time window, were just being lazy arses and for who their work was a legitimate excuse.

The latter is probably quite a mature approach. But if they weren't informed enough to make a decision, then the same goes about whether or not they are informed enough to feel aggrieved by the result one way or another.

Having recently been posted from Norfolk to overseas, I had to visit one website, take about 3 emails with electoral services at West Norfolk, fill in hard copy form, fanny around with envelopes and then get them to the post office in sufficient time to get back for polling day. All this with a 5-day week of varying hours. I don't really hold much truck with people who couldn't find time within 15 hours of a day - unless they had a really sh*tty day.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Who said the ones who didn't vote are the ones who are complaining?

[Psychosplodge]

We were in the middle of a good moan about the youth of today not voting and then moaning :D

[CoffeeGrunt]

Good old generational mud-slinging, even though our forebears voted just as little and probably moaned as much anyway. ;)

[eldargal]

Lowest turnout was in 1918 at 57% or so, from 1922-93 it remained around 72% or higher before dipping to 59% in 2001 from where it has recovered back to 66% so its actually trending up. Highest was around 84% in 1950.

[Psychosplodge]

Good old generational mud-slinging, even though our forebears voted just as little and probably moaned as much anyway. ;)

It's alright another couple of years and you'll be in my age bracket so you can join in then :D

[odinsgrandson]

Lowest turnout was in 1918 at 57% or so, from 1922-93 it remained around 72% or higher before dipping to 59% in 2001 from where it has recovered back to 66% so its actually trending up. Highest was around 84% in 1950.

Those are actually fairly high numbers, based on my experience looking up voter turnouts.

But now I'm curious- are employers not required to give time off to their employees if they're working all of voting day?

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's alright another couple of years and you'll be in my age bracket so you can join in then :D

Looking forward to haranguing the kids who call those idiotic segways, "hoverboards." :P

[Psychosplodge]

Looking forward to haranguing the kids who call those idiotic segways, "hoverboards." :P

That's the spirit!

[CoffeeGrunt]

Those are actually fairly high numbers, based on my experience looking up voter turnouts.

But now I'm curious- are employers not required to give time off to their employees if they're working all of voting day?

They can, but as an example, my friend was running a store while the manager was gone on Voting Day, and so they would have had to shut the store in order to walk to their ballot station, get it sorted hopefully with no issues or queues, then head back. Would've taken about an hour as they have no car and walk everywhere. In the end, it just wasn't worth the hassle as they were still unsure which way to go.


Having recently been posted from Norfolk to overseas, I had to visit one website, take about 3 emails with electoral services at West Norfolk, fill in hard copy form, fanny around with envelopes and then get them to the post office in sufficient time to get back for polling day. All this with a 5-day week of varying hours. I don't really hold much truck with people who couldn't find time within 15 hours of a day - unless they had a really sh*tty day.

Good for you!

Having lived in Norfolk for the past 15 years, I had to register anyway, and did so twice to be sure, checking off the postal vote. No information packs came through the mail to my house, for anyone, and I didn't want to assume where my local voting place was as it's an old church whose future is uncertain to say the least, so I tried to use the Government's Polling Office finder.

This would only direct me to the town hall, which was understandably busy, so I was on hold for a bit, eventually got it confirmed that it was indeed the local Methodist Church, same as before. I managed to finish my lunch sammich in the 15 minutes I had that day while waiting.

I don't own a car, so I decided to cut down my lunch and come in early to work so I could leave early, and sort my vote out before dinner. I popped into the Church and waited in line for a bit, said my postcode, house number and name. I apparently wasn't on the list, but pointed at my name which had a line through it, and asked what it meant.

Apparently I was signed up for a postal vote. I explained I'd registered - twice - to not get one, and that we hadn't received any mail anyway, none of the four of us in the house. I reiterated this a few times, waited while they called, provided ID, waited some more, and was then informed that my postal vote had been found and wasn't sent out, for some reason.

I was then told that they couldn't just take my vote here, I had to head over to an office near the Town Hall on the other side of town at 7PM to get it, which gave me an hour of nothing to do. A rush home, thrown-together dinner and half-hour bike ride across town later, I was outside said refurbished church, (a lot of them in Norfolk.) Everyone was gone, just the cleaners were in. Waited at the side entrance as order 'til 7:10, then tapped the window, argued with the cleaners for a bit until they listened to the fact I'd been told to go here to vote. They found a lady in one of the offices who came out, verified my ID, then handed me the postal vote and walked away.

I'd been told at the Church that I could just hand it in there, so as she walked away I asked about it. She said I'd have to hand it back to the polling station I was registered to, the church a half-hour bike ride back across town. I told her I had been told I could hand it in there, and she said I should hand it in at the nearby Town Hall. Okay, so I headed there.

Got there and was greeted by a security guard telling me I couldn't go in because they were counting the votes, given how late it was by that point. I had filled in my vote and asked him if I could just drop it off or whatever, and explained the annoying mess I'd had to deal with. He said that if I dropped it in the letterbox on the Town Hall door, it'd "probably" be found and counted.

By that point I dropped the vote in and felt that the whole endeavour had been a lot of bureaucratic a*sery for not much reason. That was my joyous experience of voting in the referendum, but I'm glad your's went without a hitch.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah I was in and out by 7:05 then had my breakfast.
That sounds like the sort of **** up thats worth complaining about to somebody though. I haven't got a clue who that'd be though.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Well the lady I met outside the Town Hall was apparently the one in charge, but I didn't get her name and don't think she cared anyway.

I had a little, dark laugh to myself afterwards thinking, "thousands of people have died for this, but you can't martyr enough people to make bureaucracy competent."

[Psychosplodge]

Bureaucracy has a power all of its own...

[Al Shut]

At this point the Queen should just give up neutrality and appoint somebody different, so I can have a good laugh. :p

[grimmas]

Well she could appoint herself, I'm not sure the country has got the hang of democracy. 😜

[Psychosplodge]

Some figures for you Mystery. (http://election-data.co.uk/poll-of-trade-union-members) I think the sample size is rather small.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Some figures for you Mystery. (http://election-data.co.uk/poll-of-trade-union-members) I think the sample size is rather small.

Given the groups it's sampling, it's fairly large. Trade Union members, mind, not a lot of them so not much extrapolation to make the sample size fit the group size. Too specific for a countrywide view, but interesting that Trade Unions are so scathing of him.

[Mr Mystery]

Interesting stuff - but apparently, at odds with the intentions of the Unions toward the leadership ballot?

[Psychosplodge]

Well Len McCluskey wants his puppet doesn't he?

[Mr Mystery]

Who knows?

Though the Independent had an interesting headline - Corbyn, the man so unelectable, Labour are desperate to keep him off the ballot.

[Psychosplodge]

The party elected Red Ed didn't they? Then when he failed among the wider voters for being too far left they went for a full blown marxist.

[Mr Mystery]

This does make me wonder how Tory Party members are feeling about May just sort of 'becoming' PM.

As discussed a page or three back, whilst we in Britain very much vote for party, not person, the personality of the party leader still plays a role, particularly for swing voters.

May's statements so far have been seemingly contradicted by her own voting record - could Tory Members be feeling they've been lumped with a liability, because everyone else just pulled out?

As for Red Ed - I think he choked because he was a bit of a wet lettuce?

[Psychosplodge]

Idk. Being a floating voter who actively dislikes politicians generally...
Also you're probably better placed geographically to find the "tory in the street" :D
On "local" news last night/this morning they were asking people in Harrogate and they were broadly supportive of the choice.

I think there was an element of that.
He certainly seemed anything but decisive.

[grimmas]

In the last 100years 50% of Prime Ministers have into office without being Prime Minister during a general election.

[Mr Mystery]

But how many Political Leaders weren't in the end actually elected by their party?

Please note, I'm not having a go at the Tory Party over this - I expect any political party would do the same in their shoes, and it's not exactly Theresa May's fault everyone else pulled out, stepped down or got roundly trounced.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Interesting interview with a British Bobby (http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2353-i-was-cop-in-country-with-no-guns-6-startling-truths.html) on what it's like to be a police officer in Britain. Might be of interest to Americans readers as it compares and contrasts a bit. :)

[grimmas]

Ah got ya the only candidate thing. Wasn't it the same with Gordon Brown?

I think they'll be quite happy, the moderates will like that she's was Remain and the hardliners will be hoping for Maggie MkII.

I see the Labour challenge is getting nasty Ms Eagle's offices were vanadalised last night apparently. Not that I'd suggest Corbyn had anything to do with that at all but some of the less savoury far left groups have taken with him though.

[Mr Mystery]

Sadly, as a Politician you can rarely choose your supporters (though that still doesn't excuse Leave actively courting the far-right with their immigration fear mongering etc) - as a party member, I've had an email from Jeremy Corbyn condemning the actions, and calling on everyone to essentially belt up and be adults about it.

[grimmas]

Good. We don't need that sort of thing catching on.

Belt up means "shut up" where I'm from t'up North, I take it means "toe the line" or something similar darn sarf?

[Mr Mystery]

Well, I'm actually Scottish, so by belt up, I mean 'shut up and grow up you stupid sods'

[grimmas]

Ah fair enough. It did seem a terribly uncouth phrase to have originated in Royal Tunbridge Wells.

[Mr Mystery]

Looks like the Labour Coup just fell flat on its arse - Jeremy Corbyn will be on the ballot.

Now, at this stage? If he's ousted then, totally fair enough. But one way or the other, it's time for the party - PLP and wider membership, to come together once the result is known.

MPs need to get with their elected leader. And regardless of who that is, if they can support them, quit and trigger a by-election.

[Psychosplodge]

Local radio this morning Angela Smith, Labour MP for Penistone & Stocksbridge

Jeremy Corbyn needs to resign as he's losing us the working class vote

Also something about the party "being taken over by a militant element that are against the values of the party and democracy"

You can still argue Corbyn spent years disagreeing with the party and should have quit twenty years ago to stand on a SWP ticket though mystery so do you really see any MP standing down?

[Psychosplodge]

Apparently they're going to keep challenging corbyn until he loses should he be re-elected.

[Mr Mystery]

Angela Smith needs to re-examine...

Jeremy Corbyn - elected on 59.5% of the vote.....that doesn't sound like someone 'agains the values of the party and democracy'

Indeed, insisting he can't be on the ballot because he's too popular and will probably still win - is that even dimly democratic?

**** the Blairites. **** them right in their Diet Tory Ear. There's still no evidence he's losing them the working class vote.

When the party gets with the effing programme and stops trying to denigrate their elected leader at every moment, perhaps Corbyn's message can actually get across (Tory/Doet Tory isn't the only politics. Austerity is your main ill. Not immigration)

Any MP is free to disagree with their party and their party leader. But what the Blairites are up to is outright sabotage. If you behaved the way they are in a regular job, you'd be sacked stupidly quickly.

[Psychosplodge]

I doubt there's any staunch blairites round here Mystery.

Further to that she continues and lists off a list of working class estates where they were "haemorrhaging votes"(her words) at the last count.
Also claimed labour lost council seats, when even red ed gained 400 in 2011.

First caller post momentum caller

"and that's why we're going to be stuck with teresa may for another nine years"
"I won't vote for the tories but there's no way I'm voting for corbyn's labour"
"I'm going to become a non voter"

[Mr Mystery]

Tories lost more.

It's the infighting and squabbling, from the Blairites, in Parliament that's doing the damage. Papers would rather print criticism of Corbyn than cover what he's doing, so he can't get his message out. He holds rallies up and down the country. He logged more active campaigning hours during the referendum than any other Labour MP.

And what is it that's undemocratic about the incumbent Leader of a party insisting on a leadership ballot before they step down against their own will? The way the Blairites go on you'd thinking Corbyn is outright refusing to go. Granted they're power hungry idiots who say one thing then vote the other...but Corbyn is quite rightly sticking to the established process.

If he loses the ballot, I'll be politically gutted. I genuinely and strongly feel he's exactly the sort of Prime Minister we need right now. You may not agree with his policies, but he's no liar - compare to Theresa May's speech to her actual voting record (liar, liar LIAAAARRRRRRR!). How rare is that in politics, let alone political Leaders (yes Leave, I'm particularly looking at your crock of **** campaign).

But if he does lose (nothing is promised), then I seriously hope the winner takes a long look at why Corbyn gained so much support, and looks to adopt some of his stances. Doesn't have to be all of them of course, that's equally pointless. But he's resonating on some level, and that's because no one else is playing his tune,

[Psychosplodge]

He's not going to lose the ballet though, so we're going to be stuck with no meaningful opposition.

Do cabinet members not effectively have to vote with the government.

- - - Updated - - -

It took twenty minutes before we had a non momentum Corbyn supporter.

[Mr Mystery]

Cabinet members? I don't believe so. It might 'jeopardise their career', but that's never been a good reason not to do The Right Thing.

What is beyond the pale is very publicly talking bollocks about your leader, especially when it's baseless.

Corbyn has proven a highly effective Leader of the Opposition. Go have a look at the would-be Tory policies he's managed to force them to abandon.

Take a look at the questions he asks at PMQ, and just how few Call Me Dave actually gives an answer to.

Being the Official Opposition is more than just trying to get on the other benches at the next General Election. It's about challenging the Government at every turn, keeping them 'in check' as much as possible. Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely doing that.

[Psychosplodge]

Seriously? How? They can pretty much do what they want at the moment despite a slim majority.

"has corbyn changed government policy?" google produces 0 results. Not even labour propaganda - zero results relating to the search.

http://i.imgur.com/6lwEaeT.png?1

[Mr Mystery]

Compulsory Academisation of all Schools? Opposed - later dropped. That's one.

Tax Credit Cuts? Opposed - dropped. That's two - and very important one for thousands of people.

PIP cuts for the disabled? Opposed - dropped. That's three, yes?

Police Cuts? Opposed - dropped. That's four.

[Psychosplodge]

Why would Cameron drop any of those based on the words of Corbyn? No reason whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

Now compared to the emperor in the emperors new clothes.

40 year labour voter says not leadership material won't vote for him.

This will no doubt be ongoing...

[grimmas]

I'm not sure his opposition had anything to do with those though. The Paris attacks are why the police cuts didn't happen it was a Tory backbench spanner in the works on that one.

Also he didn't exactly galvanise the Working classes during the EU referendum did he and that was his job.

His support for NI becoming part of Ireland's was/is undemocatic as is his stance on the Falkland Islands. To be fair he isn't a liar though.

[Mr Mystery]

It's kind of hard to undo the outright lies that 'you're poor because foreign' in a matter of weeks, no?

That's not on Corbyn, that's on a piss weak Labour Party since 2010, if not slightly earlier. A party which singularly failed to get across that Tory Austerity isn't the only path, and in fact larger benefits the wealthiest at the expense of the most vulnerable.

And why did the Tories back down? Here's a hint - it's not out the goodness of their own heart, is it?

[grimmas]

Well that was his job and he wasn't up to it. He couldnt because he's an middle class activist not a man of the people. To be fair all he did was send his time ponting the finger at Cammeron which wasn't that helpful as they were supposed to be on the same side.

I reckon the SNP have had more direct success opposing Tory policy than Labour. Also the official opposition party needs to be able to form a Government at any given time if the Government fails for some reason (not sure what that'd be may be they'll all get nicked for dodgy accounting). On current evidence not to sure Labour can manage to keep a shadow cabinet let alone a government.

Though who else have Labour got who has the clout? I quite liked Umunna for the job but he pulled out last time because he didn't have the stomach for it. May be they should try and poach Salmond, unlikely, but the Tories would s**t themselves

[Mr Mystery]

Well, I disagree.

Funny thing is, nobody has said why he's 'losing them the working class vote'....

[Psychosplodge]

They currently can't fill a full shadow cabinet.

- - - Updated - - -

It appears form the kind of things said this morning that we don't take him seriously.

[grimmas]

Well, I disagree.



Well it would be a boring conversation if you did!

[Mr Mystery]

They currently can't fill a full shadow cabinet.

- - - Updated - - -

It appears form the kind of things said this morning that we don't take him seriously.

But why?

[Psychosplodge]

dunno.
I mean milliband it was mostly cause he looked like gromit.
Maybe cause he looks too like some wacky geography teacher?

[Psychosplodge]

Wonderful. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-36773382)

[Mr Mystery]

New Cabinet is taking shape.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

Seems an end to Osbornomics, seeing as he's been given the boot.

[Denzark]

Interesting Cabinet. Genuinely surprised by David Davis 'Minister for Brexit' and Liam Fox.

[Psychosplodge]

World reacts article to BoJo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36790977)

[grimmas]

For Mystery

18946

Hmmm the Yanks are amused by BoJo. He did a very good job as Mayor of London, he's buffoonery hides a political animal, and they'll be less even less impressed when Sadiq Khan does a good job and becomes the Labour Leader (and possibly PM). Though I reckon we'll be ok with both of them.

[Psychosplodge]

Not this one?
http://i.imgur.com/3xgOrvg.jpg

[grimmas]

I like it.

Let's face it one has to approach the UK political scene with a certain amount of humour (or to be fair politics in general

[Psychosplodge]

politics is something of a joke

- - - Updated - - -


Labour donor taking labour to court (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36791782)

- - - Updated - - -

Does anyone know if there's a tory MP called clarkson?

[Haighus]

Hmm, so in the new cabinet, any role that is involved primarily in communicating with the rest of the world, other than the PM herself, is a Leave campaigner. Interesting choice. Almost like May has gone 'you've made this mess, sort it out yourselves...'.

[Denzark]

Or, almost like she's gone 'oh f*ck if I let anyone other than a brexit MP do any outward facing negotiations, I run the risk of having the eurosceptic wing of the party (and UKIP) baying for blood'.

[Psychosplodge]

entirely a possibility its a mix of both.

[Mr Mystery]

Why?

[Psychosplodge]

oh ffs I'd hoped they were gonna replace Hunt.

[CoffeeGrunt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EH1G4EwljM

[Psychosplodge]

That's the first cabinet decision that's made me feel like that CG

[CoffeeGrunt]

Interesting article from the Guardian that goes through the changing nature of Journalism, how the media has changed with the advent of social media, and the overall effect it has had on how we perceive truth. A long read, but worth it:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth

[Psychosplodge]

Do they apologise from moving form left bias factual for a certain pov to utter utter BS clickbait?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Do they apologise from moving form left bias factual for a certain pov to utter utter BS clickbait?

Yes, actually. Guessing you haven't read it. :)

They explain the manner in which journalism is forced to operate in order to remain remotely profitable, the issues that presents, and go on from there. They point out their flaws as well as others, but mostly make a very good point that journalism as we knew it is pretty much dead. The business model relies on traffic, which is apathetic to quality or truth of the content, and so the producer becomes like that as well. In the end, the truth ceases to matter.

It then goes into how that feeds into Social Media and the "Bubble" effect, where the algorithms that find you content you like also exclude content you don't, thus your social media starts to construct a bubble of people, pages and such that agree with you, reinforcing your worldviews even if they're wrong, presenting everything you believe as immutable truth, even if it isn't.

It also discusses net outrage mobs and other such phenomena. It's a very interesting read. Ignore the source and listen to the content.

[Psychosplodge]

I've never gone out of my way to read the guardian generally. With how clickbaity it is now I have to be really tempted :D

I might throw it through an archive thing and have a noisy later

[Psychosplodge]

Mystery If you're interested they're having Toby Perkins the MP for chesterfield on local radio at 11 it should be streamable from the BBC website.
I think he was involved near the beginning of the telling Corbyn to step down?

[Mr Mystery]

To be honest, I don't care about the whys and wherefores.

I'm currently disgusted at the flim-flammery around the leadership ballot. They couldn't keep Corbyn off the ballot, so now they're pulling every dirty trick they possibly can to cut out as many of those likely to vote for him as possible.

Democracy? In the UK?

Doesn't look like it anymore.

[Psychosplodge]

Fair enough. I think he was the first I heard claiming they were losing the working class on the doorstep so might interest you, but yeah I can see where you'd have those views with all the nonsense going on in the party.
I can see the point of keeping the associate members off as there are probably plenty of tories also voting for their interests on that ballet, but putting a £25 fee to continue participating might disproportionately prevent genuine supporters continuing to participate.

[CoffeeGrunt]

So, DECC has been abolished (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36788162). No word yet on how that'll pan out, but with Andrea "Is Climate Change Real" Leadsom as Environment Secretary, I'm not overly optimistic.

[Mr Mystery]

Here's hoping she's the first to drown when Sea Levels rise...

Or at least that it shafts her property value. Seems to be about the only thing the right wing really care about.

[CoffeeGrunt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX4YfVvo_z0

Oh, watch him squirm...

[Kirsten]

well, MPs have voted for Trident. absolute disgrace. after several disastrous wars, six years of irresponsible and damaging austerity, an NHS in crisis, and we are going to spend over £200 billion on weapons of mass destruction that we punish others for trying to obtain. ****ing amazing.

[Wolfshade]

Democracy!

[Psychosplodge]

The NHS spent £31bn on computers.
They need to look at their procurement procedures.
Where's the £200bn figure come from?

[grimmas]

It's £31BN to replace the submarines, built in British shipyards by a British company. I suspect the people of Barrow are rather happy it's happening and that it'll keep money and jobs in the area.

[Psychosplodge]

You mean all those people the SNP are trying to make redundant? If faslane was closed and relocated to England (in the event of the SNP winning another referendum) do you think most of a town would relocate?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Because £31B couldn't be spent literally any other way to provide work to that area...

[Psychosplodge]

It possibly could, but there's no guarantee it would go to defence, or Bae even if it did go to defence.

[grimmas]

No chance (on the peoples of Faslane moving) but I suspect there's lots of Port towns in the rest of the UK that'd be happy to have them. I think Ms Sturgeon is playing a little fast and loose on this one. There's a lot of derelict businesses in the Holy Loch area since the Americans left, turns out there wasn't too much else round there.

No one else seems to be asking them to build £31bn worth of ships. Sorry Boats my apologies to any submariners reading. Also I'm not sure I want them building state of the art Nuclear submarines for anyone else.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Trident? State of the art? Not what I've heard from people deployed on them, but hey-ho, they're less-rusty than the Russians and we should need to face off against the Yanks.

[Psychosplodge]

He means the submarines. Of course trident itself isn't state of the art its ready for replacement.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The subs aren't either from what I've heard, but then sub warfare isn't what it used to be.

Personally I'd prefer we had our shipyards building crap to sell to other countries, rather than just circling the money around our own economy. Surely that's the aim as we move to Brexit?

[Psychosplodge]

Again, that's why they're ready for replacement?

Do both, but you always want your stuff a tier above your export models don't you?

[grimmas]

That's why they're replacing them.

What CG suggest did happen. Most notably with the Centurion tank however our role in NATO meant we needed pretty specialist kit, which less developed/poorer militaries can't afford. Also people get really stropy when we do sell stuff even unarmed stuff.

To be fair even the yanks found the Challenger 2 a bit much. Same old problem though we can make high quality but can't compete on lower quality bulk items.

[Psychosplodge]

In 2012, during simulated battles with the United States Navy's latest Virginia-class submarine (the USS New Mexico), it was reported that the Americans were "taken aback" by Astute's capabilities. Royal Navy Commander Iain Breckenridge was quoted saying: “Our sonar is fantastic and I have never before experienced holding a submarine at the range we were holding USS New Mexico. The Americans were utterly taken aback, blown away with what they were seeing.”[50][51]

Assuming we build new ones to this standard or better it sounds reasonably promising?

- - - Updated - - -



To be fair even the yanks found the Challenger 2 a bit much. Same old problem though we can make high quality but can't compete on lower quality bulk items.

It's only ever been killed by another Challenger 2 hasn't it?

[grimmas]

Assuming we build new ones to this standard or better it sounds reasonably promising?

- - - Updated - - -



It's only ever been killed by another Challenger 2 hasn't it?

Yep and only because the hatch was open. It's a bit like Concord really amazingly impressive performance but it just isn't needed.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The Challie's a great tank, but we can never commit enough to fight a full-scale war. IIRC, we don't even tend to operate them as squadrons. That said, they're under increasing pressure to scrap the main gun in exchange for a smoothbore and stop using HESH.

I think the best part is that at a NATO tank trials the Challenger II came dead last. Then it hit the sand in the Middle East and outperformed the Abrams effortlessly, (and the T-72, but that goes without saying.)

The Centurions we exported to Israel are still in use, IIRC, as well as the Challie 1s. The Americans export Abrams all over the place, but deliberately make sure only to sell M1A1 Abrams so that they're equipping people with tanks that are woeful compared to their own. Hence why ISIS have torn the Iraqi complement of them to ribbons and stolen a bunch only to discard them.

[Psychosplodge]

It would be a shame to use the inferior smoothbore gun. Then we'd be limited to the range of our allies. It was short sighted to not buy lots of ammo, or the tooling for the ammo before they shut the production lines down.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yep and only because the hatch was open. It's a bit like Concord really amazingly impressive performance but it just isn't needed.

True, but you might as well go the extra mile. To be fair, the Abrams apparently has a great track record (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams).

Our design philosophy seems to be quite WWII German now. Overcomplex, overengineered, top-of-the-line, but prone to being beaten both logistically and numerically. Still, we just don't fight wars the old fashioned way, so it doesn't really matter.

The story of the Challie that got stuck in a ditch and took several AT rounds without any problems is hilarious though.

- - - Updated - - -


It would be a shame to use the inferior smoothbore gun. Then we'd be limited to the range of our allies. It was short sighted to not buy lots of ammo, or the tooling for the ammo before they shut the production lines down.

Rifled Barrels aren't really necessary given the proliferation of APFSDS rounds, especially since HESH is a cork gun these days. Plus it's part of NATO standardisation, it was going to happen eventually.

Damn NATO bureaucrats telling us what to do. Let's have a NExit!

[grimmas]

Wasn't it the Challenger 1 that that finished last to those trials? It did way out perform the Abrams operationally

It's rifled gun is reposnsible for the longest tank to tank kill ever though.

The trouble is the Challenger 2 kind of relies on the rather special composite armour and the gun so if it was stripped back for export it loses what makes it special

[Psychosplodge]

How would the Netherlands leaving the EU change that?

- - - Updated - - -

Was looking for that longest kill record and found this (http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/which-is-now-the-best-mbt-in-the-world.54679/#post1123238) interesting thread thats vaguely relevant.

[grimmas]

Ironically the rifled gun was to support our role in NATO part of which was providing tanks with long range and we've how been hampered due to our nonstandard approach with the rest of NATO

[CoffeeGrunt]

Was looking for that longest kill record and found this (http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/which-is-now-the-best-mbt-in-the-world.54679/#post1123238) interesting thread thats vaguely relevant.

Pretty interesting. I found the guy boasting about Challengers taking down 14 enemy armour without a single scratch amusing when I hit the link and found out they were all T-55s and many of them were apparently abandoned.

[Psychosplodge]

Weren't they arguing over the penetration of the gun at that point?

I found it interesting in regards of it apears to be actual tank crews discussing them.
The one about the multinational exercises and the crews all slagging off their own kit, apart from the germans was amusing.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, it's been a pretty interesting read. Seems there's no real "best MBT" out there, as each has strengths and weaknesses, plus the crew makes a difference.

[CoffeeGrunt]

On the note of the Chally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wKfpPrRVIo

Shame it was a fake round. ;)

[Psychosplodge]

It was totally real. He just got better.

[grimmas]

Yeah, it's been a pretty interesting read. Seems there's no real "best MBT" out there, as each has strengths and weaknesses, plus the crew makes a difference.

It's a bit like the tired old "best tank in WWII" debate and no one mentioned that despite the T34 being quite good on paper their crews couldn't see out of it, hit much or communicate with each other and basically be the most destroyed tank ever. In fact it's all a bit like 40K points values it all a bit situational.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, the T34 incorporated a lot of great ideas in one package. However the crew were undertrained, it was about the only main tank in WWII not to have radios, they were mostly haphazardly welded together and thrown into the front, and it was designed to be disposable.

Still, the T34-85 was a pretty solid tank.

[Morgrim]

A submarine only lasts about 30 years and requires specialist shipyards to build. So giving the job to another coastal town only makes sense if you're willing to invest in them for a very long haul. (You can repair, refit and maintain submarines without the specialist shipyards, it's the laying of the pressure hull that's the tricky part.)

From a local economy perspective, if you can supply the materials to make a successful nuclear submarine, it also proves you've got the skills to make top of the line products in several seemingly unrelated areas. Like in europe and north america deep sea piping for oil rigs is made predominantly in places that make or supply materials for the coolant systems on nuclear generators (which these days means mostly submarines and aircraft carriers) because if you can meet the spec for a nuclear system, you can meet the requirements for the oil industry.

[Psychosplodge]

The point about moving it is the UK will hardly build, base and service its nuclear deterrent in Scotland if it leaves the Union.

I think they're possibly over capacity for the oil industry at the current price/barrel?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Most companies manufacturing for oil have gone under or been severely cut back, yeah. That said, it has mainly pushed them to diversify their industry.

I don't see why we have a government propping up a few thousand jobs at the cost of billions of pounds to keep an archaic Civilianbuster system running, but apparently oil losing tens of thousands of workers doesn't warrant any kind of intervention in the slightest?

All they're doing is looking to protect the Pound if it collapses, they're not really doing anything to stop it happening. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/18/uk-government-is-preparing-contingency-plans-for-north-sea-bankr/)

[grimmas]

A submarine only lasts about 30 years and requires specialist shipyards to build. So giving the job to another coastal town only makes sense if you're willing to invest in them for a very long haul. (You can repair, refit and maintain submarines without the specialist shipyards, it's the laying of the pressure hull that's the tricky part.)

From a local economy perspective, if you can supply the materials to make a successful nuclear submarine, it also proves you've got the skills to make top of the line products in several seemingly unrelated areas. Like in europe and north america deep sea piping for oil rigs is made predominantly in places that make or supply materials for the coolant systems on nuclear generators (which these days means mostly submarines and aircraft carriers) because if you can meet the spec for a nuclear system, you can meet the requirements for the oil industry.

Yep that's why they're being made in Barrow and why the money can't be used on something else it that area, because that's what the shipyards there do. They will redeploy the servicing to somewhere else other than Faslane if the SNP get what they want and given how a lot of Port towns in England have had a bit of a hard time over the last few decades they'll be happy to have the business.

[grimmas]

Yeah, the T34 incorporated a lot of great ideas in one package. However the crew were undertrained, it was about the only main tank in WWII not to have radios, they were mostly haphazardly welded together and thrown into the front, and it was designed to be disposable.

Still, the T34-85 was a pretty solid tank.

Great strategic weapon the T34 (war winning really), tactically well not so great. It's really interesting to see it next to the Panther at Bovington which was pretty much Germans making it in a German style. The Pather being the exact opposite in reality a great tactical weapon but not that great in a strategic sense, still better than the Tigers and the other later war German craziness on the strategic angle but still not great.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Great strategic weapon the T34 (war winning really), tactically well not so great. It's really interesting to see it next to the Panther at Bovington which was pretty much Germans making it in a German style. The Pather being the exact opposite in reality a great tactical weapon but not that great in a strategic sense, still better than the Tigers and the other later war German craziness on the strategic angle but still not great.

Yeah, I think the T34 shocked the Germans. They were gently progressing the Panzers, then they saw the T34 and flipped out spewing random models and designs of tanks all over the place. They also got pretty obsessed with making increasingly-heavy tanks.

I'm going to Tankfest next year with a friend, looking forward to seeing the exhibit. That's the place with the last working Tiger, right?

[grimmas]

Oh yes. It's a thing of beauty.

The German tanks are f**king massive even the PzIII when compared to it contemporaries Obviously overcompensating for something

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, though it's probably because in the early war such as the Battle of France, the German Panzers couldn't handle a Matilda or Char Bis in a fight. They only won because they handled their tanks in a much better way, and had superior tactics.

[grimmas]

I'll say. I suspect the larger crew compartments aided with their crew performance. They even managed to spank the thousands of T34s the Russians had when they first invaded Russia, despite its mechanical advantages. I guess the crew matters more than the machine.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Indeed, Russian crews were pretty badly-trained. Mostly conscripts and people given an hour's training on operating the tank without firing a shell. Add in lack of ability to make the company move as one and concentrate fire on targets of priority, and it's unsurprising that the Germans reaped such a horrendous toll on them.

Anyway, I think we've veered off-topic a little... :P

[Psychosplodge]

Off topic? In the oubliette? as if.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's a topic I could talk about for a while, so I didn't wanna derail the thread on it if it'd annoy others. :P

[Haighus]

Pfft, Challenger 2 is by far the best MBT available at the moment- it has a built-in kettle! Logistical gem that, the crew can eat hot food and drink tea without ever leaving the safety of their vehicle...

Perhaps we need a random tank stuff thread...? :p

[CoffeeGrunt]

I dunno man, Gotthammer will probably spam it with Girls Und Panzer pics. Not that it'd be a bad thing, but there's no Challenger IIs in that show yet. :P

Also the Bivvy has been stolen by pretty much the rest of NATO. The Abrams definitely has it, at least, because it's an ingenious idea that even those savage colonials can appreciate.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes but I bet they use it wrong for coffee and similar nonsense not making tea.

[Haighus]

The Abrams has it? Since when? I thought only Britain and India had it as a standard requirement for all armoured vehicles and it was something pretty unique to those countries?


Also this £25 democracy tax to sign up to Labour for the Leadership election is bs, it is meant to be a party for the working class!

[CoffeeGrunt]

Tankery Thread (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?71721-Tankery-The-Thread&p=552314). Eldargal has already done what needed to be done. :P

[Psychosplodge]

Also this £25 democracy tax to sign up to Labour for the Leadership election is bs, it is meant to be a party for the working class!

I thought it was to keep a certain section out initially. But if you consider the labour party is something you join with an annual membership fee, the idea of only paying £3 and getting the same voting rights as fully paid up members is a kick in the teeth to every single longterm supporter. I'm assuming £25 is somewhere in the region of a full annual membership?

[grimmas]

That's no kettle, it's a boiling vessel😜

Tanks may be of topic but they're a whole lot better than politics, or is that Royal Navy ships 🤔

[CoffeeGrunt]

Having watched clips of PM's Questions with May's first bout of it, there is no doubt. She's modelling herself on Thatcher in both demeanour and attitude. She was far more focused with attacking Labour than actually answering the questions, and more concerned with petty quips and jibes than proper politics.

Oh, and Trump's been elected as the Republican candidate.

We're all f*cked.

[Psychosplodge]

You think?
I mean with labour in the the current state it is its pretty easy for her to sit and pick at them.
I thought it was funny what she said to the LibDem though :D

[Psychosplodge]

Apparently about to have an interview with Owen Smith (after 10 at some point), and the presenter lining the next show up described it as "prickly" from his impression watching it being recorded in the next studio

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_radio_sheffield/

[Psychosplodge]

So we're having a local by-election for a councillor I think. Labour candidate came round last night. Can't even correctly read the name of the electoral register and match it to the house number.
Fills me with confidence for her potential competence.

[Psychosplodge]

Labour nominates "independent" advisor for a peerage who found them not to be anti Semitic, the same week they kick off about Cameron's honours list and cronyism.
This isn't a spoof right?

[Wolfshade]

Having watched clips of PM's Questions with May's first bout of it, there is no doubt. She's modelling herself on Thatcher in both demeanour and attitude. She was far more focused with attacking Labour than actually answering the questions, and more concerned with petty quips and jibes than proper politics.

Oh, and Trump's been elected as the Republican candidate.

We're all f*cked.

I watchedMay's first PMQ and she seemed to answer more questions directly than Cameron, though as ever a lot depends on whose coverage you listen to and your own persona biases.

I am just waiting for labour to split so that there is labour under JC and the new new old new labour.

Regardless of what party, if the leader cannot work with the other members then something needs to change, either the rebel MPs need to be recalled or the leadership needs changing.
It is even worse during times of small majorities as the opposition can really hold the government to account, however, if they are more concerned with infighting then there is no effective leadership.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[CoffeeGrunt]

On Grouse Farming and the lies they tell... (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/16/grouse-shooters-kill-first-casualty-is-truth-astroturfing-botham-rspb-packham)


At the height of his austerity programme, as essential public services were cut to the bone, David Cameron’s government raised the subsidy for grouse moors by 84%, to £56 per hectare.

Okay, now say it with me...one...two...three...

"We're all in this together."

[Psychosplodge]

How does that compare to other environmental/conservation spending? Cause isn't part of moor upkeep that?

[CoffeeGrunt]

As far as I can tell (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/common-agricultural-policy-reform), the payment doesn't seem to make a stipulation on grouse moors vs other moors, though I haven't read it extensively.

The problem is that it's part of other stealth-subsidies for grousing. For example, the price of a gun license is still £50, the 2001 rate, though it costs £198 to perform the background checks to issue it. While Passport and Driving Licenses have kept rising as their costs do, the government felt it wouldn't be fair to transfer gun license costs to the owner.

Not to mention that many of the largest proponents of grousing happen to own grouse moors themselves.

Or the fact they're at-odds with the environmentalist agencies trying to look after the countryside, while pretending to be more rural than said groups despite not living in the country aside from having a second home there.

[Psychosplodge]

IDK, I just thought part of their job was to manage the moor as well, and grousing helped pay for that.
Licence wise don't you have to payit every year though? and have the police come round and check your cabinet?

[CoffeeGrunt]

They last five years from the date of issue (https://www.gov.uk/shotgun-and-firearm-certificates), unsure if a full check and fee is required to renew it. I know you do have to keep a meticulous record of every round bought and fired, and have to store and use it responsibly.

Also the problem with grouse moors is that they do the opposite of look after the area. They burn off the area to promote heather growth and fauna that threatens the grouse keeps "mysteriously" dying when it passes over. Nevermind the poisoned animals that are found. They create a monoculture for farming the grouse, which is bad for the environment as it limits biodiversity.

It's also bad for people, too, as an increasing number of studies are linking the burning-off of plant life with the inability of the moors to hold water, which is part of why floods are becoming more severe for those downstream of it. The burning also dries the peat, lowering the water table and releasing carbon and heavy metals into any water when floods do happen. (https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3597/grouse_moor_burning_causes_widespread_environmenta l_changes)

The Committee for Climate Change, an independent, government-advisory body, noted it as an issue in 2015 (https://documents.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/6.738_CCC_ExecSummary_2015_FINAL_WEB_250615.pdf). See page 23 and 32. It's a summary, mind. If you want the full-on details, they're all here (https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/reducing-emissions-and-preparing-for-climate-change-2015-progress-report-to-parliament/).

[Psychosplodge]

I'm far too tired still to read anything that dry, I'll take your word for it.
Yeah I thought their biggest issue was the threat gamekeepers pose to birds of prey.

[Wolfshade]

It is an interesting proposition, the two sides both say that they are doing it for ecological reasons. Those arguing against it cite other issues like the birds of prey deaths (which is still illegal and yet strangely despite the alleged evidence of this no one has been arrested/prosecuted) and ecological issues.

I think slightly more interesting is the argument to change the subsidies for farming to discourage the industrial farming and more towards smaller diverse farming.

[CoffeeGrunt]

You can't arrest someone if you can't prove they did it. They often used poisoned mice, etc, so it's hard to pin it to a particular person. Especialyl somewhere as big as the moors.

There aren't really any ecological reasons for grouse farming. Any kind of monoculture farming is inherently damaging to biodiversity, but there's a lot of secondary effects with this as well. :/

[Denzark]

@ CG - you can actually arrest someone for a crime you suspect they did but can't prove they did - you simply can't charge them.

But anyhoo:

I thought this may be of interest, pertaining to Mr Corbyn. Now refuses to confirm he would back NATO allies if invaded. Article 5 response is the cornerstone of the whole alliance. this is yet further confirmation of his unsuitability to lead the nation - you could argue his nuclear stance is morale, but this is ridiculous. Seeing as how it has been NATO - not the EU - that has kept Europe safe, his position here is barking:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/19/lord-west-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-after-he-refuses-to-say-if-he-wo/

[Mr Mystery]

Except that's not what he said, is it?

Ah. The Torygraph. Disingenuous article is disingenuous....

Saying 'Dude, I'm aiming for diplomancy, yeah?' is not the same as saying 'sure I'd leave my mates high and dry'. At all.

[Denzark]

Its not just about what you do say in diplomacy, its what you don't say.

What is more reassuring to yours allies/deterring to your enemies:

a. Yes I will definitely 100% back up our allies in accordance with treaty requirements.

Or:

b. Waffle waffle waffle diplomacy cloud nine world without war.

I paraphrase clearly, but it would appear Owen Smith said a. and Corbyn, unsurprisingly, said b.

Maybe we could laud his honesty - I can't see the French going to war for Slovakia - but it does not send the right grand-strategic message.

[Mr Mystery]

Sod the grand strategy message.

Is Russia actually going to invade? Hell no. Absolutely not - so moot point is moot, and entirely so.

They really are desperate to pin all evil on him, aren't they? Apparently, not having any desire to use Nuclear weapons is a bad thing? Personally, I'd rather not have a psychopath in charge of weapons we don't bloody need in the first place.

But of course. THE ARMY HAS SPOKEN AND MUST BE LISTENED TO. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SABRE RATTLING WE COULD DO!

[Psychosplodge]

Something something crimea...
The Baltic states need the reassurance that NATO means something.

[CoffeeGrunt]

If only it did.

[Psychosplodge]

Its kept the peace since WW2 despite the EU trying to rewrite history...

[Denzark]

Sod the grand strategy message.

Is Russia actually going to invade? Hell no. Absolutely not - so moot point is moot, and entirely so.

They really are desperate to pin all evil on him, aren't they? Apparently, not having any desire to use Nuclear weapons is a bad thing? Personally, I'd rather not have a psychopath in charge of weapons we don't bloody need in the first place.

But of course. THE ARMY HAS SPOKEN AND MUST BE LISTENED TO. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SABRE RATTLING WE COULD DO!

That is very short sighted. Surely if war is bad, then deterring war is good? Saying you would meet your treaty requirements is part of deterrence. Even if in his heart of hearts he knows he doesn't mean it, it would be better to bluff.

What has the Army got to do with it - Admiral West is a.) Retired and b.) and Admiral as well as c.) a Labour raised lord.

'Sabre-rattling' is the preserve of the FCO - not the military.

There may be a place for conscientious objectors - but that is not at the head of our government.


If only it did.

Why does Putin kick off when the yanks say they will put a new missile system in Poland? Because he worries about NATO. NATO has done mre to keep the post WWII peace in Europe than any other factor.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Why does Putin kick off when the yanks say they will put a new missile system in Poland? Because he worries about NATO. NATO has done mre to keep the post WWII peace in Europe than any other factor.

Mm-hm, not saying that NATO is unnecessary, but it didn't stop Russia from taking Crimea. Didn't do much of anything to stop that. It also kinda sets us up as a Triple Entente if the other side does push things too far. No-one in NATO would really engage in open war because it'd be the last war. We'd all be toasting at a million sieverts before they even have the tanks loaded onto the transports to smack ol' Putin in the face.

[Denzark]

I don't think so. Last I checked, Crimea was a part of the Ukraine, and Ukraine isn't part of NATO. There was no Article 5 need to defend it. I presume when you say open war you mean conventional war vs Russia - Kosovo was pretty open. I don't think conventional war would automatically go nuclear in a Russia vs. NATO scenario. Russia/Putin has far too much to lose. Russia is allowed to stomp around its old USSR empire (Georgia, South Ossetia etc) but I reckon any Poland push would not go unchecked.

I hope I'm not alone here in thinking, as armchair generals and amateur strategists, that telling your potential opponents what you would or would do in given strategic scenarios, is stupid?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Then maybe Mr Corbyn's playing a high-level Sun Tzu by saying he wouldn't support our allies...reputedly, when actually he would! Dun, dun, duuuuun~!

Europe is scorched, America, Germany, France, all the others have failed, but Britain! We'll charge forth with that one aircraft carrier we're sharing with the French, some submarines and a bunch of Challenger tanks that don't take the smoothbore NATO ammunition! Yes, we'll definitely be the straw that breaks the Russian Bear's back!

Tbh, in WWII our role was more about intelligence gathering and we left the bulk of the fighting to the Americans, (well, the Russians, but it's politically-uncomfortable to admit that.) I'm pretty sure America would be more than eager to throw down against Russia, and with all that thrown on the table, our measly assets don't really matter.

[Denzark]

Tbh, in WWII our role was more about intelligence gathering and we left the bulk of the fighting to the Americans, (well, the Russians, but it's politically-uncomfortable to admit that.)

This is also quite topical. This week, a father is suing the £28k per year private school he sent his lad to because the lad only came out with 1 GCSE.

I mention it in case you went to private school - you may wish to sue to regain a proportion of fees commensurate with however much history you studied.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I went to a public school due to the joys of not having money, so I don't understand your point unless you're setting it up for a classist, "well of course you went to public school, tch!" History at GCSE level doesn't teach much of WWII, by the way, as it's forced to cover a lot of, well...history. Additionally, it's only taught at GCSE level at all if you choose the subject.

Perhaps you should focus less on insulting people's intelligence to make yourself feel good, and more on educating them?

Plus according to D-day museum figures (http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day/d-day-and-the-battle-of-normandy-your-questions-answered), 10,000 more Americans than British fought at D-Day, though I admit I thought the disparity was higher. The US death toll was far higher than ours', though.

[Mr Mystery]

My History GCSE? Course ran from 1994-1996, with exams in 1996.

I got a D, despite having done no work and my appendix rupturing half way through the first of two papers, and missing the second paper entirely as a result.

The topics? Basically post-war Britain....dullsville, and barely history when it's something you can just ask your parents about.

[Psychosplodge]

public school is private school CG.

I got a D in history cause I ****ed up my exam times and missed one. Got an A on that paper though which averaged out at a D overall. It would have been nice to have another A.

We did some WW2 pre GCSE, but GCSE was more Hitler's rise to power

[CoffeeGrunt]

public school is private school CG.

But you don't pay for public school? I thought private = paid, public = free?


I got a D in history cause I ****ed up my exam times and missed one. Got an A on that paper though which averaged out at a D overall. It would have been nice to have another A.

We did some WW2 pre GCSE, but GCSE was more Hitler's rise to power

Yeah, we got vague footnotes, such as, "America jumped in at the end, Russia sorta did stuff and Stalingrad was bad, oh, and France surrendered."

[Psychosplodge]

Nah, State schools are free, public schools are called public cause anyone with the money to pay can go to them iirc.

[Mr Mystery]

There's a difference between Private and Public school - but I'm not sure what it is.

Then there's State School, which Those Who Decide like to give the bare minimum funds to, ensuring few reach the heady heights their contemporaries in private/public schools can attain.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The NHA says (https://www.nhaschools.com/en/About-Us/Pages/Difference-between-Private-and-Public-Schools.aspx)that private schools charge tuition while public schools get it from the government...so?

[Psychosplodge]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)

- - - Updated - - -


The NHA says (https://www.nhaschools.com/en/About-Us/Pages/Difference-between-Private-and-Public-Schools.aspx)that private schools charge tuition while public schools get it from the government...so?

That's the US.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Ah, my mistake.

The UK Gov website then. (https://www.gov.uk/types-of-school/private-schools)


Private schools (also known as ‘independent schools’) charge fees to attend instead of being funded by the government. Pupils don’t have to follow the national curriculum.

[Denzark]

I went to a public school due to the joys of not having money, so I don't understand your point unless you're setting it up for a classist, "well of course you went to public school, tch!" History at GCSE level doesn't teach much of WWII, by the way, as it's forced to cover a lot of, well...history. Additionally, it's only taught at GCSE level at all if you choose the subject.

CG for want of pedantry, public school is usually UK vernacular for one which attracts fee paying - ie private school. I take it you meant state school - no classism intended - I went to a state school as well (although boarding).

Perhaps you should focus less on insulting people's intelligence to make yourself feel good, and more on educating them?

There was no intention of that, and for which I apologise if you took it like that. Actually I thought you were possibly trolling saying that the Americans did the bulk of the fighting and relegated the efforts to of non-Americans to 'Intelligence gathering'. I agree with what you say about Russians- the second front they opened was a key factor in Germany's failure.

Plus according to D-day museum figures (http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day/d-day-and-the-battle-of-normandy-your-questions-answered), 10,000 more Americans than British fought at D-Day, though I admit I thought the disparity was higher. The US death toll was far higher than ours', though.

Some of my offence taken to what you wrote above was because the Americans fought from Dec 41 to Aug 45. Us and our Commonwealth/Empire allies, were fighting all the way through from 1939. If the Americans 'did the bulk of the fighting' for that to be true at D-Day the numbers at D-Day of non-Americans would have to be less than the American numbers, no? The US had some of the nastier landing sites for sure, weather didn't help. My last job was based at Southwick Park, which contains the stately home where D-Day was planned. The Map Room is still in as close to original state as possible and we all got taken through the whole thing in some depth. The room in the top right corner of the house picture at link was mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwick_House

But to take it back OT, the contribution of the UK to NATO is second only to the US. Obviously the days of us operating unilaterally are probably in the past. That said, remember when Miliband managed to get a vote for us not to go into Syria? That is the point at which the US didn't, iirc. Our joining in in such events is seen as vital and as I stated, Corbyn refusing to say he definitely will is seen as ruling it totally out in many areas, and as such is bad.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes but public schools are still part of the private system.

State schools are the ones we all went to.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's fine. I just personally feel that A, were Corbyn to say he would engage in war he'd be held up as abandoning his morals and be dragged through the mud for that instead. There's little the guy can do that won't result in it.

Ignoring Mr Corbyn and addressing the wider point, Britain's involvement does matter, but I dislike the fact that we lost many soldiers if Afghanistan and Iraq with more now needed as the region has already become destabilised. IMO we should have a hands-off approach to the Middle East once ISIS are weakened to the point where the FSA and Assad's forces can remove them. Is it morally right to leave Assad in power? No, it's utterly abhorrent, but what can we realistically do?

As far as Russia, Putin seems to be playing a game of careful brinksmanship. I don't know where his next move would be, nor how it'll be done, but it'll be done under the auspices of deniability and obfuscation. My question is, if Putin rolls in en masse, we'd need a significant force to stop him. It's not the war he'd prosecute, but if it were, then it would be a pretty bloody one. It's always been proxy wars up until now, and I don't think either side really knows what a real confrontation would look like.

It probably wouldn't go nuclear, but say Putin takes a swathe of Poland, battle is joined, then surrenders on grounds of keeping that bit of Poland that his soldiers incidentally captured on their day off because they're so patriotic, what do we do? Obviously we can't let him have it, but then escalating the situation could be pretty bad.

I'm personally hoping that it won't come to that, and I'll be honest, it's a moot point re Jeremy Corbyn as I can't see the guy getting into power any time soon, as much as I like aspects of his morals.

[Denzark]

I admire Corbyn for sticking to his principles. But Putin-esque aggression is only contained when he thinks he won't get away with it. Corbyn has just told him a Corbyn Britain would let him. So what if that failure to deter actually therefore encourages the agression? Is his principles worth him not saying 'I'd back our treaty obligations'? He could always lie up front and then look for a politically weaselly way out.

Imagine if Chamberlain had fronted up to Adolf, how many lives would have been saved?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Probably not a lot. When Hitler put boots on the Rhineland his main concern was the French, who did nothing. Apparently they even had orders to pull out immediately if any aggression from the French was met. There was none.

Britain did warn Hitler during the next engagements in Czechoslovakia IIRC, and Hitler ignored them. Then they threatened full war, he invaded Poland, we declared war, and nothing happened other than poor Poland getting bombed to dust. So we committed 200,000 men to France because we thought it was going to be WWI MkII, got blitzkrieged and fled at Dunkirk while abandoning all our vehicles.

I mean, we could have attacked immediately after Poland, but without the wartime economy or advances in place, it would very well have been a disaster, most likely. The French worshipped at the altar of static warfare by that point, and German capabilities were beyond our expectation. The BEF anticipated that Hitler would invade through Belgium and were drawn into battle there, but were encircled after the Germans moved through the Ardenne and thus had to struggle to breakout in order to avoid being captured.

I mean, we could have thrown everything into France, but then the inevitable failure would have been far worse, as it was a miracle that the defenders at Dunkirk held out long enough to evacuate 200,000, never mind more. Not to mention that it wasn't an issue of power, but tactical outmaneuvering that lost us France.

We made attempts in Norway, and there was the North Africa campaign, but really, us jumping into the fight in the early war wouldn't have necessarily ended it there. Especially in a theater that rendered our Navy essentially-irrelevant.

[Denzark]

The only good part of Chamberlain's appeasement was to give us time to re-arm from cuts of the 30s. That said, in the 30s you couldn't air transport entire brigades of troops quickly - large forces and their kit went by sea.

Its an interesting debate but well OT.

It still doesn't change the fact that Corbyn has minimised his options and not even pretneding to be robust can only disadvantage us. Being principled is not enough.