Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So what happened to the long-term plan, George?

135

Comments

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    Imagine if Labour MPs had put half as much effort into defeating Cameron in May as they are into defeating Corbyn now.
  • LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467
    edited November 2015
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cameron-doesnt-know-what-hes-doing-so-he-shouldnt-go-war-1307233108

    Good column by Peter Oborne, a journalist who actually knows Syria and is also a man of great integrity, on Cameron's plan for Syria.

    Apparently there is a great deal of concern about the obviously nonsensical 70,000 figure with a number of intelligence analysts letting their objections be known to MPs. Our former ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, was less than complimentary too.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MikeK said:

    While Labour play hide and seek the Tories have a problem:
    ://twitter.com/PA/status/670548073907658752

    Never have we needed an effective opposition more. The Tories are messing up due to hubris, the Labour party is committing public seppukku and both LDs and UKIP have retired injured. The next 5 years are going to be full of mistakes.
  • Mr. G, Corbyn's a bigger threat to Labour than Cameron ever was.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    That may well be true but it does sound reminiscent of those Pentagon announcements of VC dead which 'showed' that the Vietnam War was going well.

    MOD are hardly going to admit they are crap for sure. It is propaganda meant for dupes like Carlotta and Moses who are easily taken in and as establishment sheeple believe any old rubbish the Lord haw Haws chuck out.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Peter Oborne writes whatever is unfashionable to get attention. I've never known a columnist change his mind so often. He's a joke.
    LondonBob said:

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cameron-doesnt-know-what-hes-doing-so-he-shouldnt-go-war-1307233108

    Good column by Peter Oborne, a journalist who actually knows Syria and is also a man of great integrity, on Cameron's plan for Syria.

    Apparently there is a great deal of concern about the obviously nonsensical 70,000 figure with a number of intelligence analysts letting their objections be known to MPs.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Indeed, and the comments about the impact on local Government (and the link to the Public Finance website) are also worth following. Councils keeping Business Rates is fine as long as it is a rating authority - County Councils in the two-tier structure don't collect rates so that doesn't help them.

    Now, we have the 2% social care funding precept - is that on top of the existing 2% cap on Council Tax increases so, for example, an authority "could" raise its Council Tax 3.99% next year (2% for social care, 1.99% to cover other costs) or instead of ?

    As for the notion of authorities releasing assets to fund services - well, we've been here for twenty years or more and the problem now is that most Council-owned land is required to be used to provide extra school spaces or additional facilities for taking care of vulnerable children and adults. The notion there's a pot of financial gold at the end of the property asset rainbow is absurd - indeed, more prudent authorities have been building up Investment portfolios by buying commercial property funded from borrowing at very low rates and gaining off rental yields.

    I know of a number of Councils who use Apprentices - they would presumably have to fund the increase in the payroll tax for those staff as well.

    Once again, we see central Government (and it doesn't really matter which party or parties is in charge it seems) expecting local Government to do the hard work in the effort to bring down the deficit. The ludicrous notion of ringfencing areas of public spending (and thereby perpetuating the inefficiencies and maintaining the disposable assets), whether it's the NHS or Education and of course the biggest problem area of all, welfare spending on pensioners, has now been shown to be the indefensible politically-motivated vote-bribing shambles most intelligent people know it to be.

  • I still prefer chicken - it's yummy. Turkey is too fibrous, goose disappointingly bland and oozes pints of fat, whilst stronger meats just don't go with sage/opinion stuffing.



    Opinion stuffing? :) Of course some opinions are harder to digest than others.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    malcolmg said:

    Imagine if Labour MPs had put half as much effort into defeating Cameron in May as they are into defeating Corbyn now.

    Rofl - very true Malc.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
  • malcolmg said:

    Imagine if Labour MPs had put half as much effort into defeating Cameron in May as they are into defeating Corbyn now.

    They're not putting much effort into defeating Jeremy Corbyn. They're talking loudly to each other.
  • F1: Hamilton being a bit rubbish in this final practice session, so I suspect his times won't be representative of his pace.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    malcolmg said:

    Imagine if Labour MPs had put half as much effort into defeating Cameron in May as they are into defeating Corbyn now.

    They're not putting much effort into defeating Jeremy Corbyn. They're talking loudly to each other.
    So about the same effort as into defeating Cameron then.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676

    malcolmg said:

    Imagine if Labour MPs had put half as much effort into defeating Cameron in May as they are into defeating Corbyn now.

    They're not putting much effort into defeating Jeremy Corbyn. They're talking loudly to each other.
    They seem oblivious to the job they were elected to perform.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Once again, we see central Government (and it doesn't really matter which party or parties is in charge it seems) expecting local Government to do the hard work in the effort to bring down the deficit.''

    It isn;t surprising is it? I recently read that British councils have unspent reserves of GBP22bn.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
  • malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    That may well be true but it does sound reminiscent of those Pentagon announcements of VC dead which 'showed' that the Vietnam War was going well.

    easily taken in and as establishment sheeple believe any old rubbish the Lord haw Haws chuck out.
    Writes the man who believed in $150 oil.......
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :lol::lol::lol:

    What a Freudian typo!

    I still prefer chicken - it's yummy. Turkey is too fibrous, goose disappointingly bland and oozes pints of fat, whilst stronger meats just don't go with sage/opinion stuffing.



    Opinion stuffing? :) Of course some opinions are harder to digest than others.

  • malcolmg said:

    Imagine if Labour MPs had put half as much effort into defeating Cameron in May as they are into defeating Corbyn now.

    They're not putting much effort into defeating Jeremy Corbyn. They're talking loudly to each other.

    On Twitter.

    A lot like the Nats......
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    I reckon John Noble has sold his soul. He's in blinking every TV show I watch. Didn't like him in Sleepy Hollow - that whole S2 thing was weird. And now he's bloody Sherlock's dad.

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    Mr. P, whilst I do think having the Commons vote is daft, I bet Cameron can't quite believe just what Labour is doing to itself.

    I've only just caught up with what's been happening due to house move and heavy teaching load and BT being a bunch of incompetent failures. But I can't quite believe what's happening either. Osborne should be booking the removers for No. 11 this week, if even half of what's being said is true Grant Shapps should be uneasily awaiting a visit from the boys in blue while being eviscerated in every national newspaper and Theresa May should be discussing how to take her pension. But we're talking about a man who thought it appropriate to quote a line one of the most evil men of the 20th century used to justify mass murder in a speech, and who called for acts of grievous bodily harm to be perpetrated on his political allies, among other egregious mis-steps which suggest that if Livingstone had called for his psychological evaluation he wouldn't have been very far wrong.

    Cameron must surely be the luckiest political leader since Campbell-Bannerman. Has anyone checked to see if he has mortgaged his soul to the Father of Evil?
    For this kind of luck, probably the souls of his entire family.
    Is Larry the Downing Street cat actually his familiar (doesn't Osborne also have a cat)? Or perhaps a convenient shape for Mephistopheles to hold whilst he keeps an eye to ensure no backsliding.
    Larry is only a nickname. His real name is Moloch.
    I liked S1 of Sleepy Hollow but never got around to S2 - worth watching at all?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    And they've increased by £10bn fairly recently.
    taffys said:

    ''Once again, we see central Government (and it doesn't really matter which party or parties is in charge it seems) expecting local Government to do the hard work in the effort to bring down the deficit.''

    It isn;t surprising is it? I recently read that British councils have unspent reserves of GBP22bn.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    It occurs to me that having some tube trains and a London bus blown apart with massive loss of life and lifelong injuries,plus the selection of British tourists to be massacred in a holiday resort, certainly makes the "Matter" a very British one..
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    malcolmg said:

    Imagine if Labour MPs had put half as much effort into defeating Cameron in May as they are into defeating Corbyn now.

    They're not putting much effort into defeating Jeremy Corbyn. They're talking loudly to each other.

    On Twitter.

    If Twitter was followed then Miliband would have been PM.

    And Corbyn would already be gone.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    taffys said:

    ''Once again, we see central Government (and it doesn't really matter which party or parties is in charge it seems) expecting local Government to do the hard work in the effort to bring down the deficit.''

    It isn;t surprising is it? I recently read that British councils have unspent reserves of GBP22bn.

    I think too much expectation has been placed on local Government, but I would accept that it suffered some of if not the biggest percentage cuts in the past five years, and local government has not collapsed, so it proved more robust than most think (and the public more accepting, by and large, of councils doing less)
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited November 2015
    it's a 6.5/10. It goes down some weird wormhole into Ichabod's family that frankly I didn't give a toss about. The writers at Fox clearly took fan feedback on board, dumped the whole idea and skipped a year timewise when coming up with S3.

    S3 is much better if a bit dislocated at the beginning as it ignores most of S2 as a Bobby shower moment.

    EDIT S1&2 are on Amazon Prime.
    kle4 said:

    I reckon John Noble has sold his soul. He's in blinking every TV show I watch. Didn't like him in Sleepy Hollow - that whole S2 thing was weird. And now he's bloody Sherlock's dad.

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    Mr. P, whilst I do think having the Commons vote is daft, I bet Cameron can't quite believe just what Labour is doing to itself.

    I've only just caught up with what's been happening due to house move and heavy teaching load and BT being a bunch of incompetent failures. But I can't quite believe what's happening either. Osborne should be booking the removers for No. 11 this week, if even half of what's being said is true Grant Shapps should be uneasily awaiting a visit from the boys in blue while being eviscerated in every national newspaper and Theresa May should be discussing how to take her pension. But we're talking about a man who thought it appropriate to quote a line one of the most evil men of the 20th century used to justify mass murder in a speech, and who called for acts of grievous bodily harm to be perpetrated on his political allies, among other egregious mis-steps which suggest that if Livingstone had called for his psychological evaluation he wouldn't have been very far wrong.

    Cameron must surely be the luckiest political leader since Campbell-Bannerman. Has anyone checked to see if he has mortgaged his soul to the Father of Evil?
    For this kind of luck, probably the souls of his entire family.
    Is Larry the Downing Street cat actually his familiar (doesn't Osborne also have a cat)? Or perhaps a convenient shape for Mephistopheles to hold whilst he keeps an eye to ensure no backsliding.
    Larry is only a nickname. His real name is Moloch.
    I liked S1 of Sleepy Hollow but never got around to S2 - worth watching at all?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526

    From the BBC:

    ' By 2020, India will be the world's second largest producer of coal, overtaking the US. And it will be the world's largest importer.

    They are not alone. As my colleague David Shukman has been reporting, the Philippines is set to establish 23 new coal fired plants by 2020.

    In fact 40% of the 400 gigawatts of generation capacity to be added in Southeast Asia by 2040 will be coal-fired.

    And while coal use will decline in the developed economies of the EU and the US, the whiff of sulphur will be rising in Japan, where coal's share of the energy mix by 2030 will increase to 30%. '

    Does anyone really think it wise to shut down our coal power stations and to become more dependent upon gas imported from Russia and the Middle East ?

    A nice list which shows how much of effect shutting down UK coal power stations will have on world carbon emissions:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_power_stations

    Indeed. And AIUI the type of coal is also important: many of these Indian and Chinese plants will be burning very 'dirty' coal (from memory; RCS may be able to say whether I've remembered correctly).

    Leaving aside AGW reasons to close coal-fired power stations, there are more immediate local human ones:
    These emissions resulted in an estimated 80,000 to 115,000 premature deaths and 20.0 million asthma cases from exposure to PM2.5 pollution, which cost the public and the government an estimated INR 16,000 to 23,000 crores (USD 3.2 to 4.6 billion).
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101400329X

    For this reason, and not AGW ones, I think eventual closure of older coal-fired plants is to be recommended. But only when they can be replaced with equally-secure and preferably cheap sources of energy, whether that is cleaner coal, ccgt, or something else.

    But we're not. We're largely replacing them with more expensive and less reliable forms of energy.

    And then there's the problem with fly ash:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
  • malcolmg said:

    Imagine if Labour MPs had put half as much effort into defeating Cameron in May as they are into defeating Corbyn now.

    They're not putting much effort into defeating Jeremy Corbyn. They're talking loudly to each other.
    Or as its otherwise known:

    Groundgame
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    perdix said:

    From the Telegraph:

    ' UK growth was dampened by a record drag from weak trade in the third quarter, putting the spotlight on Britain's unbalanced recovery.

    Britain's trade deficit - or the gap between UK imports and exports - almost doubled in the third quarter, to £14.2bn. This reflected a jump in imports, which rose by 5.5pc over the period compared with a 2.7pc fall in the second quarter.

    The drag from trade was enough to knock 1.5 percentage points off growth in the third quarter, which represented its weakest contribution since records began in 1998.

    However, this decline was more than offset by an increase in consumer spending and investment, which pushed up domestic demand growth at the fastest pace in two years. '

    Now we all know about the complete failure of the 'March of the Makers' proclaimed by Osborne in his 2011 Budget, lets see how his 2012 Budget plan to double UK exports to a trillion pounds by 2020 is proceeding:

    2011 UK exports = £497bn
    2014q4-2015q3 UK exports = £516bn

    UK exporters have the inconvenience of operating in the real world with real customers and real competitors and real goods and services and real money.

    And they aren't allowed to 'discover' endless billions to make the books add up.

    If you had any experiencing in exporting you would know that it takes years to build a presence in overseas markets. It's unrealistic to expect results today on a policy pronouncement in 2011. It's not just exporting, as a country we need to make more of what we import.

    Bingo. Just as useful (not to mention easier) for British-made goods and services to displace foreign imports.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    LondonBob said:

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cameron-doesnt-know-what-hes-doing-so-he-shouldnt-go-war-1307233108

    Good column by Peter Oborne, a journalist who actually knows Syria and is also a man of great integrity, on Cameron's plan for Syria.

    Apparently there is a great deal of concern about the obviously nonsensical 70,000 figure with a number of intelligence analysts letting their objections be known to MPs. Our former ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, was less than complimentary too.

    What the Cameron partisans on here won't accept is the case for military action as proposed by the Prime Minister is unravelling by the day. Simon Jenkins, Peter Hitchens and Peter Oborne have all now had "doubts" and pretty convincing doubts they are too. Even, dare I say it, Corbyn, who has politically mismanaged this entire debacle from the Labour side, put forward, in his letter, some coherent arguments and searching questions.

    Since last weekend, which was unquestionably a dreadful atrocity perpetuated by evil individuals, the "mood" is we must "do something" and this is a Government which likes to be seen to be "doing things". The repetitive imagery of Cameron and Osborne with hard hats and hi-vis jackets is there to convince people this is a Government that "does" and likes people that "do" and bricklaying and coherent foreign policy have similarities but not the ones, I suspect, Cameron and Osborne recognise.

    Both require skill, planning and attention to detail. I can, as Oborne does, appreciate Hollande's desire to strike back but sometimes the hardest thing in politics is to do nothing overtly but work behind the scenes building contacts, establishing networks, getting support for what you want to do and if that means working with people you don't like for a common goal, so be it.

    McDonnell stupidly quoted Mao at Osborne - I'll rely on WSC who once said "if Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons". To defeat IS, we have to "make favourable references to" the likes of Russia, Iran and even Assad.

    It goes against Cameron's instincts (it seems to me) to do nothing. He believes, I suspect, that inaction will cost him popularity and if there's one thing Cameron can't deal with, it's unpopularity but sometimes "doing nothing", at least publicly and overtly, is the correct response. Are we talking to Moscow, to Tehran and to Damascus and Baghdad ? There is a role for British ground troops to aid a force in liberating IS's Iraqi holdings around Mosul but the liberation of IS in Syria will be for Assad's Iranian-Hezbollah army.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    One thing I find strange - it is the assumption that *either* we bomb them, *or* we tackle extremism at home.

    As I have mentioned before, if you speak to people in the Muslim community, they are utterly convinced (with some evidence) that they are under a microscope from the police/intelligence agencies - that every third nutter is actually an agent provocateur or a spy, that the security services are letting the young men go to so that they can "deal" with them at the other end without legal recourse.... When you combine that with the large number of court cases about abortive plots - as well as the large number of those going abroad meeting a bad end, it certainly suggests that someone in authority is doing *something*.

    Is it not possible that the bombing is seen an extension of the existing solution - acting on intelligence, and even (Northern Ireland style) shaping the beliefs of the other side - playing games with their heads, as with the triple cross system.
  • Mr. Stodge, I do think there are legitimate views on both sides of the debate, but would suggest citing Hitchens, who is generally bonkers but occasionally offers interesting insight, is not necessarily helpful to the anti-war cause.

    [What perplexes me is that we're bombing Iraq, but not Syria. Is there a real difference? Surely both or neither is the only sensible approach].
  • Abu Dhabi: pre-qualifying ramble:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/abu-dhabi-pre-qualifying.html

    No bet, but some interesting rumours about next year.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sounds like a smorgasbord of brown nosing, shagging, illegal drugs, bullying, sexual harrasment & blackmail.
    And in normal circumstances it would be leading the news.....however, thanks to Seamus Milne's brilliant media operation.....
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12021991/Tory-chairman-should-quit-over-bullying-scandal.html

    "Tory chairman Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps 'should quit' over Mark Clarke bullying scandal

    Ray Johnson, whose 21-year-old son Elliott committed suicide after he was allegedly bullied by Mark Clarke, says Grant Shapps and Lord Feldman should quit"

    Anyone disagree?
    It has been alleged that Michael Green Corinne Stockheath Grant Shapps received a letter from Sayeeda Warsi complaining about Mark Clarke. CCHQ have denied that they have ever received any complaints about Clarke. This whole thing stinks and screams whitewash.
  • Someone posted the other day that Thatcher over her decade in office reduced the state as a proportion of GDP by 6.8% while Osborne after five years has reduced it by 6% already. At this rate I'd expect Osborne to beat Thatchers record without being seen as to the right of Thatcher.

    The trick is, or should be, to grow the economy. The United States spends far less than us as a proportion of GDP but actually spends more in cash terms per head of population.
    Yes that has always been the Conservatives argument which is right and works. Cut taxes, the economy grows and you long term due to taking a smaller slice of a bigger pie have more to spend.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526

    Abu Dhabi: pre-qualifying ramble:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/abu-dhabi-pre-qualifying.html

    No bet, but some interesting rumours about next year.

    Thanks Mr D.

    I hope F1 is on terrestrial TV next year. I can't justify getting Sky to watch it.
  • MP_SE said:

    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sounds like a smorgasbord of brown nosing, shagging, illegal drugs, bullying, sexual harrasment & blackmail.
    And in normal circumstances it would be leading the news.....however, thanks to Seamus Milne's brilliant media operation.....
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12021991/Tory-chairman-should-quit-over-bullying-scandal.html

    "Tory chairman Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps 'should quit' over Mark Clarke bullying scandal

    Ray Johnson, whose 21-year-old son Elliott committed suicide after he was allegedly bullied by Mark Clarke, says Grant Shapps and Lord Feldman should quit"

    Anyone disagree?
    It has been alleged that Michael Green Corinne Stockheath Grant Shapps received a letter from Sayeeda Warsi complaining about Mark Clarke. CCHQ have denied that they have ever received any complaints about Clarke. This whole thing stinks and screams whitewash.
    There are echoes here of the handouts to the Kids Company protection racket.

    Namely following proper procedures is only for the 'little people' and rules are ignored for influential friends.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    That may well be true but it does sound reminiscent of those Pentagon announcements of VC dead which 'showed' that the Vietnam War was going well.

    easily taken in and as establishment sheeple believe any old rubbish the Lord haw Haws chuck out.
    Writes the man who believed in $150 oil.......
    I was going by Cameron's oil boom numbers, how could the SNP be lying if Cameron says it will be even higher I thought. A lesson learned.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited November 2015
    I'd forgotten Mr Smug of Jenkins involvement

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2020917/Sir-Simons-gold-medal-hypocrisy.html
    Sir Simon (who was a member of the quango which awarded Lottery money to groups wanting to mark the 2000 millennium) wrote a three-page letter to Blair urging him to think about plans for the Dome through the eyes of his children.

    As everyone now knows, the Dome became one of the biggest white elephants in modern history. Despite a £399 million budget, it eventually cost taxpayers £789 million.
    SeanT said:

    stodge said:

    LondonBob said:

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cameron-doesnt-know-what-hes-doing-so-he-shouldnt-go-war-1307233108

    Good column by Peter Oborne, a journalist who actually knows Syria and is also a man of great integrity, on Cameron's plan for Syria.

    Apparently there is a great deal of concern about the obviously nonsensical 70,000 figure with a number of intelligence analysts letting their objections be known to MPs. Our former ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, was less than complimentary too.

    What the Cameron partisans on here won't accept is the case for military action as proposed by the Prime Minister is unravelling by the day. Simon Jenkins, Peter Hitchens and Peter Oborne have all now had "doubts" and pretty convincing doubts they are too. Even, dare I say it, Corbyn, who has politically mismanaged this entire debacle from the Labour side, put forward, in his letter, some coherent arguments and searching questions.

    Since last weekend, which was unquestionably a dreadful atrocity perpetuated by evil individuals, the "mood" is we must "do something" and this is a Government which likes to be seen to be "doing things". The repetitive imagery of Cameron and Osborne with hard hats and hi-vis jackets is there to convince people this is a Government that "does" and likes people that "do" and bricklaying and coherent foreign policy have similarities but not the ones, I suspect, Cameron and Osborne recognise.

    Both require skill, planning and attention to detail. I can, as Oborne does, appreciate Hollande's desire to strike back but sometimes the hardest thing in politics is to do nothing overtly but work behind the scenes building contacts, establishing networks, getting support for what you want to do and if that means working with people you don't like for a common goal, so be it.

    McDonnell stupidly quoted Mao at Osborne - I'll rely on WSC who once said "if Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons". To defeat IS, we have to "make favourable references to" the likes of Russia, Iran and even Assad.

    snip
    Peter Hitchens is mad, Peter Oborne is mad, Simon Jenkins has dementia and was responsible for the contents of the Millennium Dome.
  • SeanT said:

    stodge said:


    What the Cameron partisans on here won't accept is the case for military action as proposed by the Prime Minister is unravelling by the day. Simon Jenkins, Peter Hitchens and Peter Oborne have all now had "doubts" and pretty convincing doubts they are too. Even, dare I say it, Corbyn, who has politically mismanaged this entire debacle from the Labour side, put forward, in his letter, some coherent arguments and searching questions.

    Since last weekend, which was unquestionably a dreadful atrocity perpetuated by evil individuals, the "mood" is we must "do something" and this is a Government which likes to be seen to be "doing things". The repetitive imagery of Cameron and Osborne with hard hats and hi-vis jackets is there to convince people this is a Government that "does" and likes people that "do" and bricklaying and coherent foreign policy have similarities but not the ones, I suspect, Cameron and Osborne recognise.

    Both require skill, planning and attention to detail. I can, as Oborne does, appreciate Hollande's desire to strike back but sometimes the hardest thing in politics is to do nothing overtly but work behind the scenes building contacts, establishing networks, getting support for what you want to do and if that means working with people you don't like for a common goal, so be it.

    McDonnell stupidly quoted Mao at Osborne - I'll rely on WSC who once said "if Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons". To defeat IS, we have to "make favourable references to" the likes of Russia, Iran and even Assad.

    It goes against Cameron's instincts (it seems to me) to do nothing. He believes, I suspect, that inaction will cost him popularity and if there's one thing Cameron can't deal with, it's unpopularity but sometimes "doing nothing", at least publicly and overtly, is the correct response. Are we talking to Moscow, to Tehran and to Damascus and Baghdad ? There is a role for British ground troops to aid a force in liberating IS's Iraqi holdings around Mosul but the liberation of IS in Syria will be for Assad's Iranian-Hezbollah army.

    Peter Hitchens is mad, Peter Oborne is mad, Simon Jenkins has dementia and was responsible for the contents of the Millennium Dome.
    But don't you admit to being mad but occasionally perceptive because of that madness ?

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2015
    .
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    edited November 2015
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    The most popular/controversial stories, comments, and tweets as seen by the Daily Mail...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/stats/index.html

    Fascinating.

  • Mr Herdson -
    I am sure that if the tax credits had gone through with the usual short term squeals then Osborne would have pocketed the 23 billion and been happy to produce it later down the line.
    As it is he has to take a hit now and let the universal credit soak it up nearer the election.
    But in other respects the extra money for the NHS is a front loading of the 8 billion already promised. Its this 8 billion which is spending the 'windfall'.
    Given the terrorist outrages and the needs for security then the additional spending on special forces seems absolutely essential and not something to complain about. 'Events' are what happen.
    So in short I think your headline is a bit unfair. Certainly if you look at the local authority cuts you will not find many people saying that Osborne is conceding very much.


  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I love that page - it's such a great snap shot of opinion. And some very funny comments too.


    The most popular/controversial stories, comments, and tweets as seen by the Daily Mail...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/stats/index.html

    Fascinating.

  • MP_SE said:

    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sounds like a smorgasbord of brown nosing, shagging, illegal drugs, bullying, sexual harrasment & blackmail.
    And in normal circumstances it would be leading the news.....however, thanks to Seamus Milne's brilliant media operation.....
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12021991/Tory-chairman-should-quit-over-bullying-scandal.html

    "Tory chairman Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps 'should quit' over Mark Clarke bullying scandal

    Ray Johnson, whose 21-year-old son Elliott committed suicide after he was allegedly bullied by Mark Clarke, says Grant Shapps and Lord Feldman should quit"

    Anyone disagree?
    It has been alleged that Michael Green Corinne Stockheath Grant Shapps received a letter from Sayeeda Warsi complaining about Mark Clarke. CCHQ have denied that they have ever received any complaints about Clarke. This whole thing stinks and screams whitewash.
    If a quarter of the stuff alleged about Clarke is true, he appears to be an authentic psychopath.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526
    In 2003 Blair was repeatedly asked: "what happens after the war", and we were told that everything would be fine and the coalition knew what it was doing. MPs were unsurprisingly more concerned with the prosecution of the upcoming war, and the government got a more or less free pass on the aftermath. (*)

    Cameron's problem is that he is rightly not being given a free pass, and his public answers about the aftermath are not as firm as I'd like. (**) Having said that, this is nothing like the Iraq situation, and the direct threat to us much greater.

    I don't think bombing Syria will increase the threat against us: to say so misreads IS's motivations. But it may allow us to eliminate more direct threats against us before they have a chance to act, or to encourage others to act.

    Perhaps.

    (*) I think one Lib Dem in particular made a very good speech about the dangers of ignoring the aftermath, but I can't remember who it was.

    (**) As I've said before, most people who talk about 'defeating' ISIS seem to do so without thinking what that means. But even if defeating them will be hard, it doesn't mean we can't hurt the bastards in the meantime.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    edited November 2015

    I'd forgotten Mr Smug of Jenkins involvement

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2020917/Sir-Simons-gold-medal-hypocrisy.html

    Sir Simon (who was a member of the quango which awarded Lottery money to groups wanting to mark the 2000 millennium) wrote a three-page letter to Blair urging him to think about plans for the Dome through the eyes of his children.

    As everyone now knows, the Dome became one of the biggest white elephants in modern history. Despite a £399 million budget, it eventually cost taxpayers £789 million.
    It's difficult to remember now, with the success that the Dome has been under AEG, just how awful the NME was.
  • Mr. Jessop, indeed, and most others will make the same judgement, particularly after a not necessarily vintage season.
  • malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Why do we need to directly or openly assist Assad if Russia already are? We can directly and openly attack ISIS which indirectly assists Assad while turning a blind eye to Russia assisting him directly. Assuming there is no alternative to him winning I don't see how we lose by doing that.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    And this isn't Iraq - we're not attempting to ruin their infrastructure or impose some post-conflict government.

    We're trying to kill vile baddies in a surgical way, not overthrow a despot.

    I don't care - I really don't about what Syrians do to each other in a civil war - it's not our business. I'd be totally pissed off if they stuck their noses in our business like that - but killing death cultists before they kill us is fine by me.

    In 2003 Blair was repeatedly asked: "what happens after the war", and we were told that everything would be fine and the coalition knew what it was doing. MPs were unsurprisingly more concerned with the prosecution of the upcoming war, and the government got a more or less free pass on the aftermath. (*)

    Cameron's problem is that he is rightly not being given a free pass, and his public answers about the aftermath are not as firm as I'd like. (**) Having said that, this is nothing like the Iraq situation, and the direct threat to us much greater.

    I don't think bombing Syria will increase the threat against us: to say so misreads IS's motivations. But it may allow us to eliminate more direct threats against us before they have a chance to act, or to encourage others to act.

    Perhaps.

    (*) I think one Lib Dem in particular made a very good speech about the dangers of ignoring the aftermath, but I can't remember who it was.

    (**) As I've said before, most people who talk about 'defeating' ISIS seem to do so without thinking what that means. But even if defeating them will be hard, it doesn't mean we can't hurt the bastards in the meantime.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Why do we need to directly or openly assist Assad if Russia already are? We can directly and openly attack ISIS which indirectly assists Assad while turning a blind eye to Russia assisting him directly. Assuming there is no alternative to him winning I don't see how we lose by doing that.
    Problem is we are only playing at it and we are supporting some of the nutters on the ground, our policies are incoherent.
  • Mr Herdson -
    I am sure that if the tax credits had gone through with the usual short term squeals then Osborne would have pocketed the 23 billion and been happy to produce it later down the line.
    As it is he has to take a hit now and let the universal credit soak it up nearer the election.
    But in other respects the extra money for the NHS is a front loading of the 8 billion already promised. Its this 8 billion which is spending the 'windfall'.
    Given the terrorist outrages and the needs for security then the additional spending on special forces seems absolutely essential and not something to complain about. 'Events' are what happen.
    So in short I think your headline is a bit unfair. Certainly if you look at the local authority cuts you will not find many people saying that Osborne is conceding very much.


    I feel confident in predicting that Universal Credit will not soak up anything nearer the election. It has been repeatedly miles behind schedule and I can't see how its IT and other systems will be remotely ready in 3 or so years time to cope with all people on tax credits. According to wikipedia as of this September only 175,000 people are on it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676

    And this isn't Iraq - we're not attempting to ruin their infrastructure or impose some post-conflict government.

    We're trying to kill vile baddies in a surgical way, not overthrow a despot.

    I don't care - I really don't about what Syrians do to each other in a civil war - it's not our business. I'd be totally pissed off if they stuck their noses in our business like that - but killing death cultists before they kill us is fine by me.

    In 2003 Blair was repeatedly asked: "what happens after the war", and we were told that everything would be fine and the coalition knew what it was doing. MPs were unsurprisingly more concerned with the prosecution of the upcoming war, and the government got a more or less free pass on the aftermath. (*)

    Cameron's problem is that he is rightly not being given a free pass, and his public answers about the aftermath are not as firm as I'd like. (**) Having said that, this is nothing like the Iraq situation, and the direct threat to us much greater.

    I don't think bombing Syria will increase the threat against us: to say so misreads IS's motivations. But it may allow us to eliminate more direct threats against us before they have a chance to act, or to encourage others to act.

    Perhaps.

    (*) I think one Lib Dem in particular made a very good speech about the dangers of ignoring the aftermath, but I can't remember who it was.

    (**) As I've said before, most people who talk about 'defeating' ISIS seem to do so without thinking what that means. But even if defeating them will be hard, it doesn't mean we can't hurt the bastards in the meantime.

    Wishful thinking Plato
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited November 2015
    Since this is a Saturday - and most of us have a few more mins to read something, I do recommend the Cracked review of the ISIS house magazine - all 700 pages of them. http://www.cracked.com/blog/isis-wants-us-to-invade-7-facts-revealed-by-their-magazine/
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    MP_SE said:

    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sounds like a smorgasbord of brown nosing, shagging, illegal drugs, bullying, sexual harrasment & blackmail.
    And in normal circumstances it would be leading the news.....however, thanks to Seamus Milne's brilliant media operation.....
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12021991/Tory-chairman-should-quit-over-bullying-scandal.html

    "Tory chairman Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps 'should quit' over Mark Clarke bullying scandal

    Ray Johnson, whose 21-year-old son Elliott committed suicide after he was allegedly bullied by Mark Clarke, says Grant Shapps and Lord Feldman should quit"

    Anyone disagree?
    It has been alleged that Michael Green Corinne Stockheath Grant Shapps received a letter from Sayeeda Warsi complaining about Mark Clarke. CCHQ have denied that they have ever received any complaints about Clarke. This whole thing stinks and screams whitewash.
    If a quarter of the stuff alleged about Clarke is true, he appears to be an authentic psychopath.
    Behaviour such as this is particularly weird:
    “Mark would make inappropriate comments publicly.” Such as? “I was with an ex, we’d got together on RoadTrip, and he would always be commenting on our sex lives … Also there was big age gap between him and us.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/27/elliott-johnson-young-tory-destroyed-by-party-he-loved-mark-clarke
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Assad doesn't have enough men to do so. He doesn't particularly have enough men even with Hezbollah and Iranian help.

    IS formed in Iraq, where even the US army's efforts and money could only subdue, not destroy them. As in Afghanistan, if you move into a village to root out insurgents, they'll move onto the next village and come back once you leave.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Why do we need to directly or openly assist Assad if Russia already are? We can directly and openly attack ISIS which indirectly assists Assad while turning a blind eye to Russia assisting him directly. Assuming there is no alternative to him winning I don't see how we lose by doing that.
    Problem is we are only playing at it and we are supporting some of the nutters on the ground, our policies are incoherent.
    Assad is a nutter on the ground as well.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Should the UK launch air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria?
    YES 28%
    NO 72%

    Mirror Poll so representative of Lab voters?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    SeanT said:



    Peter Hitchens is mad, Peter Oborne is mad, Simon Jenkins has dementia and was responsible for the contents of the Millennium Dome.

    Pathetic post. You were always wrong about this issue, and you're still wrong. I told you months and months ago that ISIS were not self-sustaining, that we needed to block off the borders, that we needed to block off their funding from the gulf states, that we needed to stop them selling oil in Turkey - you ignored it in favour of ranting. Only just now are the 'coalition' acknowledging these issues, and only because their hand has been forced by the Russians.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Should the UK launch air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria?
    YES 28%
    NO 72%

    Mirror Poll so representative of Lab voters?

    No as Yougov and Survation this week had Labour voters backing airstrikes it us not a scientific poll
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    0_o
    Reselection isn’t even intrinsically leftwing. Many countries have a right of recall for elected politicians, and all three main parties are theoretically committed to the idea. There are plenty politicians on the British right – not least Tory London mayor hopeful Zac Goldsmith – that argue persuasively for the proposition.

    Ultimately, the decision will be one for local Labour Party activists, and affiliated union branches. Will they continue to have faith MPs who have wickedly engaged in sabotage of a leader currently backed by two-thirds of the membership?
  • Mr Herdson -
    I am sure that if the tax credits had gone through with the usual short term squeals then Osborne would have pocketed the 23 billion and been happy to produce it later down the line.
    As it is he has to take a hit now and let the universal credit soak it up nearer the election.
    But in other respects the extra money for the NHS is a front loading of the 8 billion already promised. Its this 8 billion which is spending the 'windfall'.
    Given the terrorist outrages and the needs for security then the additional spending on special forces seems absolutely essential and not something to complain about. 'Events' are what happen.
    So in short I think your headline is a bit unfair. Certainly if you look at the local authority cuts you will not find many people saying that Osborne is conceding very much.


    I feel confident in predicting that Universal Credit will not soak up anything nearer the election. It has been repeatedly miles behind schedule and I can't see how its IT and other systems will be remotely ready in 3 or so years time to cope with all people on tax credits. According to wikipedia as of this September only 175,000 people are on it.
    The direct numbers on it aren't representative of who is on it in the future. It isn't unusual during a beta test to not have that many on the system and once the kinks are hopefully resolved and the system goes live the numbers can shoot up dramatically (as can problems of course).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Assad doesn't have enough men to do so. He doesn't particularly have enough men even with Hezbollah and Iranian help.

    IS formed in Iraq, where even the US army's efforts and money could only subdue, not destroy them. As in Afghanistan, if you move into a village to root out insurgents, they'll move onto the next village and come back once you leave.
    Assad can help in Shia areas and Damascus and the Kurds in Kurdish areas but only the FSA and moderate rebels can retake Sunni areas from ISIS
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    stodge said:

    I'll rely on WSC who once said "if Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons". To defeat IS, we have to "make favourable references to" the likes of Russia, Iran and even Assad.

    I understand the point you are making but I think we should be clear where this analogy breaks down. We needed Stalin's help because we were not strong enough to defeat Hitler on our own. The West doesn't *need* help to destroy IS. Western forces could do it unaided in short order. The point is that we don't choose to do that. If we ally with Assad or Iran it's not because we couldn't defeat the enemy without them, it's because allying with them is our preferred way of doing so.
  • "I am, of course, going to be misrepresented on this, whatever I write. So let me stress from the get-go that this is not a call for comrades to ‘go out there and decapitate the bastards now‘."

    He may be quibbling over the time frame, but that sounds exactly what he’s proposing to do.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Mirror Poll so representative of Lab voters?''

    This is why I don't understand why labour MPs are so militant on this issue.

    Bombing Syria is, to my mind, about standing in solidarity with our allies, and presenting a united front to the enemy.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526

    SeanT said:



    Peter Hitchens is mad, Peter Oborne is mad, Simon Jenkins has dementia and was responsible for the contents of the Millennium Dome.

    Pathetic post. You were always wrong about this issue, and you're still wrong. I told you months and months ago that ISIS were not self-sustaining, that we needed to block off the borders, that we needed to block off their funding from the gulf states, that we needed to stop them selling oil in Turkey - you ignored it in favour of ranting. Only just now are the 'coalition' acknowledging these issues, and only because their hand has been forced by the Russians.
    ISIS sustained itself in Iraq before the Syrian civil war, and even if we were to kick them out of Syria their sick ideology would continue to have a base, whether that is in Iraq, Yemen or elsewhere. Losing Syria would hurt them, but not fatally.

    And ISIS are also selling oil to the Assad regime:
    http://www.techinsider.io/isis-selling-oil-to-biggest-enemy-2015-11
    http://www.businessinsider.com/revealed-the-oil-middleman-between-the-syrian-regime-and-isis-2015-3?IR=T
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited November 2015
    Quite. "Will they continue to have faith MPs who have wickedly engaged in sabotage of a leader"

    "I am, of course, going to be misrepresented on this, whatever I write. So let me stress from the get-go that this is not a call for comrades to ‘go out there and decapitate the bastards now‘."

    He may be quibbling over the time frame, but that sounds exactly what he’s proposing to do.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Why do we need to directly or openly assist Assad if Russia already are? We can directly and openly attack ISIS which indirectly assists Assad while turning a blind eye to Russia assisting him directly. Assuming there is no alternative to him winning I don't see how we lose by doing that.
    Problem is we are only playing at it and we are supporting some of the nutters on the ground, our policies are incoherent.
    Assad is a nutter on the ground as well.
    Best of a bad lot
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Very sensible leader in the DT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/12021592/Not-even-defeat-will-defeat-Jeremy-Corbyn.-Zealots-do-not-surrender.html
    How does one dislodge a leader who not only does not want to resign but cannot grasp why he needs to? The Oldham poll is being regarded by many as a “make or break” moment for Mr Corbyn. Even if Labour holds the seat with a wafer-thin majority, moderates can at least argue that Mr Corbyn has failed to energise the base in the way he always said he could.

    But while other leaders might have listened patiently to such counsel, Mr Corbyn’s consistent snubbing of his parliamentary colleagues implies that he does not care what they think. His supporters will probably blame a bad result on an unholy alliance of the press and Blairite dissenters. Even while he loses, Mr Corbyn cannot lose.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Why do we need to directly or openly assist Assad if Russia already are? We can directly and openly attack ISIS which indirectly assists Assad while turning a blind eye to Russia assisting him directly. Assuming there is no alternative to him winning I don't see how we lose by doing that.
    Problem is we are only playing at it and we are supporting some of the nutters on the ground, our policies are incoherent.
    Assad is a nutter on the ground as well.
    At least he's not an Islamist
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Why do we need to directly or openly assist Assad if Russia already are? We can directly and openly attack ISIS which indirectly assists Assad while turning a blind eye to Russia assisting him directly. Assuming there is no alternative to him winning I don't see how we lose by doing that.
    Problem is we are only playing at it and we are supporting some of the nutters on the ground, our policies are incoherent.
    Assad is a nutter on the ground as well.
    Best of a bad lot
    No, he is not. Not only did his 'leadership' lead to the civil war, but he used chemical weapons on his own populations, and according to some figures is killing far more civilians than ISIS.

    If we decide to support him because of the concept of "the enemy of our enemy is our friend," we must at least be aware how often that concept leads to unforeseen long-term evil results.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    What impact might deselection have on Labour's 2020 seat total, if the deselected MPs stand against the new Labour candidates, either as independents or under the banner of a new party (in itself a huge difference, of course)?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Why do we need to directly or openly assist Assad if Russia already are? We can directly and openly attack ISIS which indirectly assists Assad while turning a blind eye to Russia assisting him directly. Assuming there is no alternative to him winning I don't see how we lose by doing that.
    Problem is we are only playing at it and we are supporting some of the nutters on the ground, our policies are incoherent.
    Assad is a nutter on the ground as well.
    At least he's not an Islamist
    We are all Islamists now, Comrade! ;)
  • taffys said:

    ''Mirror Poll so representative of Lab voters?''

    This is why I don't understand why labour MPs are so militant on this issue.

    Bombing Syria is, to my mind, about standing in solidarity with our allies, and presenting a united front to the enemy.

    This is true. Trouble is Corbyn's allies are our enemies. The pathetic attempts to square a circle by the likes of malcolmg are disgusting. ISIS are a gang of lunatics quite prepared to use grotesque terror (taking great pleasure in it) to prop up their rule and extend it. They will always use the threat of terror on our streets to keep us out and keep them secure. Quite why bombing them is Syrian territory just like we are currently doing in Iraqi territory should be any different I do not know.
    Is this not the point? Corbyn would abandon any attempt control ISIS and do absolutely nothing to let their rule and terror continue and expand. And for ISIS read any terror group and country willing to use threats.
    Except Israel.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Losing Syria would hurt them, but not fatally.''

    ISIS is selling an islamist paradise. A place where adherents are free to exploit, enslave and butcher non-believers. Potentially, millions of them.

    Without this alternative 'lifestyle' being practised somewhere, the appeal will be very much less powerful, to my mind.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Japan to continue whaling in defiance of ICJ ruling. Wankers.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34952538
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    SeanT said:



    Peter Hitchens is mad, Peter Oborne is mad, Simon Jenkins has dementia and was responsible for the contents of the Millennium Dome.

    Pathetic post. You were always wrong about this issue, and you're still wrong. I told you months and months ago that ISIS were not self-sustaining, that we needed to block off the borders, that we needed to block off their funding from the gulf states, that we needed to stop them selling oil in Turkey - you ignored it in favour of ranting. Only just now are the 'coalition' acknowledging these issues, and only because their hand has been forced by the Russians.
    ISIS sustained itself in Iraq before the Syrian civil war, and even if we were to kick them out of Syria their sick ideology would continue to have a base, whether that is in Iraq, Yemen or elsewhere. Losing Syria would hurt them, but not fatally.

    And ISIS are also selling oil to the Assad regime:
    http://www.techinsider.io/isis-selling-oil-to-biggest-enemy-2015-11
    http://www.businessinsider.com/revealed-the-oil-middleman-between-the-syrian-regime-and-isis-2015-3?IR=T
    We are already bombing in support if the Iraqi army and could bomb in support of the Yemeni government too
  • O/T I visited Liverpool for the first time yesterday. Railway-wise, did Acton Bridge on the West Coast Main Line to Liverpool Lime Street, plus the "tube" from James Street to Lime Street. Had time to visit Albert Dock on the Mairsey as well :)
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    I don't see de-selection for Labour MPs being a major problem for them.

    They will continue to be MPs until 2020. By which point they will then have rejoined the de-corbynised Labour party, or in the unlikely event Corbyn continues, the MP will stand a good chance of winning in whatever New New Labour party they decide to create.

  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited November 2015

    I don't see de-selection for Labour MPs being a major problem for them.

    They will continue to be MPs until 2020. By which point they will then have rejoined the de-corbynised Labour party, or in the unlikely event Corbyn continues, the MP will stand a good chance of winning in whatever New New Labour party they decide to create.

    Indeed, you would think that deselection is a relatively less powerful weapon now and will be relatively more powerful in, say, 2018.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    A lesson we should always bear in mind...To the appeased, appeasement is a victory...
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Is this not the point? Corbyn would abandon any attempt control ISIS and do absolutely nothing to let their rule and terror continue and expand. And for ISIS read any terror group and country willing to use threats. ''

    Corbyn utterly despises England, why would he fight to preserve it?
  • Talk is easy.

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2009/03/osborne-clamps-down-on-public-sector-fat-cats/

    What became of that promise ?

    ' A number of health service bosses are reported to have made more than £ 1million last year, in revelations that have been compared to the MPs expenses scandal.

    Meanwhile, the number of managers who earn more than the Prime Minister's £142,500 salary went up by 30 per cent last year to almost 600, according to the Daily Mail. '

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571588/Hospital-bosses-given-35million-pay-rises

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3309596/The-shocking-scale-fat-cat-pay-public-sector-exposed-today-major-Daily-Mail-investigation.html

    etc, etc, etc

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    So Cameron says he has 'full confidence' in Schapps.

    Is that a "full backing of the board vote of confidence" or does he actually stand by his man?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526
    edited November 2015
    taffys said:

    ''Losing Syria would hurt them, but not fatally.''

    ISIS is selling an islamist paradise. A place where adherents are free to exploit, enslave and butcher non-believers. Potentially, millions of them.

    Without this alternative 'lifestyle' being practised somewhere, the appeal will be very much less powerful, to my mind.

    I agree with that, but it will not destroy them, or prevent them from being a threat to us. ISIS are not stupid. Barbarous yes, but not stupid. They will be trying to work out how to 'beat' us as we're trying to work out how to beat them.

    Punch and counter-punch.

    I think can only fully win if we directly confront the ideology, and that requires other Sunni and Shia nations and religious figures around the world to do so as well. That also needs to include al Nusra and al Qaeda in general.

    Now, can anyone tell me how to do that ... ?
  • Alistair said:

    So Cameron says he has 'full confidence' in Schapps.

    Is that a "full backing of the board vote of confidence" or does he actually stand by his man?

    He had full confidence in Kids Company.

    And Maria Miller.

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    taffys said:

    ''Losing Syria would hurt them, but not fatally.''

    ISIS is selling an islamist paradise. A place where adherents are free to exploit, enslave and butcher non-believers. Potentially, millions of them.

    Without this alternative 'lifestyle' being practised somewhere, the appeal will be very much less powerful, to my mind.

    I agree with that, but it will not destroy them, or prevent them from being a threat to us. ISIS are not stupid. Barbarous yes, but not stupid. They will be trying to work out how to 'beat' us as we're trying to work out how to beat them.

    Punch and counter-punch.

    I think can only fully win if we directly confront the ideology, and that requires other Sunni and Shia nations and religious figures around the world to do so as well. That also needs to include al Nusra and al Qaeda in general.

    Now, can anyone tell me how to do that ... ?

    True. When a Jew or Christian is treated as a normal citizen in Saudi Arabia or Iran, then there won't be any more intolerance to export. ISIS and their ilk will no longer exist.

    Until then, we will keep having problems.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited November 2015

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Grauniad:

    About 330 Isis members killed in RAF airstrikes in past year – MoD

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon

    It is not a body-count that matters: It is our capabilty to thwart their actions. Until then we are taming the beast....
    We are are playing at war games , taming no-one, and making more enemies as we go poking our beaks into other countries matters.
    I'll take the first two, but we're not making any more enemies if we were to act in Syria. We're already participating in bombing IS, and in any case given they call the West crusaders, it's pretty clear they'd find some reason to attack us if we left them alone. There are reasons for inaction, or doubting the effectiveness of action proposed, but 'making more enemies' is not one of them in my view - the tendency remains no matter what, it just gets beat down for a time, whether by us or someone else.
    We will be on the losing side till we see sense and join the Russians and help Assad and his real troops, rather than Cameron's fantasy army, to defeat ISIS big time.
    Russians will be helping the Kurds now as well after Turkeys massive blunder so double bonus.
    Why do we need to directly or openly assist Assad if Russia already are? We can directly and openly attack ISIS which indirectly assists Assad while turning a blind eye to Russia assisting him directly. Assuming there is no alternative to him winning I don't see how we lose by doing that.
    Problem is we are only playing at it and we are supporting some of the nutters on the ground, our policies are incoherent.
    Assad is a nutter on the ground as well.
    Best of a bad lot
    No, he is not. Not only did his 'leadership' lead to the civil war, but he used chemical weapons on his own populations, and according to some figures is killing far more civilians than ISIS.

    If we decide to support him because of the concept of "the enemy of our enemy is our friend," we must at least be aware how often that concept leads to unforeseen long-term evil results.
    From the archives:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/anti-soviet-warrior-puts-his-army-on-the-road-to-peace-the-saudi-businessman-who-recruited-mujahedin-1465715.html

    EDIT: This is from 1993
  • Very sensible leader in the DT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/12021592/Not-even-defeat-will-defeat-Jeremy-Corbyn.-Zealots-do-not-surrender.html

    How does one dislodge a leader who not only does not want to resign but cannot grasp why he needs to? The Oldham poll is being regarded by many as a “make or break” moment for Mr Corbyn. Even if Labour holds the seat with a wafer-thin majority, moderates can at least argue that Mr Corbyn has failed to energise the base in the way he always said he could.

    But while other leaders might have listened patiently to such counsel, Mr Corbyn’s consistent snubbing of his parliamentary colleagues implies that he does not care what they think. His supporters will probably blame a bad result on an unholy alliance of the press and Blairite dissenters. Even while he loses, Mr Corbyn cannot lose.
    He cannot lose because he is not interested in winning. The very best you could say about him is he is only interested in campaigning. But really all they (he and his group) want to do is infiltrate and take over the Labour Party. If the bulk of the parliamentary party are the victims and do not want to support him then he and his band of zealots do not care.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,526
    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:



    Peter Hitchens is mad, Peter Oborne is mad, Simon Jenkins has dementia and was responsible for the contents of the Millennium Dome.

    Pathetic post. You were always wrong about this issue, and you're still wrong. I told you months and months ago that ISIS were not self-sustaining, that we needed to block off the borders, that we needed to block off their funding from the gulf states, that we needed to stop them selling oil in Turkey - you ignored it in favour of ranting. Only just now are the 'coalition' acknowledging these issues, and only because their hand has been forced by the Russians.
    ISIS sustained itself in Iraq before the Syrian civil war, and even if we were to kick them out of Syria their sick ideology would continue to have a base, whether that is in Iraq, Yemen or elsewhere. Losing Syria would hurt them, but not fatally.

    And ISIS are also selling oil to the Assad regime:
    http://www.techinsider.io/isis-selling-oil-to-biggest-enemy-2015-11
    http://www.businessinsider.com/revealed-the-oil-middleman-between-the-syrian-regime-and-isis-2015-3?IR=T
    We are already bombing in support if the Iraqi army and could bomb in support of the Yemeni government too
    Indeed, and perhaps we should (although I caveat that with not having read too much on the situation in Yemen, and from the little I know it is even more complex and intractable than Syria).

    A problem is that too many Muslim nations are inherently unstable, with sizeable minorities of religions or sects who distrust each other. There will be plenty of opportunities for ISIS to spread by capitalising on Sunni discontent within those countries.

    Again, much of this is down to the Sunni-Shia split.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    edited November 2015
    Wanderer said:

    stodge said:

    I'll rely on WSC who once said "if Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons". To defeat IS, we have to "make favourable references to" the likes of Russia, Iran and even Assad.

    I understand the point you are making but I think we should be clear where this analogy breaks down. We needed Stalin's help because we were not strong enough to defeat Hitler on our own. The West doesn't *need* help to destroy IS. Western forces could do it unaided in short order. The point is that we don't choose to do that. If we ally with Assad or Iran it's not because we couldn't defeat the enemy without them, it's because allying with them is our preferred way of doing so.
    WSC was making a short-term point ansd the analogy does indeed break down. The big issue, surely, with ISIS is surely that they regard the West (and Russia) as “crusaders” out to destroy them for religious reasons. Same applies to Shia (heathen) Iran. We MUST be allied with, and have clearly on board other Sunni countries, otherwise they can and will continue to portray themselves as maintining the purity of the faith and thereby "doing Allah’s work”.
    What is really sad is that their ideological position is that death isn’t a problem.
    I suspect that those who fought in the Pacific theratre in WWII would have something to say about how you deal with people who would rather die than surrender. As I understand it many Japanese PoW’s didn’t wish to go home, until, IIRC, the Emperor said it was OK to do so. By being PoW’s thjey’d been “dishonoured”.
  • MP_SE said:


    Behaviour such as this is particularly weird:

    “Mark would make inappropriate comments publicly.” Such as? “I was with an ex, we’d got together on RoadTrip, and he would always be commenting on our sex lives … Also there was big age gap between him and us.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/27/elliott-johnson-young-tory-destroyed-by-party-he-loved-mark-clarke

    Creepy pic in the circumstances.

    'I understand the young folks, I'm one of them really.'

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/670576857268506624
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Rob has a good pop http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/11/26/labour-has-reached-peak-groupthink/#more-20408
    But where exactly is the activist base of the Labour Party at right now? YouGov on Tuesday released an amazing statistic: that despite the ongoing political gaffe-fest and disastrous poll rankings, a full 65% of Labour activists maintain that Corbyn is doing “well”.

    We have written about groupthink at Uncut before. But even by the tendency towards groupthink of any political party – Labour above all – the ability of that 66% to seemingly block out all external and independently-verifiable sources of information takes some beating.

    That is to say, let’s park for a moment the shambles on Syria, the antics of McDonnell and the fiasco of a response to the defence of the country, the first responsibility of any government. Now, on exactly what planet could the leadership be described as doing “well”?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited November 2015
    Meanwhile, the number of managers who earn more than the Prime Minister's £142,500 salary went up by 30 per cent last year to almost 600, according to the Daily Mail. '

    When you look at what they do and not what they say, osborne and cameron are social democrats. Blue Blairites.

    Will they survive a stalled budget deficit and a poor renegotiation from the EU?

    I am starting to have my doubts.
  • taffys said:

    ''Losing Syria would hurt them, but not fatally.''

    ISIS is selling an islamist paradise. A place where adherents are free to exploit, enslave and butcher non-believers. Potentially, millions of them.

    Without this alternative 'lifestyle' being practised somewhere, the appeal will be very much less powerful, to my mind.

    I agree with that, but it will not destroy them, or prevent them from being a threat to us. ISIS are not stupid. Barbarous yes, but not stupid. They will be trying to work out how to 'beat' us as we're trying to work out how to beat them.

    Punch and counter-punch.

    I think can only fully win if we directly confront the ideology, and that requires other Sunni and Shia nations and religious figures around the world to do so as well. That also needs to include al Nusra and al Qaeda in general.

    Now, can anyone tell me how to do that ... ?
    Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Vile ideologies exist the world over. There are still Communists, Fascists, racists etc and there will still be Islamists. The difference is that there is no USSR, no Nazi Germany, no CSA and in the future there will be no ISIS either.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited November 2015

    O/T I visited Liverpool for the first time yesterday. Railway-wise, did Acton Bridge on the West Coast Main Line to Liverpool Lime Street, plus the "tube" from James Street to Lime Street. Had time to visit Albert Dock on the Mairsey as well :)

    Glad you made it to the home of railways!

    1829: the world's first railway tunnel running under streets (Crown Street tunnel)
    1830: the world's first railway tunnel bored under a city (Wapping tunnel). If reused it will be the oldest used underground rail tunnel in the world and oldest part of any underground metro system, predating the London Underground by 33 years.
    1830: world's first intercity railway (with Manchester)
    1830: world's oldest railway station still in use (Broad Green)
    1830: world's first notable railway fatality
    1830: world's first major railway cutting, still one of the deepest in the world (You passed through this)
    1836: the world's second railway tunnel bored under a city (Lime Street tunnel), and the oldest in the world still in use.
    1848: Southport-Liverpool Railway, now integrated into MerseyRail, making it the oldest section of any urban railway in use in the world.
    1849: largest train-shed in the world at the time (Lime Street station), and the first made from segmented iron arches.
    1886: World's then longest underwater tunnel and First tunnel under a tidal estuary in the world
    1886: Mersey railway. First deep level underground stations in the world, and the first accessed by lifts (including James Street which you visited). This was the world's second purpose designed underground system after London, and, since it didn't employ the "cut-and-cover" method, but was bored out of solid rock, could be viewed as the first true underground.
    1893: First electric overhead railway in the world, first electric multiple units in the world, first automatic signalling and first electric colour light signalling.
    1896: First EMUs in the world to run in an underground station
    1901: First escalator in a (UK or world?) station
    1903: First railway in the world to convert from steam to electric (Mersey railway)
This discussion has been closed.