We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Ooh look... GB 1 - 0 Cleggertoff...

13567

Comments

  • Pete111
    Pete111 Posts: 5,333 Forumite
    Mortgage-free Glee!
    edited 14 June 2010 at 5:34PM
    mbga9pgf wrote: »
    They are looking at extending the current rokkit.

    oh,who says a nuke response needs to be delivered by trident.

    News for you. It dont.


    Assuming you mean 'a ballistic missile' then me for one.

    Anything else is far from certain or valid as a proper MAD weapon for a variety of reasons. An orbital rocket travelling at 15,000 miles an hour (that's 7 KM a second peeps) is fairly hard to shoot down...
    Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger
  • mbga9pgf
    mbga9pgf Posts: 3,224 Forumite
    Pete111 wrote: »
    Assuming you mean 'a ballistic missile' then me for one.

    Anything else is far from certain or valid as a proper MAD weapon for a variety of reasons. An orbital rocket travelling at 15,000 miles an hour (that's 7 KM a second peeps) is fairly hard to shoot down...


    But not impossible, as proved by the USA and numerous Tom Clancy novels...

    Nothing that a big dose of british wit, cunning and good old military deception couldnt surpass...


    Remember, someone operating with a suitcase nuke is just as effective as launching a multi billion pound nuke at our opponent.
  • Pete111
    Pete111 Posts: 5,333 Forumite
    Mortgage-free Glee!
    mbga9pgf wrote: »
    But not impossible, as proved by the USA and numerous Tom Clancy novels...

    Nothing that a big dose of british wit, cunning and good old military deception couldnt surpass...


    Remember, someone operating with a suitcase nuke is just as effective as launching a multi billion pound nuke at our opponent.


    Like your assessment of the Bulldog spirt and I agree it's not impossible (though very very hard). For me though, the whole purpose of a deterrant is having a big bomb AND a near certain delivery system. On the second point, there is no doubt it is far eaiser to shoot down:

    a) a subsonic (or even supersonic) cruise missile carrying a nuke
    b) a bomber

    Than a ballistic missile.

    Suitcase nukes probably don't exist as truly man-portable entities as the weight involved is always substantial. However, I agree one could be driven. As a deterrant though, having someone hanging around at Dover with a standby ferry ticket and a glowing transit van is pretty rubbish...
    Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger
  • A._Badger
    A._Badger Posts: 5,882 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    I love the way unthinking party drones trot-out names like 'Cleggertoff'. If Cameron or Clegg are 'toffs' what were Blair, Wedgy Benn (aka Viscount Stansgate), Harman and the Millibands? Horny handed sons of toil, fresh from the struggles of the proletariat?

    Couldn't Campbell think-up anything better?
  • brit1234
    brit1234 Posts: 5,385 Forumite
    Alan_Cross wrote: »

    Sorry never rated David Blanchflower at all. If he had his way we would of had a bigger house price bubble with lower interest rates years ago. Savings would be even less and the UK in a far worse place.

    He preaches unsustainabilty, not good for our future. So what if we have a double dip, it will make our economy stronger in the long run by getting rid of waste and stopping propping up the reckless.

    People should be rewarded for saving and adding value to the community not ever increasing borrowing.
    :exclamatiScams - Shared Equity, Shared Ownership, Newbuy, Firstbuy and Help to Buy.

    Save our Savers
  • chucky
    chucky Posts: 15,170 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    brit1234 wrote: »
    Sorry never rated David Blanchflower at all.
    that's a lie but a good one at least :T

    it looks like you were most definetly not only a fan but a big fan by making the effort to start threads on his statements,... :eek:
    David Blanchflower (pictured), a labour market economist, is worth listening to

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/24238859#Comment_24238859
    Prices to Crash (3 Million in Negative Equity)
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2036591
  • kabayiri
    kabayiri Posts: 22,740 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    marklv wrote: »
    We are in a far better situation than Greece - poor analogy.
    It's not your opinion which counts.

    It's the opinion of investors who will finance our borrowings which matters.
  • LauraW10
    LauraW10 Posts: 400 Forumite
    kabayiri wrote: »
    It's not your opinion which counts.

    It's the opinion of investors who will finance our borrowings which matters.

    So true. The UK is having (and will have) no problems selling debt.

    Why can't you, Wookster, Generali, the Tories and the Lib Cons just be honest and say that they want "smaller" government instead of creating "bogus" bond vigilantes to make it look like you have no choice?

    You all keep looking for excuses but none of you have the courage of your convictions to state what you honestly believe - which is in smaller government. Instead you all want to chuck loads of people on the dole and tank the economy and "blame" labour saying look we had no choice.....

    You're all cowards!
    If you keep doing what you've always done - you will keep getting what you've always got.
  • kabayiri
    kabayiri Posts: 22,740 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    LauraW10 wrote: »
    Why can't you, Wookster, Generali, the Tories and the Lib Cons just be honest and say that they want "smaller" government instead of creating "bogus" bond vigilantes to make it look like you have no choice?
    Oh I did , believe me :), at the ballot box.

    I want a smaller state, one that is sustainable .

    As it happens, a lot of other people wanted the same, and they outnumbered your view.

    That's democracy for you. Labour didn't make a decent enough case.

    Harsh innit. :D
  • A._Badger
    A._Badger Posts: 5,882 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    So the government actively wants to create unemployment and trash the economy? And you truly believe that?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.5K Life & Family
  • 261.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.