Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s decision to back the Syria raid without Commons approva

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited April 16 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s decision to back the Syria raid without Commons approval was in the face of public opinion

Was TMay right to order strikes on Syria without MPs backing? SurvationYes 30%No 54%DK 16%

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    edited April 16
    First.

    I doubt this is enough to imminently alter anyone's vote: the noisy people are the ones (I might say opportunists) who passionately dislike May and the Conservatives anyway.

    What May needs to do in the Commons is show that Corbyn's alternative was unworkable due to Russian intransigence at the UNSC, that the coalition of countries built up shows we are not alone, and that we are protecting the country, whilst Corbyn wants to surrender it.

    Today may be bad for May, but there might also be dangers for Corbyn whose position on the wider issues are far from consistent or realistic.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    The idea of having a vote on action *after* it has taken place also cannot be discounted IMO. It allows parliament to have its say, but has dangers:

    *) Some MPs who might have reluctantly voted for action, might not know its taken place to save them from the heat and fury of idiots.
    *) It might be lost.
    *) A lost vote might prevent future actions in Syria and elsewhere.
    *) It may not play well in the media - a pointless vote.

    On the other hand, it could be seen as giving parliament a say, and MPs who were worried (stupidly IMO) about the start of World War Three will have realised it did not occur.

    If the government were to call a vote, would it be possible to structure the wording to cause maximise discomfort to Corbyn.

    (I might also arrange a stunt, like getting a victim of the attack to address parliament. Too many people are treating them as ciphers and not as people.)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    edited April 16
    If the Govt calls another they need to make damn well sure they will win it. I think they will, the DUP won't rebel neither will the pro EU MPs or the ERG. I think Labour will have more rebels from Corbyns position actually.
    Personally I was in favour of the strike against IS but this not this one.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    tlg86 said:

    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.

    It's amusing, but also a little pathetic.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,008

    tlg86 said:

    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.

    It's amusing, but also a little pathetic.
    In a nutshell.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.

    It's amusing, but also a little pathetic.
    In a nutshell.
    He is the Trump of sex: "It was the beast damned sex! Better sex than any of you have ever had! You've only had phoney sex unless you've had sex with my glamorous, young Corbynite wife, the best wife in existence! Let's make sex great again!"

    And all the time he needs Viagra to help him... ;)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.

    It's amusing, but also a little pathetic.
    In a nutshell.
    He is the Trump of sex: "It was the beast damned sex! Better sex than any of you have ever had! You've only had phoney sex unless you've had sex with my glamorous, young Corbynite wife, the best wife in existence! Let's make sex great again!"

    And all the time he needs Viagra to help him... ;)
    And the down side?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    Mike :

    Typo - Last but two paragraph extra "it what".
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.

    It's amusing, but also a little pathetic.
    In a nutshell.
    He is the Trump of sex: "It was the beast damned sex! Better sex than any of you have ever had! You've only had phoney sex unless you've had sex with my glamorous, young Corbynite wife, the best wife in existence! Let's make sex great again!"

    And all the time he needs Viagra to help him... ;)
    And the down side?
    You have to be SeanT. ;)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    JackW said:

    Mike :

    Typo - Last but two paragraph extra "it what".

    I read the threader twice and missed that both times. I'm no proofreader - at least not at six in the morning ...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.

    It's amusing, but also a little pathetic.
    In a nutshell.
    So that answers what " basically naked" means. He was wearing a "nutshell".......
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    edited April 16
    As I've noted previously the Prime Minister's failure to engage with Parliament before the military strike was a significant failure of leadership and politically crass.

    The focus has shifted significantly to Jezza calling for a War Powers Act. Both May and Corbyn will face a difficult time today ; Corbyn because of his pacifism and appeasement and May for sidelining Parliament in defiance of the will of the voters and many of her own MP's.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    tlg86 said:

    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.

    Imagine if you were out walking the dog in those woods :o
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.

    Imagine if you were out walking the dog in those woods :o
    Brings a new perspective to 'dogging' ...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    I see Sean T was oversharing on the previous thread.

    Imagine if you were out walking the dog in those woods :o
    You'd be called Stan Collymore?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    JackW said:

    Mike :

    Typo - Last but two paragraph extra "it what".

    I read the threader twice and missed that both times. I'm no proofreader - at least not at six in the morning ...
    A most stunning confession.

    OGH's thread leaders are tablets of stone handed down from the heights of Bedford. To read them once is a joy. To read them twice is a early morning guilty sin verging on corrupting vice that may only be compared with readership of ConHome !!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    edited April 16
    JackW said:

    As I've noted previously the Prime Minister's failure to engage with Parliament before the military strike was a significant failure of leadership and politically crass.

    The focus has shifted significantly to Jezza calling for a War Powers Act. Both May and Corbyn will face a difficult time today ; Corbyn because of his pacifism and appeasement and May for sidelining Parliament in defiance of the will of the voters and many of her own MP's.

    The "will of the voters" can only be tested by a general election. After last June, that wasn't ever on the cards.

    I suspect that a majority of MPs will fall behind her, given operations were discrete and resulted in no loss of British troops. The Ghost Of Ed Miliband will stalk proceedings though.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    FPT ....

    I've just asked Mrs JackW if we possess any bongos .... I think she now considers my medication requires upping substantially .... and that's before I told her why .... :sunglasses:
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    JackW said:

    As I've noted previously the Prime Minister's failure to engage with Parliament before the military strike was a significant failure of leadership and politically crass.

    The focus has shifted significantly to Jezza calling for a War Powers Act. Both May and Corbyn will face a difficult time today ; Corbyn because of his pacifism and appeasement and May for sidelining Parliament in defiance of the will of the voters and many of her own MP's.

    The "will of the voters" can only be tested by a general election. After last June, that wasn't ever on the cards.

    I suspect that a majority of MPs will fall behind her, given operations were discrete and resulted in no loss of British troops. The Ghost Of Ed Miliband will stalk proceedings though.
    The "will of the voters" as noted by the Survation -24 on May's failure to prior consult Parliament.

    I agree with your second paragraph.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    As I've noted previously the Prime Minister's failure to engage with Parliament before the military strike was a significant failure of leadership and politically crass.

    The focus has shifted significantly to Jezza calling for a War Powers Act. Both May and Corbyn will face a difficult time today ; Corbyn because of his pacifism and appeasement and May for sidelining Parliament in defiance of the will of the voters and many of her own MP's.

    The "will of the voters" can only be tested by a general election. After last June, that wasn't ever on the cards.

    I suspect that a majority of MPs will fall behind her, given operations were discrete and resulted in no loss of British troops. The Ghost Of Ed Miliband will stalk proceedings though.
    The "will of the voters" as noted by the Survation -24 on May's failure to prior consult Parliament.

    I agree with your second paragraph.
    It's very dangerous to use polling as a definitive indication of the 'will of the voters'. As has been discussed many times, slight changes in wording can dramatically alter polling results, and public opinion on such matters can be more than a little fickle.

    At the end of the day May is PM, and she is a leader. Contrary to what you said below, she led on this: going to parliament, whilst good in some circumstances, is not necessarily leadership, but abrogating leadership.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    As I've noted previously the Prime Minister's failure to engage with Parliament before the military strike was a significant failure of leadership and politically crass.

    The focus has shifted significantly to Jezza calling for a War Powers Act. Both May and Corbyn will face a difficult time today ; Corbyn because of his pacifism and appeasement and May for sidelining Parliament in defiance of the will of the voters and many of her own MP's.

    The "will of the voters" can only be tested by a general election. After last June, that wasn't ever on the cards.

    I suspect that a majority of MPs will fall behind her, given operations were discrete and resulted in no loss of British troops. The Ghost Of Ed Miliband will stalk proceedings though.
    The "will of the voters" as noted by the Survation -24 on May's failure to prior consult Parliament.

    I agree with your second paragraph.
    PMs take decisions and ask for approval or otherwise from the voters on the portfolio of their actions over a Parliament, not what a snap-shot of polling is telling them. Fickle polling may well turn round by next month and the Syria action be supported by at least a plurality, as demonstrating firm and decisive action. As opposed to the dithering of Putin's Bessy Mate.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Good morning, everyone.

    The wording should refer to a vote. Not having a vote means we don't know whether MPs collectively 'back' an action or not.

    F1: my post-race ramble is here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/china-post-race-analysis-2018.html

    As I said yesterday, I've put tiny sums on Magnussen/Grosjean to win, each way, in Azerbaijan (501/651 on Ladbrokes with boost). Given how close Force India got last year, it's worth a shot.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,334
    What a wonderfully succinct thread header from @MikeSmithson . Excellent stuff for those like me who are still only half awake :wink:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    FPT - I think the R&T forecast of only 75 losses for the Conservatives is a bit optimistic.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    As I've noted previously the Prime Minister's failure to engage with Parliament before the military strike was a significant failure of leadership and politically crass.

    The focus has shifted significantly to Jezza calling for a War Powers Act. Both May and Corbyn will face a difficult time today ; Corbyn because of his pacifism and appeasement and May for sidelining Parliament in defiance of the will of the voters and many of her own MP's.

    The "will of the voters" can only be tested by a general election. After last June, that wasn't ever on the cards.

    I suspect that a majority of MPs will fall behind her, given operations were discrete and resulted in no loss of British troops. The Ghost Of Ed Miliband will stalk proceedings though.
    The "will of the voters" as noted by the Survation -24 on May's failure to prior consult Parliament.

    I agree with your second paragraph.
    It's very dangerous to use polling as a definitive indication of the 'will of the voters'. As has been discussed many times, slight changes in wording can dramatically alter polling results, and public opinion on such matters can be more than a little fickle.

    At the end of the day May is PM, and she is a leader. Contrary to what you said below, she led on this: going to parliament, whilst good in some circumstances, is not necessarily leadership, but abrogating leadership.
    I concede that I may have egged the pudding with "will of the voters" but the wording of the Survation question is not ambiguous and and -24 score is not margin of error even in the context of a LibDem barchart !!

    Leadership is a many headed matter. One of which is, where appropriate, to front up and explain to the troops the moral imperative of the mission. Mrs May failed.

    I didn't expect of the Prime Minister anything of the Henry V at Agincourt or Churchill "We will fight them on the beaches". However a no show was completely unacceptable in these circumstances.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,008

    FPT - I think the R&T forecast of only 75 losses for the Conservatives is a bit optimistic.

    They'll probably lose that many just in London. The question is whether they can make significant gains elsewhere, which some of the modelling suggests - but which would be remarkable for a sitting and struggling government.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    On topic, I suspect this will be a net negative for May because it plays into existing preconceptions about her dodging debate and public scrutiny.

    That’s not to say there should always be a full parliamentary debate and vote before any action by a UK PM is taken, that not always practicable, but the threshold of the benefit-of-the-doubt for her is higher.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,997
    Leadership is about leading, not following. I suspect most will give grudging respect to May for this decisive action. Apart from those who are incapable of supporting Western actions, of course.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    The reality is that the Coalition partners, the US and France, were wanting to move on this and the Parliamentary timetable did not oblige since they were treating themselves to yet another holiday. Had Parliament been sitting there would have been a debate last week but it wasn't.

    AIUI our involvement in this amounted to firing 8 storm cruise missiles from international airspace at 1 target. Were we really going to recall Parliament for that? If there is any risk of further involvement (which looks unlikely at the moment despite Macron's boasting) it is right that Parliament discuss it.

    May would probably have benefitted from recalling Parliament, making her case and exposing Corbyn to yet more ridicule from his own back benches. But like the strikes themselves her response seems to me to have been more proportionate.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    As I've noted previously the Prime Minister's failure to engage with Parliament before the military strike was a significant failure of leadership and politically crass.

    The focus has shifted significantly to Jezza calling for a War Powers Act. Both May and Corbyn will face a difficult time today ; Corbyn because of his pacifism and appeasement and May for sidelining Parliament in defiance of the will of the voters and many of her own MP's.

    The "will of the voters" can only be tested by a general election. After last June, that wasn't ever on the cards.

    I suspect that a majority of MPs will fall behind her, given operations were discrete and resulted in no loss of British troops. The Ghost Of Ed Miliband will stalk proceedings though.
    The "will of the voters" as noted by the Survation -24 on May's failure to prior consult Parliament.

    I agree with your second paragraph.
    It's very dangerous to use polling as a definitive indication of the 'will of the voters'. As has been discussed many times, slight changes in wording can dramatically alter polling results, and public opinion on such matters can be more than a little fickle.

    At the end of the day May is PM, and she is a leader. Contrary to what you said below, she led on this: going to parliament, whilst good in some circumstances, is not necessarily leadership, but abrogating leadership.
    I concede that I may have egged the pudding with "will of the voters" but the wording of the Survation question is not ambiguous and and -24 score is not margin of error even in the context of a LibDem barchart !!

    Leadership is a many headed matter. One of which is, where appropriate, to front up and explain to the troops the moral imperative of the mission. Mrs May failed.

    I didn't expect of the Prime Minister anything of the Henry V at Agincourt or Churchill "We will fight them on the beaches". However a no show was completely unacceptable in these circumstances.
    "Leadership is a many headed matter. One of which is, where appropriate, to front up and explain to the troops the moral imperative of the mission. Mrs May failed."

    The government's been doing that, and both the PM and FS have made statements.

    What you are talking about is leaving the decision to others. That is not necessarily a sign of leadership, but it can be one of indecisiveness.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    On topic, I suspect this will be a net negative for May because it plays into existing preconceptions about her dodging debate and public scrutiny.

    That’s not to say there should always be a full parliamentary debate and vote before any action by a UK PM is taken, that not always practicable, but the threshold of the benefit-of-the-doubt for her is higher.

    +1
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,481
    I see people pushing this "Jeremy Corbyn is a principled pacifist" line. While he was chairman, the Stop the War Coalition called for armed struggle of Palestinians against Israel and Iraqis against British forces. His principle is not pacifism but anti-Westernism.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    edited April 16
    @JosiasJessop

    Not so.

    Did Mrs Thatcher leave the decisions to others when she regularly briefed Parliament through the Privy Council and Parliament even in the darkest moments of the Falkland War? Did she dodge debates? NO NO and NO again.

    The Prime Minister in Parliament is not "indecisiveness". It is a sign of strength and fortitude. It is a sign of the robustness of our democracy.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    JackW said:

    FPT ....

    I've just asked Mrs JackW if we possess any bongos .... I think she now considers my medication requires upping substantially .... and that's before I told her why .... :sunglasses:

    I am sure @SeanT has a spare pair, and perhaps some panpipes too.

    Sounds not my cup of tea, but it does sound as if there has been a degree of reconciliation.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,516
    JackW said:

    @JosiasJessop

    Not so.

    Did Mrs Thatcher leave the decisions to others when she regularly briefed Parliament through the Privy Council and Parliament even in the darkest moments of the Falkland War? Did she dodge debates? NO NO and NO again.

    The Prime Minister in Parliament is not "indecisiveness". It is a sign of strength and fortitude. It is a sign of the robustness of our democracy.

    Absolutely. Parliament and a paid opposition in particular is what makes us stand out.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.

    It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    DavidL said:

    The reality is that the Coalition partners, the US and France, were wanting to move on this and the Parliamentary timetable did not oblige since they were treating themselves to yet another holiday. Had Parliament been sitting there would have been a debate last week but it wasn't.

    AIUI our involvement in this amounted to firing 8 storm cruise missiles from international airspace at 1 target. Were we really going to recall Parliament for that? If there is any risk of further involvement (which looks unlikely at the moment despite Macron's boasting) it is right that Parliament discuss it.

    May would probably have benefitted from recalling Parliament, making her case and exposing Corbyn to yet more ridicule from his own back benches. But like the strikes themselves her response seems to me to have been more proportionate.

    My dear David your post is poor assessment of the timetable. Airstrikes were being flagged the weekend before last and governments here, in France and the US were briefing extensively last Monday.

    It was clearly within the grasp of the PM to recall Parliament early last week without prejudice to action within the royal prerogative if required.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    DavidL said:

    BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.

    It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.

    I'll guarantee it's rubbish; the question becomes how rubbish it is.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    JackW said:

    @JosiasJessop

    Not so.

    Did Mrs Thatcher leave the decisions to others when she regularly briefed Parliament through the Privy Council and Parliament even in the darkest moments of the Falkland War? Did she dodge debates? NO NO and NO again.

    The Prime Minister in Parliament is not "indecisiveness". It is a sign of strength and fortitude. It is a sign of the robustness of our democracy.

    Parliament was recalled after the Argentine invasion.

    The Commons regularly held debates during WW2, indeed if Chamberlain had avoided the Norway debate, by showing "leadership" how different would history have been?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Yes, well it's not like the public will approve if strikes in the long run, whether she git Commons approval or not. Plus some people probably think she broke some kind of rule by doing so. So I Don't think it is that important really.

    The only thing that matters was if the decision was correct. Maybe, but I'd say probably not, but the manner in which the decision was taken was sound. If it was correct to do, no benefit to having six hours of people talking past each other in the Commons.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    edited April 16
    Foxy said:

    JackW said:

    FPT ....

    I've just asked Mrs JackW if we possess any bongos .... I think she now considers my medication requires upping substantially .... and that's before I told her why .... :sunglasses:

    I am sure @SeanT has a spare pair, and perhaps some panpipes too.

    Sounds not my cup of tea, but it does sound as if there has been a degree of reconciliation.
    I have no doubt @SeanT has a spare pair .... and with a young nubile wife he certainly needs them !!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594
    DavidL said:

    The reality is that the Coalition partners, the US and France, were wanting to move on this and the Parliamentary timetable did not oblige since they were treating themselves to yet another holiday. Had Parliament been sitting there would have been a debate last week but it wasn't.

    AIUI our involvement in this amounted to firing 8 storm cruise missiles from international airspace at 1 target. Were we really going to recall Parliament for that? If there is any risk of further involvement (which looks unlikely at the moment despite Macron's boasting) it is right that Parliament discuss it.

    May would probably have benefitted from recalling Parliament, making her case and exposing Corbyn to yet more ridicule from his own back benches. But like the strikes themselves her response seems to me to have been more proportionate.

    Agreed. If there was to be a more prolonged attack, or conventional boots (as opposed to SAS) on the ground, then I can understand the need for a wider debate.

    Those insisting on the recall of Parliament are mainly those against any strikes at all, or see it as imperative that Parliament gets a wider say in another major political issue, one which hasn’t been mentioned so far on this thread so I’m not going to do so either.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576
    DavidL said:

    BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.

    It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.

    Russia earlier claimed to have intercepted 5 of the 8 Israeli-fired missiles. It is a numbers game. Whatever the success rate, America at least can overwhelm it with sheer weight of numbers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    JackW said:

    DavidL said:

    The reality is that the Coalition partners, the US and France, were wanting to move on this and the Parliamentary timetable did not oblige since they were treating themselves to yet another holiday. Had Parliament been sitting there would have been a debate last week but it wasn't.

    AIUI our involvement in this amounted to firing 8 storm cruise missiles from international airspace at 1 target. Were we really going to recall Parliament for that? If there is any risk of further involvement (which looks unlikely at the moment despite Macron's boasting) it is right that Parliament discuss it.

    May would probably have benefitted from recalling Parliament, making her case and exposing Corbyn to yet more ridicule from his own back benches. But like the strikes themselves her response seems to me to have been more proportionate.

    My dear David your post is poor assessment of the timetable. Airstrikes were being flagged the weekend before last and governments here, in France and the US were briefing extensively last Monday.

    It was clearly within the grasp of the PM to recall Parliament early last week without prejudice to action within the royal prerogative if required.
    I acknowledged that she could have recalled Parliament. I just don't think our modest involvement in this warranted it. I take your point that there may well have been political advantages to her in doing so but that should not be the PM's primary consideration.

    I also think it is important that the elected government of the day can act within reasonable parameters without constantly running to Parliament. To find ourselves with a new constitutional principle that they cannot would be very unhelpful going forward. If Parliament does not like the action they have the option of sacking the government after the event.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594
    edited April 16
    DavidL said:

    BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.

    It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.

    There’s always been a huge disparity between Russia’s theoretical military capabilities, and how well their forces and equipment work in practice.

    If they’d intercepted and shot down 70 missiles on Friday night, they’d have plenty of videos for their propaganda channels - yet we haven’t seen any so far. Nor, it has to be said, have we seen the usual dubious videos of children caught up in the crossfire.

    The most obvious explanation is therefore that Trump was right, Mission Accomplished.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Yes, well it's not like the public will approve if strikes in the long run, whether she git Commons approval or not. Plus some people probably think she broke some kind of rule by doing so. So I Don't think it is that important really.

    The only thing that matters was if the decision was correct. Maybe, but I'd say probably not, but the manner in which the decision was taken was sound. If it was correct to do, no benefit to having six hours of people talking past each other in the Commons.

    Lets be clear though. Parliament was not sidelined. That suggests they were supposed to be involved and were bypassed. That is simply not the case. With respect to jack w the issue of whether they should have been politically, not should they be legally. It may well have been better to do so, but that it is only a political should means the language of condemnation needs to be proportionate. I think it unfair to so heavily criticise someone for following a,lawful procedure, even if they could have done otherwise.

    The war powers act proposal I am surprised was not in the last labour manifesto. It is interesting and I can see some on all sides backing it. But after much reflection I am still wary. The executive as the authority for a reason, and careful definition as when they could still act eould be essential.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,244
    Elliot said:

    I see people pushing this "Jeremy Corbyn is a principled pacifist" line. While he was chairman, the Stop the War Coalition called for armed struggle of Palestinians against Israel and Iraqis against British forces. His principle is not pacifism but anti-Westernism.

  • glwglw Posts: 4,316
    DavidL said:

    BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.

    It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.

    It's almost certainly more Russian BS. Intercepting 70% of fired cruise missiles would be a phenomenal achievement. I'm 99% certain nobody has such effective air defences. A stealthy missile flying at a few hundred feet, and routed around air defences, is fundamentally much harder to detect than a ballistic missile.

    Remember that the Israelis quite routinely defeat Syrian air defences and destroy targets at will. I'm sure that the US is at least as competent as Israel.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    DavidL said:

    BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.

    It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.

    I'll guarantee it's rubbish; the question becomes how rubbish it is.
    Russian credibility is at an all time low at the moment so the default position for me (not Corbyn of course) would be to believe the US and France. But Russia will lose even more face with their acolytes in the middle east if they failed completely and it has been demonstrated that they cannot provide any protection.

    In fairness I think the evidence of success by the US Patriot system is mixed at best. Intercepting powered missiles is incredibly difficult.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576
    OT I think this has been mentioned before but Reddit has a mildly amusing Trump criticises Trump section which recalls tweets arguing against things he has now done, including the Syrian adventure.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Scott_P said:

    Elliot said:

    I see people pushing this "Jeremy Corbyn is a principled pacifist" line. While he was chairman, the Stop the War Coalition called for armed struggle of Palestinians against Israel and Iraqis against British forces. His principle is not pacifism but anti-Westernism.

    That's rather good.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    edited April 16
    JackW said:

    @JosiasJessop

    Not so.

    Did Mrs Thatcher leave the decisions to others when she regularly briefed Parliament through the Privy Council and Parliament even in the darkest moments of the Falkland War? Did she dodge debates? NO NO and NO again.

    The Prime Minister in Parliament is not "indecisiveness". It is a sign of strength and fortitude. It is a sign of the robustness of our democracy.

    I respect your opinion but I simply do not accept that TM had to seek permission in these circumstances. Had it been a wider attack and targetted Assad I absolutely would agree that Parliamentary approval would be required.

    The strike has been widely welcomed by the International community and has placed the UK firmly on the global stage and even now the UK, France and US are in the process of agreeing a draft resolution to submit to the UNSC.

    Yesterday was a car crash for Corbyn who publicly handed our defence and foreign policy to Russia due to his insistance on UN agreement before taking any action knowing Russia will vetoe against every resolution

    Sometimes a PM has to lead and no PM should ever act because it might not receive the approval of public opinion. The decision TM made is the ultimate one and she took it in her belief it was justified and was in negotiation with our allies

    Whether or not she may or may not have had time to call a vote the real issue is that if Parliament had vetoed this limited action, as they could have, what message would it send the World that we had refused to act with our allies over the use of chemical weapons when we had come under attack on the streets of Salisbury. We would have been greatly diminished, much to the Kremlin loving Corbyn's delight, and let down the people of Salisbury.

    I actually believe in time TM will be strengthened by this and Corbyn will be the loser.

    And on another subject everyone should listen to Stephen Lawrence, Neville Lawrence, talking today of his Christian religion and his decision to give all the boys who racially killed his son full forgiveness.

    Everyone on this forum should listen and take on board his wonderful words - so inspiring - a lesson to each and everyone of us

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Foxy said:

    JackW said:

    @JosiasJessop

    Not so.

    Did Mrs Thatcher leave the decisions to others when she regularly briefed Parliament through the Privy Council and Parliament even in the darkest moments of the Falkland War? Did she dodge debates? NO NO and NO again.

    The Prime Minister in Parliament is not "indecisiveness". It is a sign of strength and fortitude. It is a sign of the robustness of our democracy.

    Parliament was recalled after the Argentine invasion.

    The Commons regularly held debates during WW2, indeed if Chamberlain had avoided the Norway debate, by showing "leadership" how different would history have been?
    I’d say that for a meaningful intervention or war that involves a significant medium-long term commitment of British forces parliamentary debate is a must have.

    For a short, sharp instant limited military response using existing in-theatre assets under international conventions, where necessary, it cannot always be done.

    Nevertheless May is picking at her own scab here.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,997
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.

    It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.

    I'll guarantee it's rubbish; the question becomes how rubbish it is.
    Russian credibility is at an all time low at the moment so the default position for me (not Corbyn of course) would be to believe the US and France. But Russia will lose even more face with their acolytes in the middle east if they failed completely and it has been demonstrated that they cannot provide any protection.

    In fairness I think the evidence of success by the US Patriot system is mixed at best. Intercepting powered missiles is incredibly difficult.
    Agreed re: Russian credibility. The West's policy against a belligerent and or expansive Russia will always be 'grind it out'. We have the advantage economically and militarily; our alliances are stronger too.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 621
    edited April 16
    If Russia had shot down any Coalition missiles I'm reasonably confident that we'd have seen some sort of video evidence by now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Given there is just a 4% gap in this poll in terms of support for the strikes I doubt it will make much difference. Indeed the headline Survation confirms that with the Tories reversing Labour's poll lead leaving the 2 parties tied.

    It should also be noted that while it is usual to get a parliamentary vote to support deployment of ground troops PM's have often used the royal prerogative for air strikes as Blair did over Kosovo or Major did when launching air strikes in support of the Kurds
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,551
    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.

    It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.

    It's almost certainly more Russian BS. Intercepting 70% of fired cruise missiles would be a phenomenal achievement. I'm 99% certain nobody has such effective air defences. A stealthy missile flying at a few hundred feet, and routed around air defences, is fundamentally much harder to detect than a ballistic missile.

    Remember that the Israelis quite routinely defeat Syrian air defences and destroy targets at will. I'm sure that the US is at least as competent as Israel.
    I wouldn't be so sure about that. The very existence of Israel relies on utilising its Hi-Tech to defend itself and I wouldn't be surprised if it was superior in this respect than the US
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,889

    FPT - I think the R&T forecast of only 75 losses for the Conservatives is a bit optimistic.

    Sounds about right to me. I'd expect the Conservatives to make a net gain outside London.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750

    FPT - I think the R&T forecast of only 75 losses for the Conservatives is a bit optimistic.

    Given in 2014 Labour won the NEV by 2% and the latest Survation has the Tories and Labour tied the Tories could actually gain seats outside of London
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584

    JackW said:

    @JosiasJessop

    Not so.

    Did Mrs Thatcher leave the decisions to others when she regularly briefed Parliament through the Privy Council and Parliament even in the darkest moments of the Falkland War? Did she dodge debates? NO NO and NO again.

    The Prime Minister in Parliament is not "indecisiveness". It is a sign of strength and fortitude. It is a sign of the robustness of our democracy.

    I respect your opinion but I simply do not accept that TM had to seek permission in these circumstances. Had it been a wider attack and targetted Assad I absolutely would agree that Parliamentary approval would be required.

    The strike has been widely welcomed by the International community and has placed the UK firmly on the global stage and even now the UK, France and US are in the process of agreeing a draft resolution to submit to the UNSC.

    Yesterday was a car crash for Corbyn who publicly handed our defence and foreign policy to Russia due to his insistance on UN agreement before taking any action knowing Russia will vetoe against every resolution

    Sometimes a PM has to lead and no PM should ever act because it might not receive the approval of public opinion. The decision TM made is the ultimate one and she took it in her belief it was justified and was in negotiation with our allies

    Whether or not she may or may not have had time to call a vote the real issue is that if Parliament had vetoed this limited action, as they could have, what message would it send the World that we had refused to act with our allies over the use of chemical weapons when we had come under attack on the streets of Salisbury. We would have been greatly diminished, much to the Kremlin loving Corbyn's delight, and let down the people of Salisbury.

    I actually believe in time TM will be strengthened by this and Corbyn will be the loser.

    And on another subject everyone should listen to Stephen Lawrence, Neville Lawrence, talking today of his Christian religion and his decision to give all the boys who racially killed his son full forgiveness.

    Everyone on this forum should listen and take on board his wonderful words - so inspiring - a lesson to each and everyone of us

    Sorry should have said Neville Lawrence, Stephens Father.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,433
    edited April 16
    Petition:

    "Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216539
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    One Sky News report I saw indicated the Russians weren't using their swanky new anti-aircraft missiles. Not sure if that's true or not (Syria does have its own air defences though they aren't quite up to date).
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,945

    JackW said:

    @JosiasJessop

    Not so.

    Did Mrs Thatcher leave the decisions to others when she regularly briefed Parliament through the Privy Council and Parliament even in the darkest moments of the Falkland War? Did she dodge debates? NO NO and NO again.

    The Prime Minister in Parliament is not "indecisiveness". It is a sign of strength and fortitude. It is a sign of the robustness of our democracy.

    I respect your opinion but I simply do not accept that TM had to seek permission in these circumstances. Had it been a wider attack and targetted Assad I absolutely would agree that Parliamentary approval would be required.

    The strike has been widely welcomed by the International community and has placed the UK firmly on the global stage and even now the UK, France and US are in the process of agreeing a draft resolution to submit to the UNSC.

    Yesterday was a car crash for Corbyn who publicly handed our defence and foreign policy to Russia due to his insistance on UN agreement before taking any action knowing Russia will vetoe against every resolution

    Sometimes a PM has to lead and no PM should ever act because it might not receive the approval of public opinion. The decision TM made is the ultimate one and she took it in her belief it was justified and was in negotiation with our allies

    Whether or not she may or may not have had time to call a vote the real issue is that if Parliament had vetoed this limited action, as they could have, what message would it send the World that we had refused to act with our allies over the use of chemical weapons when we had come under attack on the streets of Salisbury. We would have been greatly diminished, much to the Kremlin loving Corbyn's delight, and let down the people of Salisbury.

    I actually believe in time TM will be strengthened by this and Corbyn will be the loser.

    And on another subject everyone should listen to Stephen Lawrence, Neville Lawrence, talking today of his Christian religion and his decision to give all the boys who racially killed his son full forgiveness.

    Everyone on this forum should listen and take on board his wonderful words - so inspiring - a lesson to each and everyone of us

    +1
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    AndyJS said:

    Petition:

    "Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216539

    Already signed it - this issue needs immediate attention
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,552
    AndyJS said:

    Petition:

    "Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216539

    Exactly. ....but equally the people didn't expect operations like Windrush ventures.

    Let's see what the Kompromat Russian material holds if the newspaper reports on Russian retaliation are accurate today.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316

    If Russia had shot down any Coalition missiles I'm reasonably confident that we'd have seen some sort of video evidence by now.

    Since the Gulf War and Bosnia War there have been many, many claims of air defences (usually supplied by the Russians) defeating stealth aircraft or cruise missiles. There has rarely been much evidence to support such assertions, nor has there been a substantial shift in US military tactics that you might expect if the claims were true.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Indeed, the problem is the doing of the government of the day, so for those who have done nothing wrong (and whose parents were actively invited) is wrong.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,504
    edited April 16
    " ... If it was correct to do, no benefit to having six hours of people talking past each other in the Commons. "

    Indeed.

    Despite all the admiration for some barnstorming rhetoric, it butters very few parsnips. It's a stage for politicians to preen themselves and make political points. That's why the opposition (whoever they are) like it - it make's them look useful rather than irrelevant. "Let's have a heated debate so we can look involved." It will never change votes.

    I can just see a Jezzarite saying ... "That Mrs may was excellent, I'll vote for her." Even in the unlikely event that she was.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,889
    HYUFD said:

    Given there is just a 4% gap in this poll in terms of support for the strikes I doubt it will make much difference. Indeed the headline Survation confirms that with the Tories reversing Labour's poll lead leaving the 2 parties tied.

    It should also be noted that while it is usual to get a parliamentary vote to support deployment of ground troops PM's have often used the royal prerogative for air strikes as Blair did over Kosovo or Major did when launching air strikes in support of the Kurds

    The Survation result looks like a big swing, but I suspect the last poll was an outlier.
  • AndyJS said:

    Petition:

    "Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216539

    Already signed it - this issue needs immediate attention
    Signed it on Saturday.
    Agreed that it needs sorting ASAP.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given there is just a 4% gap in this poll in terms of support for the strikes I doubt it will make much difference. Indeed the headline Survation confirms that with the Tories reversing Labour's poll lead leaving the 2 parties tied.

    It should also be noted that while it is usual to get a parliamentary vote to support deployment of ground troops PM's have often used the royal prerogative for air strikes as Blair did over Kosovo or Major did when launching air strikes in support of the Kurds

    The Survation result looks like a big swing, but I suspect the last poll was an outlier.
    It looks like Survation joining the herd with almost all parties showing the Tories and Labour neck and neck
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865
    edited April 16
    I don't see any effective action we can take here, which is frustrating. Jeremy Corbyn is correct to say military strikes won't get you peace and may make it more difficult to reach it as a party to the fighting. Diplomacy should always be a serious option. On the other hand when you talk about reaching out to Russia whose interest is in spreading chaos and the Syrian government that hangs on till literal grim death, your rhetoric ends up very empty and veering on disingenuous.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Sean_F said:

    FPT - I think the R&T forecast of only 75 losses for the Conservatives is a bit optimistic.

    Sounds about right to me. I'd expect the Conservatives to make a net gain outside London.
    I’m not so sure, but I haven’t done an exhaustive analysis.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    FF43 said:

    I don't see any effective action we can take here, which is frustrating. Jeremy Corbyn is correct to say military strikes won't get you peace and may make it more difficult to reach it as a party to the fighting. Diplomacy should always be a serious option. On the other hand when you talk about reaching out to Russia whose interest is in spreading chaos and the Syrian government that hangs on till literal grim death, your rhetoric ends up very empty and veering on disingenuous.

    Cc The Kremlin for your information
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    Before people talk about the Russians wanting an independent investigation, it is worth looking at exactly what they proposed. AIUI they do not want any investigation to allocate blame for the attack, and they want to set the member of the investigative team, and then the UNSC will apportion blame - over which Russia will have a veto.

    Very 'independent'.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,433
    Totally fed up with the Home Office threatening people with deportation when they've been living in Britain for 60 years.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212
    Scott_P said:
    It doesn’t matter. Labour’s official position is that anything Britain does is wrong.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    And pertinent to some of the comments on this thread, the Russian government is not exactly trustworthy when it comes to claims of their military prowess:

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18729382/russia-tries-to-pass-off-video-games-as-real-combat-footage-again/

    :)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,504
    edited April 16
    Mrs May won't lose much, if at all, by this. She's struck a blow with a bit of aerial virtue signalling.

    Jezza won't lose much either - his reaction is predictable. If you disapprove of Jihadi John being vapourised, and demand total proof of Russian involvement in Syria, you're already away with the fairies.

    I couldn't prove for certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I suspect it will.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Mr. 43, the strike wasn't to end the civil war. It was punitive action specifically against the use of chemical weapons.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    glw said:

    If Russia had shot down any Coalition missiles I'm reasonably confident that we'd have seen some sort of video evidence by now.

    Since the Gulf War and Bosnia War there have been many, many claims of air defences (usually supplied by the Russians) defeating stealth aircraft or cruise missiles. There has rarely been much evidence to support such assertions, nor has there been a substantial shift in US military tactics that you might expect if the claims were true.
    A stealth F-117A was brought down by a missile over Serbia.

    https://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    AndyJS said:

    Petition:

    "Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216539

    Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?

    I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,067

    FF43 said:

    I don't see any effective action we can take here, which is frustrating. Jeremy Corbyn is correct to say military strikes won't get you peace and may make it more difficult to reach it as a party to the fighting. Diplomacy should always be a serious option. On the other hand when you talk about reaching out to Russia whose interest is in spreading chaos and the Syrian government that hangs on till literal grim death, your rhetoric ends up very empty and veering on disingenuous.

    Cc The Kremlin for your information
    “I made a few changes to your draft, hope you don’t mind....”
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    AndyJS said:

    Totally fed up with the Home Office threatening people with deportation when they've been living in Britain for 60 years.

    It is unjust and must be sorted
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594

    One Sky News report I saw indicated the Russians weren't using their swanky new anti-aircraft missiles. Not sure if that's true or not (Syria does have its own air defences though they aren't quite up to date).

    There’s several scenarios here:

    1. They actively decided not to use them,
    2. They tried using them unsuccessfully, they missed their target,
    3. They had no opportunity to use them, couldn’t find / lock a target,
    4. They weren’t serviceable, due to equipment and training,
    5. They don’t actually have the advertised capability.

    I think 4 and 5 are the two most likely scenarios.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,538
    May is asking the Speaker for permission to hold an emergency debate in Parliament on the issue of Syria. Saying to Corbyn 'I see your five and raise you ten'.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316

    glw said:

    If Russia had shot down any Coalition missiles I'm reasonably confident that we'd have seen some sort of video evidence by now.

    Since the Gulf War and Bosnia War there have been many, many claims of air defences (usually supplied by the Russians) defeating stealth aircraft or cruise missiles. There has rarely been much evidence to support such assertions, nor has there been a substantial shift in US military tactics that you might expect if the claims were true.
    A stealth F-117A was brought down by a missile over Serbia.

    https://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html
    One aircraft lost to enemy fire in the entire operational history of the now obsolete and retired F-117A. I think that gives you some idea as to how effective air defences really are against advanced stealth aircraft and missiles.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    @DavidL and @Big_G_NorthWales

    The smaller scale of the UK involvement cuts against the huge importance of the issue as frequently flagged by the PM and government over the past week. The argument from the Conservative administration wasn't that our participation was very modest but that they lacked time to recall Parliament. That refrain is palpable nonsense.

    I do not contend that there are circumstances where the royal prerogative should not override prior parliamentary scrutiny but that this was very clearly not one.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576
    edited April 16
    Sandpit said:

    One Sky News report I saw indicated the Russians weren't using their swanky new anti-aircraft missiles. Not sure if that's true or not (Syria does have its own air defences though they aren't quite up to date).

    There’s several scenarios here:

    1. They actively decided not to use them,
    2. They tried using them unsuccessfully, they missed their target,
    3. They had no opportunity to use them, couldn’t find / lock a target,
    4. They weren’t serviceable, due to equipment and training,
    5. They don’t actually have the advertised capability.

    I think 4 and 5 are the two most likely scenarios.
    Surely even more likely is that the Russians and Americans agreed beforehand what would be targeted, and that number 1 in your list is the quid pro quo.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174

    FF43 said:

    I don't see any effective action we can take here, which is frustrating. Jeremy Corbyn is correct to say military strikes won't get you peace and may make it more difficult to reach it as a party to the fighting. Diplomacy should always be a serious option. On the other hand when you talk about reaching out to Russia whose interest is in spreading chaos and the Syrian government that hangs on till literal grim death, your rhetoric ends up very empty and veering on disingenuous.

    Cc The Kremlin for your information
    “I made a few changes to your draft, hope you don’t mind....”
    Morning all,

    Bleak times.

    Above Guardian article written by Seamus no doubt. One aspect of the Syria intervention is that it has flushed out Corbyn and co's real views on defence for all to see.

    e.g.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    AndyJS said:

    Totally fed up with the Home Office threatening people with deportation when they've been living in Britain for 60 years.

    Meanwhile this is happening:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43743579
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,781
    DavidL said:

    BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.

    It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.

    The Russian owned and operated AD systems in theatre (SA-21 Growler) did not engage any of the missiles. It's easy to see why not: the attack wasn't going to be a regime threatening event for Assad so why give away the RADINT to the doubtless lurking RC-135U for nothing?

    The Syrians lit off every AD system they had (SA-3, SA-5, SA-6 and SA-17) which probably did more meaningful damage than the attack as the rounds would have gone unguided and ballistic landing fuck knows where.

    Assuming all Russian built AD systems are dross operated by unshaven drunks is a great way to get yourself shot down. Ask Vega 31...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    JackW said:

    @DavidL and @Big_G_NorthWales

    The smaller scale of the UK involvement cuts against the huge importance of the issue as frequently flagged by the PM and government over the past week. The argument from the Conservative administration wasn't that our participation was very modest but that they lacked time to recall Parliament. That refrain is palpable nonsense.

    I do not contend that there are circumstances where the royal prerogative should not override prior parliamentary scrutiny but that this was very clearly not one.

    We just politely agree to disagree Jack
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    JackW said:

    @DavidL and @Big_G_NorthWales

    The smaller scale of the UK involvement cuts against the huge importance of the issue as frequently flagged by the PM and government over the past week. The argument from the Conservative administration wasn't that our participation was very modest but that they lacked time to recall Parliament. That refrain is palpable nonsense.

    I do not contend that there are circumstances where the royal prerogative should not override prior parliamentary scrutiny but that this was very clearly not one.

    Yes - it was obviously possible, but the PM chose not to do so.
    If she did so because she worried she might lose a vote that's contemptible.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    FF43 said:

    I don't see any effective action we can take here, which is frustrating. Jeremy Corbyn is correct to say military strikes won't get you peace and may make it more difficult to reach it as a party to the fighting. Diplomacy should always be a serious option. On the other hand when you talk about reaching out to Russia whose interest is in spreading chaos and the Syrian government that hangs on till literal grim death, your rhetoric ends up very empty and veering on disingenuous.

    Cc The Kremlin for your information
    “I made a few changes to your draft, hope you don’t mind....”
    Morning all,

    Bleak times.

    Above Guardian article written by Seamus no doubt. One aspect of the Syria intervention is that it has flushed out Corbyn and co's real views on defence for all to see.

    e.g.
    What worries me is whether Corbyn would permit our intelligence and police services to take effective action to protect us against threats from terrorists.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280

    glw said:

    If Russia had shot down any Coalition missiles I'm reasonably confident that we'd have seen some sort of video evidence by now.

    Since the Gulf War and Bosnia War there have been many, many claims of air defences (usually supplied by the Russians) defeating stealth aircraft or cruise missiles. There has rarely been much evidence to support such assertions, nor has there been a substantial shift in US military tactics that you might expect if the claims were true.
    A stealth F-117A was brought down by a missile over Serbia.

    https://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html
    AIUI there is some very interesting technology that could negate the radar advantage that stealth gives, making it a massively expensive negative. The only questions are whether these technologies have been developed and are deployable.

    Basically: radar stealth does not make a plane invisible to radar; it only makes it harder to detect to radar at certain frequencies. These frequencies are the ones most commonly used by radar systems as they have the best set of characteristics; e.g. propagation through the air, the size of the transmitter/receivers, or the resultant positional accuracy. By changing frequencies for early warning radars, particularly to longer wavelengths, they may be detectable enough to 'steer' ultra-high powered 'normal' radars onto them.

    You can guarantee the major military powers are all looking into these technologies.

    (Stealth is about more than radar though; it's also about reducing things like infrared visibility)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
    CD13 said:

    Mrs May won't lose much, if at all, by this. She's struck a blow with a bit of aerial virtue signalling.

    Jezza won't lose much either - his reaction is predictable. If you disapprove of Jihadi John being vapourised, and demand total proof of Russian involvement in Syria, you're already away with the fairies.

    I couldn't prove for certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I suspect it will.

    Not so sure on Jezza. He has raised the stakes by banging on about war power acts and allowing shadow ministers to be quizzed when exactly they would use the military. Answer: an actual live invasion of the British mainland and only then after a vote. The concept of deterrence in europe is gone for them.
This discussion has been closed.