Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Exactly. Assad did not use them from a position of strength; he used them from a position of weakness.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Did Maureen Lipman suggest at the demo today that Corbyn had an ology? In his case it would be - toxic-ology.
She said she was a Blairite and Jez was lying about his seat on the train .
Both of which are simple statements of fact. Why would they be in any way controversial?
Did I say they was [sic]? The train issue was disputed .
There are some people who will dispute anything. If you will find people who say Richard III didn't murder his nephews, you are going to find people who claim Corbyn was telling the truth even when we have clear video evidence that he wasn't.
I was curious therefore that you mentioned it.
I quoted what she said .You made your own inferences.
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Don't divert blame. Ask yourself how your party - a party with a long and distinguished history - ended up backing a mass-murdering tyrant and endorsing the use of chemical weapons. for that is exactly what Labour did in that vote.
You f**kers.
I can understand not wanting blood on your hands, especially after Iraq. But what we saw over Syria, and since with MH17 and now Salisbury, are attempts to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, to blame everyone else - including ourselves - rather than the real culprits.
In the process, you have blood on your hands. Look at the pictures and weep over what you've done, you fools.
You shi**ing tragicomic fools.
Exactly how would UK forces going into Syria have helped anyone? We're not talking about a magic wand, we're talking about killing Syrians who at the moment we disagree with. If the HoC had voted a different way in 2013 it would have been worse. The only way we should help is to get more Syrian civilians over here and the rest of the world so they can escape this horrible war. If we have enough money for waging war, we've got enough money to provide humanitarian aid.
There was an EDM (1949) on Syria right at the beginning of 2011, calling for aid and work with the UN Security Council on a united approach to get human rights for Syrians. Only one Tory signed it, Corbyn and McDonnell both did. In retrospect, it would have been better had Cameron listened to Corbyn then.
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Don't divert blame. Ask yourself how your party - a party with a long and distinguished history - ended up backing a mass-murdering tyrant and endorsing the use of chemical weapons. for that is exactly what Labour did in that vote.
You f**kers.
I can understand not wanting blood on your hands, especially after Iraq. But what we saw over Syria, and since with MH17 and now Salisbury, are attempts to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, to blame everyone else - including ourselves - rather than the real culprits.
In the process, you have blood on your hands. Look at the pictures and weep over what you've done, you fools.
You shi**ing tragicomic fools.
Exactly how would UK forces going into Syria have helped anyone? We're not talking about a magic wand, we're talking about killing Syrians who at the moment we disagree with. If the HoC had voted a different way in 2013 it would have been worse. The only way we should help is to get more Syrian civilians over here and the rest of the world so they can escape this horrible war. If we have enough money for waging war, we've got enough money to provide humanitarian aid.
There was an EDM (1949) on Syria right at the beginning of 2011, calling for aid and work with the UN Security Council on a united approach to get human rights for Syrians. Only one Tory signed it, Corbyn and McDonnell both did. In retrospect, it would have been better had Cameron listened to Corbyn then.
Dictators like Assad only listen to one thing, and it sure isn't UN security council resolutions.
High turnout is thought to be bad for Fidesz. They’ve already more or less conceded they won’t get two thirds (which would enable them to make further constitutional changes) and tactical voting in the constituencies seems to be exceeding what I was expecting.
"Immigration has put up house prices by 20% over the past 25 years and Britain’s post-Brexit border rules must take account of demand for affordable homes, the new housing minister has declared."
"Housing Minister Dominic Raab told The Sunday Times that: “Based on the ONS data, the advice to me from the department is that in the last 25 years we have seen immigration put house prices up by something like 20%.”
I'd love to see his workings, because my investigations show this is a *very* complex area.
There's also an incredibly difficult path that any government must tread. If they succeed in making homes 20% more affordable, then they put the last seven years of house purchasers into negative equity, and reduce the wealth effect for all home owners. (A lower wealth effect almost certainly results in a higher savings rate as householders compensate for having smaller savings embedded in their house. But a higher savings rate also means that consumer spending falls, potentially triggering a recession.)
I really wish a journo would ask our leading politicians, "would you welcome a 20% fall in house prices?"
That's not the alternative. I'm a fan of migration and think we need to tear up the green belt regulations and liberate house building as a solution. However if you're against that and start restricting migration from here that won't drop house prices by 20% as those who have arrived and required a home are still going to be here.
In order for prices to drop we'd need net emigration. The alternatives are that prices roughly stabilise where they are or continue to escalate.
Ah, well I don't think immigration has been the main driver of house price growth in the last six years or so. I do think immigration has forced rents up, though.
I think the very loose monetary policy has been the main driver of house price growth.
The point I was trying to make is that the politicians are all in favour of making housing more affordable. But as Robert points out, a fall in house prices now would cause much anger amongst those who have paid well over the odds.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
So he can transfer vast amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich as he promised in his manifesto? (Unintentionally, in all probability, even though he is personally quite well-off, but that is what he promised.)
Doesn't sound progressive to me. But then, I'm intelligent.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
The key thing would have been to take out chemical weapons stocks, and their delivery mechanisms, a far more achievable goal as they require readily identifiable plants and infrastructure, as opposed to attempting to fix the outcome of the civil war.
That would have maintained the global red line that their use is repugnant, and those that do will always be challenged, which would have been to all our benefit.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Bollocks. It was already clear by then that 1, jihadists were assuming control of the Syrian revolution, and more importantly, 2. the overthrowing of almost any Midde Eastern autocracy (Libya, Egypt etc) just leads to Islamists taking over, and making everything WORSE - and then exporting terror to the West. Plus the West then gets blamed for action (as it gets blamed for inaction). At least with inaction we save our money and the lives of our soldiers.
It's depressing and ugly, but realpolitik means we should act in our own interests. Doing nothing in the Middle East is the tragically sensible choice.
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Don't divert blame. Ask yourself how your party - a party with a long and distinguished history - ended up backing a mass-murdering tyrant and endorsing the use of chemical weapons. for that is exactly what Labour did in that vote.
You f**kers.
I can understand not wanting blood on your hands, especially after Iraq. But what we saw over Syria, and since with MH17 and now Salisbury, are attempts to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, to blame everyone else - including ourselves - rather than the real culprits.
In the process, you have blood on your hands. Look at the pictures and weep over what you've done, you fools.
You shi**ing tragicomic fools.
Exactly how would UK forces going into Syria have helped anyone? We're not talking about a magic wand, we're talking about killing Syrians who at the moment we disagree with. If the HoC had voted a different way in 2013 it would have been worse. The only way we should help is to get more Syrian civilians over here and the rest of the world so they can escape this horrible war. If we have enough money for waging war, we've got enough money to provide humanitarian aid.
There was an EDM (1949) on Syria right at the beginning of 2011, calling for aid and work with the UN Security Council on a united approach to get human rights for Syrians. Only one Tory signed it, Corbyn and McDonnell both did. In retrospect, it would have been better had Cameron listened to Corbyn then.
Dictators like Assad only listen to one thing, and it sure isn't UN security council resolutions.
Of course, but a united approach with Russia (and even Iran) on board wasn't impossible to achieve and then Assad would have had a choice to listen or be removed quickly.
Also I think people are misremembering the Commons vote, it wasn't no to intervening in Syria, it was that every effort needed to be made for UN authorisation and then the Commons would have another vote. Obama and Cameron didn't attempt to get that authorisation.
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Don't divert blame. Ask yourself how your party - a party with a long and distinguished history - ended up backing a mass-murdering tyrant and endorsing the use of chemical weapons. for that is exactly what Labour did in that vote.
You f**kers.
I can understand not wanting blood on your hands, especially after Iraq. But what we saw over Syria, and since with MH17 and now Salisbury, are attempts to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, to blame everyone else - including ourselves - rather than the real culprits.
In the process, you have blood on your hands. Look at the pictures and weep over what you've done, you fools.
You shi**ing tragicomic fools.
Sadly, after the illegal war (and associated commission of war crimes by western nations) in Iraq, this was never going to happen. Personally I am torn on the issue.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
Her campaigning skills haven't really improved a jot, but she has probably been usefully chastened by the experience, which hasn't affected her ability to administrate.
"Immigration has put up house prices by 20% over the past 25 years and Britain’s post-Brexit border rules must take account of demand for affordable homes, the new housing minister has declared."
"Housing Minister Dominic Raab told The Sunday Times that: “Based on the ONS data, the advice to me from the department is that in the last 25 years we have seen immigration put house prices up by something like 20%.”
I'd love to see his workings, because my investigations show this is a *very* complex area.
There's also an incredibly difficult path that any government must tread. If they succeed in making homes 20% more affordable, then they put the last seven years of house purchasers into negative equity, and reduce the wealth effect for all home owners. (A lower wealth effect almost certainly results in a higher savings rate as householders compensate for having smaller savings embedded in their house. But a higher savings rate also means that consumer spending falls, potentially triggering a recession.)
I really wish a journo would ask our leading politicians, "would you welcome a 20% fall in house prices?"
That's not the alternative. I'm a fan of migration and think we need to tear up the green belt regulations and liberate house building as a solution. However if you're against that and start restricting migration from here that won't drop house prices by 20% as those who have arrived and required a home are still going to be here.
In order for prices to drop we'd need net emigration. The alternatives are that prices roughly stabilise where they are or continue to escalate.
Making housing more affordable requires an end to free movement as well as building more homes and the Bank of England's new requirement that 90% of mortgage loans must be for no more than 4.5 times salary
Hungary: Voting stations start closing despite voters are still queuing (Maygar Nemzet). #Valasztas2018 #HungaryElection2018
erm
Europe Elects @EuropeElects 4m Hungary: OSCE election observers to hold press conference on Monday, after multiple irregularities by Orban's governing Fidesz (EPP) authorities have been reported. #HungaryElection2018 #Valasztas2018
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
What we're seeing now is how quickly international moral norms can break down, if convenient, for those who don't share them when the democratic nations are no longer willing to enforce them.
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Don't divert blame. Ask yourself how your party - a party with a long and distinguished history - ended up backing a mass-murdering tyrant and endorsing the use of chemical weapons. for that is exactly what Labour did in that vote.
You f**kers.
I can understand not wanting blood on your hands, especially after Iraq. But what we saw over Syria, and since with MH17 and now Salisbury, are attempts to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, to blame everyone else - including ourselves - rather than the real culprits.
In the process, you have blood on your hands. Look at the pictures and weep over what you've done, you fools.
You shi**ing tragicomic fools.
Exactly how would UK forces going into Syria have helped anyone? We're not talking about a magic wand, we're talking about killing Syrians who at the moment we disagree with. If the HoC had voted a different way in 2013 it would have been worse. The only way we should help is to get more Syrian civilians over here and the rest of the world so they can escape this horrible war. If we have enough money for waging war, we've got enough money to provide humanitarian aid.
There was an EDM (1949) on Syria right at the beginning of 2011, calling for aid and work with the UN Security Council on a united approach to get human rights for Syrians. Only one Tory signed it, Corbyn and McDonnell both did. In retrospect, it would have been better had Cameron listened to Corbyn then.
Read my later post about how it would have helped - at least it would have helped put thee lid on the chemical weapons bottle. It would have sent a message: you never, ever use these weapons, and if you do you will find you gain disadvantages from their use.
Besides, we were not talking about UK forces going into Syria on mass; we were talking about essentially what happened a while later, but too late to have any effect.
As for the UN: remember how Syria was supposed to have got rid of all their weapons under resolution 2118? Assad and Putin must have laughed over that one.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Al Qaeda fringe groups were already starting to infiltrate the 'mainstream rebels'. Assad is bad but the alternative would be worse, though the odd airstrike against him as a warning every time he uses gas and chemical weapons would not go amiss
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Jim Murphy explained why.
Ed Miliband told Dave he'd back the motion.
Then pretty much at the last moment he stabbed Cameron in the back like he did his brother.
Dave wasn't expecting to have to work his rebels.
Ed played student politics, as the aforementioned Mr Murphy put it
'Labour voted against the Government while not expecting to win.'
In terms of shits, Ed Miliband is up there with Mark Reckless.
And quite apart from anything else, even though Labour's motion was explicitly not about ruling out intervention, he later pretended that had been the intention.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
Given that the minimum wage, living wage and personal allowance have all just risen, those on the lower incomes are considerably better off than they were. The top 10% and top 1% are paying more income taxes than ever before.
Tiny baby-steps. Austerity has devastated the poor and most vulnerable in our country. Sad, sad times.
Poor old Vince Cable. He is neither a raving loon like Corbyn nor a flat out moron like Boris and yet he polls worse than either of them. A little unfair methinks.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
Next month we go to the polls here in London. The Tories will be skewered in our sophisticated progressive city.
That they will, although I think the idea that its because 'robbing from the poor' no longer being cool is a very silly way of looking at the differences between our two major parties. The idea millions upon millions of people think that is preposterous.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
Given that the minimum wage, living wage and personal allowance have all just risen, those on the lower incomes are considerably better off than they were. The top 10% and top 1% are paying more income taxes than ever before.
Tiny baby-steps. Austerity has devastated the poor and most vulnerable in our country. Sad, sad times.
What austerity? Public spending has risen every year since 2010, and we’re still spending £100,000,000 a DAY more than we receive in taxes.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
So he can transfer vast amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich as he promised in his manifesto? (Unintentionally, in all probability, even though he is personally quite well-off, but that is what he promised.)
Doesn't sound progressive to me. But then, I'm intelligent.
Did I say Corbyn is intelligent? - he isn’t (but still much smarter than an embarrassing moron like Johnson or has more integrity than a slimy, piece of sh*t like Fox).
The direction of travel is towards more progressive politics - Tories would be wise to take note.
Sadly so, time for a co-ordinated international action in Syria now. (Snip)
There is a co-ordinated international action in Syria now. The nations in question are Russia, Syria, Iran & Iraq. We had an opportunity to join in but we had a debate, bottled it, and thought spending decades navel-gazing on Brexit was better than exerting power on the international stage.
I really don't see what Brexit had to do with whether or not we would exert power on the international stage. And no, I don't think us being distracted by Brexit would meaningfully be a factor moving forward.
Did Maureen Lipman suggest at the demo today that Corbyn had an ology? In his case it would be - toxic-ology.
She said she was a Blairite and Jez was lying about his seat on the train .
Well, politicians prefer the term 'spinning'.
I liked the train incident - definitive proof Corbyn is a regular politician, willing to spin to make a point, with supporters justifying it on the basis of the wider point he wanted to make.
High turnout is thought to be bad for Fidesz. They’ve already more or less conceded they won’t get two thirds (which would enable them to make further constitutional changes) and tactical voting in the constituencies seems to be exceeding what I was expecting.
What other constitutional changes would Fidesz have been contemplating had they got 2/3, do we know?
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Bollocks. It was already clear by then that 1, jihadists were assuming control of the Syrian revolution, and more importantly, 2. the overthrowing of almost any Midde Eastern autocracy (Libya, Egypt etc) just leads to Islamists taking over, and making everything WORSE - and then exporting terror to the West. Plus the West then gets blamed for action (as it gets blamed for inaction). At least with inaction we save our money and the lives of our soldiers.
It's depressing and ugly, but realpolitik means we should act in our own interests. Doing nothing in the Middle East is the tragically sensible choice.
Doing nothing isn't because it's still the centre of global oil production, a major world trading centre and friendly regimes, like Jordan, Bahrain, the UAE and Oman, are far more friendly to Britain and our interests than the alternatives; many of which would likely end up exporting terror to UK streets. More ambiguously, we also need the likes of Saudi Arabia to balance Iran, and to contain Yemen which, otherwise, together with Somalia, could generate sufficient piracy in the Gulf of Aden to risk making it impassable to our shipping.
Personally, I don't think our non-intervention in Syria helped. Russia certainly stepped into the vacuum, and it probably did change their calculations with respect to our willingness to take firm steps against them in future, leading them to take a more reckless (and unnecessary) action in Salisbury.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
The key thing would have been to take out chemical weapons stocks, and their delivery mechanisms, a far more achievable goal as they require readily identifiable plants and infrastructure, as opposed to attempting to fix the outcome of the civil war.
That would have maintained the global red line that their use is repugnant, and those that do will always be challenged, which would have been to all our benefit.
That's definitely a more coherent and persuasive argument.
I'm still not convinced, tho. It's a horrible moral tangle, and people that say it is black and white are just cretins.
Sure, Assad is a monster. But so are his enemies. WTF are we meant to do? Are we meant to do anything anymore? China stays well out of it. Perhaps they are right.
We should act in the way that best serves us, and our allies, in the West. And the long list of western military interventions in MENA which have all gone horribly wrong suggests to me that the era of the West trying to "fix" the Islamic world's internal feuds, with military means, has passed.
What we should do is quarantine MENA. Stop all MENA immigration into Europe. But give Turkey and other neighbouring countries lots of money to build refugee camps. Meanwhile, put massive pressure on the Israelis to stop being such murderous bastards. They're not exactly helping.
Oh, I entirely agree it's not black and white. Global geopolitics can be a real moral quagmire and far too often it boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils.
But, if we don't exercise that choice, somebody else will do it for us.
I know F1 is the motorsport of choice on here, but there's been some right old shenanigans in Motogp this evening.
For most races MotoGP is more exciting than F1 anyway.
Having backed Marquez for the championship, I was less than impressed to see him stall on the grid. I was impressed, however, to see him bump start his bike (not easy), ride the wrong way down the grid, and start the race on the grid. That race direction didn't black flag him is an utter disgrace, but given my financial position, I'm happy they just gave him a ride through to give him a chance of some points.
EDIT: Oh, and that was just a side show to the real shenanigans!
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. The reason Assad went to such extremes as use chemical weapons was because he was losing to those rebels - remember, they were used against suburbs of his capital. That's how much pressure he was under.
The situation changed rapidly, but there was a period where we could have done good.
Besides, in my view the use of chemical weapons, yet alone against his own people, warranted a firm reaction. We didn't, and that's led us to where we are today.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
You're probably right, in that Syria has shown that implementing medieval warfare is alive well, with bunker-buster bombs being used on underground hospitals. But I still wonder if bombing the absolute shit out of any place that we knew or suspectd might have or might ever have held or been a base to deploy chemical weapons might have drawn a line on enforcing something approximating to a fair fight.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
So he can transfer vast amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich as he promised in his manifesto? (Unintentionally, in all probability, even though he is personally quite well-off, but that is what he promised.)
Doesn't sound progressive to me. But then, I'm intelligent.
Did I say Corbyn is intelligent? - he isn’t (but still much smarter than an embarrassing moron like Johnson or has more integrity than a slimy, piece of sh*t like Fox).
The direction of travel is towards more progressive politics - Tories would be wise to take note.
The point is his policies are deeply regressive. Are you honestly in favour of free school meals and large State funded pensions for millionaires, plus billions (literally) given to banks for nothing in return?
Because that is what he was - is, so far as I know - proposing.
So if we take your premise as accurate, Corbyn is a busted flush too. But while I am at a loss to account for his popularity, you yourself have pointed out he isn't a busted flush.
I know F1 is the motorsport of choice on here, but there's been some right old shenanigans in Motogp this evening.
Just read the v.brief report on BBC, quite pleased as I'm a Ducatisti. What were the shennanigans?
I fast forwarded through it, but it looks like the man on pole Jack Miller gambled on slicks. By the time they did the formation lap, the rest of the field saw that he'd made the right call so they all went into the pits and forced the start to be delayed. They were allowed to switch to slicks but had to start nine rows (50m) behind Miller which was an absolutely farcical sight.
Did Maureen Lipman suggest at the demo today that Corbyn had an ology? In his case it would be - toxic-ology.
She said she was a Blairite and Jez was lying about his seat on the train .
Both of which are simple statements of fact. Why would they be in any way controversial?
Did I say they was [sic]? The train issue was disputed .
There are some people who will dispute anything. If you will find people who say Richard III didn't murder his nephews, you are going to find people who claim Corbyn was telling the truth even when we have clear video evidence that he wasn't.
I was curious therefore that you mentioned it.
I quoted what she said .You made your own inferences.
The inference was you were criticising her for what as I noted and you appear to have implicitly accepted were two factual statements.
That may not have been what you intended but in context that was how it came across.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
If the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing why did Assad resort to using chemical weapons when he did?
Syria was at a tipping point, which Assad new which is why he acted out of desperation not strength. If we'd back the FSA they'd have won.
In addition (though I have no reason to think Orban thinks this) if you want evidence that the fate of nations is decided by rootless cosmopolitan billionaire jews, the claim that Soros personally forced the UK out of the ERM is about as good as it gets.
In truth - as Mrs Thatcher noted a decade earlier - "you can't buck the market".
Really, the world divides into two categories. People who think governments should bow to reality, and those who think reality must bow to governments.
I am in the former category. Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Orban and Corbyn are in the latter.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
You're probably right, in that Syria has shown that implementing medieval warfare is alive well, with bunker-buster bombs being used on underground hospitals. But I still wonder if bombing the absolute shit out of any place that we knew or suspectd might have or might ever have held or been a base to deploy chemical weapons might have drawn a line on enforcing something approximating to a fair fight.
The fact is we get blamed for doing nothing, we get blamed for doing something.
Indeed so.
I believe sometimes doing nothing can be worse than doing something, even if that something incurs significant risks of making things worse as well, but I don't envy those taking these decisions.
@Andy_Cooke: an excellent analysis on the difference between consensual and adversarial political systems.
I wish there were a perfect electoral/political system, but really, one is choosing which problems one is happy with. I think the adversarial, typically FPTP, system results in substantial minorities (such as Eurosceptics in the UK) being almost completely ignored for decades. On the other hand, the consensual system results in no government or party being able to be held to manifesto promises.
Thanks I've come to the opinion that the latter isn't really much of an issue - the vast majority vote based on overall impression and feel of a party's priorities (after all, what do we think opinion polls are measuring right now? Certainly not attitudes to currently non-existent manifestos), and the public can and will hold a party to account for letting them down. See the way the FDP were kicked out of the Bundestag two elections ago, for example, and people have held Parties to account for what they thought was a pledge, or what they thought should have been a pledge probably more often than what was actually in manifestos...
EDIT: I'm possibly being one-eyed (on the "he would say that, though, wouldn't he?" front) or even cynical here, though.
Did Maureen Lipman suggest at the demo today that Corbyn had an ology? In his case it would be - toxic-ology.
She said she was a Blairite and Jez was lying about his seat on the train .
Well, politicians prefer the term 'spinning'.
I liked the train incident - definitive proof Corbyn is a regular politician, willing to spin to make a point, with supporters justifying it on the basis of the wider point he wanted to make.
(A selection of the quotes) ___________________________________________________ New footage has been published of the "traingate" journey that triggered a row involving Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Richard Branson last year.
Mr Mendez made a request to Virgin for the CCTV in which he featured, and it has now been published by his Double Down News company.
"These are the CCTV clips Richard Branson didn't show you," the voiceover says, to footage of people sitting and lying on the floor between carriages.
The film also highlights that people could be seen sitting in some - although not all - of the apparently empty seats Mr Corbyn walked past. __________________________________________________________
A lot of people didn't actually pay attention, although in fairness Virgin played a blinder by releasing footage from an angle so it looked like seats were empty when they actually weren't.
During the 2016 coup attempt as well.
And held off releasing this footage until after the general election (admittedly maybe the FOI request just happened to come through at this point)
Luckily at the point this was originally released a lot of Corbyn supporters had realised they would use any old rubbish to try and discredit him.
I liked the train incident as well, the whole story, always nice when something happens to reaffirm things you already suspect.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
Given that the minimum wage, living wage and personal allowance have all just risen, those on the lower incomes are considerably better off than they were. The top 10% and top 1% are paying more income taxes than ever before.
Tiny baby-steps. Austerity has devastated the poor and most vulnerable in our country. Sad, sad times.
What austerity? Public spending has risen every year since 2010, and we’re still spending £100,000,000 a DAY more than we receive in taxes.
You speak as if spending for our public services is a bad thing. It isn’t! The issue is how we ‘fix’ the taxation side of the equation. We need to have a grown up discussion about tax - we all need to contribute more with those with the widest shoulders contributing more. This is the reality of our current situation.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. The reason Assad went to such extremes as use chemical weapons was because he was losing to those rebels - remember, they were used against suburbs of his capital. That's how much pressure he was under.
The situation changed rapidly, but there was a period where we could have done good.
Besides, in my view the use of chemical weapons, yet alone against his own people, warranted a firm reaction. We didn't, and that's led us to where we are today.
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already well in control and the moderates were practically extinct long before we decided not to make things worse.
Can you show me a Middle Eastern/Islamic country intervention the century where we have actually made things better rather than dramatically worse?
Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Libya? Nope.
Why on earth should Syria have been any different?
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
Poor old Vince Cable. He is neither a raving loon like Corbyn nor a flat out moron like Boris and yet he polls worse than either of them. A little unfair methinks.
I don't think Vince or the LDs are really helping themselves at the moment. They are in a bit of a comfort zone. I understand that they are hoping to channel the anger of the young over Brexit (just as they tried and succeeded with the Iraq War and, ahem, tuition fees, before that) but it's not quite as clear cut as they want to believe it is, I think. There's a lot of people who disagree with Brexit - myself included - that think for better or for worse we have to see it through. There are other issues that need airing now as well, and at the moment all you can rely on the Lib Dems to do is throw around a few more divisive comments and commit to another vote. Their other policies aren't getting a look in.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
Given that the minimum wage, living wage and personal allowance have all just risen, those on the lower incomes are considerably better off than they were. The top 10% and top 1% are paying more income taxes than ever before.
Tiny baby-steps. Austerity has devastated the poor and most vulnerable in our country. Sad, sad times.
What austerity? Public spending has risen every year since 2010, and we’re still spending £100,000,000 a DAY more than we receive in taxes.
You speak as if spending for our public services is a bad thing. It isn’t! The issue is how we ‘fix’ the taxation side of the equation. We need to have a grown up discussion about tax - we all need to contribute more with those with the widest shoulders contributing more. This is the reality of our current situation.
Yes it is a bad thing when it is uncontrolled and when it fails to make things better. Blair and Brown through huge sums of money at the education system. Did it improve? No. It got worse. he problem with the left is they think the answer to any problem is just to spend more taxpayers money. They fail to understand that the demand will always grow to exceed the amount of money available. It simply is not sustainable.
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Don't divert blame. Ask yourself how your party - a party with a long and distinguished history - ended up backing a mass-murdering tyrant and endorsing the use of chemical weapons. for that is exactly what Labour did in that vote.
You f**kers.
I can understand not wanting blood on your hands, especially after Iraq. But what we saw over Syria, and since with MH17 and now Salisbury, are attempts to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, to blame everyone else - including ourselves - rather than the real culprits.
In the process, you have blood on your hands. Look at the pictures and weep over what you've done, you fools.
You shi**ing tragicomic fools.
Exactly how would UK forces going into Syria have helped anyone? We're not talking about a magic wand, we're talking about killing Syrians who at the moment we disagree with. If the HoC had voted a different way in 2013 it would have been worse. The only way we should help is to get more Syrian civilians over here and the rest of the world so they can escape this horrible war. If we have enough money for waging war, we've got enough money to provide humanitarian aid.
There was an EDM (1949) on Syria right at the beginning of 2011, calling for aid and work with the UN Security Council on a united approach to get human rights for Syrians. Only one Tory signed it, Corbyn and McDonnell both did. In retrospect, it would have been better had Cameron listened to Corbyn then.
Dictators like Assad only listen to one thing, and it sure isn't UN security council resolutions.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
You're probably right, in that Syria has shown that implementing medieval warfare is alive well, with bunker-buster bombs being used on underground hospitals. But I still wonder if bombing the absolute shit out of any place that we knew or suspectd might have or might ever have held or been a base to deploy chemical weapons might have drawn a line on enforcing something approximating to a fair fight.
I think we have to move on, conceptually and finally. from the idea that the West runs the world, or is responsible for any of it apart from our own narrow economic interests (massive and obvious genocides excepted, of course). The fact is we get blamed for doing nothing, we get blamed for doing something, and doing something costs infinitely more (how many trillions did America spend in Iraq? How many died?) and every western intervention in the Islamic world seems to end in chaos at best, and absolute disaster at worst.
We are no longer an empire. America is no longer the global hegemon. China will soon overtake America in economic might. Asia will soon enough dwarf Europe.
Let the Chinese police the fucking world, seeing as they are so keen to economically colonise it. And as regards Arab oil, we won't need it pretty soon, given the enormous reserves of shale gas and oil, and conventional gas and oil, being discovered all over the world in much friendlier places. And then there's the electrification of cars...
Leave Arabia to fester or prosper. Just leave it alone.
Fracking and renewables are giving us the option to leave Arbia alone. Previously, oil meant we felt we had to wade in.
Interesting that China has thrown its economic weight around Africa, without feeling any moral compunction to stop Boko Haram grabbing hundreds of young girls....
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
Given that the minimum wage, living wage and personal allowance have all just risen, those on the lower incomes are considerably better off than they were. The top 10% and top 1% are paying more income taxes than ever before.
Tiny baby-steps. Austerity has devastated the poor and most vulnerable in our country. Sad, sad times.
What austerity? Public spending has risen every year since 2010, and we’re still spending £100,000,000 a DAY more than we receive in taxes.
You speak as if spending for our public services is a bad thing. It isn’t! The issue is how we ‘fix’ the taxation side of the equation. We need to have a grown up discussion about tax - we all need to contribute more with those with the widest shoulders contributing more. This is the reality of our current situation.
Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
You're probably right, in that Syria has shown that implementing medieval warfare is alive well, with bunker-buster bombs being used on underground hospitals. But I still wonder if bombing the absolute shit out of any place that we knew or suspectd might have or might ever have held or been a base to deploy chemical weapons might have drawn a line on enforcing something approximating to a fair fight.
I think we have to move on, conceptually and finally. from the idea that the West runs the world, or is responsible for any of it apart from our own narrow economic interests (massive and obvious genocides excepted, of course). The fact is we get blamed for doing nothing, we get blamed for doing something, and doing something costs infinitely more (how many trillions did America spend in Iraq? How many died?) and every western intervention in the Islamic world seems to end in chaos at best, and absolute disaster at worst.
We are no longer an empire. America is no longer the global hegemon. China will soon overtake America in economic might. Asia will soon enough dwarf Europe.
Let the Chinese police the fucking world, seeing as they are so keen to economically colonise it. And as regards Arab oil, we won't need it pretty soon, given the enormous reserves of shale gas and oil, and conventional gas and oil, being discovered all over the world in much friendlier places. And then there's the electrification of cars...
I think our future will be increasingly bleak if we just sit back and let it happen.
Liberal democracy still hasn't won, and anyone who says it has is either naive, or a liar. The political and personal freedoms we've all taken for granted post WWII have been buttressed by the economic strength of the West far more than any of us realise. We were lulled into a false sense of security after the end of the Cold War into thinking it was all over, but there is nothing written down in tablets of stone to say our system of Government will universally win out in the end by a process of inevitable historical osmosis.
The West need to do their absolute best to ensure the development of mature democracies in Africa and Asia, if the future of the liberal democratic world order is to be assured, otherwise whoever pays the piper will be calling the tune.
Did Maureen Lipman suggest at the demo today that Corbyn had an ology? In his case it would be - toxic-ology.
She said she was a Blairite and Jez was lying about his seat on the train .
Both of which are simple statements of fact. Why would they be in any way controversial?
Did I say they was [sic]? The train issue was disputed .
There are some people who will dispute anything. If you will find people who say Richard III didn't murder his nephews, you are going to find people who claim Corbyn was telling the truth even when we have clear video evidence that he wasn't.
I was curious therefore that you mentioned it.
I quoted what she said .You made your own inferences.
The inference was you were criticising her for what as I noted and you appear to have implicitly accepted were two factual statements.
That may not have been what you intended but in context that was how it came across.
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Don't divert blame. Ask yourself how your party - a party with a long and distinguished history - ended up backing a mass-murdering tyrant and endorsing the use of chemical weapons. for that is exactly what Labour did in that vote.
You f**kers.
I can understand not wanting blood on your hands, especially after Iraq. But what we saw over Syria, and since with MH17 and now Salisbury, are attempts to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, to blame everyone else - including ourselves - rather than the real culprits.
In the process, you have blood on your hands. Look at the pictures and weep over what you've done, you fools.
You shi**ing tragicomic fools.
Exactly how would UK forces going into Syria have helped anyone? We're not talking about a magic wand, we're talking about killing Syrians who at the moment we disagree with. If the HoC had voted a different way in 2013 it would have been worse. The only way we should help is to get more Syrian civilians over here and the rest of the world so they can escape this horrible war. If we have enough money for waging war, we've got enough money to provide humanitarian aid.
There was an EDM (1949) on Syria right at the beginning of 2011, calling for aid and work with the UN Security Council on a united approach to get human rights for Syrians. Only one Tory signed it, Corbyn and McDonnell both did. In retrospect, it would have been better had Cameron listened to Corbyn then.
Dictators like Assad only listen to one thing, and it sure isn't UN security council resolutions.
As I have said passim: choosing to do nothing is as much a decision as choosing to do something, and you own the consequences of both.
I agree it is.
But when faced with an impossible decision - whatever we did or didn't do the situation was going to get worse - then it is wise to look at recent history to help guide decision making. Iraq and Libya would both still be pretty horrible places if we had not intervened. But it is unlikely they would be the total basket cases we created by sticking our noses in.
Did we either help the people there or make our own world more secure by intervening? I would say absolutely not. So all those western troops and the countless Iraqi and Libyan soldiers and civilians died for nothing.
And I speak as someone who was initially in favour of intervention in both countries. I have learnt my lesson but it seems some still have not.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
Given that the minimum wage, living wage and personal allowance have all just risen, those on the lower incomes are considerably better off than they were. The top 10% and top 1% are paying more income taxes than ever before.
Tiny baby-steps. Austerity has devastated the poor and most vulnerable in our country. Sad, sad times.
What austerity? Public spending has risen every year since 2010, and we’re still spending £100,000,000 a DAY more than we receive in taxes.
You speak as if spending for our public services is a bad thing. It isn’t! The issue is how we ‘fix’ the taxation side of the equation. We need to have a grown up discussion about tax - we all need to contribute more with those with the widest shoulders contributing more. This is the reality of our current situation.
Yes it is a bad thing when it is uncontrolled and when it fails to make things better. Blair and Brown through huge sums of money at the education system. Did it improve? No. It got worse. he problem with the left is they think the answer to any problem is just to spend more taxpayers money. They fail to understand that the demand will always grow to exceed the amount of money available. It simply is not sustainable.
One of the strange things about New Labour was they actually spent very little more on education than their Conservative predecessors. Indeed, once you strip out the increased pay for teachers, the general inflation of bills and taxes and the increase in spending on local government organisations, plus the vast increase in administrative costs caused by the extra red tape they imposed, there is a case to be made that spending to have an impact in the actual classroom was very slightly lower under Brown than under Major.
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
Given that the minimum wage, living wage and personal allowance have all just risen, those on the lower incomes are considerably better off than they were. The top 10% and top 1% are paying more income taxes than ever before.
Tiny baby-steps. Austerity has devastated the poor and most vulnerable in our country. Sad, sad times.
What austerity? Public spending has risen every year since 2010, and we’re still spending £100,000,000 a DAY more than we receive in taxes.
You speak as if spending for our public services is a bad thing. It isn’t! The issue is how we ‘fix’ the taxation side of the equation. We need to have a grown up discussion about tax - we all need to contribute more with those with the widest shoulders contributing more. This is the reality of our current situation.
Depends on what you spend it on.
Absolutely. And if we are reforming high spending areas appropriately rather than merely splurging money on them. I don't think the balance has been achieved perfectly there, but while I'm content for plenty of spending, merely having high spending is not a good thing.
From my own experience for instance Local Government has had massive cut backs. It actually managed that quite well in most places, showing that there was plenty of reduction that was reasonable, however since it is as easier target (no one likes local government) it has been cut too close to the bone in my opinion.
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Did Maureen Lipman suggest at the demo today that Corbyn had an ology? In his case it would be - toxic-ology.
She said she was a Blairite and Jez was lying about his seat on the train .
Both of which are simple statements of fact. Why would they be in any way controversial?
Did I say they was [sic]? The train issue was disputed .
There are some people who will dispute anything. If you will find people who say Richard III didn't murder his nephews, you are going to find people who claim Corbyn was telling the truth even when we have clear video evidence that he wasn't.
I was curious therefore that you mentioned it.
I quoted what she said .You made your own inferences.
The inference was you were criticising her for what as I noted and you appear to have implicitly accepted were two factual statements.
That may not have been what you intended but in context that was how it came across.
In you own mind.
Again - both of those are factual statements...(I'm assuming the duff spelling is autocorrect, btw).
If that is not the way you intended it, you might want to look at the way you phrase things.
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Don't divert blame. Ask yourself how your party - a party with a long and distinguished history - ended up backing a mass-murdering tyrant and endorsing the use of chemical weapons. for that is exactly what Labour did in that vote.
You f**kers.
I can understand not wanting blood on your hands, especially after Iraq. But what we saw over Syria, and since with MH17 and now Salisbury, are attempts to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, to blame everyone else - including ourselves - rather than the real culprits.
In the process, you have blood on your hands. Look at the pictures and weep over what you've done, you fools.
You shi**ing tragicomic fools.
Exactly how would UK forces going into Syria have helped anyone? We're not talking about a magic wand, we're talking about killing Syrians who at the moment we disagree with. If the HoC had voted a different way in 2013 it would have been worse. The only way we should help is to get more Syrian civilians over here and the rest of the world so they can escape this horrible war. If we have enough money for waging war, we've got enough money to provide humanitarian aid.
There was an EDM (1949) on Syria right at the beginning of 2011, calling for aid and work with the UN Security Council on a united approach to get human rights for Syrians. Only one Tory signed it, Corbyn and McDonnell both did. In retrospect, it would have been better had Cameron listened to Corbyn then.
Dictators like Assad only listen to one thing, and it sure isn't UN security council resolutions.
30 Conservative MPs voted against the Government (as did nine LDs). If there's "hate" to go round, start there.
Then you can explain why Cameron misread the public mood and the mood in his own party so badly.
Don't divert blame. Ask yourself how your party - a party with a long and distinguished history - ended up backing a mass-murdering tyrant and endorsing the use of chemical weapons. for that is exactly what Labour did in that vote.
You f**kers.
I can understand not wanting blood on your hands, especially after Iraq. But what we saw over Syria, and since with MH17 and now Salisbury, are attempts to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, to blame everyone else - including ourselves - rather than the real culprits.
In the process, you have blood on your hands. Look at the pictures and weep over what you've done, you fools.
You shi**ing tragicomic fools.
Exactly how would UK forces going into Syria have helped anyone? We're not talking about a magic wand, we're talking about killing Syrians who at the moment we disagree with. If the HoC had voted a different way in 2013 it would have been worse. The only way we should help is to get more Syrian civilians over here and the rest of the world so they can escape this horrible war. If we have enough money for waging war, we've got enough money to provide humanitarian aid.
There was an EDM (1949) on Syria right at the beginning of 2011, calling for aid and work with the UN Security Council on a united approach to get human rights for Syrians. Only one Tory signed it, Corbyn and McDonnell both did. In retrospect, it would have been better had Cameron listened to Corbyn then.
Dictators like Assad only listen to one thing, and it sure isn't UN security council resolutions.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
You're probably right, in that Syria has shown that implementing medieval warfare is alive well, with bunker-buster bombs being used on underground hospitals. But I still wonder if bombing the absolute shit out of any place that we knew or suspectd might have or might ever have held or been a base to deploy chemical weapons might have drawn a line on enforcing something approximating to a fair fight.
I think we have to move on, conceptually and finally. from the idea that the West runs the world, or is responsible for any of it apart from our own narrow economic interests (massive and obvious genocides excepted, of course). The fact is we get blamed for doing nothing, we get blamed for doing something, and doing something costs infinitely more (how many trillions did America spend in Iraq? How many died?) and every western intervention in the Islamic world seems to end in chaos at best, and absolute disaster at worst.
We are no longer an empire. America is no longer the global hegemon. China will soon overtake America in economic might. Asia will soon enough dwarf Europe.
Let the Chinese police the fucking world, seeing as they are so keen to economically colonise it. And as regards Arab oil, we won't need it pretty soon, given the enormous reserves of shale gas and oil, and conventional gas and oil, being discovered all over the world in much friendlier places. And then there's the electrification of cars...
Leave Arabia to fester or prosper. Just leave it alone.
The curious consequence of American environmental regulation roll back, is that it is likely to leave the US dependent on Middle Eastern oil a decade from now, rather than energy independent.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. The reason Assad went to such extremes as use chemical weapons was buse of chemical weapons, yet alone against his own people, warranted a firm reaction. We didn't, and that's led us to where we are today.
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already well in control and the moderates were practically extinct long before we decided not to make things worse.
Can you show me a Middle Eastern/Islamic country intervention the century where we have actually made things better rather than dramatically worse?
Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Libya? Nope.
Why on earth should Syria have been any different?
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
You're probably right, in that Syria has shown that implementing medieval warfare is alive well, with bunker-buster bombs being used on underground hospitals. But I still wonder if bombing the absolute shit out of any place that we knew or suspectd might have or might ever have held or been a base to deploy chemical weapons might have drawn a line on enforcing something approximating to a fair fight.
The fact is we get blamed for doing nothing, we get blamed for doing something.
Indeed so.
I believe sometimes doing nothing can be worse than doing something, even if that something incurs significant risks of making things worse as well, but I don't envy those taking these decisions.
Sure. Interventions outside the Islamic world are still pretty effective. Sierra Leone is a great example.
But the Islamic world is going through some mighty, bloody, psychotic convulsion very much like the Thirty Years War and nothing we can do makes it better and lots that we do makes it worse: so we should stay well clear and do sod all. That is the obvious conclusion from even a cursory knowledge of the last 15 years of western foreign policy.
What the response should be IDK, but it is hard to escape the impression any involvement in that region ends up being counter productive. I hope I am proven wrong.
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. The reason Assad went to such extremes as use chemical weapons was buse of chemical weapons, yet alone against his own people, warranted a firm reaction. We didn't, and that's led us to where we are today.
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already well in control and the moderates were practically extinct long before we decided not to make things worse.
Can you show me a Middle Eastern/Islamic country intervention the century where we have actually made things better rather than dramatically worse?
Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Libya? Nope.
Why on earth should Syria have been any different?
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power
Are not the Taliban in effective control in many parts of Afghanistan still, with a presence in most parts of the country?
I have been ruminating over something David Baddiel flagged up to us, in the wording of the motion against Thangam Debbonaire, what does “for the many not the few” actually mean? And to what extent did it help Labour in last years GE?
The artist who created that “for the many not the few” mural didn’t consider it wrong on the grounds they actually believed it was factual? in much the same way Labour have been rallying behind “for the many not the few” for some years now, a slogan the Third Reich would have been proud of, slyly leaving who “the few” actually are ambiguous in the mind of voters.
And onto how confident I was, being thought of as anti-Semitic will make a politician unpopular and cost them votes in Britain today. Now, Unfortunately are we sure of this? Not just Germany in the thirties, but the whole history of the world virtually everywhere tells us the opposite can be true?
For example, many voters in the rust belt states voting for Trump could have done so by that point suspecting Trump a closet racist, yet they voted for change of government in belief or just the hope he would turn the tide and bring them decent jobs. you are all so confident it can’t happen here, in our “global Britain” versus Corbyns national socialist “change for more jobs and better NHS” election?
My conclusion is it is right decent people make their bravest stand against racism wherever possible, yet must be mindful of the dangers of not being understood, don't take for granted what is in the minds of everyone else. Because calling someone out as a racist is not nearly enough, it comes from and is spoken for rational, conscious minds, yet this is in a world operating on primitive impulses of individual self interest, where there are no timeless principles immune from re-evaluation and evolution, and where whatever is in the environment around it will always shape the water in the well.
Instead think of the water in the well, and the environment around it. take the mind of the artist of that mural, present the facts Jews are not over represented in the ownership of banks, city high finance or wealth and ownership in Britain today. And the water in well will get better.
Let’s get those killer facts into everyones minds now, to turn the heat up on all racist politicians and their sly slogans.
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Check out his MBA.
He did get an MBA but it was not with much distinction, unlike say Mitt Romney who was named a Baker Scholar after graduating in the top 5% of his Harvard Business School class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
You're probably right, in that Syria has shown that implementing medieval warfare is alive well, with bunker-buster bombs being used on underground hospitals. But I still wonder if bombing the absolute shit out of any place that we knew or suspectd might have or might ever have held or been a base to deploy chemical weapons might have drawn a line on enforcing something approximating to a fair fight.
The fact is we get blamed for doing nothing, we get blamed for doing something.
Indeed so.
I believe sometimes doing nothing can be worse than doing something, even if that something incurs significant risks of making things worse as well, but I don't envy those taking these decisions.
Doing nothing can be the correct decision , Vietnam for example for the UK not to get involved.However not to get involved after 9-11 in Afghanistan would have been a tougher call for a British PM
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically e
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
". ISIS
Can you show me a Middle Eastern/Islamic country intervention the century where we have actually made things better rather than dramatically worse?
Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Libya? Nope.
Why on earth should Syria have been any different?
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
Afghanistan is still in chaos, still being bombed, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are still a potent menace. This after we spent sixty bazillion dollars "defeating" them.
Had we not intervened in Afghanistan, the Taliban would still be running the country from Kabul and Bin Laden would still be alive and plotting more terror attacks
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almost unheard of fringe group at the time we chose to turn a blind eye to Assad's usage of chemical weapons. He was also at the brink of losing the war to the more mainstream rebels which is why he resorted to using them. With our backing the more mainstream rebels would have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. The reason Assad went to such extremes as use chemical weapons was buse of chemical weapons, yet alone against his own people, warranted a firm reaction. We didn't, and that's led us to where we are today.
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already e been any different?
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power
Are not the Taliban in effective control in many parts of Afghanistan still, with a presence in most parts of the country?
The Taliban do not now run Afghanistan no, as they did in 2001, though they still have a presence in much of the country
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
You're probably right, in that Syria has shown that implementing medieval warfare is alive well, with bunker-buster bombs being used on underground hospitals. But I still wonder if bombing the absolute shit out of any place that we knew or suspectd might have or might ever have held or been a base to deploy chemical weapons might have drawn a line on enforcing something approximating to a fair fight.
The fact is we get blamed for doing nothing, we get blamed for doing something.
Indeed so.
I believe sometimes doing nothing can be worse than doing something, even if that something incurs significant risks of making things worse as well, but I don't envy those taking these decisions.
Doing nothing can be the correct decision
Oh I know - I think calamitous occasions when doing something was disastrous should not rule out that it might, might still require action rather than inaction on another occasion. But certainly doing nothing is also not always wrong. But it should not be considered automatically likely to be right though.
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.
I don't think our interventions were the sole causes of them being ungovernable, but it certainly has not worked out well.
Afghanistan in particular, if the Taliban are still so well established, it is clear that sizable amounts of the country clearly want it that way.
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.
In neither case were we there to turn them into western liberal democracies, in Afghanistan we were there to get Bin Laden and remove the Taliban from control of the government, which was achieved and in Libya to avoid a complete bloodbath by Gaddafi, which was probably also achieved.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almoswould have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. The reason Assad went to such extremes as use chemical weapons was buse of chemical weapons, yet alone against his own people, warranted a firm reaction. We didn't, and that's led us to where we are today.
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already e been any different?
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power
Are not the Taliban in effective control in many parts of Afghanistan still, with a presence in most parts of the country?
The Taliban do not now run Afghanistan no, as they did in 2001, though they still have a presence in much of the country
I didn't say they did run it now like they did before. I asked if they were in effective control of parts of it. 17 years in, is that a positive sign for the country? It hardly seems so, apparently they have been gaining strength in the last few years.
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.
Comments
There was an EDM (1949) on Syria right at the beginning of 2011, calling for aid and work with the UN Security Council on a united approach to get human rights for Syrians. Only one Tory signed it, Corbyn and McDonnell both did. In retrospect, it would have been better had Cameron listened to Corbyn then.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/376334423069032448
I think the very loose monetary policy has been the main driver of house price growth.
The point I was trying to make is that the politicians are all in favour of making housing more affordable. But as Robert points out, a fall in house prices now would cause much anger amongst those who have paid well over the odds.
Doesn't sound progressive to me. But then, I'm intelligent.
That would have maintained the global red line that their use is repugnant, and those that do will always be challenged, which would have been to all our benefit.
Also I think people are misremembering the Commons vote, it wasn't no to intervening in Syria, it was that every effort needed to be made for UN authorisation and then the Commons would have another vote. Obama and Cameron didn't attempt to get that authorisation.
erm
Europe Elects @EuropeElects
4m
Hungary: OSCE election observers to hold press conference on Monday, after multiple irregularities by Orban's governing Fidesz (EPP) authorities have been reported. #HungaryElection2018 #Valasztas2018
Besides, we were not talking about UK forces going into Syria on mass; we were talking about essentially what happened a while later, but too late to have any effect.
As for the UN: remember how Syria was supposed to have got rid of all their weapons under resolution 2118? Assad and Putin must have laughed over that one.
The direction of travel is towards more progressive politics - Tories would be wise to take note.
I liked the train incident - definitive proof Corbyn is a regular politician, willing to spin to make a point, with supporters justifying it on the basis of the wider point he wanted to make.
It does not at the moment...
Personally, I don't think our non-intervention in Syria helped. Russia certainly stepped into the vacuum, and it probably did change their calculations with respect to our willingness to take firm steps against them in future, leading them to take a more reckless (and unnecessary) action in Salisbury.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
But, if we don't exercise that choice, somebody else will do it for us.
EDIT: Oh, and that was just a side show to the real shenanigans!
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. The reason Assad went to such extremes as use chemical weapons was because he was losing to those rebels - remember, they were used against suburbs of his capital. That's how much pressure he was under.
The situation changed rapidly, but there was a period where we could have done good.
Besides, in my view the use of chemical weapons, yet alone against his own people, warranted a firm reaction. We didn't, and that's led us to where we are today.
Because that is what he was - is, so far as I know - proposing.
So if we take your premise as accurate, Corbyn is a busted flush too. But while I am at a loss to account for his popularity, you yourself have pointed out he isn't a busted flush.
But finally a better shot from McIlroy.
That may not have been what you intended but in context that was how it came across.
Syria was at a tipping point, which Assad new which is why he acted out of desperation not strength. If we'd back the FSA they'd have won.
It's already a fairly deep shade of red but Labour 54% Con 24% is not out the question,
But what does that tell you about the rest of the country?
Really, the world divides into two categories. People who think governments should bow to reality, and those who think reality must bow to governments.
I am in the former category. Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Orban and Corbyn are in the latter.
I believe sometimes doing nothing can be worse than doing something, even if that something incurs significant risks of making things worse as well, but I don't envy those taking these decisions.
I've come to the opinion that the latter isn't really much of an issue - the vast majority vote based on overall impression and feel of a party's priorities (after all, what do we think opinion polls are measuring right now? Certainly not attitudes to currently non-existent manifestos), and the public can and will hold a party to account for letting them down. See the way the FDP were kicked out of the Bundestag two elections ago, for example, and people have held Parties to account for what they thought was a pledge, or what they thought should have been a pledge probably more often than what was actually in manifestos...
EDIT: I'm possibly being one-eyed (on the "he would say that, though, wouldn't he?" front) or even cynical here, though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41036937
(A selection of the quotes)
___________________________________________________
New footage has been published of the "traingate" journey that triggered a row involving Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Richard Branson last year.
Mr Mendez made a request to Virgin for the CCTV in which he featured, and it has now been published by his Double Down News company.
"These are the CCTV clips Richard Branson didn't show you," the voiceover says, to footage of people sitting and lying on the floor between carriages.
The film also highlights that people could be seen sitting in some - although not all - of the apparently empty seats Mr Corbyn walked past.
__________________________________________________________
A lot of people didn't actually pay attention, although in fairness Virgin played a blinder by releasing footage from an angle so it looked like seats were empty when they actually weren't.
During the 2016 coup attempt as well.
And held off releasing this footage until after the general election (admittedly maybe the FOI request just happened to come through at this point)
Luckily at the point this was originally released a lot of Corbyn supporters had realised they would use any old rubbish to try and discredit him.
I liked the train incident as well, the whole story, always nice when something happens to reaffirm things you already suspect.
Can you show me a Middle Eastern/Islamic country intervention the century where we have actually made things better rather than dramatically worse?
Afghanistan? Nope.
Iraq? Nope.
Libya? Nope.
Why on earth should Syria have been any different?
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
Interesting that China has thrown its economic weight around Africa, without feeling any moral compunction to stop Boko Haram grabbing hundreds of young girls....
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
Liberal democracy still hasn't won, and anyone who says it has is either naive, or a liar. The political and personal freedoms we've all taken for granted post WWII have been buttressed by the economic strength of the West far more than any of us realise. We were lulled into a false sense of security after the end of the Cold War into thinking it was all over, but there is nothing written down in tablets of stone to say our system of Government will universally win out in the end by a process of inevitable historical osmosis.
The West need to do their absolute best to ensure the development of mature democracies in Africa and Asia, if the future of the liberal democratic world order is to be assured, otherwise whoever pays the piper will be calling the tune.
LAB-S&D: 38% (-3)
LDEM-ALDE: 8%
SNP/PCY-G/EFA: 5% (+1)
UKIP-EFDD: 3% (+1)
Greens-G/EFA: 2%
Field work: 27/03/18 – 5/04/18
Sample size: 1,037
Headline figures from their "youthquake" polling I imagine
But when faced with an impossible decision - whatever we did or didn't do the situation was going to get worse - then it is wise to look at recent history to help guide decision making. Iraq and Libya would both still be pretty horrible places if we had not intervened. But it is unlikely they would be the total basket cases we created by sticking our noses in.
Did we either help the people there or make our own world more secure by intervening? I would say absolutely not. So all those western troops and the countless Iraqi and Libyan soldiers and civilians died for nothing.
And I speak as someone who was initially in favour of intervention in both countries. I have learnt my lesson but it seems some still have not.
From my own experience for instance Local Government has had massive cut backs. It actually managed that quite well in most places, showing that there was plenty of reduction that was reasonable, however since it is as easier target (no one likes local government) it has been cut too close to the bone in my opinion.
If that is not the way you intended it, you might want to look at the way you phrase things.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/14/assad-itunes-emails-chris-brown
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
Edit: I kid - for all I know that is exciting.
The artist who created that “for the many not the few” mural didn’t consider it wrong on the grounds they actually believed it was factual? in much the same way Labour have been rallying behind “for the many not the few” for some years now, a slogan the Third Reich would have been proud of, slyly leaving who “the few” actually are ambiguous in the mind of voters.
And onto how confident I was, being thought of as anti-Semitic will make a politician unpopular and cost them votes in Britain today. Now, Unfortunately are we sure of this? Not just Germany in the thirties, but the whole history of the world virtually everywhere tells us the opposite can be true?
For example, many voters in the rust belt states voting for Trump could have done so by that point suspecting Trump a closet racist, yet they voted for change of government in belief or just the hope he would turn the tide and bring them decent jobs. you are all so confident it can’t happen here, in our “global Britain” versus Corbyns national socialist “change for more jobs and better NHS” election?
My conclusion is it is right decent people make their bravest stand against racism wherever possible, yet must be mindful of the dangers of not being understood, don't take for granted what is in the minds of everyone else. Because calling someone out as a racist is not nearly enough, it comes from and is spoken for rational, conscious minds, yet this is in a world operating on primitive impulses of individual self interest, where there are no timeless principles immune from re-evaluation and evolution, and where whatever is in the environment around it will always shape the water in the well.
Instead think of the water in the well, and the environment around it. take the mind of the artist of that mural, present the facts Jews are not over represented in the ownership of banks, city high finance or wealth and ownership in Britain today. And the water in well will get better.
Let’s get those killer facts into everyones minds now, to turn the heat up on all racist politicians and their sly slogans.
Edit: @LordOfReason
I might be wrong but I've heard it suggested 'for the many not the few' was used by Blair before Corbyn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
Afghanistan in particular, if the Taliban are still so well established, it is clear that sizable amounts of the country clearly want it that way.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.