Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is a mistake to look at the next election though the prism

24

Comments

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:



    I think Putin is a master chess player.

    I think he's better suited to Risk
    :) You need allies in Risk. Who are Putin's allies? Iran. Syria. He's weak but he's good at bluff and asymmetric warfare.

    I might try putting all the world's various alliances on a Risk board to see what it looks like.
    Who are Putin's allies?

    Us if Jezza wins?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Y0kel said:

    Context:

    I posted a few weeks back there was internal debate with the US administration over whether to launch some kind of strike over renewed and increasingly blatant use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime from January 2018. This hasn't come out of nowhere even though from public perception point of view its landed in the space of a few days because we had a particularly notable event.

    At the time of that debate the most against it was James Mattis, the US Secretary of Defense and a man who believes that if you are going to use violence, you use it properly and like all military men can be very wary of military force being used without clear objectives. His comments today perhaps give best indication of sway.

    After the April 17 strike, reported and confirmed chemical weapons use dropped away dramatically and was very small scale until the turn of the year.

    Just one note about Trump's decision making. There was a lot of talk back in 2017 that his daughter had a major influence on him in the decision to strike.

    Mattis comment today: "The first thing we have to look at is why are chemical weapons still being used at all when Russia was the framework guarantor of removing all chemical weapons, and so working with our allies and partners from NATO to Qatar and elsewhere we are going to address this issue,"

    Blame here is not stopping with Assad.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:



    I think Putin is a master chess player.

    I think he's better suited to Risk
    :) You need allies in Risk. Who are Putin's allies? Iran. Syria. He's weak but he's good at bluff and asymmetric warfare.

    I might try putting all the world's various alliances on a Risk board to see what it looks like.
    Who are Putin's allies?

    Us if Jezza wins?
    Of course the UK politician who did more than anyone else to bring about Brexit is famous for saying this about Putin: "The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant."
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    nielh said:

    Floater said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    e.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    SNIP

    If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

    Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

    Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout
    Neither I or my wife are tories but we are both determined to vote for whomever has best chance of keeping that .... poison ... .from power
    Yep. And lots of former labour voters will vote conservative for that reason.
    I suspect though that they will be outnumbered by the number of people who are unconcerned by the prospect of a Corbyn led government, and different factors altogether will influence their decision.
    Interestingly and anecdotally my oldest son had been impressed by some of Labours policy positions and no amount of explaining about the stupidity or impossibility showed any sign of moving his view point.

    The Anti semitism issue has severely dented his love of all things Jezza though.

    That's one vote lost - but considering where he lives it would make no difference either way.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    I'm glad. I was worried that HH might have, quite reasonably as it's a serious issue, tried to ruin Kemi over this. I guess her background makes her harder for Labour types to attack?

    I like Kemi a lot, and I hope she can soon overcome this - perhaps by being a password advice tsar, she's certainly got the backstory!

  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    DavidL said:

    Y0kel said:

    Context:

    I posted a few weeks back there was internal debate with the US administration over whether to launch some kind of strike over renewed and increasingly blatant use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime from January 2018. This hasn't come out of nowhere even though from public perception point of view its landed in the space of a few days because we had a particularly notable event.

    At the time of that debate the most against it was James Mattis, the US Secretary of Defense and a man who believes that if you are going to use violence, you use it properly and like all military men can be very wary of military force being used without clear objectives. His comments today perhaps give best indication of sway.

    After the April 17 strike, reported and confirmed chemical weapons use dropped away dramatically and was very small scale until the turn of the year.

    Just one note about Trump's decision making. There was a lot of talk back in 2017 that his daughter had a major influence on him in the decision to strike.

    Mattis comment today: "The first thing we have to look at is why are chemical weapons still being used at all when Russia was the framework guarantor of removing all chemical weapons, and so working with our allies and partners from NATO to Qatar and elsewhere we are going to address this issue,"

    Blame here is not stopping with Assad.
    That much is clear but its unlikely the US will knowingly hit a direct Russian target such as Latakia AB.

    Anyway, sanction some people and you cause the Russian stock market to go into a spiral. What would happen if you really layered it on? You can deal with Russia directly via economic and other non kinetic measures. The chemical weapons issue, however, is such that there probably needs to be a violent response against his Syrian surrogate, plus maybe some of those Revolutionary Guard led militias just give Iran a good kick in the nuts whilst at it.

    As a note, Trump is meeting his advisors at the moment but my understanding is that the in-principle decision was still made last night to ready the package. That could be off.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited April 2018
    Scott_P said:
    This, it appears, is not sitting directly with Mueller, its gone to the US attorney in New York.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:



    I think Putin is a master chess player.

    I think he's better suited to Risk
    :) You need allies in Risk. Who are Putin's allies? Iran. Syria. He's weak but he's good at bluff and asymmetric warfare.

    I might try putting all the world's various alliances on a Risk board to see what it looks like.
    Who are Putin's allies?

    Us if Jezza wins?
    Of course the UK politician who did more than anyone else to bring about Brexit is famous for saying this about Putin: "The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant."
    That obviously means that Brexit caused all sorts of shit in Syria. Or something relevant like that.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    Won't make any difference though, she lives in the ultra safe Tory Devizes constituency (Claire Perry, ex Michael Ancram)
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited April 2018
    Trump has just had a minor fit in front of the media over the investigation into his lawyer Michael Cohen. He has every right to be worried as much as furious. Some serious activities by Cohen on his client's behalf.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    I'm glad. I was worried that HH might have, quite reasonably as it's a serious issue, tried to ruin Kemi over this. I guess her background makes her harder for Labour types to attack?

    I like Kemi a lot, and I hope she can soon overcome this - perhaps by being a password advice tsar, she's certainly got the backstory!

    I haven't followed this story as been away for a few days but understand a tory rising star did something to HH's on line presence.

    I'm going to assume Harriet took her decision regardless of any background issues and assuming it wasn't anything (very) bad but rather some stupid jape - on that basis I have to say my impression of her has actually risen tonight.



  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    I can also confirm that Corbyn is proving an excellent motivator for Tory supporters on the doorstep. Lots of them had a fright in 2017, and have no intention of deserting the Conservatives as long as there is a risk that he could take their place.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Floater said:

    I'm glad. I was worried that HH might have, quite reasonably as it's a serious issue, tried to ruin Kemi over this. I guess her background makes her harder for Labour types to attack?

    I like Kemi a lot, and I hope she can soon overcome this - perhaps by being a password advice tsar, she's certainly got the backstory!

    I haven't followed this story as been away for a few days but understand a tory rising star did something to HH's on line presence.

    I'm going to assume Harriet took her decision regardless of any background issues and assuming it wasn't anything (very) bad but rather some stupid jape - on that basis I have to say my impression of her has actually risen tonight.



    Something about vote for Boris, around London elections I think just mildly complimentary stuff to the Tories or mildly negative about Labour, more comedy than malice. Considering it was her website online it doesn't seem like the worlds worst crime. The only reason I imagine someone would pursue it would be for propaganda purposes or if they had some kind of grudge against the person.

    Also she just typed the password in rather than did anything that I might think of as hacking.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Floater said:

    I'm glad. I was worried that HH might have, quite reasonably as it's a serious issue, tried to ruin Kemi over this. I guess her background makes her harder for Labour types to attack?

    I like Kemi a lot, and I hope she can soon overcome this - perhaps by being a password advice tsar, she's certainly got the backstory!

    I haven't followed this story as been away for a few days but understand a tory rising star did something to HH's on line presence.

    I'm going to assume Harriet took her decision regardless of any background issues and assuming it wasn't anything (very) bad but rather some stupid jape - on that basis I have to say my impression of her has actually risen tonight.



    Kemi got on to HH's website admin using a basic password, then changed some of the text on it to be be pro Tory.

    Harman could have really hurt her with this. I'd love to believe she would have acted the same way if the perpetrator were an old Etonian.

    Do you think she would?
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Floater said:

    I'm glad. I was worried that HH might have, quite reasonably as it's a serious issue, tried to ruin Kemi over this. I guess her background makes her harder for Labour types to attack?

    I like Kemi a lot, and I hope she can soon overcome this - perhaps by being a password advice tsar, she's certainly got the backstory!

    I haven't followed this story as been away for a few days but understand a tory rising star did something to HH's on line presence.

    I'm going to assume Harriet took her decision regardless of any background issues and assuming it wasn't anything (very) bad but rather some stupid jape - on that basis I have to say my impression of her has actually risen tonight.



    Kemi got on to HH's website admin using a basic password, then changed some of the text on it to be be pro Tory.

    Harman could have really hurt her with this. I'd love to believe she would have acted the same way if the perpetrator were an old Etonian.

    Do you think she would?
    I've got to be honest

    I would be reacting differently if this was a story about a Labour MP

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Y0kel said:

    Trump has just had a minor fit in front of the media over the investigation into his lawyer Michael Cohen. He has every right to be worried as much as furious. Some serious activities by Cohen on his client's behalf.

    https://twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri/status/983474329986924544
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    The moment Comrade Corbynaut demanded samples of failed chemical warfare attacks for his favoured regime he lost the next election.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    If you were UK security services, how many official secrets would you share with friend of Moscow, Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad, and so many more, Mr Corbyn?
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    On topic I have been thinking about this over the last few days. There seems to be a suggestion that Corbyn was popular last time but at the time a vote for labour was a safe vote because everyone was expecting a decent Tory majority. If you didn't want to support a large Tory majority as a left winger from any stripe, or you did not support a hard Brexit then the obvious vote was for Corbyn to oppose that. That coalesced into a surprisingly large 40%. We have no way of knowing what percentage of that actually support the policies of labour but you would have to assume some may vote differently next time. Conversely in 2015 the conservatives effectively shepherded the anti SNP Labour coalition for support which unwound in 2017, but picked up the anti Corbyn vote. Not sure why people think the Corbyn unsavoury history didn't work as this was big vote share for the tories, Even if you didn't think ithat the negative messaging worked
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    On topic I have been thinking about this over the last few days. There seems to be a suggestion that Corbyn was popular last time but at the time a vote for labour was a safe vote because everyone was expecting a decent Tory majority. If you didn't want to support a large Tory majority as a left winger from any stripe, or you did not support a hard Brexit then the obvious vote was for Corbyn to oppose that. That coalesced into a surprisingly large 40%. We have no way of knowing what percentage of that actually support the policies of labour but you would have to assume some may vote differently next time. Conversely in 2015 the conservatives effectively shepherded the anti SNP Labour coalition for support which unwound in 2017, but picked up the anti Corbyn vote. Not sure why people think the Corbyn unsavoury history didn't work as this was big vote share for the tories, Even if you didn't think ithat the negative messaging worked

    Even if you didn't think the negative messaging worked then the Syria, Salisbury and Anti-Semtism are showing that Corbyn is not doing well now, which is more salient as it cannot be written off like the IRA and spy stuff.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Something I thought I’d never say, well done Harriet Harman. Good for her to see it as just a bit of political knockabout, which is obviously the way it was intended. I guess she changed the password from the default one too!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    So media attacks on Theresa May made at least two people want to vote for her. Can you see why the OTT attacks on Jeremy Corbyn last time might have been counter-productive?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited April 2018

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    So media attacks on Theresa May made at least two people want to vote for her. Can you see why the OTT attacks on Jeremy Corbyn last time might have been counter-productive?
    I think someone may have made a similar point (without the anecdote, past tense or benefit of hindsight) back during the 2015 Labour leadership race. I'm not sure a change in strategy would be possible now or even that effective if tried.

    Edit: Although I suppose it could stop further damage but I imagine most of it has been done.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,283

    On topic I have been thinking about this over the last few days. There seems to be a suggestion that Corbyn was popular last time but at the time a vote for labour was a safe vote because everyone was expecting a decent Tory majority. If you didn't want to support a large Tory majority as a left winger from any stripe, or you did not support a hard Brexit then the obvious vote was for Corbyn to oppose that. That coalesced into a surprisingly large 40%. We have no way of knowing what percentage of that actually support the policies of labour but you would have to assume some may vote differently next time. Conversely in 2015 the conservatives effectively shepherded the anti SNP Labour coalition for support which unwound in 2017, but picked up the anti Corbyn vote. Not sure why people think the Corbyn unsavoury history didn't work as this was big vote share for the tories, Even if you didn't think ithat the negative messaging worked

    I think, as a lot of people have said in the past there was a large part of the Labour 2017 vote (not a majority, but much larger than a party's usual 'unenthusiastic' vote) that either dislike or are very much unsure about Corbyn, but felt they had no choice but to vote Labour as a) A Tory landslide gave them total control over Brexit, and they had made it sound they were going to pursue it in a pretty awful way (to liberal ears) and b) The Tories were the source of most ills (housing, job security, NHS decline, student debts etc.), so why not give them a kicking, as Corbyn was a huge underdog anyway. You can see it in the polling, where even before recent events the Labour leader was less popular, even among the younger voters he's supposed to delight, than other vote drivers like the EU. There's two obvious ways that can unwind by 2022 - firstly, the Tories ignore their own loons and move to the centre on Brexit, while addressing some of the issues caused by a decade of austerity - thus making them a safe , if reluctant, vote for social liberals again (that would of course cost them some votes elsewhere). Secondly, Corbyn waves through a bad (again to socially liberal ears) Brexit and gets some of the blame and people stop excusing the bad stuff 'because the Tories are bad'. There is a point where the patience snaps, and Corbyn and his acolytes like Owen Jones, seem to be racing towards snapping it.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Sandpit said:

    Something I thought I’d never say, well done Harriet Harman. Good for her to see it as just a bit of political knockabout, which is obviously the way it was intended. I guess she changed the password from the default one too!
    Cough .. Speaker Harman .. Cough ..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590

    Y0kel said:

    Trump has just had a minor fit in front of the media over the investigation into his lawyer Michael Cohen. He has every right to be worried as much as furious. Some serious activities by Cohen on his client's behalf.

    https://twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri/status/983474329986924544
    Trump is a serious lying arse.
    The raid was conducted by a US attorney, not Mueller.one appointed by Sessions after an interview by Trump.
    Furthermore it was signed off by a federal judge.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-robert-mueller-handed-off-the-michael-cohen-raid.html

    Firing Mueller would be aboutbas clear a case of of obstruction of justice as you can get.
    By a sitting president.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    JackW said:

    Sandpit said:

    Something I thought I’d never say, well done Harriet Harman. Good for her to see it as just a bit of political knockabout, which is obviously the way it was intended. I guess she changed the password from the default one too!
    Cough .. Speaker Harman .. Cough ..
    May God have mercy on our souls.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Usual wishful thinking from Mike.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Sandpit said:

    Something I thought I’d never say, well done Harriet Harman. Good for her to see it as just a bit of political knockabout, which is obviously the way it was intended. I guess she changed the password from the default one too!
    Cough .. Speaker Harman .. Cough ..
    May God have mercy on our souls.
    I'll have a word .... :smile:
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    JWisemann said:

    Usual wishful thinking from Mike.

    If you want to disagree produce some analysis not a slur
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    JackW said:

    Sandpit said:

    Something I thought I’d never say, well done Harriet Harman. Good for her to see it as just a bit of political knockabout, which is obviously the way it was intended. I guess she changed the password from the default one too!
    Cough .. Speaker Harman .. Cough ..
    Can’t see it myself, although that’s not to say her reaction here wasn’t with that thought in her mind. Rather unusual for a new Speaker to be a Privy Councillor.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Or motivate Labour supporters to vote while many Tory supporters sit at home, particularly the Remainers.
    Why would remainers who voted Tory in 2017 abstain *in that issue* in 2022
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    MJW said:

    On topic I have been thinking about this over the last few days. There seems to be a suggestion that Corbyn was popular last time but at the time a vote for labour was a safe vote because everyone was expecting a decent Tory majority. If you didn't want to support a large Tory majority as a left winger from any stripe, or you did not support a hard Brexit then the obvious vote was for Corbyn to oppose that. That coalesced into a surprisingly large 40%. We have no way of knowing what percentage of that actually support the policies of labour but you would have to assume some may vote differently next time. Conversely in 2015 the conservatives effectively shepherded the anti SNP Labour coalition for support which unwound in 2017, but picked up the anti Corbyn vote. Not sure why people think the Corbyn unsavoury history didn't work as this was big vote share for the tories, Even if you didn't think ithat the negative messaging worked

    I think, as a lot of people have said in the past there was a large part of the Labour 2017 vote (not a majority, but much larger than a party's usual 'unenthusiastic' vote) that either dislike or are very much unsure about Corbyn, but felt they had no choice but to vote Labour as a) A Tory landslide gave them total control over Brexit, and they had made it sound they were going to pursue it in a pretty awful way (to liberal ears) and b) The Tories were the source of most ills (housing, job security, NHS decline, student debts etc.), so why not give them a kicking, as Corbyn was a huge underdog anyway. You can see it in the polling, where even before recent events the Labour leader was less popular, even among the younger voters he's supposed to delight, than other vote drivers like the EU. There's two obvious ways that can unwind by 2022 - firstly, the Tories ignore their own loons and move to the centre on Brexit, while addressing some of the issues caused by a decade of austerity - thus making them a safe , if reluctant, vote for social liberals again (that would of course cost them some votes elsewhere). Secondly, Corbyn waves through a bad (again to socially liberal ears) Brexit and gets some of the blame and people stop excusing the bad stuff 'because the Tories are bad'. There is a point where the patience snaps, and Corbyn and his acolytes like Owen Jones, seem to be racing towards snapping it.
    Except that most polls show Labour getting a higher vote than at the 2017 election.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    edited April 2018
    'It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons'

    Worth going to war with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads?
    (The thing is obviously a jihadist fraud anyway, you'd have to be 'thick as mince' to think otherwise)

    I get the impression that behind the bravado even the PB Tory chickenhawks are slightly nervous about May's defining place in history being to spark nuclear war to save a bunch of genocidal al-Qaeda linked jihadists (that to the Conservatives' eternal shame they have been aiding and arming, in an extension of their historic love affair with Salafi extremists).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    edited April 2018

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    Are you proud of the 40% of Britons that voted for Jezza? or are they the wrong sort of British? after all they were very nearly as representative of the British as the 43% voting for May.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Very belatedly on topic, wise words from OGH.

    The biggest mistake Labour could make would be to assume that the electoral cycle and demographic change will deliver an election victory into their laps by default in GE2022.

    Neither politics nor the electorate work that way. Just how many cast iron rules of politics have we seen broken over recent years?

    FWIW, I could see the Tories narrowly winning GE2022 before going down to a heavy defeat 5 years later. But that’s just a plausible scenario too, and not a prediction.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Very belatedly on topic, wise words from OGH.

    The biggest mistake Labour could make would be to assume that the electoral cycle and demographic change will deliver an election victory into their laps by default in GE2022.

    Neither politics nor the electorate work that way. Just how many cast iron rules of politics have we seen broken over recent years?

    FWIW, I could see the Tories narrowly winning GE2022 before going down to a heavy defeat 5 years later. But that’s just a plausible scenario too, and not a prediction.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    RobD said:

    nielh said:

    To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.

    Trump may be the least of your worries.

    https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/bild-international/zapad-2017-english-54233658.bild.html

    Zapad 2017 was neither an “anti-terror exercise” nor “purely defensive”, but a “dry run” for a “full-scale conventional war against NATO in Europe”. According to these sources, the drill rehearsed the capture of the Baltic states (and Belarus) as well as a “shock campaign” against Western European NATO nations such as Germany and the Netherlands, but also against Poland, Norway and the non-aligned states of Sweden and Finland.

    image
    One wonders, is Putin being advised by General Orlov?
    Good one.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It’s unkely to be the same. It’s unclear yet how it will be different.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Lets ignore the polls, Labour are going to lose because they aren't getting the votes of a right wing cab driver (hat-tip Sean T) or an elderly cleaner in Wiltshire.

    Poor PB Tories always believe their own hype. And never learn.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Very grateful to Yokel for his posts on the Syria situation.

    As always, a real asset to this site.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,962
    JackW said:

    Sandpit said:

    Something I thought I’d never say, well done Harriet Harman. Good for her to see it as just a bit of political knockabout, which is obviously the way it was intended. I guess she changed the password from the default one too!
    Cough .. Speaker Harman .. Cough ..
    Well, she might have one vote now, but.....
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082

    Very grateful to Yokel for his posts on the Syria situation.

    As always, a real asset to this site.

    No, the guy is full of shite.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Sandpit said:

    Something I thought I’d never say, well done Harriet Harman. Good for her to see it as just a bit of political knockabout, which is obviously the way it was intended. I guess she changed the password from the default one too!
    The uncharitable side of me thought 'running for speaker' - in which case its smart...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    JWisemann said:

    'It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons'

    Worth going to war with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads?
    (The thing is obviously a jihadist fraud anyway, you'd have to be 'thick as mince' to think otherwise)

    I get the impression that behind the bravado even the PB Tory chickenhawks are slightly nervous about May's defining place in history being to spark nuclear war to save a bunch of genocidal al-Qaeda linked jihadists (that to the Conservatives' eternal shame they have been aiding and arming, in an extension of their historic love affair with Salafi extremists).

    You do realise that the government has access to far more evidence than you do? You’ve probably read a few tweets and that’s about it.

    ‘Obviously’ a jihadist fraud, it is not.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons
    We have little choice but to respond, and to do so more firmly than last time.

    Otherwise, we may as well wave away international conventions on the use of chemical and biological weapons, and we’ll reap even more serious consequences from that years down the line.

    There is no easy cost-free way out.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    JWisemann said:

    Very grateful to Yokel for his posts on the Syria situation.

    As always, a real asset to this site.

    No, the guy is full of shite.
    In other words, you don’t like his analysis and the actions he infers might take place.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    We're so far out from the next election that anyone making predictions is kidding themselves. Don't even know who the party leaders will be next time round.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    edited April 2018

    JWisemann said:

    'It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons'

    Worth going to war with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads?
    (The thing is obviously a jihadist fraud anyway, you'd have to be 'thick as mince' to think otherwise)

    I get the impression that behind the bravado even the PB Tory chickenhawks are slightly nervous about May's defining place in history being to spark nuclear war to save a bunch of genocidal al-Qaeda linked jihadists (that to the Conservatives' eternal shame they have been aiding and arming, in an extension of their historic love affair with Salafi extremists).

    You do realise that the government has access to far more evidence than you do? You’ve probably read a few tweets and that’s about it.

    ‘Obviously’ a jihadist fraud, it is not.
    No, I have a lot of knowledge of the Syria situation thanks, going back many years. I'm not denying the government has 'more access to evidence' than I do. I'm suggesting they know it is nonsense too, just like all the other times they have used lies and half-truths to intervene against 'enemies' where they were desperate to anyway.

    Syria is where NATO & GCC's destruction of the remaining independent countries in the Middle East has been rudely halted, and the US MIC and its poodles over here see that as an existential threat. Unfortunately for the rest of us, it looks like they are willing to risk our existence over it too. Of course, if the public knew they were willing to risk world war to save their jihadi army, there'd be uproar, hence the endless propaganda.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    JWisemann said:

    Lets ignore the polls, Labour are going to lose because they aren't getting the votes of a right wing cab driver (hat-tip Sean T) or an elderly cleaner in Wiltshire.

    Poor PB Tories always believe their own hype. And never learn.

    Yup - M. Smithson is truly a PB Tory on planet Corbyn
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    JWisemann said:

    Usual wishful thinking from Mike.

    If you want to disagree produce some analysis not a slur
    You're asking him to do something that he is incapable of.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    It's hard to see us getting to 2022 without at least one and possibly several big issues that will affect voting patterns. We might have British ground troops in Syria. A full scale trade war might break out. Brexit might provoke wage increases that make everyone feel better or price rises that make everyone feel worse. Or something that nobody predicts. It's a shame you can't bet on 'someone nobody thought for a minute would get the job'.

    There will be no British ground troops in Syria for certain. Tories want to have at least a chance next election, they are stupid but surely not suicidal.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did m
    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyoneed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians
    What are the odds that Trump's air strikes will kill more than 70 civilians?
    A bit too high for comfort unfortunately
    Given US and UK civilian kills are already in the many thousands in Syria, will it bother them. They have to wave their willies to show how big they are.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did m
    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.


    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians
    What are the odds that Trump's air strikes will kill more than 70 civilians?
    A bit too high for comfort unfortunately
    Given US and UK civilian kills are already in the many thousands in Syria, will it bother them. They have to wave their willies to show how big they are.
    Yes, apparently killing thousands of children with normal bombs in Raqqa and Mosul is fine, but an evidence-free video shot by jihadists is suddenly casus belli for global thermonuclear war.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2018
    felix said:

    JWisemann said:

    Lets ignore the polls, Labour are going to lose because they aren't getting the votes of a right wing cab driver (hat-tip Sean T) or an elderly cleaner in Wiltshire.

    Poor PB Tories always believe their own hype. And never learn.

    Yup - M. Smithson is truly a PB Tory on planet Corbyn
    We are all Tories now*....

    * unless you are card carrying Maomentumer
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?
    More than 29,000 strikes on Iraq/Syria , over 6K civilians estimated dead, over 100K bombs and missiles. Hardly trivial David.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:


    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyoneed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians
    What are the odds that Trump's air strikes will kill more than 70 civilians?
    A bit too high for comfort unfortunately
    Given US and UK civilian kills are already in the many thousands in Syria, will it bother them. They have to wave their willies to show how big they are.
    I’m not automatically opposed to fresh military action but I’d like to hear an aim so I can decide whether I agree with it and so anyone can judge whether it has been achieved. So far I haven’t. In the absence of one, I’m against intervention. Something Must Be Done isn’t a policy.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Well, it's raining and grey, but there we are.

    Agree with the premise of the threadstarter. It's a danger in F1 too, season-to-season or race-to-race, of fighting the last war. Volley fire in the early 19th century was clever. In the 20th it was not. Likewise, Williams and Force India have dropped a lot of performance, and Labour exceeded expectations [but still lost, thankfully].

    The next election will also be different.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    Dear God , what puerile bollox, pass me my service revolver. There are some stupid people allowed to vote, no wonder this country is in a state.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    edited April 2018
    'More than 29,000 strikes on Iraq/Syria , over 6K civilians estimated dead, over 100K bombs and missiles. Hardly trivial David'

    That's the yanks though (yes I know to all intents and purposes we are just a subcontracted division of the US war machine). After all the sickening theatrics in parliament used to batter Corbyn on the issue, the RAF actually ended up doing very little in Syria.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:



    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

    It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons
    We can't go to war with the Russians. And we can't go to war without the Americans.
    So really it's what those two countries do that matters.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons
    Rubbish, given we could not field an army aside, the country would not support any more middle east excursions by politicians trying to prove we were still a world power.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    malcolmg said:

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    Dear God , what puerile bollox, pass me my service revolver. There are some stupid people allowed to vote, no wonder this country is in a state.
    And there are bitter and twisted people like you who shouldn't be allowed to vote as you clearly hate the UK
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:


    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyoneed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians
    What are the odds that Trump's air strikes will kill more than 70 civilians?
    A bit too high for comfort unfortunately
    Given US and UK civilian kills are already in the many thousands in Syria, will it bother them. They have to wave their willies to show how big they are.
    I’m not automatically opposed to fresh military action but I’d like to hear an aim so I can decide whether I agree with it and so anyone can judge whether it has been achieved. So far I haven’t. In the absence of one, I’m against intervention. Something Must Be Done isn’t a policy.
    Exactly , I would not trust this current lot of donkeys as far as I could throw them. They are lying toerags and just as likely to be involved as not. It is hard to tell nowadays who are the good guys for sure. As Wisemann says , one video and the word of a bunch of proven lying spooks is not an excuse for another shedload of cannon fodder to be dispatched.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    JWisemann said:

    'More than 29,000 strikes on Iraq/Syria , over 6K civilians estimated dead, over 100K bombs and missiles. Hardly trivial David'

    That's the yanks though (yes I know to all intents and purposes we are just a subcontracted division of the US war machine). After all the sickening theatrics in parliament used to batter Corbyn on the issue, the RAF actually ended up doing very little in Syria.

    Roughly one RAF attack on ISIS in Syria per day. The government puts them on its website, these are the Feb 2018 ones:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-forces-air-strikes-in-iraq-monthly-list/raf-air-strikes-in-iraq-and-syria-february-2018

    I am sure that Assad was behind the latest gas attack, claims of "False Flags" are nearly always conspiracy theory bollocks.

    Bombing both sides in the same war is absurd though.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:



    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

    It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons
    We can't go to war with the Russians. And we can't go to war without the Americans.
    So really it's what those two countries do that matters.
    They need their useful idiots to make it look legit though. Nice opportunity for the rich to top up the bank books.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    JWisemann said:

    'More than 29,000 strikes on Iraq/Syria , over 6K civilians estimated dead, over 100K bombs and missiles. Hardly trivial David'

    That's the yanks though (yes I know to all intents and purposes we are just a subcontracted division of the US war machine). After all the sickening theatrics in parliament used to batter Corbyn on the issue, the RAF actually ended up doing very little in Syria.

    We have a handful of planes helping them to try and make it legitimate so are 50% to blame at least.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    malcolmg said:

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    Dear God , what puerile bollox, pass me my service revolver. There are some stupid people allowed to vote, no wonder this country is in a state.
    I once knew someone who thought about joining the National Front, then decided the Liberals had a better social life.
    On the road through life, one come’s across all sorts.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    It appears that anything up to 6 nations are being suggested as having active involvement in any proposed strikes against Syria.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Interesting analysis of how the EU has evolved....and lost its citizens in the process:

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/04/10/a-coercive-policy-making-state-how-the-eu-is-alienating-its-citizens/
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    edited April 2018
    kjohnw said:

    malcolmg said:

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    Dear God , what puerile bollox, pass me my service revolver. There are some stupid people allowed to vote, no wonder this country is in a state.
    And there are bitter and twisted people like you who shouldn't be allowed to vote as you clearly hate the UK
    Surely you can come up with something better than that. At least I can recognise that the public has more than its fair share of stupidity, shown perfectly by that post. Have you any better observation to offer rather than fact that I understand how crap UK is.
    PS : Given your love of democracy I have you down as a Tory fan(**)boy
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    malcolmg said:

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    pass me my service revolver.
    When did you serve?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JWisemann said:

    'It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons'

    Worth going to war with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads?
    (The thing is obviously a jihadist fraud anyway, you'd have to be 'thick as mince' to think otherwise)

    I get the impression that behind the bravado even the PB Tory chickenhawks are slightly nervous about May's defining place in history being to spark nuclear war to save a bunch of genocidal al-Qaeda linked jihadists (that to the Conservatives' eternal shame they have been aiding and arming, in an extension of their historic love affair with Salafi extremists).

    Yes. Because I don’t believe Russia will use nukes. Chemical weapons are relatively easy for a genocidal dictator to make and they may be taught the consequences of using them.

    Pour encourager les autres
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    'It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons'

    Worth going to war with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads?
    (The thing is obviously a jihadist fraud anyway, you'd have to be 'thick as mince' to think otherwise)

    I get the impression that behind the bravado even the PB Tory chickenhawks are slightly nervous about May's defining place in history being to spark nuclear war to save a bunch of genocidal al-Qaeda linked jihadists (that to the Conservatives' eternal shame they have been aiding and arming, in an extension of their historic love affair with Salafi extremists).

    You do realise that the government has access to far more evidence than you do? You’ve probably read a few tweets and that’s about it.

    ‘Obviously’ a jihadist fraud, it is not.
    No, I have a lot of knowledge of the Syria situation thanks, going back many years. I'm not denying the government has 'more access to evidence' than I do. I'm suggesting they know it is nonsense too, just like all the other times they have used lies and half-truths to intervene against 'enemies' where they were desperate to anyway.

    Syria is where NATO & GCC's destruction of the remaining independent countries in the Middle East has been rudely halted, and the US MIC and its poodles over here see that as an existential threat. Unfortunately for the rest of us, it looks like they are willing to risk our existence over it too. Of course, if the public knew they were willing to risk world war to save their jihadi army, there'd be uproar, hence the endless propaganda.
    So you are claiming the government's like is nonsense. Does that mean that you believe the Syrian/Russian line instead? And if not, what do you believe?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    edited April 2018

    malcolmg said:

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    pass me my service revolver.
    When did you serve?

    LOL, It was my Dad's , he gave 5 years of his life fighting for crap Tories like you.
    PS: Care to post your own great record , other than being a tax exile
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    edited April 2018
    Foxy said:


    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-forces-air-strikes-in-iraq-monthly-list/raf-air-strikes-in-iraq-and-syria-february-2018

    I am sure that Assad was behind the latest gas attack, claims of "False Flags" are nearly always conspiracy theory bollocks.

    Pinprick stuff compared with the US onslaught (basically taking Mosul and Raqqa by demolishing most of the cities).

    Most false flag stuff bandied about is tinfoil hat stuff, but that doesn't mean it all is. There are plenty of well documented examples in history.

    Do you really put it past a bunch of salafi jihadis (aided and armed by the Conservative government, to their eternal shame), who are happy to parade women and children around in the street in cages just for being Alawites, from staging things like this to try and turn the tide of war? They have the means, the motive, and the complete lack of morals to carry it off.

    Whereas the Syrians have absolutely no motive whatsoever, unless you swallow the 6 year old kind of view where they are just evil mad bond villains and like gassing kids for fun despite it giving the US an excuse to bomb them.

    And the US / UK MIC are desperate to make up for their loss of the Syrian war. and also have persistent form in hyping up chemical weapons and dead children to whip up public support for their wars, from fictional smashed incubators to the infamous 45 minutes business.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'More than 29,000 strikes on Iraq/Syria , over 6K civilians estimated dead, over 100K bombs and missiles. Hardly trivial David'

    That's the yanks though (yes I know to all intents and purposes we are just a subcontracted division of the US war machine). After all the sickening theatrics in parliament used to batter Corbyn on the issue, the RAF actually ended up doing very little in Syria.

    I am sure that Assad was behind the latest gas attack, claims of "False Flags" are nearly always conspiracy theory bollocks.
    The idea that people who have been cut off and under siege for years could suddenly mount a Hollywood style production of a fake gas attack with realistic make up and symptoms does require considerable suspension of disbelief.

    By the way - I've lost track, what's the latest Russian version? 'There was no gas attack' or 'The rebels did it'?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    On topic I have been thinking about this over the last few days. There seems to be a suggestion that Corbyn was popular last time but at the time a vote for labour was a safe vote because everyone was expecting a decent Tory majority. If you didn't want to support a large Tory majority as a left winger from any stripe, or you did not support a hard Brexit then the obvious vote was for Corbyn to oppose that. That coalesced into a surprisingly large 40%. We have no way of knowing what percentage of that actually support the policies of labour but you would have to assume some may vote differently next time. Conversely in 2015 the conservatives effectively shepherded the anti SNP Labour coalition for support which unwound in 2017, but picked up the anti Corbyn vote. Not sure why people think the Corbyn unsavoury history didn't work as this was big vote share for the tories, Even if you didn't think ithat the negative messaging worked

    Even if you didn't think the negative messaging worked then the Syria, Salisbury and Anti-Semtism are showing that Corbyn is not doing well now, which is more salient as it cannot be written off like the IRA and spy stuff.
    Of course it can. The election is a long way off snd even now labour members think he's doing a good job. Once they sweep London I'm a few weeks the negative press will be forgotten.

    This is not to say he will win next time, not for certain, but he's still looking good for it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons
    We have little choice but to respond, and to do so more firmly than last time.

    Otherwise, we may as well wave away international conventions on the use of chemical and biological weapons, and we’ll reap even more serious consequences from that years down the line.

    There is no easy cost-free way out.
    I just went for the punch line! But I agree with your reasoning
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?
    More than 29,000 strikes on Iraq/Syria , over 6K civilians estimated dead, over 100K bombs and missiles. Hardly trivial David.
    I can't find the statistics but last time I did we had dropped something like 10 bombs in Syria. There have been far more attacks in Iraq but these are winding down quite sharply now as ISIS are pretty much defeated there and there are fewer targets to hit.

    I think your figures are for the coalition and will be at least 70% US.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited April 2018
    In Syria, it seems there are no moderates left. Perhaps there were five years ago, but they're thin on the ground now. Who are the good guys?

    Russia and Iran have a war aim - to spread their influence. What would be ours? Putin is acting in character, as are Iran. Obama's red lines were crossed and ignored years ago. There's little point moaning about Ed's political shenanigans in 2013 now, but that was the time to consider force. Today, Ed's cunning plan makes some sort of sense, even if it didn't then.

    Let's face it, we're restricted to economic sanctions.

    PS I don't claim to have any in-depth knowledge, but I suspect only a few people do.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Corbyn is stronger now than he was before the 2017 election.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    We have little choice but to respond, and to do so more firmly than last time.

    Otherwise, we may as well wave away international conventions on the use of chemical and biological weapons, and we’ll reap even more serious consequences from that years down the line.

    (Snip)

    This is exactly the point I was making back in 2013. Sadly, bad regimes have seen what happened back then - especially the Russian-led (ha!) effort to remove chemical weapons from Syria - and will have seen you do not get punished for their use. Chemical weapons are generally easier to develop and weaponise than nukes, and have other advantages.

    Such regimes have had five years to develop them. Not that chlorine requires much development ...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    malcolmg said:

    Anecdote alert..

    My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.

    She made me proud to be British

    Dear God , what puerile bollox, pass me my service revolver. There are some stupid people allowed to vote, no wonder this country is in a state.
    Don't do it Malc!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard tot a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons
    Rubbish, given we could not field an army aside, the country would not support any more middle east excursions by politicians trying to prove we were still a world power.
    True, but I wouldn’t see us providing the bulk of the numbers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Right, this is very boring. Let's talk about some important stuff. The odds on this year's turnip harvest hitting record levels are...

    Not really, but now I've got your attention, Malcolm, I'm going to annoy you by talking about cricket. The County Championship starts this week and the odds are - interesting.

    First of all, Essex are favourite to retain the title at around 4/1. Not ridiculous - they have a good pace and spin attack and impressive depth to their batting. In a division that doesn't have a standout side, they look strong. Lancashire, at around 5/1, also look pretty good although Surrey, bereft of Sangakkara and with an untried captain, are best avoided at 6/1. They might well be fighting for sixth come the end of the season.

    The one that might offer value though is Hampshire at 9/1. With Abbot, Edwards and Steyn leading their bowling and Crane to add some spin, plus Amla and Vince, they look a strong side. Whether they will win is another question but on paper they have a squad to match Surrey.

    Another one to look at are Worcestershire. I will be beyond surprised if they win the Championship, but they have a good young squad with a fiery pace attack and for all the upheaval over the winter a good coaching setup. They have a realistic chance of finishing sixth especially if Moeen is available. Yorkshire and Somerset, the one depleted by England and one over-reliant on untried youth and elderly experience, look more likely candidates for the drop for me.

    Similarly although Porter and Harmer deserve their status as favourites for most wickets, for me Abbott is the value at 10/1. He's not someone most batsmen will have played against and he is a superb bowler. For batting, Ballance is the justified favourite at 9/1.

    Division 2 to follow.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    CD13 said:

    In Syria, it seems there are no moderates left. Perhaps there were five years ago, but they're thin on the ground now. Who are the good guys?

    Russia and Iran have a war aim - to spread their influence. What would be ours? Putin is acting in character, as are Iran. Obama's red lines were crossed and ignored years ago. There's little point moaning about Ed's political shenanigans in 2013 now, but that was the time to consider force. Today, Ed's cunning plan makes some sort of sense, even if it didn't then.

    Let's face it, we're restricted to economic sanctions.

    There are many 'rules' governing warfare, but few are really adhered to. The various chemical and biological weapons treaties have generally been a success story up to now, drastically limiting their use in war. I'd argue it's vital to show that such treaties are still valid and need to be kept, even as we try to develop more workable treaties against other weapons.

    Anyone who believes in reducing warfare and weaponry - especially unilateralists - should be strongly in favour of treaties that work.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn is stronger now than he was before the 2017 election.

    Considerably stronger.

    I am not convinced that he will fight the next election, unless it comes unexpectedly early again. He will want to embed some changes before stepping down.


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    The point that Secretary of State for Defence Mattis was making that I quoted over night is that under the deal done after the last outrage the Russians stood as guarantors that this would not happen again. And yet it has.

    What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. It is a demonstration of Russian weakness and lack of influence, not strength. Their response of it didn't happen and if it did it was the rebels is basically an attempt to deny their own weakness.

    For those that didn't see it Mattis said:

    "The first thing we have to look at is why are chemical weapons still being used at all when Russia was the framework guarantor of removing all chemical weapons, and so working with our allies and partners from NATO to Qatar and elsewhere we are going to address this issue,"

    Qatar got a mention because that is who he was meeting at the time of the comments.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    ydoethur said:

    Right, this is very boring. Let's talk about some important stuff. The odds on this year's turnip harvest hitting record levels are...

    Not really, but now I've got your attention, Malcolm, I'm going to annoy you by talking about cricket. The County Championship starts this week and the odds are - interesting.

    First of all, Essex are favourite to retain the title at around 4/1. Not ridiculous - they have a good pace and spin attack and impressive depth to their batting. In a division that doesn't have a standout side, they look strong. Lancashire, at around 5/1, also look pretty good although Surrey, bereft of Sangakkara and with an untried captain, are best avoided at 6/1. They might well be fighting for sixth come the end of the season.

    The one that might offer value though is Hampshire at 9/1. With Abbot, Edwards and Steyn leading their bowling and Crane to add some spin, plus Amla and Vince, they look a strong side. Whether they will win is another question but on paper they have a squad to match Surrey.

    Another one to look at are Worcestershire. I will be beyond surprised if they win the Championship, but they have a good young squad with a fiery pace attack and for all the upheaval over the winter a good coaching setup. They have a realistic chance of finishing sixth especially if Moeen is available. Yorkshire and Somerset, the one depleted by England and one over-reliant on untried youth and elderly experience, look more likely candidates for the drop for me.

    Similarly although Porter and Harmer deserve their status as favourites for most wickets, for me Abbott is the value at 10/1. He's not someone most batsmen will have played against and he is a superb bowler. For batting, Ballance is the justified favourite at 9/1.

    Division 2 to follow.

    As an Essex member I hope you and the bookies are right, but one feature of last years side was the lack of injuries. Can we do as well this year. Also the Test selectors ignored us, with the exception of Cook and, briefly, Westley. Will that be the case again. The result of those two features was a very settled squad.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    ydoethur said:

    Right, this is very boring. Let's talk about some important stuff. The odds on this year's turnip harvest hitting record levels are...

    Not really, but now I've got your attention, Malcolm, I'm going to annoy you by talking about cricket. The County Championship starts this week and the odds are - interesting.

    First of all, Essex are favourite to retain the title at around 4/1. Not ridiculous - they have a good pace and spin attack and impressive depth to their batting. In a division that doesn't have a standout side, they look strong. Lancashire, at around 5/1, also look pretty good although Surrey, bereft of Sangakkara and with an untried captain, are best avoided at 6/1. They might well be fighting for sixth come the end of the season.

    The one that might offer value though is Hampshire at 9/1. With Abbot, Edwards and Steyn leading their bowling and Crane to add some spin, plus Amla and Vince, they look a strong side. Whether they will win is another question but on paper they have a squad to match Surrey.

    Another one to look at are Worcestershire. I will be beyond surprised if they win the Championship, but they have a good young squad with a fiery pace attack and for all the upheaval over the winter a good coaching setup. They have a realistic chance of finishing sixth especially if Moeen is available. Yorkshire and Somerset, the one depleted by England and one over-reliant on untried youth and elderly experience, look more likely candidates for the drop for me.

    Similarly although Porter and Harmer deserve their status as favourites for most wickets, for me Abbott is the value at 10/1. He's not someone most batsmen will have played against and he is a superb bowler. For batting, Ballance is the justified favourite at 9/1.

    Division 2 to follow.

    As an Essex member I hope you and the bookies are right, but one feature of last years side was the lack of injuries. Can we do as well this year. Also the Test selectors ignored us, with the exception of Cook and, briefly, Westley. Will that be the case again. The result of those two features was a very settled squad.
    I think Cook will be available for selection this year. His time as an England player, magnificent as it has been, is up.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    As the use of chemical weapons in Syria and potential response has diverted our attention away from Brexit, I have to assume that David Davis was behind the attack.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    DavidL said:

    The point that Secretary of State for Defence Mattis was making that I quoted over night is that under the deal done after the last outrage the Russians stood as guarantors that this would not happen again. And yet it has.

    What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. It is a demonstration of Russian weakness and lack of influence, not strength. Their response of it didn't happen and if it did it was the rebels is basically an attempt to deny their own weakness.

    For those that didn't see it Mattis said:

    "The first thing we have to look at is why are chemical weapons still being used at all when Russia was the framework guarantor of removing all chemical weapons, and so working with our allies and partners from NATO to Qatar and elsewhere we are going to address this issue,"

    Qatar got a mention because that is who he was meeting at the time of the comments.

    "What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. "

    There is another, more worrying option: that Russia does not care. That's the one I'd go for, especially as Russia has been show to use such weapons themselves twice.

    It might make some sense from the Russian perspective: nuclear weapons are massively costly to maintain in the long term. The maintenance of their existing stockpile ready for use will be costing their stricken economy a great deal of treasure. Chemical weapons (and less so biological) are cheaper to develop and maintain, and do not risk all-out nuclear war if they are used. In fact, we've shown several times (e.g. Halubja) that we will not react to their use.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    As the use of chemical weapons in Syria and potential response has diverted our attention away from Brexit, I have to assume that David Davis was behind the attack.

    Its Occam's razor, isn't it?
This discussion has been closed.