@stephenkb: Just 53 Labour MPs have majorities bigger than Michael Meacher's was in 2015
@NickCohen4: @stephenkb People I spoke to in Oldham thought Lab would squeak it. Mind you that was last week
@stephenkb: @NickCohen4 Consensus at the moment seems to be Labour by 1000 votes. Hoping to go up later this week.
So, a 14,000 majority reduced to 1K?!
Miliband crashed the car. Corbyn's about to set fire to the wreck.
A 3k majority on a turnout of 25k would be a lead of 12%, which would still be a sizable swing to UKIP (obviously, it'd be a bigger lead if there's a smaller turnout) but more than Ladbrokes were implying in that earlier tweet, and more than most commentators seem to expect.
But if the consensus is only a 1k majority then MoE clearly goes into Labour loss territory.
The most recent example was Leicester South, in 2004. The last example while Labour was in opposition was Govan, in 1988(?).
However, losing safe seats while a party's in government is one thing; losing them in opposition is a wholly different matter. I think - from a quick scan - that Labour's only lost ten in opposition since 1945:
Brighouse & Spenborough, 1960, to the Conservatives Bristol SE, 1961, to the Conservatives (but only because Benn, who 'won' was disqualified) Rochdale, 1972, to the Liberals Lincoln, 1973, to Ind Lab (actually a Dick Taverne hold) Glasgow Govan, 1973, to the SNP Mitcham & Morden, 1982, to the Conservatives Bermondsey, 1983, to the Liberals Greenwich, 1987, the SDP Glasgow Govan, 1988, to the SNP Bradford West, 2012, to Respect
They also lost Sunderland South in the early 1950s, I think 1953.
Quite right. I said it was a quick scan!
I have to say, eleven's rather more than I'd have guessed at beforehand, probably because there've been so few in the last 25 years.
This could get entertaining.....Putin accuses Turkey of supporting ISIS - yet the Russian jet was shot down in an area not controlled by ISIS......
Crickey, that them fighting words.
Edit: Did he says ISIS or as quoted by BBC, terrorists?
According to Russia Today (who I'd regard as reliable on the words of Putin, if not much else):
IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation’s military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world,
''Just imagine, we could have Donald Trump as leader of the free world in 6 months time ! ''
I'm sure Donald and Vladimir would be perfectly at home doing business with each other. Trump will know what he wants and will approach negotiations with none of the preachy bullsh8t so many western leaders spout.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 5m5 minutes ago Sky Sources: Both pilots from the Russian warplane that was shot down by #Turkey over the Syrian border are dead
But were both dead when they hit the ground, or did some friendly locals "assist" them. Al Nusra operate in that area.
Russia Today had report which suggested that the 'rebels' were upset that the crew weren't burning or that they couldn't burn the crew.
This is a deceptively attractive argument, but it's self-justification. The other candidates at the leadership election all put forward such policies - whether it was Liz on early years and decentralisation, or Yvette on Infrastructure/investment/childcare or Andy on supporting small business and improving opportunities for those who didn't go to university.
It's just that Corbyn supporters preferred what he was offering, and derided the alternatives as empty.
To argue that 'Centrists' need to offer members such policies just after having rejected them in favour of something more radical is merely refusing to take responsibility for your own choices.
Decentralisation, infrastructure, small business- they're all worthy things, but they don't make a coherent, attractive project. Sorry - they just don't!
This is a deceptively attractive argument, but it's self-justification. The other candidates at the leadership election all put forward such policies - whether it was Liz on early years and decentralisation, or Yvette on Infrastructure/investment/childcare or Andy on supporting small business and improving opportunities for those who didn't go to university.
It's just that Corbyn supporters preferred what he was offering, and derided the alternatives as empty.
To argue that 'Centrists' need to offer members such policies just after having rejected them in favour of something more radical is merely refusing to take responsibility for your own choices.
Decentralisation, infrastructure, small business- they're all worthy things, but they don't make a coherent, attractive project. Sorry - they just don't!
And what pray is the "coherent, attractive project" being put forward by Corbyn?
@stephenkb: Just 53 Labour MPs have majorities bigger than Michael Meacher's was in 2015
@NickCohen4: @stephenkb People I spoke to in Oldham thought Lab would squeak it. Mind you that was last week
@stephenkb: @NickCohen4 Consensus at the moment seems to be Labour by 1000 votes. Hoping to go up later this week.
Let us hope that UKIP pulls it off. The future of the Labour party depends on it and heavy defeats across the board next year too.
The problem, though, with the latest polling is that it seems to indicate that Labour party members don't care about losing, so long as they have a leader who makes them feel good about themselves.
A Labour party that keeps on losing, even its heartlands, is for losers and no-one else. Let's see how long the Twitterati and Corbynista-lite factions hold together after relentless and hammering defeats show them just how unpopular their leader and their party are. The unions need an alternative to the Tories. They are stupid, yes; but not that stupid.
Hmmm - my problem is to know just how many of the current Labour 'moderates' are like NPXMP used to be until his post defeat revelations that he supports an anti-English terrorist apologist. The worst of the cancer in the party may be limited to the corbynistas but please let's not pretend that the rest are angels of Liberalism.
This is a deceptively attractive argument, but it's self-justification. The other candidates at the leadership election all put forward such policies - whether it was Liz on early years and decentralisation, or Yvette on Infrastructure/investment/childcare or Andy on supporting small business and improving opportunities for those who didn't go to university.
It's just that Corbyn supporters preferred what he was offering, and derided the alternatives as empty.
To argue that 'Centrists' need to offer members such policies just after having rejected them in favour of something more radical is merely refusing to take responsibility for your own choices.
Decentralisation, infrastructure, small business- they're all worthy things, but they don't make a coherent, attractive project. Sorry - they just don't!
Only to a control freak like yourself Mr P.
Many of us quite enjoy the prospect of getting on with our own lives without politicans' "assistance".
This is a deceptively attractive argument, but it's self-justification. The other candidates at the leadership election all put forward such policies - whether it was Liz on early years and decentralisation, or Yvette on Infrastructure/investment/childcare or Andy on supporting small business and improving opportunities for those who didn't go to university.
It's just that Corbyn supporters preferred what he was offering, and derided the alternatives as empty.
To argue that 'Centrists' need to offer members such policies just after having rejected them in favour of something more radical is merely refusing to take responsibility for your own choices.
Decentralisation, infrastructure, small business- they're all worthy things, but they don't make a coherent, attractive project. Sorry - they just don't!
And what pray is the "coherent, attractive project" being put forward by Corbyn?
If this is the case, then NATO will have to be very careful in its dealings with Turkey.
Ivan Watson @IvanCNN 11m11 minutes ago Abu Ibrahim al-Sheghri, a rebel from 10th coastal brigade in Syria, tells CNN fighters machine gunned Russian pilots as they parachuted.
I think a war between Russia and Turkey is close to inevitable now, they have traditionally fought a war on each other since 1700 every 30 years on average, the last one was 100 years ago so another one is overdue. Turkey is protected by NATO, however from the Russian view Turkey shot first and NATO covers it's members only if they are attacked not if they are the attackers, the first step I expect the russians to counterattack militarily on turkish targets or western targets in Syria if NATO suports Turkey.
Anyway because of this I now have to switch against UK military action over Syria having been in favour since the UN resolution passed, Turkey has militarily attacked Russia in that powder keg of the middle east therefore western fighter jets can possibly become russian military targets and shot down as payback over the Turkish attack.
Britain cannot afford a war with Russia, especially over Syria. The Russians will counterattack, I hope they limit it on Turkey only and not drag the rest of NATO in it, but that depends on NATO disavowing the Turkish attack at least politically.
In any case Cameron's plan to bomb Syria is dead again, my apologies to Corbyn for doubting his judgement over this, Syria is too large of a powderkeg to get involved.
This is a deceptively attractive argument, but it's self-justification. The other candidates at the leadership election all put forward such policies - whether it was Liz on early years and decentralisation, or Yvette on Infrastructure/investment/childcare or Andy on supporting small business and improving opportunities for those who didn't go to university.
It's just that Corbyn supporters preferred what he was offering, and derided the alternatives as empty.
To argue that 'Centrists' need to offer members such policies just after having rejected them in favour of something more radical is merely refusing to take responsibility for your own choices.
Decentralisation, infrastructure, small business- they're all worthy things, but they don't make a coherent, attractive project. Sorry - they just don't!
And what pray is the "coherent, attractive project" being put forward by Corbyn?
This could get entertaining.....Putin accuses Turkey of supporting ISIS - yet the Russian jet was shot down in an area not controlled by ISIS......
Crickey, that them fighting words.
Edit: Did he says ISIS or as quoted by BBC, terrorists?
According to Russia Today (who I'd regard as reliable on the words of Putin, if not much else):
IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation’s military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world,
Edit - but the jet was shot down in an area not controlled by IS.....
It was shot down in Northern Syria in an area controlled by Turkmen. The Russians have been bombing the Turkmen because they are fighting Assad who Russia is defending. Erdogan wants to defeat Assad (and also the Kurds) more than he wants to defeat ISIL. Erdogan is prepared to fight the Russians to defend the Turkman because he thinks NATO has his back. Meanwhile the rest of us including the Russians want to defeat ISIL with the help of the Kurds..
This could get entertaining.....Putin accuses Turkey of supporting ISIS - yet the Russian jet was shot down in an area not controlled by ISIS......
Crickey, that them fighting words.
Edit: Did he says ISIS or as quoted by BBC, terrorists?
According to Russia Today (who I'd regard as reliable on the words of Putin, if not much else):
IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation’s military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world,
Edit - but the jet was shot down in an area not controlled by IS.....
Yes - I think the two things are unrelated. I think Putin is just taking the chance to strongly criticise Turkey's actions supporting ISIS, of which there is now overwhelming evidence.
My reading of the story is that Turkey has been extremely angered at Russia bombing the 'Turkmen' anti-Assad rebels in the area concerned. These people are of Turkish origin.
Hence they lay in wait until Russia flew over a 'finger' of Turkish territory (you can see where it sticks out on the map), and planned to shoot the plane down. The Russians deny an incursion but I'm not sure I believe them. But on the other hand, looking at this slither of territory, the Russian plane would have been over it in seconds. There is no way that Turkey would have had time to scramble jets, let alone give the '10 warnings' it claims. Pilots landed over Syria too. It looks highly premediated.
Turkey was evidently to me I) taking revenge and II) hoping that Russia would retaliate and provoke a bigger conflict.
This is a deceptively attractive argument, but it's self-justification. The other candidates at the leadership election all put forward such policies - whether it was Liz on early years and decentralisation, or Yvette on Infrastructure/investment/childcare or Andy on supporting small business and improving opportunities for those who didn't go to university.
It's just that Corbyn supporters preferred what he was offering, and derided the alternatives as empty.
To argue that 'Centrists' need to offer members such policies just after having rejected them in favour of something more radical is merely refusing to take responsibility for your own choices.
Decentralisation, infrastructure, small business- they're all worthy things, but they don't make a coherent, attractive project. Sorry - they just don't!
And what pray is the "coherent, attractive project" being put forward by Corbyn?
We could be more like Albania!
It is frankly sad but none the less hugely illustrative to see the inner workings of NPs mind exposed. Equally sadly I suppose I have to admit to being supremly smug with myself that all my conceptions and understandings about Labour and its active supporters have been proved true. There is simply no justification at all, none at all, for ever letting these people get their hands on power ever again at all ever never. Ever.
It's quite something to be in a position where Donald Trump is more likely to be the next POTUS than the Labour Party is to win the next general election with the current leader.
This is a deceptively attractive argument, but it's self-justification. The other candidates at the leadership election all put forward such policies - whether it was Liz on early years and decentralisation, or Yvette on Infrastructure/investment/childcare or Andy on supporting small business and improving opportunities for those who didn't go to university.
It's just that Corbyn supporters preferred what he was offering, and derided the alternatives as empty.
To argue that 'Centrists' need to offer members such policies just after having rejected them in favour of something more radical is merely refusing to take responsibility for your own choices.
Decentralisation, infrastructure, small business- they're all worthy things, but they don't make a coherent, attractive project. Sorry - they just don't!
And what's coherent or attractive about what Corbyn is offering? Voting both for and against the same motion depending on the time of the month, abstaining on key matters like defence, having the party and leader take diametrically opposed positions, and being against the peace process in Northern Ireland.
All those things you don't find attractive are designed to help real people. Small steps, maybe. Worthy - yes - but telling that you seem to imply that being worthy is not attractive. But above all focused on what politicians can do to help people. It may not be much but it's a lot better than someone focused on not sullying his precious principles with the reality of life as the rest of us live it, even to the extent of not being able to say in clear words that of course he would take all necessary action to stop maniacs slaughtering people on the streets of Britain.
I mean how F**king hard would that have been?! And yet plain speaking principled Mr Corbyn could only come out with some tortuous paragraph about stopping maniacs getting hold of guns.
This could get entertaining.....Putin accuses Turkey of supporting ISIS - yet the Russian jet was shot down in an area not controlled by ISIS......
Crickey, that them fighting words.
Edit: Did he says ISIS or as quoted by BBC, terrorists?
According to Russia Today (who I'd regard as reliable on the words of Putin, if not much else):
IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation’s military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world,
Edit - but the jet was shot down in an area not controlled by IS.....
Yes - I think the two things are unrelated. I think Putin is just taking the chance to strongly criticise Turkey's actions supporting ISIS, of which there is now overwhelming evidence.
My reading of the story is that Turkey has been extremely angered at Russia bombing the 'Turkmen' anti-Assad rebels in the area concerned. These people are of Turkish origin.
Hence they lay in wait until Russia flew over a 'finger' of Turkish territory (you can see where it sticks out on the map), and planned to shoot the plane down. The Russians deny an incursion but I'm not sure I believe them. But on the other hand, looking at this slither of territory, the Russian plane would have been over it in seconds. There is no way that Turkey would have had time to scramble jets, let alone give the '10 warnings' it claims. Pilots landed over Syria too.
Turkey was evidently to me I) taking revenge and II) hoping that Russia would retaliate and provoke a bigger conflict.
Russia has apologised before for flying over Turkish territory, so they have a track record. And Turkey probably wouldn't have had to scramble: they should have had combat air patrols up in the air. Because Russia have done it before, and so have the Syrian air force (who had two of their planes shot down in 2012 and 2014).
If it was an SU-24, then it should be remembered that the Syrian air force also have SU-24's in their inventory.
It doesn't matter if it was a 'finger' of Turkish territory or not: it was a repeated incursion by a foreign power, coming in from what is a war zone. If the Turkish log of the flight is to be believed then the Russians are in the wrong here.
''It's quite something to be in a position where Donald Trump is more likely to be the next POTUS than the Labour Party is to win the next general election with the current leader.''
Many Americans know their government well. It is drummed into them at school. They know that whoever they vote as president will be constrained by the fact they are a democracy with elected houses of government, a separation of powers, a free press, free speech and a written constitution to protect them.
It is a fact all to easily forgotten by many outside of America.
This could get entertaining.....Putin accuses Turkey of supporting ISIS - yet the Russian jet was shot down in an area not controlled by ISIS......
Crickey, that them fighting words.
Edit: Did he says ISIS or as quoted by BBC, terrorists?
According to Russia Today (who I'd regard as reliable on the words of Putin, if not much else):
IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation’s military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world,
Edit - but the jet was shot down in an area not controlled by IS.....
Yes - I think the two things are unrelated. I think Putin is just taking the chance to strongly criticise Turkey's actions supporting ISIS, of which there is now overwhelming evidence.
My reading of the story is that Turkey has been extremely angered at Russia bombing the 'Turkmen' anti-Assad rebels in the area concerned. These people are of Turkish origin.
Hence they lay in wait until Russia flew over a 'finger' of Turkish territory (you can see where it sticks out on the map), and planned to shoot the plane down. The Russians deny an incursion but I'm not sure I believe them. But on the other hand, looking at this slither of territory, the Russian plane would have been over it in seconds. There is no way that Turkey would have had time to scramble jets, let alone give the '10 warnings' it claims. Pilots landed over Syria too. It looks highly premediated.
Turkey was evidently to me I) taking revenge and II) hoping that Russia would retaliate and provoke a bigger conflict.
This could get entertaining.....Putin accuses Turkey of supporting ISIS - yet the Russian jet was shot down in an area not controlled by ISIS......
Crickey, that them fighting words.
Edit: Did he says ISIS or as quoted by BBC, terrorists?
According to Russia Today (who I'd regard as reliable on the words of Putin, if not much else):
IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation’s military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world,
Edit - but the jet was shot down in an area not controlled by IS.....
Yes - I think the two things are unrelated. I think Putin is just taking the chance to strongly criticise Turkey's actions supporting ISIS, of which there is now overwhelming evidence.
My reading of the story is that Turkey has been extremely angered at Russia bombing the 'Turkmen' anti-Assad rebels in the area concerned. These people are of Turkish origin.
Hence they lay in wait until Russia flew over a 'finger' of Turkish territory (you can see where it sticks out on the map), and planned to shoot the plane down. The Russians deny an incursion but I'm not sure I believe them. But on the other hand, looking at this slither of territory, the Russian plane would have been over it in seconds. There is no way that Turkey would have had time to scramble jets, let alone give the '10 warnings' it claims. Pilots landed over Syria too. It looks highly premediated.
Turkey was evidently to me I) taking revenge and II) hoping that Russia would retaliate and provoke a bigger conflict.
So Putin's implication would appear to be this was a revenge attack for putting a stop to Turkey's cut price oil racket.
Or alternatively, Russian aircraft should not have overflown Turkish territory.
Again. (If they did so this time, which is looking distinctly possible).
Especially when those aircraft are of the same type as another combatant nation.
You could easily argue the alternative: Putin wants to make Turkey the outsider, allowing his puppet Assad to mop up the areas of the country Putin wants ...
This is a deceptively attractive argument, but it's self-justification. The other candidates at the leadership election all put forward such policies - whether it was Liz on early years and decentralisation, or Yvette on Infrastructure/investment/childcare or Andy on supporting small business and improving opportunities for those who didn't go to university.
It's just that Corbyn supporters preferred what he was offering, and derided the alternatives as empty.
To argue that 'Centrists' need to offer members such policies just after having rejected them in favour of something more radical is merely refusing to take responsibility for your own choices.
Decentralisation, infrastructure, small business- they're all worthy things, but they don't make a coherent, attractive project. Sorry - they just don't!
And what pray is the "coherent, attractive project" being put forward by Corbyn?
@stephenkb: Just 53 Labour MPs have majorities bigger than Michael Meacher's was in 2015
@NickCohen4: @stephenkb People I spoke to in Oldham thought Lab would squeak it. Mind you that was last week
@stephenkb: @NickCohen4 Consensus at the moment seems to be Labour by 1000 votes. Hoping to go up later this week.
So, a 14,000 majority reduced to 1K?!
Miliband crashed the car. Corbyn's about to set fire to the wreck.
A 3k majority on a turnout of 25k would be a lead of 12%, which would still be a sizable swing to UKIP (obviously, it'd be a bigger lead if there's a smaller turnout) but more than Ladbrokes were implying in that earlier tweet, and more than most commentators seem to expect.
But if the consensus is only a 1k majority then MoE clearly goes into Labour loss territory.
The most recent example was Leicester South, in 2004. The last example while Labour was in opposition was Govan, in 1988(?).
However, losing safe seats while a party's in government is one thing; losing them in opposition is a wholly different matter. I think - from a quick scan - that Labour's only lost ten in opposition since 1945:
Brighouse & Spenborough, 1960, to the Conservatives Bristol SE, 1961, to the Conservatives (but only because Benn, who 'won' was disqualified) Rochdale, 1972, to the Liberals Lincoln, 1973, to Ind Lab (actually a Dick Taverne hold) Glasgow Govan, 1973, to the SNP Mitcham & Morden, 1982, to the Conservatives Bermondsey, 1983, to the Liberals Greenwich, 1987, the SDP Glasgow Govan, 1988, to the SNP Bradford West, 2012, to Respect
Labour also lost Sunderland South to the Tories in 1953.
This could get entertaining.....Putin accuses Turkey of supporting ISIS - yet the Russian jet was shot down in an area not controlled by ISIS......
Crickey, that them fighting words.
Edit: Did he says ISIS or as quoted by BBC, terrorists?
According to Russia Today (who I'd regard as reliable on the words of Putin, if not much else):
IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation’s military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world,
So Putin's implication would appear to be this was a revenge attack for putting a stop to Turkey's cut price oil racket.
Or alternatively, Russian aircraft should not have overflown Turkish territory.
Again. (If they did so this time, which is looking distinctly possible).
Especially when those aircraft are of the same type as another combatant nation.
You could easily argue the alternative: Putin wants to make Turkey the outsider, allowing his puppet Assad to mop up the areas of the country Putin wants ...
Assuming the Russians actually noticed potential aggressor aircraft repeatedly overflying their territory and ignoring radio transmissions to identify and desist, how long would it take before they lost patience and sent an S300 aloft to give them the 'good news', Turk style?
This could get entertaining.....Putin accuses Turkey of supporting ISIS - yet the Russian jet was shot down in an area not controlled by ISIS......
Crickey, that them fighting words.
Edit: Did he says ISIS or as quoted by BBC, terrorists?
According to Russia Today (who I'd regard as reliable on the words of Putin, if not much else):
IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation’s military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world,
Edit - but the jet was shot down in an area not controlled by IS.....
Yes - I think the two things are unrelated. I think Putin is just taking the chance to strongly criticise Turkey's actions supporting ISIS, of which there is now overwhelming evidence.
My reading of the story is that Turkey has been extremely angered at Russia bombing the 'Turkmen' anti-Assad rebels in the area concerned. These people are of Turkish origin.
Hence they lay in wait until Russia flew over a 'finger' of Turkish territory (you can see where it sticks out on the map), and planned to shoot the plane down. The Russians deny an incursion but I'm not sure I believe them. But on the other hand, looking at this slither of territory, the Russian plane would have been over it in seconds. There is no way that Turkey would have had time to scramble jets, let alone give the '10 warnings' it claims. Pilots landed over Syria too. It looks highly premediated.
Turkey was evidently to me I) taking revenge and II) hoping that Russia would retaliate and provoke a bigger conflict.
Yes. IF the plane followed the track that Turkey has published, at 600mph it would have covered the 2 mile sliver in 12 seconds. No time to scramble jets or give 10 warnings. As you say, it was premeditated. Not an accident. It was also totally disproportionate as clearly the plane posed no danger to Turkey as Putin has rightly pointed out.
What puzzles me is the motive. I can only think that membership of NATO has emboldened Erdogan to take reckless risks.
Comments
I have to say, eleven's rather more than I'd have guessed at beforehand, probably because there've been so few in the last 25 years.
I'm sure Donald and Vladimir would be perfectly at home doing business with each other. Trump will know what he wants and will approach negotiations with none of the preachy bullsh8t so many western leaders spout.
Ditto the Chinese.
Erdogan must be terrified of the big powers getting together on the side of his enemies in Syria.
This may be an attempt to keep them divided. He knows that Turkey's nato membership gives the club certain obligations.
Many of us quite enjoy the prospect of getting on with our own lives without politicans' "assistance".
New Thread New Thread
Turkey is protected by NATO, however from the Russian view Turkey shot first and NATO covers it's members only if they are attacked not if they are the attackers, the first step I expect the russians to counterattack militarily on turkish targets or western targets in Syria if NATO suports Turkey.
Anyway because of this I now have to switch against UK military action over Syria having been in favour since the UN resolution passed, Turkey has militarily attacked Russia in that powder keg of the middle east therefore western fighter jets can possibly become russian military targets and shot down as payback over the Turkish attack.
Britain cannot afford a war with Russia, especially over Syria.
The Russians will counterattack, I hope they limit it on Turkey only and not drag the rest of NATO in it, but that depends on NATO disavowing the Turkish attack at least politically.
In any case Cameron's plan to bomb Syria is dead again, my apologies to Corbyn for doubting his judgement over this, Syria is too large of a powderkeg to get involved.
Wouldn't we be Albiona?
The Russians have been bombing the Turkmen because they are fighting Assad who Russia is defending.
Erdogan wants to defeat Assad (and also the Kurds) more than he wants to defeat ISIL.
Erdogan is prepared to fight the Russians to defend the Turkman because he thinks NATO has his back.
Meanwhile the rest of us including the Russians want to defeat ISIL with the help of the Kurds..
My reading of the story is that Turkey has been extremely angered at Russia bombing the 'Turkmen' anti-Assad rebels in the area concerned. These people are of Turkish origin.
Hence they lay in wait until Russia flew over a 'finger' of Turkish territory (you can see where it sticks out on the map), and planned to shoot the plane down. The Russians deny an incursion but I'm not sure I believe them. But on the other hand, looking at this slither of territory, the Russian plane would have been over it in seconds. There is no way that Turkey would have had time to scramble jets, let alone give the '10 warnings' it claims. Pilots landed over Syria too. It looks highly premediated.
Turkey was evidently to me I) taking revenge and II) hoping that Russia would retaliate and provoke a bigger conflict.
Equally sadly I suppose I have to admit to being supremly smug with myself that all my conceptions and understandings about Labour and its active supporters have been proved true.
There is simply no justification at all, none at all, for ever letting these people get their hands on power ever again at all ever never. Ever.
All those things you don't find attractive are designed to help real people. Small steps, maybe. Worthy - yes - but telling that you seem to imply that being worthy is not attractive. But above all focused on what politicians can do to help people. It may not be much but it's a lot better than someone focused on not sullying his precious principles with the reality of life as the rest of us live it, even to the extent of not being able to say in clear words that of course he would take all necessary action to stop maniacs slaughtering people on the streets of Britain.
I mean how F**king hard would that have been?! And yet plain speaking principled Mr Corbyn could only come out with some tortuous paragraph about stopping maniacs getting hold of guns.
If it was an SU-24, then it should be remembered that the Syrian air force also have SU-24's in their inventory.
It doesn't matter if it was a 'finger' of Turkish territory or not: it was a repeated incursion by a foreign power, coming in from what is a war zone. If the Turkish log of the flight is to be believed then the Russians are in the wrong here.
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151005/1028036764/russia-turkey-airspace-border-violation.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/06/nato-chief-jens-stoltenberg-russia-turkish-airspace-violations-syria
Or perhaps they will record it again, perhaps this time with Dermot O'Leary or Tess Daly.
Many Americans know their government well. It is drummed into them at school. They know that whoever they vote as president will be constrained by the fact they are a democracy with elected houses of government, a separation of powers, a free press, free speech and a written constitution to protect them.
It is a fact all to easily forgotten by many outside of America.
So Putin's implication would appear to be this was a revenge attack for putting a stop to Turkey's cut price oil racket.
Again. (If they did so this time, which is looking distinctly possible).
Especially when those aircraft are of the same type as another combatant nation.
You could easily argue the alternative: Putin wants to make Turkey the outsider, allowing his puppet Assad to mop up the areas of the country Putin wants ...
What puzzles me is the motive. I can only think that membership of NATO has emboldened Erdogan to take reckless risks.