Nolan Posted 7 June, 2019 Share Posted 7 June, 2019 Nolan if you’re relying on that as evidence (in isolation and without any sense of the magnitudes involved), you’re in trouble pal. Next you’ll be telling that the young are less likely to vote and they’re more likely to vote Brexit Party [emoji38]The young are less likely to vote. That's why celebrities distantly come out imploring to make sure they are on the electoral roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 7 June, 2019 Share Posted 7 June, 2019 The young are less likely to vote. That's why celebrities distantly come out imploring to make sure they are on the electoral roll. Whoosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 7 June, 2019 Share Posted 7 June, 2019 WhooshVoting intention for 18-24 puts the Greens in second place. But on balance of of population you have a lot more C2DE than 18-24 and you get some cross section in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 7 June, 2019 Share Posted 7 June, 2019 (edited) Voting intention for 18-24 puts the Greens in second place. But on balance of of population you have a lot more C2DE than 18-24 and you get some cross section in that. There are so many things you’d have factor in -you haven’t even stated the degree to which C2DE are less likely to vote than the population as a whole- before you could attempt to answer your question. That’s leaving aside the dynamics of FPTP and the reliability and quality of a single poll taken at one point in time, based on incomplete information regarding what the Brexit Party stands out (hello manifesto). Next time think a bit before you make sweeping and categorical statements. Edited 7 June, 2019 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 7 June, 2019 Share Posted 7 June, 2019 If you take notice of any of the psephologists or is s common theme that the working class are less likely to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 June, 2019 Share Posted 7 June, 2019 I think it's reasonable to make certain assumptions about the likelihood of a group to vote based on past history. It's why all parties pander to old people because they've always voted in higher amounts than the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 7 June, 2019 Share Posted 7 June, 2019 (edited) If you take notice of any of the psephologists or is s common theme that the working class are less likely to vote. I know but are they 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% or 90% etc less likely to vote? Your answer will, in turn, affect the size of the weights you’d use if you wanted to understand electorally what would happen if, in a completely fictitious world, each socioeconomic group had the same likelihood of voting. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the information you’d need if you wanted to take a stab at your question. Edited 7 June, 2019 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 7 June, 2019 Share Posted 7 June, 2019 Voting intention for 18-24 puts the Greens in second place. But on balance of of population you have a lot more C2DE than 18-24 and you get some cross section in that. It depends on the poll. Some weight by social group and age to reflect how likely people are to actually vote as opposed to who they would vote for if they actually turned up. It’s the adjusted figure which matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 8 June, 2019 Share Posted 8 June, 2019 Still inspiring the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 13 June, 2019 Share Posted 13 June, 2019 How can Chuka Umuna not hold a by-election now that he's not only left the Labour party to set up a new party, but joined the Lib Dems - the party that got just over 3000 votes in his constituency in the last election at 6.5% of the vote? Personally think the law needs to change so that anyone who leaves/joins a party whilst being an elected MP automatically triggers a by-election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 June, 2019 Share Posted 14 June, 2019 How can Chuka Umuna not hold a by-election now that he's not only left the Labour party to set up a new party, but joined the Lib Dems - the party that got just over 3000 votes in his constituency in the last election at 6.5% of the vote? Personally think the law needs to change so that anyone who leaves/joins a party whilst being an elected MP automatically triggers a by-election. Surprised more haven’t defected given the state of Corbyn’s party. Sullied reputation though the LibDems. It is all fcked really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 14 June, 2019 Share Posted 14 June, 2019 Tony sticking it to the cretin. Great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 Brilliant having this guy heading the govt. siding with Iran and Russia rather than believing our FO and the US over Iran. Gets more unelectable with each passing day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 Brilliant having this guy heading the govt. siding with Iran and Russia rather than believing our FO and the US over Iran. Gets more unelectable with each passing day. Here we go again. There are plenty of reasons to criticise Corbyn, but not wanting a repeat of Iraq by blindly following the US into another oil war on the flimsiest of evidence is not one of them. The owner of the Japanese tanker that was attacked has outright contradicted the Americans' conclusions. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1017556?__twitter_impression=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 Here we go again. There are plenty of reasons to criticise Corbyn, but not wanting a repeat of Iraq by blindly following the US into another oil war on the flimsiest of evidence is not one of them. The owner of the Japanese tanker that was attacked has outright contradicted the Americans' conclusions. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1017556?__twitter_impression=true Debating whether it’s a mine or a missile is one thing but who else do you think might have been responsible, if not Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 Debating whether it’s a mine or a missile is one thing but who else do you think might have been responsible, if not Iran? Perhaps a mine attached by a drone, would be theoretically possible I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 (edited) Debating whether it’s a mine or a missile is one thing but who else do you think might have been responsible, if not Iran? Saudi Arabia. Iranian backed Houthi rebels attacked oil installations in Saudi a month ago. Those attacks were in turn revenge for the Saudi war in Yemen. Even Machiavelli wouldnt have the Iranians singling out Japan bound cargo whilst the Japanese PM was in Tehran to talk about peace. Edited 15 June, 2019 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 Perhaps a mine attached by a drone, would be theoretically possible I think. Ha. You think firing a rocket with a magnetic mine attached so that it sticks to the side of a ship would be both possible and rational? Why do that as opposed to simply firing a missile from the drone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 Ha. You think firing a rocket with a magnetic mine attached so that it sticks to the side of a ship would be both possible and rational? Why do that as opposed to simply firing a missile from the drone? Deniability? Getting a "false flag" limpet mine shouldn't be any too difficult; Getting a false flag drone launched missile wouldn't be so obvious. There are always bits left behind you know, bits that are identifiable quite easily down to the day and point manufacture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 Deniability? Getting a "false flag" limpet mine shouldn't be any too difficult; Getting a false flag drone launched missile wouldn't be so obvious. There are always bits left behind you know, bits that are identifiable quite easily down to the day and point manufacture How do you think they got the missile to slow down from 2,000mph to say 5mph as it reached the ship so that the mine could both attach nicely and not explode? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 (edited) How do you think they got the missile to slow down from 2,000mph to say 5mph as it reached the ship so that the mine could both attach nicely and not explode? Don't know where you got missile from. You can control a drone to do whatever you want, deliver Amazon packages for instance. Anyway the truth will come to light soon, the Gulf of Oman and Straights of Hormuz are under surveillance 24/24 365 by at least 8 nations. Someone knows exactly what happened and will let us know if it suits them. Edited 15 June, 2019 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 Don't know where you got missile from. https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/japanese-ship-owner-contradicts-us-account-of-how-tanker-was-attacked-20190615-p51xzz.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 Saudi Arabia. Iranian backed Houthi rebels attacked oil installations in Saudi a month ago. Those attacks were in turn revenge for the Saudi war in Yemen. Even Machiavelli wouldnt have the Iranians singling out Japan bound cargo whilst the Japanese PM was in Tehran to talk about peace. So you're saying the Saudis may have attacked a ship (which left their own port) hundreds of miles from their own coast but very close to Iran, as a false flag to escalate US/Iran tensions, in revenge for Iran backing Houthi rebels? The Saudis also believe that the US, who will be watching the region like a hawk, won't notice any of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 (edited) So you're saying the Saudis may have attacked a ship (which left their own port) hundreds of miles from their own coast but very close to Iran, as a false flag to escalate US/Iran tensions, in revenge for Iran backing Houthi rebels? The Saudis also believe that the US, who will be watching the region like a hawk, won't notice any of this? Much more likely than the Iranians targeting a Japanese ship when the Japanese PM is in town at the Iranians request to discuss US sanctions and oil exports. The ship owners report the crew saw flying objects and think the ship was hit by shellfire. The damage was on the starboard side - ie the side facing away from the Iranian coast. https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-...15-p51xzz.html Trump wants to intimidate and sanction Iran to reduce its regional power where it is competing with its ally Saudi Arabia. Between Saudi and Iran I think the Iranians are the lesser of two evils. Revolutionary Iran has never started a war and tolerates practice of Christianity and Judaism. Saudi by contrast..... Probably part of Operation Boot MK2 since we never learn https://www.historytoday.com/daniel-wb-lomas/iran-britain-and-operation-boot Edited 15 June, 2019 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 The other interesting thing about this is that Congress is supposed to provide consent before the White House goes to war. But the White House has the unilateral power to act militarily against terrorism. What to do? Easy really. In April they designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation so they could attack Iran without Congress' consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 It’s another one of those that while Corbyn is right in what he says, he is better off just shutting the **** up If he wants to ever get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 15 June, 2019 Share Posted 15 June, 2019 it was Iran. I suspect the regional commanders (allied) know which exact hull of vessel used, when it left port, when it returned. Probably know the names of some of the crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabbage_Face Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Why is everything a false flag nowadays. Just remember, if things like this go down under Corbyn, we would probably put our arms round “our friends” Iran. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Why is everything a false flag nowadays. Just remember, if things like this go down under Corbyn, we would probably put our arms round “our friends” Iran. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk No need to p!ss your pants over it, Corbyn has not said it’s a false flag. Just that it’s best to have credible evidence before making accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 (edited) Much more likely than the Iranians targeting a Japanese ship when the Japanese PM is in town at the Iranians request to discuss US sanctions and oil exports. The ship owners report the crew saw flying objects and think the ship was hit by shellfire. The damage was on the starboard side - ie the side facing away from the Iranian coast. https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-...15-p51xzz.html Trump wants to intimidate and sanction Iran to reduce its regional power where it is competing with its ally Saudi Arabia. Between Saudi and Iran I think the Iranians are the lesser of two evils. Revolutionary Iran has never started a war and tolerates practice of Christianity and Judaism. Saudi by contrast..... Probably part of Operation Boot MK2 since we never learn https://www.historytoday.com/daniel-wb-lomas/iran-britain-and-operation-boot Agree with this. The anti Iran rhetoric is being ramped up big time. The damage being on the starboard side is telling - even more so is the evidence of those on board saying what hit the boat. There's no evidence it was lympet mine from Iran or anyone, but evidence it was a fired weapon of some sort that struck from the non Iranian side of the strait. America will either go to war with Iran, or encourage and arm others to do so. All that's needed is an excuse that can be dressed up as justification. Edited 16 June, 2019 by egg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Agree with this. The anti Iran rhetoric is being ramped up big time. The damage being on the starboard side is telling - even more so is the evidence of those on board saying what hit the boat. There's no evidence it was lympet mine from Iran or anyone, but evidence it was a fired weapon of some sort that struck from the non Iranian side of the strait. America will either go to war with Iran, or encourage and arm others to do so. All that's needed is an excuse. non-iranian side of the strait? jesus, have you ever been there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 non-iranian side of the strait? jesus, have you ever been there? Do I have to go go there to understand how to view a map and understand that Iran is on one side of the ship? Jesus. I see that you boldly proclaim that "Iran did it". Please link me to the evidence to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Agree with this. The anti Iran rhetoric is being ramped up big time. The damage being on the starboard side is telling - even more so is the evidence of those on board saying what hit the boat. There's no evidence it was lympet mine from Iran or anyone, but evidence it was a fired weapon of some sort that struck from the non Iranian side of the strait. America will either go to war with Iran, or encourage and arm others to do so. All that's needed is an excuse that can be dressed up as justification. Any issues with Zaghari-Ratcliffe being iimprisoned on trumped up charges? Or is that Western spin against Iran’s fair judicial system and she is clearly guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Any issues with Zaghari-Ratcliffe being iimprisoned on trumped up charges? Or is that Western spin against Iran’s fair judicial system and she is clearly guilty? No idea mate, I rely on facts and evidence before I take a view and I'm unaware of the facts there. She may well be guilty but I have no opinion on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 No idea mate, I rely on facts and evidence before I take a view and I'm unaware of the facts there. She may well be guilty but I have no opinion on it. Ok and guess you were not convinced Bin Laden was been behind 911? Always denied it and what were the facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Ok and guess you were not convinced Bin Laden was been behind 911? Always denied it and what were the facts? Mate, I'm not interested in a pointless debate about recent geo political history. Whilst I'm always interested in opinions on what actually hit the pentagon that day, and how the 3rd tower fell down, but I'm more concerned about what's happening in the Middle East and the all buy inevitable conflict to come. To answer the inevitable next question, no I don't swallow the boll0cks the media feed us without thought or investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Mate, I'm not interested in a pointless debate about recent geo political history. Whilst I'm always interested in opinions on what actually hit the pentagon that day, and how the 3rd tower fell down, but I'm more concerned about what's happening in the Middle East and the all buy inevitable conflict to come. To answer the inevitable next question, no I don't swallow the boll0cks the media feed us without thought or investigation. And you call those who express concerns or doubts about Goa conspiracy-theorists. Jesus wept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 And you call those who express concerns or doubts about Goa conspiracy-theorists. Jesus wept. "Opinions" Shurlock, opinions are what I said I'm interested in. I've not espressed mine, nor will I, but off you go with your opinion of my opinion. Jesus wept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Do I have to go go there to understand how to view a map and understand that Iran is on one side of the ship? Jesus. I see that you boldly proclaim that "Iran did it". Please link me to the evidence to that? That's based on the supposition that the attacking ship left Iran perpendicular to the coast and intercepted the ship at a perfect trajectory, with precise timing. The attacking boat could have been trailing the ship for a while, or may have sailed out beyond the actually course of the ship and fired upon it when it passed between them and the Iranian coast. The ships could have changed course to avoid other shipping, stay in a particular lane, or to find a favourable current. I'm no naval expert but to say that attacking the right hand side proves anything seems extremely simplistic. I trust our intelligence and if people like Hunt are convinced it was Iran, that's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabbage_Face Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 No need to p!ss your pants over it, Corbyn has not said it’s a false flag. Just that it’s best to have credible evidence before making accusations. Evidence like videos of Iranian forces removing explosives? Oh yeah, let’s ignore that and just call everything a “false flag” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabbage_Face Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Mate, I'm not interested in a pointless debate about recent geo political history. Whilst I'm always interested in opinions on what actually hit the pentagon that day, and how the 3rd tower fell down, but I'm more concerned about what's happening in the Middle East and the all buy inevitable conflict to come. To answer the inevitable next question, no I don't swallow the boll0cks the media feed us without thought or investigation. Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel, the earth is flat and WW2 was a false flag for the creation of the EU. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 I trust our intelligence and if people like Hunt are convinced it was Iran, that's good enough for me. Like the Iraq wmd evidence you mean? That was spin/lies to justify action. It happens and may be happening here. For me I fail to see why Iran would do this, but can understand that the US would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Evidence like videos of Iranian forces removing explosives? Oh yeah, let’s ignore that and just call everything a “false flag” You mean the mines that were never there according to the ships crew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Like the Iraq wmd evidence you mean? That was spin/lies to justify action. It happens and may be happening here. For me I fail to see why Iran would do this, but can understand that the US would. I knew you'd say that, it's kind of like saying I want Ralph out because he lost at home to Cardiff. They are right far more often than they are wrong. I don't see what the motivation is for the West to lie about this; after Iraq/Afghanistan/ISIS there really is no appetite for another Middle Eastern War. Iran on the other hand have a fanatical desire to wipe USA and Israel off the face of the planet (or at least that's what they wrote on the side of one of their prototype missiles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 I knew you'd say that, it's kind of like saying I want Ralph out because he lost at home to Cardiff. They are right far more often than they are wrong. I don't see what the motivation is for the West to lie about this; after Iraq/Afghanistan/ISIS there really is no appetite for another Middle Eastern War. Iran on the other hand have a fanatical desire to wipe USA and Israel off the face of the planet (or at least that's what they wrote on the side of one of their prototype missiles). There's no analogy to be had between footy and geo politics / justification for military action. Focusing on just this case, there's no evidence we've been told that Iran were behind it. None. On the other hand as Buctootim points out and links to, the account of those on board supports that what we are told is boll0cks. The US has always had an appetite to flex its muscles on the world stage, supply protagonists in a conflict, then support the rebuilding and financing after the destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 (edited) .... Edited 16 June, 2019 by buctootim duplicate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 Lets just suppose that the US and EU had agreed after years of negotiations to a treaty that would give us a super trade deal if we left the EU. So we leave but then the US turns around and imposes sanctions crippling 60% of our exports to the extent we cant even afford to pay pensions or run the health service. Even though the EU says we have done nothing wrong they and most other countries in the world comply with the US sanctions because otherwise thy themselves will face sanctions. The other countries of the world then start to export to Britains former customers using UK EEZ waters in the English channel as a route to those markets. Britain can either do nothing and go bankrupt or use the navy to disrupt that trade - not killing anyone but scaring off shipping companies. Would that be unreasonable? On balance of probabilities I dont think Iran did it - but even if they did it seems to me their response is proportionate, mild even. The US is the aggressor here. Trump has ripped up a treaty Obama, China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany all guaranteed. Every country apart from the US under Trump agreed Iran was complying with its obligations under the treaty. Now the UK poodle has volte face and is dutifully echoing its master, just like the gulf wars and Libya. How well did they turn out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 (edited) There's no analogy to be had between footy and geo politics / justification for military action. Focusing on just this case, there's no evidence we've been told that Iran were behind it. None. On the other hand as Buctootim points out and links to, the account of those on board supports that what we are told is boll0cks. The US has always had an appetite to flex its muscles on the world stage, supply protagonists in a conflict, then support the rebuilding and financing after the destruction. One other relevant factor is that, under international pressure a couple of months ago the US ended military support for the Saudi's war in Yemen - against the wishes of Trump, Pompeo and Bolton - leaving Britain as its major sources of arms. The Saudis would love nothing more than giving Trump a pretext to reopen hostilities with Iran. And because Trump has designated the Republican guard as a terrorist organisation they can do that without Congresses approval. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47564274 Edited 16 June, 2019 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 There are always the same two mistakes popping up in debates like this: 1. "We don't know this, there isn't any evidence." - No, there is evidence, you just haven't read about it in the Grauniad. As Batman says, military commanders in the area will know which ship was responsible, where is it and what the first mate had for breakfast. 2. "We're just as bad as them, it's our fault really." - Again, no. Whatever the Saudis, Israel and the great Tango Monster may get up to, Iran are worse. They are die hard religious fanatics who make no secret of their desire to wipe half of the west of the face of the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 16 June, 2019 Share Posted 16 June, 2019 (edited) There are always the same two mistakes popping up in debates like this: 1. "We don't know this, there isn't any evidence." - No, there is evidence, you just haven't read about it in the Grauniad. As Batman says, military commanders in the area will know which ship was responsible, where is it and what the first mate had for breakfast. 2. "We're just as bad as them, it's our fault really." - Again, no. Whatever the Saudis, Israel and the great Tango Monster may get up to, Iran are worse. They are die hard religious fanatics who make no secret of their desire to wipe half of the west of the face of the Earth. You are being exceptionally naive. Trump - pushed by hawks Pompeo and Bolton is not just defying international opinion but also the will of his own congress [video=youtube;DPt-zXn05ac] Edited 16 June, 2019 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now