The level of foaming incoherence is frankly embarrassing and the determination of cyber nats to hear no voice but their own depressing. On the plus side I think it will make a lot of people think twice.
We have had on here Fitalass, Kristin, Easterross and several others who have spoken about being Scottish Tories. Yet the cybernats think that they all must be fake or that somehow their opinions/votes don't matter.
There were approx as many LD, Tory and SNP votes cast in GE2010 in Scotland - that can't be pointed out too often.
They have 1 MP and only have MSP's due to the system granting them some seats , they won ZERO. There are more panda's in Scotland than Tory MP's, how can you make that out to be "foaming incoherence", what can one say.
Everyone wins seats by virtue of the 'system'.
However some actually win the real seats and do not just get all their seats as losers
There's no such thing as 'real seats'. If you have an additional member system, then the MSPs returned from it are just the same as any other MSP. You can't run imaginary purely FPTP elections and compare them, for a whole host of reasons.
"I believe you repeatedly voted for Margaret Thatcher ........"
"Good try Monica, usual mince from you"
Is that a denial a non denial denial or an obfuscation?
Roger , It is neither , I did vote once for the Tories given the state they had the country in in the 70's. I refuse to be civil with Monica and her constant lies. Maggie was right for her time till she went power crazy, even if she had no idea whatsoever about Scotland.
I have little doubt that we'd already have intervened in Syria if it hadn't been for Iraq, and that is a great disappointment. There wasn't just one failing in the way that the UK went to war in Iraq, there were several relating to the so-called 'dodgy dossier' and other claims made about Iraq's weapons capability, what Parliament was told, over the need for a second UN resolution, and the fact that therefore the lack of a second resolution wasn't the result of other members of the Security Council voting it down but no attempt to gain consensus at all. I'd hope that Cameron would go to the Security Council for a resolution authorising strikes, because even if he can't get one the position would be better. This is all assuming that government involvement in chemical attacks is in evidence, or something similar.
Time these two bit politicians realised we could not fight our way out of a wet paper poke nowadays never mind be a world power. Time to stop hanging onto the USA's tailcoats and give up on the jingoism. They should try sorting out the shambles in the UK rather than trying to poke their beaks in elsewhere.
Its nearly LibDem conference, and we get this every year. The LibDem Mps, and in particular the ministers need to throw some red meat to their activists.
Could some of the Yellow Peril on here give us an honest assessment of how much of the activist base has picked up its ball and gone home? There is much talk of the Tory grassroots withering like they have been doused in Round Up, but to what extent have the LibDem's loyal pavement pounders lost heart? That would better allow us to bet on LibDem prospects.
Their share of the vote in local elections seems to be pretty consistent. 2011: 15% 2012: 16% 2013: 14%
As a tory I am infuriated by the way our prime minister slashes spending on defence and then casually pitches our armed forces into ever more complex entanglements.
Syria, Gibraltar, the Falklands, Afghanistan. The list is getting longer as the forces become fewer.
TBF a lot of this is the fault of the last government, which got Britain involved in Afghanistan and failed to cut a deal with Argentina when they had a government that might have been amenable to one.
Syria has the potential to be messier than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The UN's response is heading along a familiar, depressing path. Can't make a decision, desperate to keep everyone happy. If we're gonna get dragged into it, If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly.
MG..Please put some trews on, a tartan skirt and nae breeks are no defence against bloodlusting savage midges... It might improve your mood ..but I doubt it..heheh
Richard , I am in a fine mood , just find it hard when discussing with fools and comic singers. The level of numpties on this site is ever increasing, apart from a few old hands that know how to have a real discussion with real people rather than just facebook/twitter talk.
The level of foaming incoherence is frankly embarrassing and the determination of cyber nats to hear no voice but their own depressing. On the plus side I think it will make a lot of people think twice.
We have had on here Fitalass, Kristin, Easterross and several others who have spoken about being Scottish Tories. Yet the cybernats think that they all must be fake or that somehow their opinions/votes don't matter.
There were approx as many LD, Tory and SNP votes cast in GE2010 in Scotland - that can't be pointed out too often.
Its the same tactic revisited , buttonhole people into various groups and then accuse them of being idiots loons etc. Anyone who dislikes this and retaliates is then accused of being a simpleton or a stalker.
This whole 'PBTory' (and 'PBBurley') meme is ridiculous. I don't feel the need to pigeonhole Labour supporters or SNP people in the same way (though I do admit to occasionally referring to the LibDems as 'the socks & sandals brigade. My apologies to our beardy little coalition partners). I might disagree with them on most things but I don't see the need to resort to playground tactics.
On topic, I think a coalition split will be engineered in the new year 2015 over some policy seen as 'the final straw (maybe something over EU negotiations as it'd probably shore up both parties supporters). It'll give the Libdems the differentiation they'll need and allow the Tories the chance to bring a few good backbenchers into more prominent roles. It will also give Osborne the chance for one last budget, this time without Vince Cable acting as a speedbrake.
Syria has the potential to be messier than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The UN's response is heading along a familiar, depressing path. Can't make a decision, desperate to keep everyone happy. If we're gonna get dragged into it, If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly.
TFS, They are all just in it for the big salaries and expenses, you do not really expect any of these turnips to actually solve a crisis surely.
Personally I hope the Yes vote wins, sadly I will not get a vote. However, if the polls are right and there will be a No vote next year, what is your current forecast of the Scottish seat split at GE2015?
The polls may be "right" for August 2013, but goodness knows how the polls, and the real votes, will look come September 2014. It is all to play for.
If Cameron's 'No' campaign does scrape home then the Scottish seat split at GE2015 will be entirely dependent on one policy question: will the 3 Unionist parties insert bona fide plans for more devolution into their respective manifestos?
I suspect that only the Lib Dems would actually do so.
If the Lab-Cons fail to deliver on their promises of substantively more self-government then we could see a stunning result north of the border.
The level of foaming incoherence is frankly embarrassing and the determination of cyber nats to hear no voice but their own depressing. On the plus side I think it will make a lot of people think twice.
We have had on here Fitalass, Kristin, Easterross and several others who have spoken about being Scottish Tories. Yet the cybernats think that they all must be fake or that somehow their opinions/votes don't matter.
There were approx as many LD, Tory and SNP votes cast in GE2010 in Scotland - that can't be pointed out too often.
They have 1 MP and only have MSP's due to the system granting them some seats , they won ZERO. There are more panda's in Scotland than Tory MP's, how can you make that out to be "foaming incoherence", what can one say.
Everyone wins seats by virtue of the 'system'.
However some actually win the real seats and do not just get all their seats as losers
The Scottish Conservatives did win three constituencies in 2001 - Ayr, Galloway and Berwickshire.
Though they did lose Edinburgh Pentlands to the SNP and IIRC made notional losses of Eastwood and Dumfriesshire to Labour.
And certainly came nowhere near the 10-12 constituency wins which Easterross predicted when the redrawn constituency boundaries were published.
"Can someone tell me if we're interveneing in Syria on Al Qaeda's side or Hizbollah's side?"
Good question. I don't trust a word that Weasel Hague has said. He makes Blair look like a Greenham Common peacenik
Roger, just for once put some thought into a post. Every post you make revolves around "tories are scum so whatever they do is wrong". If just once you could ever overcome what is essentially tribal chanting and expand an original thought, it would go a long way to stopping you looking like a spoof poster. Although your post on lovely Japanese immigrants doesn't give me much hope that you are capable of it.
So Clegg's inept spinners are reduced to feeding the incompetence line to the press to try and explain Clegg's continuing stupidity. Which is in no way a transparent attempt to try and deflect criticism away from his regular complete misreading of the lib dem base just before conference.
"Clegg felt he had been bamboozled; Cameron said, in effect, that he should have read the small print of the Chancellor’s proposals"
No sh*t sherlock. Poor old calamity Clegg also seems to be making a habit of being bamboozled on core lib dem issues. Secret courts, rebranding control orders to TPIMS, the snoopers charter, and now his idiocy over civil rights and freedom of the press with Miranda and destroying press hard drives. All the tories and NannyCam's fault is it Cleggy? You were too busy with your head up your posterior to notice them forcing you into agreeing to these terrible things? Or might it even just be that you are utterly clueless and locked in a bubble when it comes to your own party.
Perish the thought that this flimsy and desperate attempt at differentiation just before conference is no more convincing or effective this time than when you do it before every other conference and before local elections.
How are those leader ratings going by the way Clegg? No doubt that lib dem recovery you predicted after Eastleigh and the locals is just around the corner as usual.
The govt should be able to find a solution for people who move around. It need not be a PITA.
I've got no problem with disenfranchising expats. But given that we don't, there should be a system that works. One could be to open polling stations in Embassies and Consulates worldwide.
Back in the UK you could be allowed to vote early in person at your local Council office. If you vote early enough, say a week before the election, maybe you could be allowed to do so at any local council offices in the country.
Postal votes should be available to those temporarily out of the country and unable to avail themselves of the above, and those getting DLA or PIP with a mobility component.
Prime Minister cuts short his holiday due to crisis in Syria and is expected to chair National Security Council meeting on Tuesday
That's what all this is about. Our dear leaders creaming themselves as they 'chair' national security council meetings...
Our dear leaders times seems to be spent in three ways:
holidays photostunts national security council meetings
But how dramatic it is, does a helicopter have to be provided to whisk Cameron off the beach and fly him at all possible speed so that he can 'chair' this meeting.
Perhaps it could be arranged that Prince William is the pilot to enhance the photostunt.
Can anyone explain what part of our national security is being threated by two lots of savages killing each other in Syria ?
And once again, which side are we to intervene on ? The Al Qaeda side or the Hizbollah side ?
The govt should be able to find a solution for people who move around. It need not be a PITA.
I've got no problem with disenfranchising expats. But given that we don't, there should be a system that works. One could be to open polling stations in Embassies and Consulates worldwide.
Back in the UK you could be allowed to vote early in person at your local Council office. If you vote early enough, say a week before the election, maybe you could be allowed to do so at any local council offices in the country.
Postal votes should be available to those temporarily out of the country and unable to avail themselves of the above, and those getting DLA or PIP with a mobility component.
The actual voting isn't too bad. I vote online, using the effective but rather eccentric system made available to do that, which is that council where I last lived sends a ballot paper to my brother, who scans it and emails it to me, and I then either email it back appropriately marked, in which case he tries to reproduce that mark and sends it in, or I forget, and he lets his youngest child loose on it and returns whatever they do with the crayons.
The weird hurdles are in the registration process, which involves pointless hoops like the ballot paper being witnessed by a British citizen _living_outside_Britain_, because Britain apparently doesn't trust British citizens who still live in Britain.
Can someone tell me if we're interveneing in Syria on Al Qaeda's side or Hizbollah's side?
For that matter which side are we on in Afghanistan?
The wife stoning, opium trading, sheep shagging side or the wife burning, opium selling, goat shagging side?
It's remarkably simple. We intervene to punish Assad and help the rebels in order to send a message that chemical weapons simply will not be tolerated and that the international response will always be to utterly condemn their use thus ensuring nobody else will use inhuman weapons like those.
Syria Rebels: We'll Use Chemical Weapons, Too: http://bit.ly/170PpdH #israelnationalnews
As you can see it's success is guaranteed and there is nothing whatsoever that could go wrong with either arming the rebels with ever more firepower or attacking possible chemical sites that could then be overrun by the rebels.
Assad will be almost as humiliated as when the the west rendered prisoners to him to be tortured, back when they were sending a clear message on the importance of human rights to dictators.
Mr. Stopper, there's sod all public support for intervention though (not least because part of the opposition is Al-Qaeda). I agree that Cameron seems to have a worrying desire to get involved (probably because, militarily, Libya went very smoothly) but it's somewhere we should absolutely not get involved.
But how dramatic it is, does a helicopter have to be provided to whisk Cameron off the beach and fly him at all possible speed so that he can 'chair' this meeting.
have you ever tried driving in Cornwall on a bank holiday?
"If just once you could ever overcome what is essentially tribal chanting and expand an original thought, it would go a long way to stopping you looking like a spoof poster."
That could explain why I have 32 'troll' symbols after my name which was disturbing. Less so after investigation revealed all but two were from the metronomically monotonous mendacity who calls himself Fluffy Thoughts
AS 2015 approaches, we can expect more Coalition public spats unless the LD VI improves. At the 2015GE I expect that to be ~15%.
However, the LDs still have to evidence to the electorate as to why anyone should vote for them. To date they have preferred to focus on political reform ( where does that rank on the electorate's list of priorities) and are also keen advocates of the EU, ECHR, immigration, green energy taxes etc - all of which are contrary to the electorate's preferences.
At the 2010 GE, the LDs gained 8 seats (as well as losing 13) - how many of those will they retain in 2015? 1 or 2 at best? Is there a market up for those 8?
I’m interested to understand which aspect of politics people find most interesting / motivating. Personally I see politics as the route through which a country manages itself to a better end point – and that usually requires a base of good economic competence. I tend to post mostly about economic / macro things. I’m also big on personal liberties and post about stuff where I’d like to see less of the state (eg recent motorway speeds question). Perhaps it is naïve – but most economic decisions seem to me to have a logical right answer and when a country strays from prudent good self discipline it goes tits up. I truly do not understand why, for example, Brown thought ‘borrow n spend forever’ was ever going to be good for us.
And then there’s the stuff that seems to interest a lot of other people which leaves me utterly cold. The ‘fluff’ which seems to occupy a lot of political (and PB) time like gay marriage, train routes, who said what to whom, local politics – who gives a shit?
What I find truly worrying though is how relatively few of our politicians seem personally motivated by the important good governance stuff, but rather in the buzz of power and publicity. Why, for example, did Blair go into politics? It certainly wasn’t to drive a better standard of living or push economic prudence on Gordon! It was an ego trip. This is not good. If only we could find a way to exclude the likes of Jeffrey Archer or Chuka Umunna or Ed Balls from the whole thing. Socialists need not apply! Or chums.
Taking a step back what is it about our leaders that makes them think it is ok to go around bombing other countries just because we can?
The clear impression I have had about this is that Hague and the French were far more eager for "intervening" (horrible euphemism) than the US. His attempt to paint the rebels as the good guys was always strange and became more so as priests were publically executed, women were "controlled" and other minorities were abused. He seemed to eventually give up but not before time.
Now the line seems to be, well the rebels are not very nice but Assad is terrible. So (and this is the fatal step) we must do something. Why? On what moral or legal basis are we going to kill members of Assad's military (and the assorted collaterals of course but they don't count because we do not mean it)? I really don't get it.
Humanitarian aid is appropriate. The refugee crisis caused by this civil war is disastrous and highly destabilising for surrounding countries. We should make it clear that those responsible will, if the opportunity arises, face the International Criminal court and will not be welcome in any of our countries. But this self appointed moral guardian with a big technological stick that can kill really turns my stomach.
Given that your brother already knows how you will vote... would it not be easier to appoint him as a proxy? Or do the expat rules not allow that?
That's how it's done, he's a proxy. But he doesn't know how I'll vote until he gets my email back, and I don't know how I'll vote until I see the ballot paper with the candidates.
Edited to add: I still needed to jump through the eccentric registration hoops, or they wouldn't send him a ballot paper in the first place.
Taking a step back what is it about our leaders that makes them think it is ok to go around bombing other countries just because we can?
The clear impression I have had about this is that Hague and the French were far more eager for "intervening" (horrible euphamism) than the US. His attempt to paint the rebels as the good guys was always strange and became more so as priests were publically executed, women were "controlled" and other minorities were abused. He seemed to eventually give up but not before time.
Now the line seems to be, well the rebels are not very nice but Assad is terrible. So (and this is the fatal step) we must do something. Why? On what moral or legal basis are we going to kill members of Assad's military (and the assorted collaterals of course but they don't count because we do not mean it)? I really don't get it.
Humanitarian aid is appropriate. The refugee crisis caused by this civil war is disastrous and highly destabilising for surrounding countries. We should make it clear that those responsible will, if the opportunity arises, face the International Criminal court and will not be welcome in any of our countries. But this self appointed moral guardian with a big technological stick that can kill really turns my stomach.
A former british ambassador to Syria has a good article on ConHome:
"...it beggars belief that we appear to be considering an armed attack on Syria with no clear purpose and no achievable objective.
Our influence in the region is, nowadays, very limited and our direct interests in Syria are minimal. Surely we have learnt by now that blundering into wars in the Middle East is pure foolishness."
Can someone tell me if we're interveneing in Syria on Al Qaeda's side or Hizbollah's side?
For that matter which side are we on in Afghanistan?
The wife stoning, opium trading, sheep shagging side or the wife burning, opium selling, goat shagging side?
It's remarkably simple. We intervene to punish Assad and help the rebels in order to send a message that chemical weapons simply will not be tolerated and that the international response will always be to utterly condemn their use thus ensuring nobody else will use inhuman weapons like those.
Syria Rebels: We'll Use Chemical Weapons, Too: http://bit.ly/170PpdH #israelnationalnews
As you can see it's success is guaranteed and there is nothing whatsoever that could go wrong with either arming the rebels with ever more firepower or attacking possible chemical sites that could then be overrun by the rebels.
Assad will be almost as humiliated as when the the west rendered prisoners to him to be tortured, back when they were sending a clear message on the importance of human rights to dictators.
On 11 September 2001 the US was attacked by 19 terrorists: 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 from the United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese. In response the US and UK invaded... err... Iraq.
Nothing the West does in the Middle East is logical, unless of course you follow the logic of money.
Aren't Labour calling for Parliament to be reconvened.. If Cameron, or any PM did not have a meeting to discuss Syria then they would be blamed for that by the usual dimwits..That is a PM's job. The UK, France,USA and all those who wish to intervene should first get the complete approval of the UN Secrity Council .. If that is vetoed by China and Russia then we should stand back and continue to watch the massacres take place and put China/Russsia/Assad in the same category.. The rebels will eventually win , and they will remember..
"If just once you could ever overcome what is essentially tribal chanting and expand an original thought, it would go a long way to stopping you looking like a spoof poster."
That could explain why I have 32 'troll' symbols after my name which was disturbing. Less so after investigation revealed all but two were from the metronomically monotonous mendacity who calls himself Fluffy Thoughts
Roger, I have a miserly 4 , 2 from "Fluffy2 and 2 from something called "Rightchuck", should I be concerned.
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
Given that your brother already knows how you will vote... would it not be easier to appoint him as a proxy? Or do the expat rules not allow that?
That's how it's done, he's a proxy. But he doesn't know how I'll vote until he gets my email back, and I don't know how I'll vote until I see the ballot paper with the candidates.
Edited to add: I still needed to jump through the eccentric registration hoops, or they wouldn't send him a ballot paper in the first place.
EIT
I have found that the British Embassy or Consulate has always been very helpful over such matters, or if not they will put you in touch with a member of the local ex-pat community.
Mr Assad's brother Maher, commander of the 4th Armoured Division – was reportedly behind last week's attack.
The nerve gas shells were fired from a military base in a mountain range to the west of Damascus, which was apparently commanded by Maher Assad.
The correct way to use military force would have been to have already dropped a fuel air bomb on the 4th Armoured Division. Unfortunately this hasn't happened. Obama and the UN will no doubt fanny around for a few more days by which time Assad will have had time to cover up the evidence to at least the satisfaction of his international supporters, and redeploy.
I know the fashion these days is to tell the enemy when, where and how you are going to attack, but militarily it is ridiculous. In fact, all this posturing and UN shenanigans makes warfare less and not more moral. Instead of attacking immediately and forcefully when there is a reason to do so, the delay means that any attack is no more than a calculated reprisal, often against the innocent.
cf the Kosovo war, where IMO we should have hit Serbia 48 hours before the deadline and made a concerted effect to nail their troops while still in barracks or otherwise concentrated. Instead we gave them notice, and then mostly bombed civilians.
Plato, you are right to note this. Now that the Indy Referendum is looming close, there is no doubt that its become a far more divisive issue among some families and friends where views are totally entrenched one way or the other. And far more so than anything I have seen when it comes to the usual tribal party politics. What ever the result, I suspect its going to leave a lingering sense of resentment/grievance for those passionate about the issue who end up on the losing side for a while to come.
"If just once you could ever overcome what is essentially tribal chanting and expand an original thought, it would go a long way to stopping you looking like a spoof poster."
That could explain why I have 32 'troll' symbols after my name which was disturbing. Less so after investigation revealed all but two were from the metronomically monotonous mendacity who calls himself Fluffy Thoughts
Roger, I have a miserly 4 , 2 from "Fluffy2 and 2 from something called "Rightchuck", should I be concerned.
I have a few from Fluffy, I think he's assuming it means "Like".
Taking a step back what is it about our leaders that makes them think it is ok to go around bombing other countries just because we can?
The clear impression I have had about this is that Hague and the French were far more eager for "intervening" (horrible euphemism) than the US. His attempt to paint the rebels as the good guys was always strange and became more so as priests were publically executed, women were "controlled" and other minorities were abused. He seemed to eventually give up but not before time.
Now the line seems to be, well the rebels are not very nice but Assad is terrible. So (and this is the fatal step) we must do something. Why? On what moral or legal basis are we going to kill members of Assad's military (and the assorted collaterals of course but they don't count because we do not mean it)? I really don't get it.
Humanitarian aid is appropriate. The refugee crisis caused by this civil war is disastrous and highly destabilising for surrounding countries. We should make it clear that those responsible will, if the opportunity arises, face the International Criminal court and will not be welcome in any of our countries. But this self appointed moral guardian with a big technological stick that can kill really turns my stomach.
David, because it gives nonentities like Hague an Cameron a ha**-on thinking how all powerful they are and boasts their stupid Ego's. As per our other great interventions it will kill innocent people and at best swap one nasty lot for another nasty lot. Hague especially is a pygmy, you only have to hear his pathetic whinging to know he is a joke.
Aren't Labour calling for Parliament to be reconvened.. If Cameron, or any PM did not have a meeting to discuss Syria then they would be blamed for that by the usual dimwits..That is a PM's job. The UK, France,USA and all those who wish to intervene should first get the complete approval of the UN Secrity Council .. If that is vetoed by China and Russia then we should stand back and continue to watch the massacres take place and put China/Russsia/Assad in the same category.. The rebels will eventually win , and they will remember..
Richard, you forget we only have a pretendy , PR flunky , PM. If we had a real one it may be OK but given the donkey we have in charge it should at least be decided by 650 donkeys rather than just the one.
I thought proxy voting meant he just went in and voted on your behalf, all you need to do is have a chat with him beforehand, or exchange emails. None of this scanning business.
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
USA public opinion seems to be very anti-dabbling.
"60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act."
Angry Exile @AngryExile If anyone wants @tom_watson to block them one way is to ask why he's 10500 miles from his constituency during someone else's election. FYI.
Prime Minister cuts short his holiday due to crisis in Syria and is expected to chair National Security Council meeting on Tuesday
That's what all this is about. Our dear leaders creaming themselves as they 'chair' national security council meetings...
Looking at the size of Dave these days he can only cream 40% of himself.
Meanwhile
@JohnRentoul: What does Nick "Illegal War" Clegg make of this? "William Hague: We can act without UN security council unity" http://t.co/O9KXZUSk5i
Or more to the point what will Lib Dem activists make of it?
Amusingly, Clegg's spinners are now hard at work with the 'nothing to do with us' excuse for Clegg's summer blunders then this pops up. They've also been waffling about Clegg having been on holiday, no clear lines of communication, struggling to get the message across etc. The usual bollocks excuses in other words.
Well now Clegg has his chance to 'fix' that and well see how fast and how hard he differentiates himself this time. Assuming he wants to of course.
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
Since it was the UK and France which largely messed up the northern Middle East in the first place, in 1919-20, I suppose it's only right we should try to help put things right.
All morning; for four hours now the UN inspectors have been travelling to the site of alleged Chemical shelling. For four hours they've been travelling all of 9 miles max, to this site but according to the latest info they havent arrived on site. Now aint that strange?
The UKIP view is that the UK should keep well out of any involvement, military or otherwise in Syrian affairs as long as the civil war rages. A conduite for humanitarian aid is permitted, if one can be safely found.
MG All donkeys chew on the same carrot He is the PM and as such he is guided by strict protocol. Right now I dont think there is a better person among the 650 to do the job, I see the midges are still attacking..
On 11 September 2001 the US was attacked by 19 terrorists: 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 from the United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese. In response the US and UK invaded... err... Iraq.
Nothing the West does in the Middle East is logical, unless of course you follow the logic of money.
I think you'll find it was Afghanistan, from where the attack was planned and authorised.
Although I do sometimes wonder whether the Iraq front was opened so that we could draw Al-Qaeda into more open warfare on our terms, in a country that didn't matter, thus diverting them from terrorism in the West.
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
Benghazi might, just might, have something to do with that.
We are going to war in Syria...Great...We can expect more pool clips of the PM talking about the Syrian people while avoiding the tough questions out to him by a Paxman or Boulton.
On 11 September 2001 the US was attacked by 19 terrorists: 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 from the United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese. In response the US and UK invaded... err... Iraq.
I’m interested to understand which aspect of politics people find most interesting / motivating. Personally I see politics as the route through which a country manages itself to a better end point – and that usually requires a base of good economic competence.
What I find truly worrying though is how relatively few of our politicians seem personally motivated by the important good governance stuff, but rather in the buzz of power and publicity. Why, for example, did Blair go into politics? It certainly wasn’t to drive a better standard of living or push economic prudence on Gordon! It was an ego trip. This is not good. If only we could find a way to exclude the likes of Jeffrey Archer or Chuka Umunna or Ed Balls from the whole thing. Socialists need not apply! Or chums.
Most ex-PMs etc that I have spoken with say that the thing that they miss most is the loss of power and being at the centre of things. However for Blair it was an ego-trip (see his farewell tour) and the opportunity to earn lots and lots of money.
He was an opportunist who saw the ramshackle and disorganised Labour party after 1992 as an old nag that he could revitalise (call it New) and ride on its back to power - aided by a Tory party that was suffering constantly from reports of sexual and other sleaze. His timing was right as the Cons had run out of steam and Blair was joined in this opportunity by Mandelson, Campbell with Brown as their economic 'expert'. Also he knew that the unions would back him and would do/allow anything for Labour to get back into power.
Today, our great problem is that few politicians have a long term vision and mostly seem devoid of common sense. Those that do think logically are thrown out of office by all parties (e.g Frank Field etc). Also few politicians are able to come up with ideas that are relevant for the now and the future and rely on past and often failed policies.
It was Blair and Campbell who developed a lot of today's Ya-Boo politics and it has come back to bite Labour and diminish our political debate. It was the same duo who fostered more state control over our lives. Yet in this internet and multicultural age few have the policies to deal with the threats that they bring. Also most UK politicians do not have a clue about international economics or international politics and you do not get that experience from fact-finding missions.
Richard Dodd - Of course we are not the US political master, but the US has gone from a neocon Republican president to a waffling liberal president who opposed the Iraq war, which Cameron supported.
Old King Cole/MickPork - Indeed, but with Sarkozy now replaced by Hollande of the 3 western powers on the security council it is now the UK who has the most interventionist leader in Cameron
Although I do sometimes wonder whether the Iraq front was opened so that we could draw Al-Qaeda into more open warfare on our terms, in a country that didn't matter, thus diverting them from terrorism in the West.
Don't remember that being spouted as the rationale very much at the time. "didn't matter" is also curious way of viewing what is now in essence an Iranian proxy state. While much of their activities were simply diverted into North Africa and didn't stop 7/7 either.
Given that your brother already knows how you will vote... would it not be easier to appoint him as a proxy? Or do the expat rules not allow that?
That's how it's done, he's a proxy. But he doesn't know how I'll vote until he gets my email back, and I don't know how I'll vote until I see the ballot paper with the candidates.
Edited to add: I still needed to jump through the eccentric registration hoops, or they wouldn't send him a ballot paper in the first place.
EIT
I have found that the British Embassy or Consulate has always been very helpful over such matters, or if not they will put you in touch with a member of the local ex-pat community.
Maybe, but why is the British government creating pointless hoops, then paying (well-paid and exceedingly expensively-housed) people to help people jump through them?
Plato, you are right to note this. Now that the Indy Referendum is looming close, there is no doubt that its become a far more divisive issue among some families and friends where views are totally entrenched one way or the other. And far more so than anything I have seen when it comes to the usual tribal party politics. What ever the result, I suspect its going to leave a lingering sense of resentment/grievance for those passionate about the issue who end up on the losing side for a while to come.
"The level of foaming incoherence is frankly embarrassing and the determination of cyber nats to hear no voice but their own depressing."
It does point to some unpleasant divisions after the vote particularly if it's close
I suspect that even if its a No as wide as the AV vote result - it'll still be unpleasant which is very sad and destructive.
The only way there will be issues in families is if they have issues beforehand. It is complete rubbish to say that any normal person will fall out with their family over which way they vote. Just scaremongering of the worst kind.
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
Yes, Obama at least has some nous and realises the uproar there would be if he did jump in , Cameron unfortunately is not that intelligent or in touch with reality.
HYUFD..Cameron will not influence Obama one iota..Cameron has a voice at the table...that is all. Obama has to listen to hundreds of millions of voters, that does make a difference. If he was seen to bow to Cameron's wishes he would be taken apart..
On 11 September 2001 the US was attacked by 19 terrorists: 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 from the United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese. In response the US and UK invaded... err... Iraq.
Nothing the West does in the Middle East is logical, unless of course you follow the logic of money.
I think you'll find it was Afghanistan, from where the attack was planned and authorised.
Although I do sometimes wonder whether the Iraq front was opened so that we could draw Al-Qaeda into more open warfare on our terms, in a country that didn't matter, thus diverting them from terrorism in the West.
That did a lot of good, soon all will be home with tails between legs and both countries back to the stone age and riddled with terrorists.
Did I say it was successful? And I can't believe that anyone would have publicly said at the time that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was cynically to give al-Qaeda somewhere to attack Western forces and divert their attention from terrorist spectaculars in the West. When fighting a war, you seek to fight it on ground of your choosing. But maybe I am just too cynical.
IMO we should be allowing Iraq to split into 3, thus reducing the power and influence of the Iranian proxy state.
Malcolmg - Indeed. RichardDodd - Yes, but the point remains any action which is taken will have been pushed for at the UN by Cameron and the UK. There is no doubt now that of the 5 powers on the security council, the UK is presently the most hawkish
David, because it gives nonentities like Hague an Cameron a ha**-on thinking how all powerful they are and boasts their stupid Ego's. As per our other great interventions it will kill innocent people and at best swap one nasty lot for another nasty lot. Hague especially is a pygmy, you only have to hear his pathetic whinging to know he is a joke.
Malcolm, if only it was as simple as that. I rate Hague as one of the smarter people in British public life but I simply do not understand where he is coming from on this.
Strategically, Assad was never one of ours and gave the Russians a foothold in the med. They were also by far the largest threat to the security of Israel who the Americans regard as a key ally. So getting rid of him and degrading that military capability might seem attractive (putting aside any moral questions). It also allows us to chum up with some of the Arab states who are a lot more important to Europe than they are to the US (about to become a net oil exporter).
But the track record for this sort of thing is terrible. Libya had a sort of purpose because Gadaffi was responsible for the killing of many UK citizens (in Northern Ireland, London and of course Lockerbie). It was also relatively easy. This proposal is just crazy and I sincerely hope it is all some sort of complicated bluff to push the Russians into taking some steps themselves.
The only vaguely amusing aspect to it is the Lib Dems being in a government proposing such a thing. It makes the University fees fiasco look like an oversight.
Is it really necessary to point out to the local kinnockry that the claim "n Scottish children go to independent schools" is rebuttable by statistics about the number of children going to independent schools in Scotland if and only if no Scottish children go to independent schools outwith Scotland?
Only a complete fool would try to say that as many go to private schools outside Scotland as do in Scotland. He was either a FAKE or an idiot.
It might seem unlikely. Then again 80% of Buckies (from just down the road here in Devon) is sold in Glasgow and environs, perhaps Scotland exports posho children to maintain its balance of trade?
Dear Dear , typical twat response , when shown to be a complete dolt try and stick on an insult. Back to your banjo and stop pestering the adults.
Not sure who I insulted there. Admittedly I always think "Buckies" when I see you posting in CAPS before 9 a.m. But I was keeping that to myself.
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
Yes, Obama at least has some nous and realises the uproar there would be if he did jump in , Cameron unfortunately is not that intelligent or in touch with reality.
Spot on. Obama is the man here. Hague and Cameron are making tits of themselves.
Is it really necessary to point out to the local kinnockry that the claim "n Scottish children go to independent schools" is rebuttable by statistics about the number of children going to independent schools in Scotland if and only if no Scottish children go to independent schools outwith Scotland?
Only a complete fool would try to say that as many go to private schools outside Scotland as do in Scotland. He was either a FAKE or an idiot.
It might seem unlikely. Then again 80% of Buckies (from just down the road here in Devon) is sold in Glasgow and environs, perhaps Scotland exports posho children to maintain its balance of trade?
Dear Dear , typical twat response , when shown to be a complete dolt try and stick on an insult. Back to your banjo and stop pestering the adults.
Not sure who I insulted there. Admittedly I always think "Buckies" when I see you posting in CAPS before 9 a.m. But I was keeping that to myself.
keep trying , you would not recognise an intelligent post if it ran you over, keep practicing with that banjo you will maybe make it some day.
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
Isn't the obvious difference here that the UK and France both have governments that are heading for defeat unless something changes and need to roll the dice?
HYUFD..Cameron will not influence Obama one iota..Cameron has a voice at the table...that is all. Obama has to listen to hundreds of millions of voters, that does make a difference. If he was seen to bow to Cameron's wishes he would be taken apart..
Obama can't stand for a 3rd term, it doesn't matter what his voters say any more. The downside of power is you occasionally have to make a decision, even if it'll be an unpopular one.
At the end of the day, there's right and wrong. If the international community doesn't come down hard on Syria for the use of chemical weapons what is to stop some other country doing the same?
"The only vaguely amusing aspect to it is the Lib Dems being in a government proposing such a thing. It makes the University fees fiasco look like an oversight."
You make a very interesting point. I'd forgotten about Clegg's necessary involvement in this national folly. You really couldn't make it up.
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
Isn't the obvious difference here that the UK and France both have governments that are heading for defeat unless something changes and need to roll the dice?
Good point...Cameron`s been trying to recreate the 1982 election since day one first by his involvement in Libya,then a war of words with Argentina and then Spain and now he`s trying to bomb Syria.
It's sad listening to the endless posts today with their vicious and ill-informed smearing about Cameron, Hague, etc - without a single reference as far as I've read of the plight of the Syrians caught up in this horrendous situation. I suspect that there is little Britain, France or the UK can do given the position of Russia and China - but I think all of our political leaders in all parties in this instance speak from purer motives than most of the hate-filled point scorers on here today.
And on that note you all have free rein to condemn me as an evil baby-killing Tory if it makes you feel any better.
To all the critics of the UK and France's stance on Syria, you are all absolutely right, it is solely to give those involved a h*rd on. I suggest we all sit back and watch Assad slaughter innocents, like the kids on Sky news yesterday.. Great sport watching a nation led by a maniac destroy itself. Beats the sh*t out of TV and is much better than watching some dimwits on PB going on about the PM's weight problem. Let trivia rule. Meanwhile lotsa afolk are gonna get killed today..and tomorrow and the day after..until Assad runs out of folks to kill... such fun.
EdinTokyo - No, Syria would not help either Cameron or Hollande. The pacifist left in France clearly opposes intervention as does much of the traditional Tory right and the military
UN chemical weapons inspection team came under fire whilst in transit. No injuries
Turkey looks to be fully onboard any plan and, like the UK, has indicated that they will, by necessity, bypass UN unanimity
Total number of countries believed to be involved in 'coalition of the willing' in some shape or form as of this morning, c17. includng all the obvious suspects
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
Isn't the obvious difference here that the UK and France both have governments that are heading for defeat unless something changes and need to roll the dice?
Good point...Cameron`s been trying to recreate the 1982 election since day one first by his involvement in Libya,then a war of words with Argentina and then Spain and now he`s trying to bomb Syria.
Cameron must be so skilled at recreating the 1982 election held on June 31st...
malcolm g - Actually it is Cameron who is pushing this, not Obama who is reluctant to get deeply involved judging by his CNN interview, if anything in this instance it will be the US dragged into this by the UK
Isn't the obvious difference here that the UK and France both have governments that are heading for defeat unless something changes and need to roll the dice?
Good point...Cameron`s been trying to recreate the 1982 election since day one first by his involvement in Libya,then a war of words with Argentina and then Spain and now he`s trying to bomb Syria.
Cameron must be so skilled at recreating the 1982 election held on June 31st...
Mr Assad's brother Maher, commander of the 4th Armoured Division – was reportedly behind last week's attack.
The nerve gas shells were fired from a military base in a mountain range to the west of Damascus, which was apparently commanded by Maher Assad.
The correct way to use military force would have been to have already dropped a fuel air bomb on the 4th Armoured Division. Unfortunately this hasn't happened. Obama and the UN will no doubt fanny around for a few more days by which time Assad will have had time to cover up the evidence to at least the satisfaction of his international supporters, and redeploy.
I know the fashion these days is to tell the enemy when, where and how you are going to attack, but militarily it is ridiculous. In fact, all this posturing and UN shenanigans makes warfare less and not more moral. Instead of attacking immediately and forcefully when there is a reason to do so, the delay means that any attack is no more than a calculated reprisal, often against the innocent.
cf the Kosovo war, where IMO we should have hit Serbia 48 hours before the deadline and made a concerted effect to nail their troops while still in barracks or otherwise concentrated. Instead we gave them notice, and then mostly bombed civilians.
Actually the who called the shots question appears to have caused some finger pointing within the Assad regime itself. Two names of who gave the order and for things moving, of which Maher is one, have been put in the frame though both being involved together is also plausible as there are number of branches of the military who would need to be involved in the weapons release chain..
EdinTokyo - No, Syria would not help either Cameron or Hollande. The pacifist left in France clearly opposes intervention as does much of the traditional Tory right and the military
The pacifist left isn't Hollande's main problem, and the traditional Tory right would come around if it went OK. The opinion of the military is neither here nor there.
I'm not saying it's a plus in the average case, just that if nothing particular changes Cameron loses the next election, so he needs to do things that might win it for him if they go well.
RichardDodd/Felix - It is not so much a right-left issue, eg Hillary Clinton was for intervention in Syria, Rand Paul is strongly opposed, Philip Hammond and Theresa May are opposed, many Blairites are for. Generally the right may be more in favour than the left, but it is not clear-cut and many are worried about the rebels Al Qaeda links etc, in my view rightly
What part of 'leave well alone' doesn't the government understand?
The "well" bit? It's not "leave ill alone", after all.
I've never been in favour of intervening in Syria - I was okay with Iraq until I discovered we'd been mislead, and was supportive of Libya/Egypt - it looked like a good result for democracy and we had a localish interest. Afghanistan was always a mistake - when the Russians throw in the towel you know its a lost cause to persuade by brute force.
After Egypt has disintegrated, Iraq is an appalling mess with dozens murdered each day - I can see no reason for us sticking our oar in. We have no colonial legacy here, and frankly I fail to see the difference between killing children with suicide bombers, mortars, bullets or poison gas. They're still dead.
Comments
Good question. I don't trust a word that Weasel Hague has said. He makes Blair look like a Greenham Common peacenik
2011: 15%
2012: 16%
2013: 14%
It were done quickly.
On topic, I think a coalition split will be engineered in the new year 2015 over some policy seen as 'the final straw (maybe something over EU negotiations as it'd probably shore up both parties supporters). It'll give the Libdems the differentiation they'll need and allow the Tories the chance to bring a few good backbenchers into more prominent roles. It will also give Osborne the chance for one last budget, this time without Vince Cable acting as a speedbrake.
''it's still fairly trivial for fraudsters, while adding an extra hurdle for non-fraudsters.''
If that's true then why is the government in favour and labour against?
Sounds like all the government has done is inconvenienced its own supporters (as tim says postal voters tend to be tories).
The government must have calculated that inconveniencing its own supporters is a price worth paying for stopping mass postal vote fraud.
Which means they must also suspect postal vote fraud on the labour side is pretty widespread - or they wouldn't bother p8ssing their own people off.
If Cameron's 'No' campaign does scrape home then the Scottish seat split at GE2015 will be entirely dependent on one policy question: will the 3 Unionist parties insert bona fide plans for more devolution into their respective manifestos?
I suspect that only the Lib Dems would actually do so.
If the Lab-Cons fail to deliver on their promises of substantively more self-government then we could see a stunning result north of the border.
Though they did lose Edinburgh Pentlands to the SNP and IIRC made notional losses of Eastwood and Dumfriesshire to Labour.
And certainly came nowhere near the 10-12 constituency wins which Easterross predicted when the redrawn constituency boundaries were published.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_election_2011
Although your post on lovely Japanese immigrants doesn't give me much hope that you are capable of it.
"Clegg felt he had been bamboozled; Cameron said, in effect, that he should have read the small print of the Chancellor’s proposals"
No sh*t sherlock. Poor old calamity Clegg also seems to be making a habit of being bamboozled on core lib dem issues. Secret courts, rebranding control orders to TPIMS, the snoopers charter, and now his idiocy over civil rights and freedom of the press with Miranda and destroying press hard drives. All the tories and NannyCam's fault is it Cleggy? You were too busy with your head up your posterior to notice them forcing you into agreeing to these terrible things? Or might it even just be that you are utterly clueless and locked in a bubble when it comes to your own party.
Perish the thought that this flimsy and desperate attempt at differentiation just before conference is no more convincing or effective this time than when you do it before every other conference and before local elections.
How are those leader ratings going by the way Clegg? No doubt that lib dem recovery you predicted after Eastleigh and the locals is just around the corner as usual.
That's what all this is about. Our dear leaders creaming themselves as they 'chair' national security council meetings...
You can listen to yesterday's interesting @BBCRadio4 'The Reunion' on the 1970s Lib Lab Pact here: bbc.in/13yAW83
Back in the UK you could be allowed to vote early in person at your local Council office. If you vote early enough, say a week before the election, maybe you could be allowed to do so at any local council offices in the country.
Postal votes should be available to those temporarily out of the country and unable to avail themselves of the above, and those getting DLA or PIP with a mobility component.
holidays
photostunts
national security council meetings
But how dramatic it is, does a helicopter have to be provided to whisk Cameron off the beach and fly him at all possible speed so that he can 'chair' this meeting.
Perhaps it could be arranged that Prince William is the pilot to enhance the photostunt.
Can anyone explain what part of our national security is being threated by two lots of savages killing each other in Syria ?
And once again, which side are we to intervene on ? The Al Qaeda side or the Hizbollah side ?
The weird hurdles are in the registration process, which involves pointless hoops like the ballot paper being witnessed by a British citizen _living_outside_Britain_, because Britain apparently doesn't trust British citizens who still live in Britain.
Assad will be almost as humiliated as when the the west rendered prisoners to him to be tortured, back when they were sending a clear message on the importance of human rights to dictators.
"If just once you could ever overcome what is essentially tribal chanting and expand an original thought, it would go a long way to stopping you looking like a spoof poster."
That could explain why I have 32 'troll' symbols after my name which was disturbing. Less so after investigation revealed all but two were from the metronomically monotonous mendacity who calls himself Fluffy Thoughts
However, the LDs still have to evidence to the electorate as to why anyone should vote for them. To date they have preferred to focus on political reform ( where does that rank on the electorate's list of priorities) and are also keen advocates of the EU, ECHR, immigration, green energy taxes etc - all of which are contrary to the electorate's preferences.
At the 2010 GE, the LDs gained 8 seats (as well as losing 13) - how many of those will they retain in 2015? 1 or 2 at best? Is there a market up for those 8?
And then there’s the stuff that seems to interest a lot of other people which leaves me utterly cold. The ‘fluff’ which seems to occupy a lot of political (and PB) time like gay marriage, train routes, who said what to whom, local politics – who gives a shit?
What I find truly worrying though is how relatively few of our politicians seem personally motivated by the important good governance stuff, but rather in the buzz of power and publicity. Why, for example, did Blair go into politics? It certainly wasn’t to drive a better standard of living or push economic prudence on Gordon! It was an ego trip. This is not good. If only we could find a way to exclude the likes of Jeffrey Archer or Chuka Umunna or Ed Balls from the whole thing. Socialists need not apply! Or chums.
Given that your brother already knows how you will vote... would it not be easier to appoint him as a proxy? Or do the expat rules not allow that?
The clear impression I have had about this is that Hague and the French were far more eager for "intervening" (horrible euphemism) than the US. His attempt to paint the rebels as the good guys was always strange and became more so as priests were publically executed, women were "controlled" and other minorities were abused. He seemed to eventually give up but not before time.
Now the line seems to be, well the rebels are not very nice but Assad is terrible. So (and this is the fatal step) we must do something. Why? On what moral or legal basis are we going to kill members of Assad's military (and the assorted collaterals of course but they don't count because we do not mean it)? I really don't get it.
Humanitarian aid is appropriate. The refugee crisis caused by this civil war is disastrous and highly destabilising for surrounding countries. We should make it clear that those responsible will, if the opportunity arises, face the International Criminal court and will not be welcome in any of our countries. But this self appointed moral guardian with a big technological stick that can kill really turns my stomach.
Edited to add: I still needed to jump through the eccentric registration hoops, or they wouldn't send him a ballot paper in the first place.
Very Very funny!!
"...it beggars belief that we appear to be considering an armed attack on Syria with no clear purpose and no achievable objective.
Our influence in the region is, nowadays, very limited and our direct interests in Syria are minimal. Surely we have learnt by now that blundering into wars in the Middle East is pure foolishness."
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/08/sir-andrew-green-blundering-into-war-in-syria-would-be-pure-foolishness.html
Assad will be almost as humiliated as when the the west rendered prisoners to him to be tortured, back when they were sending a clear message on the importance of human rights to dictators.
On 11 September 2001 the US was attacked by 19 terrorists: 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 from the United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese. In response the US and UK invaded... err... Iraq.
Nothing the West does in the Middle East is logical, unless of course you follow the logic of money.
If Cameron, or any PM did not have a meeting to discuss Syria then they would be blamed for that by the usual dimwits..That is a PM's job.
The UK, France,USA and all those who wish to intervene should first get the complete approval of the UN Secrity Council ..
If that is vetoed by China and Russia then we should stand back and continue to watch the massacres take place and put China/Russsia/Assad in the same category..
The rebels will eventually win , and they will remember..
I have found that the British Embassy or Consulate has always been very helpful over such matters, or if not they will put you in touch with a member of the local ex-pat community.
I know the fashion these days is to tell the enemy when, where and how you are going to attack, but militarily it is ridiculous. In fact, all this posturing and UN shenanigans makes warfare less and not more moral. Instead of attacking immediately and forcefully when there is a reason to do so, the delay means that any attack is no more than a calculated reprisal, often against the innocent.
cf the Kosovo war, where IMO we should have hit Serbia 48 hours before the deadline and made a concerted effect to nail their troops while still in barracks or otherwise concentrated. Instead we gave them notice, and then mostly bombed civilians.
'@JohnRentoul: What does Nick "Illegal War" Clegg make of this? "William Hague: We can act without UN security council unity" http://t.co/O9KXZUSk5i'
Doesn't matter,if it happens it will be fully supported by Labour, illegal wars are in their DNA.
I thought proxy voting meant he just went in and voted on your behalf, all you need to do is have a chat with him beforehand, or exchange emails. None of this scanning business.
"60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825
If anyone wants @tom_watson to block them one way is to ask why he's 10500 miles from his constituency during someone else's election. FYI.
Well now Clegg has his chance to 'fix' that and well see how fast and how hard he differentiates himself this time. Assuming he wants to of course.
If only we were in any way likely to!
The UKIP view is that the UK should keep well out of any involvement, military or otherwise in Syrian affairs as long as the civil war rages. A conduite for humanitarian aid is permitted, if one can be safely found.
He is the PM and as such he is guided by strict protocol.
Right now I dont think there is a better person among the 650 to do the job,
I see the midges are still attacking..
Although I do sometimes wonder whether the Iraq front was opened so that we could draw Al-Qaeda into more open warfare on our terms, in a country that didn't matter, thus diverting them from terrorism in the West.
Any pics of the Cheshire Farmer in his swimsuit? ....hopefully not..
Most ex-PMs etc that I have spoken with say that the thing that they miss most is the loss of power and being at the centre of things. However for Blair it was an ego-trip (see his farewell tour) and the opportunity to earn lots and lots of money.
He was an opportunist who saw the ramshackle and disorganised Labour party after 1992 as an old nag that he could revitalise (call it New) and ride on its back to power - aided by a Tory party that was suffering constantly from reports of sexual and other sleaze. His timing was right as the Cons had run out of steam and Blair was joined in this opportunity by Mandelson, Campbell with Brown as their economic 'expert'. Also he knew that the unions would back him and would do/allow anything for Labour to get back into power.
Today, our great problem is that few politicians have a long term vision and mostly seem devoid of common sense. Those that do think logically are thrown out of office by all parties (e.g Frank Field etc). Also few politicians are able to come up with ideas that are relevant for the now and the future and rely on past and often failed policies.
It was Blair and Campbell who developed a lot of today's Ya-Boo politics and it has come back to bite Labour and diminish our political debate. It was the same duo who fostered more state control over our lives. Yet in this internet and multicultural age few have the policies to deal with the threats that they bring. Also most UK politicians do not have a clue about international economics or international politics and you do not get that experience from fact-finding missions.
Richard Dodd - Of course we are not the US political master, but the US has gone from a neocon Republican president to a waffling liberal president who opposed the Iraq war, which Cameron supported.
Old King Cole/MickPork - Indeed, but with Sarkozy now replaced by Hollande of the 3 western powers on the security council it is now the UK who has the most interventionist leader in Cameron
Partially. Not the full story of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_cell
Don't remember that being spouted as the rationale very much at the time.
"didn't matter" is also curious way of viewing what is now in essence an Iranian proxy state. While much of their activities were simply diverted into North Africa and didn't stop 7/7 either.
...don't you have some "O" level reading to do..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/carolabinney/100232467/labours-campaign-to-enfranchise-16-year-olds-has-only-one-motive-grabbing-their-votes/
Obama has to listen to hundreds of millions of voters, that does make a difference.
If he was seen to bow to Cameron's wishes he would be taken apart..
You seem to take the role of personal defender of the PM a bit too seriously!Don`t you have better things to do!
Did I say it was successful? And I can't believe that anyone would have publicly said at the time that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was cynically to give al-Qaeda somewhere to attack Western forces and divert their attention from terrorist spectaculars in the West. When fighting a war, you seek to fight it on ground of your choosing. But maybe I am just too cynical.
IMO we should be allowing Iraq to split into 3, thus reducing the power and influence of the Iranian proxy state.
RichardDodd - Yes, but the point remains any action which is taken will have been pushed for at the UN by Cameron and the UK. There is no doubt now that of the 5 powers on the security council, the UK is presently the most hawkish
Strategically, Assad was never one of ours and gave the Russians a foothold in the med. They were also by far the largest threat to the security of Israel who the Americans regard as a key ally. So getting rid of him and degrading that military capability might seem attractive (putting aside any moral questions). It also allows us to chum up with some of the Arab states who are a lot more important to Europe than they are to the US (about to become a net oil exporter).
But the track record for this sort of thing is terrible. Libya had a sort of purpose because Gadaffi was responsible for the killing of many UK citizens (in Northern Ireland, London and of course Lockerbie). It was also relatively easy. This proposal is just crazy and I sincerely hope it is all some sort of complicated bluff to push the Russians into taking some steps themselves.
The only vaguely amusing aspect to it is the Lib Dems being in a government proposing such a thing. It makes the University fees fiasco look like an oversight.
History shows that nobody is ever grateful to anybody for intervening on their behalf. We weren't grateful to the Americans.
The French aren't grateful to us. and so it goes on.
What part of 'leave well alone' doesn't the government understand?
At the end of the day, there's right and wrong. If the international community doesn't come down hard on Syria for the use of chemical weapons what is to stop some other country doing the same?
"The only vaguely amusing aspect to it is the Lib Dems being in a government proposing such a thing. It makes the University fees fiasco look like an oversight."
You make a very interesting point. I'd forgotten about Clegg's necessary involvement in this national folly. You really couldn't make it up.
The Baltic tiger of Estonia is the world’s first country to meet all its power needs from shale, with enough left over for neighbours and fuel exports for the shipping industry. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10265383/Estonia-becomes-self-sufficient-on-shale-gas-boom.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/21767/david-cameron-government-would-be-brimming-hawks
he`s trying to bomb Syria.
And on that note you all have free rein to condemn me as an evil baby-killing Tory if it makes you feel any better.
I suggest we all sit back and watch Assad slaughter innocents, like the kids on Sky news yesterday..
Great sport watching a nation led by a maniac destroy itself.
Beats the sh*t out of TV and is much better than watching some dimwits on PB going on about the PM's weight problem.
Let trivia rule.
Meanwhile lotsa afolk are gonna get killed today..and tomorrow and the day after..until Assad runs out of folks to kill... such fun.
UN chemical weapons inspection team came under fire whilst in transit. No injuries
Turkey looks to be fully onboard any plan and, like the UK, has indicated that they will, by necessity, bypass UN unanimity
Total number of countries believed to be involved in 'coalition of the willing' in some shape or form as of this morning, c17. includng all the obvious suspects
Jordanian & US forces in Jordan put on full alert
must be a typo.
I know the fashion these days is to tell the enemy when, where and how you are going to attack, but militarily it is ridiculous. In fact, all this posturing and UN shenanigans makes warfare less and not more moral. Instead of attacking immediately and forcefully when there is a reason to do so, the delay means that any attack is no more than a calculated reprisal, often against the innocent.
cf the Kosovo war, where IMO we should have hit Serbia 48 hours before the deadline and made a concerted effect to nail their troops while still in barracks or otherwise concentrated. Instead we gave them notice, and then mostly bombed civilians.
Actually the who called the shots question appears to have caused some finger pointing within the Assad regime itself. Two names of who gave the order and for things moving, of which Maher is one, have been put in the frame though both being involved together is also plausible as there are number of branches of the military who would need to be involved in the weapons release chain..
I'm not saying it's a plus in the average case, just that if nothing particular changes Cameron loses the next election, so he needs to do things that might win it for him if they go well.
You did mean the 1983 GE...
After Egypt has disintegrated, Iraq is an appalling mess with dozens murdered each day - I can see no reason for us sticking our oar in. We have no colonial legacy here, and frankly I fail to see the difference between killing children with suicide bombers, mortars, bullets or poison gas. They're still dead.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10265383/Estonia-becomes-self-sufficient-on-shale-gas-boom.html
When will the UK wake up and smell the coffee?