Mr. Divvie, you mean... you don't think Andy Burnham will be Prime Minister one day?!
[One wishes to remind the site that the view of the Morris Dancer Party has been, since 2007, that Burnham was a lightweight. We are delighted that Burnham has confirmed this assessment at every opportunity].
Apparently not, but I could be wrong. Twitter implies it is real.
The page I linked to is on a local Rotherham politics website that has apparently been going since 2008. If it's a spoof, it's a very well-executed one.
Apparently not, but I could be wrong. Twitter implies it is real.
The page I linked to is on a local Rotherham politics website that has apparently been going since 2008. If it's a spoof, it's a very well-executed one.
The website is legit. They are a good source of information for politics in Rotherham.
Off topic, while researching something else I found that John Bickley, the UKIP candidate, does not have a wikipedia page. On closer investigation I found that he had previously had one but that wikipedia had decided to delete it because he was not notable enough.
That seems, to put it mildly given the articles devoted to highly marginal individuals that can be found on there, a surprising editorial decision.
Wikipedia is infested with leftwing editors who slant the site, sometimes quite horribly.
Curse you and your requirement for evidence-based argument. I'll have a look.
It may not be possible to prove this with any certainty, but you may wish to consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer . For many years it has been debated how much Speer knew about the Holocaust (my guess is he knew everything, twice) but he contended to his dying day that he knew nothing. The article presents his claim, and every contradictory statement is also rebutted by another cite. This to-ing and fro-ing, combined with accusations of WP:OWN on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Speer ) makes me think it's been captured.
If you want more than that (and you may: it's hardly conclusive) I will not be able to devote the time to it: unfortunately I am rather busy...:-(
F1:, so that's six consecutive poles and three consecutive wins for Rosberg to end the season. But he needs to perform like that when there's a title waiting for him, not when he's lost it.
GB wins the Davis Cup for the first time since 1936, well done the Murrays!
True Brits!
Yes, Andy draped in Union flag despite backing Yes last year
Just as he draped himself in the Union flag at the Olympics before the referendum. Murray is obviously well able to cope with multiple identities and nuances.
GB wins the Davis Cup for the first time since 1936, well done the Murrays!
That's because I stopped listening to it. Every time I put the coverage on, we lost a point. So I switched to Radio 4, thus enabling a Great British victory.
Yes, Andy draped in Union flag despite backing Yes last year
The two aren't necessarily contradictory (strange as it might sound given some of the more strident cybernats here). A lot of us have similar feelings.
Indeed although I can't see Salmond and Sturgeon and Robertson ever wearing a Union Jack
GB wins the Davis Cup for the first time since 1936, well done the Murrays!
True Brits!
Yes, Andy draped in Union flag despite backing Yes last year
Just as he draped himself in the Union flag at the Olympics before the referendum. Murray is obviously well able to cope with multiple identities and nuances.
Curious that the camera just happened to be there. Shades of the Cliff Richard scam - Do the police never learn?
What are the chances that the editor of a news website just happened to be going for a nice Sunday afternoon stroll past CCHQ at that exact moment. About as likely as all those photos the Daily Mail fills its website with of celebs being caught on camera relaxing in sunny climes and showing off the latest swimwear from a fashion brand they just happen to promote.
@PolhomeEditor: Labour source: "JC says it's the leader that decides whipping arrangements. That's not true, it's the Shadow Cabinet (which backs bombing)."
Not something I would have known, but if anyone was aware of the exact formalities of whipping, and the defying thereof, you'd think it would be Corbyn.
Off topic, while researching something else I found that John Bickley, the UKIP candidate, does not have a wikipedia page. On closer investigation I found that he had previously had one but that wikipedia had decided to delete it because he was not notable enough.
That seems, to put it mildly given the articles devoted to highly marginal individuals that can be found on there, a surprising editorial decision.
Wikipedia is infested with leftwing editors who slant the site, sometimes quite horribly.
Curse you and your requirement for evidence-based argument. I'll have a look.
It may not be possible to prove this with any certainty, but you may wish to consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer . For many years it has been debated how much Speer knew about the Holocaust (my guess is he knew everything, twice) but he contended to his dying day that he knew nothing. The article presents his claim, and every contradictory statement is also rebutted by another cite. This to-ing and fro-ing, combined with accusations of WP:OWN on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Speer ) makes me think it's been captured.
If you want more than that (and you may: it's hardly conclusive) I will not be able to devote the time to it: unfortunately I am rather busy...:-(
So I was right, you were talking bollocks. But well done for trying.
It would be more accurate to say that it can't be realistically proven that I am not talking bollocks. But well done for playing...;)
F1:, so that's six consecutive poles and three consecutive wins for Rosberg to end the season. But he needs to perform like that when there's a title waiting for him, not when he's lost it.
Ferrari could make things tricky next year.
Interesting to know if Mercedes would so blatantly wreck the 2nd drivers strategy to avoid on track action between their 2 cars if there was still something riding on it.
GB wins the Davis Cup for the first time since 1936, well done the Murrays!
True Brits!
Yes, Andy draped in Union flag despite backing Yes last year
Just as he draped himself in the Union flag at the Olympics before the referendum. Murray is obviously well able to cope with multiple identities and nuances.
Anyone who thinks that ousting Corbyn is the end of this matter may forget it. In many ways it could be the first shot in another conflict entirely.
Having said that, if you wish to execute, do it early.
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly:....."
The man they really need to kill off is the Shadow Chancellor. Corbyn may be a weed but on many levels McDonnell is a proper problem case. I suspect enough will get through the media in time but they are on to him already.
Anyone who thinks that ousting Corbyn is the end of this matter may forget it. In many ways it could be the first shot in another conflict entirely.
Having said that, if you wish to execute, do it early.
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly:....."
The man they really need to kill off is the Shadow Chancellor. Corbyn may be a weed but on many levels McDonnell is a proper problem case. I suspect enough will get through the media in time but they are on to him already.
Corbyn at least, though I disagree with him, I can see has qualities about him people could like and support. McDonnell lacks that in my view. Maybe that's unfair on the man, though it doesn't seem so on present evidence, but some people just give off a worse sense than others - for all I know Osborne is a much better politician and person than Cameron, but Cameron is and has always been the better regarded.
Been catching up on the thread as in and out most of the day.
I referred earlier to the need for air to air refuelling in order to bomb Iraq from Cyprus as a limiting factor, which you disputed. The Government website refers to this as being the usual procedure in its 29 Jan entry:
This may be because for obvious operational reasons the RAF cannot take the shortest route. As such it is quite reasonable to describe the trip as a couple of hours.
Of course this all adds to cost in terms of fuel and airframe hours, as well as time to target, and risk of losing targets in the meantime.
Anyone who thinks that ousting Corbyn is the end of this matter may forget it. In many ways it could be the first shot in another conflict entirely.
Having said that, if you wish to execute, do it early.
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly:....."
The man they really need to kill off is the Shadow Chancellor. Corbyn may be a weed but on many levels McDonnell is a proper problem case. I suspect enough will get through the media in time but they are on to him already.
Corbyn at least, though I disagree with him, I can see has qualities about him people could like and support. McDonnell lacks that in my view. Maybe that's unfair on the man, though it doesn't seem so on present evidence, but some people just give off a worse sense than others - for all I know Osborne is a much better politician and person than Cameron, but Cameron is and has always been the better regarded.
Worrying news for David Cameron. There are growing calls for his best friend, Lord Feldman, to step down:
The pressure grew as this newspaper established that:
Feldman’s officials launched an inquiry to find out whether Baroness Pidding – who is accused of leaking to Clarke the names of his accusers – had an improper relationship with the shamed aide.
Feldman banned married Clarke and his mistress, Tory aide India Brummitt, from an Election night VIP bash because he was ‘horrified’ by their conduct – but weeks later still gave Clarke a new top Tory job.
Mr Johnson sobbed after being assaulted by Clarke in a pub, and blamed Feldman for failing to curb the activist.
The Daily Mail rag is basically anti- Cameron, fed by the prejudice of editor Dacre. Always take its reports with a pinch of salt. It feeds the frothing instincts of the English public but exhibits great hypocrisy.
New YouGov/Election Data poll finds just 23% approving of Corbyn ad LAB leader. 52% say disapprove. Cameron 37% approve 42% disapprove
Fewer than ½ GE2015 LAB voters tell YouGov/Election Data poll that they approve of Corbyn as leader. Split 46% approve to 28% disapprove
The YouGov Election Data poll had sample of 6,304 and finds that approval of Corbyn increases with level of education attainment
"approval of Corbyn increases with level of education attainment"
Oh dear.
As somebody who spends far too long around academics that doesn't surprise me. Not only a good majority left leaning, most don't "live in the real world" and presume that the theoretical solutions will work in such e.g. in theory you can see some of merits to communism, but we know that where ever it has been tried it fails horribly, because people don't work that way.
Anyone who thinks that ousting Corbyn is the end of this matter may forget it. In many ways it could be the first shot in another conflict entirely.
Having said that, if you wish to execute, do it early.
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly:....."
The man they really need to kill off is the Shadow Chancellor. Corbyn may be a weed but on many levels McDonnell is a proper problem case. I suspect enough will get through the media in time but they are on to him already.
Corbyn at least, though I disagree with him, I can see has qualities about him people could like and support. McDonnell lacks that in my view. Maybe that's unfair on the man, though it doesn't seem so on present evidence, but some people just give off a worse sense than others - for all I know Osborne is a much better politician and person than Cameron, but Cameron is and has always been the better regarded.
Corbyn is silly, deluded, rather arrogant, and maybe vain, but probably "means well", in his own way.
McDonnell strikes me as actively sinister and seriously nasty, like Livingstone. And dangerous because he's clever (though maybe not as clever as he thinks - cf the Maogaffe)
One university lecturer (I was no longer taking a module he taught) around the Danish cartoons reportedly went on a rant about the evils of the cartoonist(s). Alas, universities are not necessarily bastions of free speech and common sense.
New YouGov/Election Data poll finds just 23% approving of Corbyn ad LAB leader. 52% say disapprove. Cameron 37% approve 42% disapprove
Fewer than ½ GE2015 LAB voters tell YouGov/Election Data poll that they approve of Corbyn as leader. Split 46% approve to 28% disapprove
The YouGov Election Data poll had sample of 6,304 and finds that approval of Corbyn increases with level of education attainment
"approval of Corbyn increases with level of education attainment"
Oh dear.
As somebody who spends far too long around academics that doesn't surprise me. Not only a good majority left leaning, most don't "live in the real world" and presume that the theoretical solutions will work in such e.g. in theory you can see some of merits to communism, but we know that where ever it has been tried it fails horribly, because people don't work that way.
"That Works Very Well in Practice, But How Does It Work In Theory?"
Been catching up on the thread as in and out most of the day.
I referred earlier to the need for air to air refuelling in order to bomb Iraq from Cyprus as a limiting factor, which you disputed. The Government website refers to this as being the usual procedure in its 29 Jan entry:
This may be because for obvious operational reasons the RAF cannot take the shortest route. As such it is quite reasonable to describe the trip as a couple of hours.
Of course this all adds to cost in terms of fuel and airframe hours, as well as time to target, and risk of losing targets in the meantime.
Standard route is Cyprus> Israel>Jordan>Iraq with a single Voyager. That Voyager also goes Cyprus>Suez>Jordan>Iraq
Anyone who thinks that ousting Corbyn is the end of this matter may forget it. In many ways it could be the first shot in another conflict entirely.
Having said that, if you wish to execute, do it early.
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly:....."
The man they really need to kill off is the Shadow Chancellor. Corbyn may be a weed but on many levels McDonnell is a proper problem case. I suspect enough will get through the media in time but they are on to him already.
Corbyn at least, though I disagree with him, I can see has qualities about him people could like and support. McDonnell lacks that in my view. Maybe that's unfair on the man, though it doesn't seem so on present evidence, but some people just give off a worse sense than others - for all I know Osborne is a much better politician and person than Cameron, but Cameron is and has always been the better regarded.
Corbyn is silly, deluded, rather arrogant, and maybe vain, but probably "means well", in his own way.
McDonnell strikes me as actively sinister and seriously nasty, like Livingstone. And dangerous because he's clever (though maybe not as clever as he thinks - cf the Maogaffe)
Livingstone and McDonnell also both talk as if their false teeth are on the blink
Not sure what that adds to the discussion, but thought I'd share it
GB wins the Davis Cup for the first time since 1936, well done the Murrays!
True Brits!
Yes, Andy draped in Union flag despite backing Yes last year
Just as he draped himself in the Union flag at the Olympics before the referendum. Murray is obviously well able to cope with multiple identities and nuances.
Yes, imagine that.
Luckily, as with many sentient humans, I can manage that trick without having to imagine it. You should probably direct your rallying cry for the imagination towards the yaks who issued death threats to Murray after his Indy tweets.
Mr. Jonathan, Miliband also improved from the infamous "these strikes are wrong" interview. It didn't alter that he was fundamentally seen as weird.
Yes, it's probably too late, already, for Corbyn to change public perceptions. Famously, you get 100 days, at most, to make an impression.
Today is day 78 of the Corbyn era. He needs a remarkable turnaround, and soon.
Everything going swimmingly according to the corbynistas. It's just us poor real voters who don't understand the 'new politics'. He acts with such dignity blah de blah de blah...
Just catching up. Corbyn did surpringly well on Marr. Wondering if he's had training to go with new suit and hair.
It's odd to agree with him that case for bombing has not been made having disagreed with most of what he has done recently.
He would never argue that the case has been made. The reality is however that the case has been made. Its been made at several levels. We are already bombing ISIS targets so any argument that attacking ISIS in Syria would put us in jeopardy is spurious. ISIS have already gratuitously attacked western civilians including specifically British subjects. We are already under attack. Corbyn's argument revolves around willing surrender.
'he was like a IRA groupie who hung round with the hardmen and hoped their cache would rub off on him'
Well observed - and this phenomenon is not limited to Corbyn; there was more than a hint of this kind of unhealthy obsession (a version of Stockholm Syndrome I think) with violent republicans in Blair's behaviour as well. They knew it as well, hence their contemptuous opinion of him.
... It's odd to agree with him that case for bombing has not been made having disagreed with most of what he has done recently.
Being able to agree with somethings a politician says without feeling the need to slavishly follow him or her when they are talking complete bollocks is quite a rare talent, even on here.
General Boles 'have you heard about Mark Rylance's new role?' 'no' 'he's Talking To ISIS' 'is that an original production?' 'yes and it'll be a short run'
To compare them to Mandela is quite obscene. Mandela, when he supported violence wanted a sabotage campaign - biggest result for fewest (or no casualties).
As opposed tom, say, the deliberate attempted genocide of the Yazidis by ISIS....
'he was like a IRA groupie who hung round with the hardmen and hoped their cache would rub off on him'
Well observed - and this phenomenon is not limited to Corbyn; there was more than a hint of this kind of unhealthy obsession (a version of Stockholm Syndrome I think) with violent republicans in Blair's behaviour as well. They knew it as well, hence their contemptuous opinion of him.
Very true - Orwell first noticed this in the Stalin worship by the pacifist left. Stalin and Co, of course, when they noticed it, regarded the worshipers as morons and idiots....
One university lecturer (I was no longer taking a module he taught) around the Danish cartoons reportedly went on a rant about the evils of the cartoonist(s). Alas, universities are not necessarily bastions of free speech and common sense.
Everyone here repeatedly says that Jeremy Corbyn is evil. Does that mean that they are against "free speech" too?
I enjoyed Wolf Hall (not bothered that the writer seems to be a bit of a Thatcher-hater) but may boycott it next time. What a prize-winning prick. They literally crucify children, commit industrial scale rape and burn people alive. For anyone to praise ISIS they must be cocooned from reality in a chrysalis of impenetrable stupidity.
Been catching up on the thread as in and out most of the day.
I referred earlier to the need for air to air refuelling in order to bomb Iraq from Cyprus as a limiting factor, which you disputed. The Government website refers to this as being the usual procedure in its 29 Jan entry:
This may be because for obvious operational reasons the RAF cannot take the shortest route. As such it is quite reasonable to describe the trip as a couple of hours.
Of course this all adds to cost in terms of fuel and airframe hours, as well as time to target, and risk of losing targets in the meantime.
Standard route is Cyprus> Israel>Jordan>Iraq with a single Voyager. That Voyager also goes Cyprus>Suez>Jordan>Iraq
Don't disagree with that at all just pointing out there are various alternative methods of achieving the same ends from different directions if necessary If a potential target presents itself. As I already said earlier I agree what ever way you went as the Doc originally said it would probably be too late anyway. War zones are funny things you commonly don't do what you think you see in print. Publishing tends to let the other side know far too much of what you are doing. Not healthy .
I am reluctant to go for air strikes for a number of reason but at day's end I cannot seem to see any other option if a negotiated settlement is not possible and the threat to us remains the same. I just cannot see ISIS sitting at a table discussing anything with us. They cannot even discuss things with their own neighbours without weapons so what chance us?
Any how's with only" two planes" what difference are we actually going to make?
One university lecturer (I was no longer taking a module he taught) around the Danish cartoons reportedly went on a rant about the evils of the cartoonist(s). Alas, universities are not necessarily bastions of free speech and common sense.
John Keegan - a great historian - commented that the title of "General" was unfortunate, since it made middle managers in office buildings think they were Alexander the Great.
I would like to extend that to people being given the title "Lecturer" think that they are Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. All at once.
On one occasion, as a student union official trying to help a student, I was told by an academic that an evidence based process before penalising the student was un-necessary. Because he (the academic) was a tenured academic and therefore had perfectly unbiased judgement.
One university lecturer (I was no longer taking a module he taught) around the Danish cartoons reportedly went on a rant about the evils of the cartoonist(s). Alas, universities are not necessarily bastions of free speech and common sense.
Everyone here repeatedly says that Jeremy Corbyn is evil. Does that mean that they are against "free speech" too?
I have not noticed 'everyone' here saying Corbyn is evil. It has happened, and I think it incorrect, but making the problem (in this case of people calling him evil) seem larger than in fact is, just enables criticism of those few to be dismissed much more easily than it should, because labelling one's opponents as evil is at best lazy and should be criticized in almost all cases .
Idiot. I don't understand this line of thinking at all. It is, of course, not true that we or our allies 'do not negotiate with terrorists' as our TV shows and movies would like us to think (it's much purer than the necessities of reality), but it is not a one way street. We talk and work with all sorts we would rather not, but on some level they have to be willing to come to the table as well. Sometimes, perhaps, you can ease off and get them to that position that way, others you have to beat them down until they see talking as an option they have to take, but ISIS sure as sh*t aren't open to the former and are not yet in the position of the latter. So pretending it is an option is self deluding even in the most positive interpretation of such a claim.
It is hard to envisage a scenario wherein ISIS could be negotiated with or worked with, but it is at least theoretically possible in the same way everything is theoretically possible, but any pretense it an option now is dangerous.
If true that Standing Ords say Shad Cab have pow over Parl votes, they can overrule leader 2morrow if he tries to avoid free vote on #Syria.
Time for a new shadow cabinet in a few days then.
"But one Labour MP told PoliticsHome: "In fairness, Jeremy is on a bit of a learning curve when it comes to how three line whips work, having voted against the Labour whip over 500 times."
Been catching up on the thread as in and out most of the day.
I referred earlier to the need for air to air refuelling in order to bomb Iraq from Cyprus as a limiting factor, which you disputed. The Government website refers to this as being the usual procedure in its 29 Jan entry:
This may be because for obvious operational reasons the RAF cannot take the shortest route. As such it is quite reasonable to describe the trip as a couple of hours.
Of course this all adds to cost in terms of fuel and airframe hours, as well as time to target, and risk of losing targets in the meantime.
Standard route is Cyprus> Israel>Jordan>Iraq with a single Voyager. That Voyager also goes Cyprus>Suez>Jordan>Iraq
Don't disagree with that at all just pointing out there are various alternative methods of achieving the same ends from different directions if necessary If a potential target presents itself. As I already said earlier I agree what ever way you went as the Doc originally said it would probably be too late anyway. War zones are funny things you commonly don't do what you think you see in print. Publishing tends to let the other side know far too much of what you are doing. Not healthy .
I am reluctant to go for air strikes for a number of reason but at day's end I cannot seem to see any other option if a negotiated settlement is not possible and the threat to us remains the same. I just cannot see ISIS sitting at a table discussing anything with us. They cannot even discuss things with their own neighbours without weapons so what chance us?
Any how's with only" two planes" what difference are we actually going to make?
I'm not big on the UK being involved either, not on some kind of principle other than we are unlikely to commit truly effective resources to what is already a multinational campaign. I believe in prosecuting any kind of military conflict with full & useful means and conviction.
As it is, they should be working out of Jordan more than Akrotiri.
It is the considered opinion of the PB comment consensus that Jeremy Corbyn is deliberately damaging to society through his words.
Does that make the consensus "anti-free-speech", or just well-informed?
Not necessarily either of those options - believing he is damaging to society might be right, it might be wrong. But it is a more reasonable position to hold than anyone who does just rant about him being evil.
But you are correct hyperbole against Labour does get propagated here more than that against the Tories.
Mark Rylance... an actor..who stands where he is told to stand and says what he is told to say...well known for talking through their fundament..without a scriot....written by someone else..they have no words to say..
Mark Rylance... an actor..who stands where he is told to stand and says what he is told to say...well known for talking through their fundament..without a scriot....written by someone else..they have no words to say..
If true that Standing Ords say Shad Cab have pow over Parl votes, they can overrule leader 2morrow if he tries to avoid free vote on #Syria.
Time for a new shadow cabinet in a few days then.
"But one Labour MP told PoliticsHome: "In fairness, Jeremy is on a bit of a learning curve when it comes to how three line whips work, having voted against the Labour whip over 500 times."
Ouch
Don't remember him being in the shadow or actual cabinet when he voted against the whip, mind ;p
Mr. Malmesbury, presumably the Archangel Raphael had descended from Heaven to bestow the gift upon said lecturer [in his mind].
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, maybe we've been too hasty. Perhaps we should send Rylance over as negotiator.
I must admit to nearly removing the said lecturers leg, with my explanation of how True Justice worked. Apparently he was bigoted against Nikal Seynites (my professed religion - to him at least). My explanations as wisdom and ways of the Great Bearded One only made things worse, I fear.
Shock of my life - a non-voting relative of mine not only venturing an opinion on Corbyn ("anyone'd be better than Corbyn") but mentioning details of the letter ahead of the shadow cabinet meeting on Syria and the potential threat of deselecting those who defy him.
Now granted, this was prompted by my asking what he'd think of supporting Dan Jarvis based purely on his photo as above, a game I like to play with people (no one comes out well with that test generally), and I would not argue it is in any way reflective of general public opinion (not least because I would not hide my thinking Corbyn is a poor leader), but that such a level of detail seeped through to a 60 year old who has never voted is surprising to me all the same.
Been catching up on the thread as in and out most of the day.
I referred earlier to the need for air to air refuelling in order to bomb Iraq from Cyprus as a limiting factor, which you disputed. The Government website refers to this as being the usual procedure in its 29 Jan entry:
This may be because for obvious operational reasons the RAF cannot take the shortest route. As such it is quite reasonable to describe the trip as a couple of hours.
Of course this all adds to cost in terms of fuel and airframe hours, as well as time to target, and risk of losing targets in the meantime.
Standard route is Cyprus> Israel>Jordan>Iraq with a single Voyager. That Voyager also goes Cyprus>Suez>Jordan>Iraq
Don't disagree with that at all just pointing out there are various alternative methods of achieving the same ends from different directions if necessary If a potential target presents itself. As I already said earlier I agree what ever way you went as the Doc originally said it would probably be too late anyway. War zones are funny things you commonly don't do what you think you see in print. Publishing tends to let the other side know far too much of what you are doing. Not healthy .
I am reluctant to go for air strikes for a number of reason but at day's end I cannot seem to see any other option if a negotiated settlement is not possible and the threat to us remains the same. I just cannot see ISIS sitting at a table discussing anything with us. They cannot even discuss things with their own neighbours without weapons so what chance us?
Any how's with only" two planes" what difference are we actually going to make?
I'm not big on the UK being involved either, not on some kind of principle other than we are unlikely to commit truly effective resources to what is already a multinational campaign. I believe in prosecuting any kind of military conflict with full & useful means and conviction.
As it is, they should be working out of Jordan more than Akrotiri.
Yup. Strange as it sounds, I'd actually be more inclined to support intervention in Syria if we were going to do MORE (with ground troops and the rest).
For me, just bombing feels like we'll get all the downsides of a full intervention (making us an even bigger target, making the politics in that part of the world even messier) but without even the upside of having a realistic chance of doing something that would take out IS.
One university lecturer (I was no longer taking a module he taught) around the Danish cartoons reportedly went on a rant about the evils of the cartoonist(s). Alas, universities are not necessarily bastions of free speech and common sense.
Everyone here repeatedly says that Jeremy Corbyn is evil. Does that mean that they are against "free speech" too?
I have not noticed 'everyone' here saying Corbyn is evil. It has happened, and I think it incorrect, but making the problem (in this case of people calling him evil) seem larger than in fact is, just enables criticism of those few to be dismissed much more easily than it should, because labelling one's opponents as evil is at best lazy and should be criticized in almost all cases .
Idiot. I don't understand this line of thinking at all. It is, of course, not true that we or our allies 'do not negotiate with terrorists' as our TV shows and movies would like us to think (it's much purer than the
:
It is hard to envisage a scenario wherein ISIS could be negotiated with or worked with, but it is at least theoretically possible in the same way everything is theoretically possible, but any pretense it an option now is dangerous.
I'm not even sure it is theoretically possible to talk with ISIS, they want our destruction, and that is almost their sole aim (as they want to bring on an apocalypse, ending in the triumph of Islam, and we are very much part of this plan). Moreover we are tactically vital to them, day to day - they recruit willing jihadis by killing us (and others) in spectacularly nasty ways, on the internet.
How do you even begin to negotiate with that? It's like negotiating with the Alien in Alien.
It's more like negotiating with Shining Path in Peru. Their idea of the endpoint society they wanted to create was a mash up of Cambodia under Pol Pot with more added Moaism. For example, they believed that anyone who was democratically elected (yes *anyone*) needed to be murdered.
In ordered for negotiations to be viable, both sides need to have a vision of an endpoint society that overlaps to some degree.
One university lecturer (I was no longer taking a module he taught) around the Danish cartoons reportedly went on a rant about the evils of the cartoonist(s). Alas, universities are not necessarily bastions of free speech and common sense.
Everyone here repeatedly says that Jeremy Corbyn is evil. Does that mean that they are against "free speech" too?
I have not noticed 'everyone' here saying Corbyn is evil. It has happened, and I think it incorrect, but making the problem (in this case of people calling him evil) seem larger than in fact is, just enables criticism of those few to be dismissed much more easily than it should, because labelling one's opponents as evil is at best lazy and should be criticized in almost all cases .
I'm not even sure it is theoretically possible to talk with ISIS, they want our destruction, and that is almost their sole aim (as they want to bring on an apocalypse, ending in the triumph of Islam, and we are very much part of this plan). Moreover we are tactically vital to them, day to day - they recruit willing jihadis by killing us (and others) in spectacularly nasty ways, on the internet.
How do you even begin to negotiate with that? It's like negotiating with the Alien in Alien.
I suppose the theoretical possibility would be they are so beaten down they essentially morph into something else which permits them to make that leap, but I'd agree their stated goals (which they have shown are no mere words, given their actions) make it so faint even at that as to discount immediately by all right thinking people.
The only explanation I can have for someone stating something so ludicrous without a room temperature IQ, is to gain a warm feeling from presenting as the most peace loving person imaginable. But even that seems a stretch. It makes me want to go over all Livingstone on the man.
Been catching up on the thread as in and out most of the day.
I referred earlier to the need for air to air refuelling in order to bomb Iraq from Cyprus as a limiting factor, which you disputed. The Government website refers to this as being the usual procedure in its 29 Jan entry:
This may be because for obvious operational reasons the RAF cannot take the shortest route. As such it is quite reasonable to describe the trip as a couple of hours.
Of course this all adds to cost in terms of fuel and airframe hours, as well as time to target, and risk of losing targets in the meantime.
Standard route is Cyprus> Israel>Jordan>Iraq with a single Voyager. That Voyager also goes Cyprus>Suez>Jordan>Iraq
Don't disagree with that at all just pointi
I'm not big on the UK being involved either, not on some kind of principle other than we are unlikely to commit truly effective resources to what is already a multinational campaign. I believe in prosecuting any kind of military conflict with full & useful means and conviction.
As it is, they should be working out of Jordan more than Akrotiri.
Yup. Strange as it sounds, I'd actually be more inclined to support intervention in Syria if we were going to do MORE (with ground troops and the rest).
For me, just bombing feels like we'll get all the downsides of a full intervention (making us an even bigger target, making the politics in that part of the world even messier) but without even the upside of having a realistic chance of doing something that would take out IS.
Agreed. What a strange position we find ourselves in. But if we're to do something, it needs to be big, and we need to accept the sorts of costs that will likely occur with substantive action. I don't think the public are on the latter, so I don't think our government or others will do the former.
I'm not even sure it is theoretically possible to talk with ISIS, they want our destruction, and that is almost their sole aim (as they want to bring on an apocalypse, ending in the triumph of Islam, and we are very much part of this plan). Moreover we are tactically vital to them, day to day - they recruit willing jihadis by killing us (and others) in spectacularly nasty ways, on the internet.
How do you even begin to negotiate with that? It's like negotiating with the Alien in Alien.
We should immediately take Rylance's advice and start negotiating. I think we should ask him to lead the deputation as he is obviously an expert. As an actor he will be able to keep a poker face - an important skill to have as your genitals are being ripped off.
Obviously 'Stop the War' are also experts, so a few of them should go in as well. The women can negotiate as they are sold as sex slaves or machine-gunned into trenches, and the men as they are burnt alive with gasoline. Obviously, their superior morality will protect them for long enough to persuade their killers to let the next lot live for an extra few days before they too are killed.
And Corbyn and McDonnell can go over to make a first-hand report on how ISIS killers are different from the nice and fluffy IRA killers.
Climate change protestors intentionally run Across and destroy tributes left to those that died in the Paris shootings. FFS we seem to be our own worse enemies sometimes.
Having said that, it would not surprise me if there were contacts between ISIS and us at some low levels. Whilst that might be true, it is hard to see anything that could be used as a starting point for meaningful negotiations. What can we say or give to them in return for (say) protecting us here in the UK from attacks? And even if it was, is it morally right to protect ourselves in such a manner, at the cost of locals in territory they hold and potentially other western countries? Even if we could trust them ...
It makes the IRA/Loyalist problem seem positively easy.
Comments
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/abu-dhabi-post-race-analysis.html
If you want more than that (and you may: it's hardly conclusive) I will not be able to devote the time to it: unfortunately I am rather busy...:-(
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly:....."
Ferrari could make things tricky next year.
DC had been an MP for a whole parliament.
He had been promoted to the front bench under Michael Howard.
Murray is obviously well able to cope with multiple identities and nuances.
At a stretch, you may wish to consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Counties (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars ). Although that's more traditionalists vs the rest than right-vs-left. I deprecate the old counties (see previous posts on PB.com) but that doesn't mean I don't want them mapped, so whenever somebody tries to delete them I speak many rude words.
Or, has Homer Simpson might say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ua_oJfpQWY
Or not (may be no more free-to-air coverage).
Mr. Urquhart, quite.
New YouGov/Election Data poll finds just 23% approving of Corbyn ad LAB leader. 52% say disapprove. Cameron 37% approve 42% disapprove
Fewer than ½ GE2015 LAB voters tell YouGov/Election Data poll that they approve of Corbyn as leader. Split 46% approve to 28% disapprove
The YouGov Election Data poll had sample of 6,304 and finds that approval of Corbyn increases with level of education attainment
Well, whatever the reason for that, it's not the group he needs to get on board I'd have thought. Plenty of support there already.
So...Nick Clegg 2, then...
"approval of Corbyn increases with level of education attainment"
Oh dear.
Been catching up on the thread as in and out most of the day.
I referred earlier to the need for air to air refuelling in order to bomb Iraq from Cyprus as a limiting factor, which you disputed. The Government website refers to this as being the usual procedure in its 29 Jan entry:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-forces-air-strikes-in-iraq-monthly-list/raf-air-strikes-in-iraq-january-2015
This may be because for obvious operational reasons the RAF cannot take the shortest route. As such it is quite reasonable to describe the trip as a couple of hours.
Of course this all adds to cost in terms of fuel and airframe hours, as well as time to target, and risk of losing targets in the meantime.
The Daily Mail rag is basically anti- Cameron, fed by the prejudice of editor Dacre. Always take its reports with a pinch of salt. It feeds the frothing instincts of the English public but exhibits great hypocrisy.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/france-puts-green-activists-under-house-arrest-ahead-135654386.html
It's odd to agree with him that case for bombing has not been made having disagreed with most of what he has done recently.
It's so serial killer - and that light switch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXKPqcpsp0o
Not sure what that adds to the discussion, but thought I'd share it
You should probably direct your rallying cry for the imagination towards the yaks who issued death threats to Murray after his Indy tweets.
The reality is however that the case has been made. Its been made at several levels.
We are already bombing ISIS targets so any argument that attacking ISIS in Syria would put us in jeopardy is spurious. ISIS have already gratuitously attacked western civilians including specifically British subjects. We are already under attack.
Corbyn's argument revolves around willing surrender.
Well observed - and this phenomenon is not limited to Corbyn; there was more than a hint of this kind of unhealthy obsession (a version of Stockholm Syndrome I think) with violent republicans in Blair's behaviour as well. They knew it as well, hence their contemptuous opinion of him.
'have you heard about Mark Rylance's new role?'
'no'
'he's Talking To ISIS'
'is that an original production?'
'yes and it'll be a short run'
As opposed tom, say, the deliberate attempted genocide of the Yazidis by ISIS....
I enjoyed Wolf Hall (not bothered that the writer seems to be a bit of a Thatcher-hater) but may boycott it next time. What a prize-winning prick. They literally crucify children, commit industrial scale rape and burn people alive. For anyone to praise ISIS they must be cocooned from reality in a chrysalis of impenetrable stupidity.
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jeremy-corbyns-power-whip-his-mps-doubt …
If true that Standing Ords say Shad Cab have pow over Parl votes, they can overrule leader 2morrow if he tries to avoid free vote on #Syria.
Are Zionists at the heart of the Tory bullying scandal?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/europe/22537-are-zionists-at-the-heart-of-the-tory-bullying-scandal
War zones are funny things you commonly don't do what you think you see in print. Publishing tends to let the other side know far too much of what you are doing. Not healthy .
I am reluctant to go for air strikes for a number of reason but at day's end I cannot seem to see any other option if a negotiated settlement is not possible and the threat to us remains the same. I just cannot see ISIS sitting at a table discussing anything with us. They cannot even discuss things with their own neighbours without weapons so what chance us?
Any how's with only" two planes" what difference are we actually going to make?
I would like to extend that to people being given the title "Lecturer" think that they are Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. All at once.
On one occasion, as a student union official trying to help a student, I was told by an academic that an evidence based process before penalising the student was un-necessary. Because he (the academic) was a tenured academic and therefore had perfectly unbiased judgement.
It is hard to envisage a scenario wherein ISIS could be negotiated with or worked with, but it is at least theoretically possible in the same way everything is theoretically possible, but any pretense it an option now is dangerous.
Ouch
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, maybe we've been too hasty. Perhaps we should send Rylance over as negotiator.
As it is, they should be working out of Jordan more than Akrotiri.
It is the considered opinion of the PB comment consensus that Jeremy Corbyn is deliberately damaging to society through his words.
Does that make the consensus "anti-free-speech", or just well-informed?
(I'd note that PB comments are perfectly happy with hyperbole when Labour, Muslims etc. are the target.)
But you are correct hyperbole against Labour does get propagated here more than that against the Tories.
Nobody is calling for him to be the subject of a fatwa, to be attacked or killed or gunned down.
That botched nose-job and the general stress of the job really took its toll on his looks.
So what Mr Morris. If labour don't deal with Corbyn, the electorate will.
Now granted, this was prompted by my asking what he'd think of supporting Dan Jarvis based purely on his photo as above, a game I like to play with people (no one comes out well with that test generally), and I would not argue it is in any way reflective of general public opinion (not least because I would not hide my thinking Corbyn is a poor leader), but that such a level of detail seeped through to a 60 year old who has never voted is surprising to me all the same.
For me, just bombing feels like we'll get all the downsides of a full intervention (making us an even bigger target, making the politics in that part of the world even messier) but without even the upside of having a realistic chance of doing something that would take out IS.
In ordered for negotiations to be viable, both sides need to have a vision of an endpoint society that overlaps to some degree.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3337928/Hero-guard-saved-France-baby-faced-bomber-football-stadium-stopping-sneaking-turnstile-detonating-vest-thousands-fans-President-Hollande.html
Obviously 'Stop the War' are also experts, so a few of them should go in as well. The women can negotiate as they are sold as sex slaves or machine-gunned into trenches, and the men as they are burnt alive with gasoline. Obviously, their superior morality will protect them for long enough to persuade their killers to let the next lot live for an extra few days before they too are killed.
And Corbyn and McDonnell can go over to make a first-hand report on how ISIS killers are different from the nice and fluffy IRA killers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-34956825
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/5EB4/production/_86944242_86944241.jpg
It makes the IRA/Loyalist problem seem positively easy.
Send the Mormons in!