Starmer: The heir to Miliband? – politicalbetting.com

System

Starmer: The heir to Miliband? – politicalbetting.com

Despite Truss relative weakness, Starmer remains well below the score he needs to know he will win a general election – he needs more positive than negative scores…. pic.twitter.com/1J76FzV5W1

Read the full story here

DecrepiterJohnL

There is another way in which Starmer risks being heir to Miliband, paradoxically for the opposite reason. No-one knows what a Labour government will do. What are Starmer's policies or even his principles? In 2015 voters faced the same conundrum, despite Ed Miliband's manifesto having all sorts of micro-proposals that did not add up to a coherent whole.

But, similarly to America and Trump versus Biden, the choice for voters in GE2024 might be stability with Labour under Starmer, or chaos with Liz Truss.

JosiasJessop

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

JosiasJessop

A quick side-note on the Iranian situation:

Yet again, when trouble occurs in the Middle East, the Kurds get a hammering.

They need their own state (though there are a myriad of difficulties in getting there...)

Foxy

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573775346213834753?t=CksIXkao7FpXpoqtzzUHGQ&s=19

How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!

What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?

DecrepiterJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

JosiasJessop

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

StuartDickson

Net favourability:

Liz Truss / Keir Starmer

London -45 / +8

Rest of South -26 / -24

Midlands and Wales -30 / -15

North -30 / -28

Scotland -52 / -18

(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,298; 21 September)

Starmer beating Truss everywhere, although Labour strategists will be perplexed as to why it is so close in the north of England. And, as always, the Scottish numbers look dire for Labour, as a net gain of 124 seats is dependent on one of three things:

A. An SNP collapse in Scotland
B. A Con collapse in England
C. A Lib Dem landslide in the south of England

None of those three scenarios looks likely at present, although B may come into play next year, unless the global economy perks up pronto. Likelihood of these scenarios happening at the next UK GE?

B 25/1 ?
C 33/1 ?
A 100/1 ?

If my odds are remotely near correct, then the current price for Lab Maj of 5/2 looks like staggeringly poor value.

Pulpstar

What does everyone think of Monbiot's Phoenix tweet ?

DecrepiterJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

StuartDickson

One of the notable features of that poll is how few respondents replied “Very favourable”:

Liz Truss / Keir Starmer

London 2% / 7%

Rest of South 4% / 3%

Midlands and Wales 2% / 3%

North 4% / 3%

Scotland none / 8%

(PeoplePolling / GB News; 1,298; 21 September)

This shows that not even core Con and Lab voters are impressed with their own leaders. Scottish Tories are ripping their hair out, and the lack of enthusiasm for Starmer in the north of England must be unprecedented for a Labour leader.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. JohnL, both Cameron and Miliband were in favour of action in Syria, but by having two very similar but blue/red proposals, neither ended up going through.

It's a just criticism, I think, of Miliband.

SouthamObserver

I think it’s very difficult to make any meaningful comparison because polling methodologies have changed so much. What would Miliband’s numbers look like with those used now? What would Starmer’s look like under the old ones?

That said, Starmer is clearly not going to get a personal vote of any discerible size. Labour as a whole will have to seal the deal. For me, the most likely post-GE scenarios are, in order: Labour minority government; Tory majority government; Labour majority government; Tory minority government.

SouthamObserver

StuartDickson said:

One of the notable features of that poll is how few respondents replied “Very favourable”:

Liz Truss / Keir Starmer

London 2% / 7%

Rest of South 4% / 3%

Midlands and Wales 2% / 3%

North 4% / 3%

Scotland none / 8%

(PeoplePolling / GB News; 1,298; 21 September)

This shows that not even core Con and Lab voters are impressed with their own leaders. Scottish Tories are ripping their hair out, and the lack of enthusiasm for Starmer in the north of England must be unprecedented for a Labour leader.

I would be very surprised if Jeremy Corbyn was more popular than Starmer anywhere.

StuartDickson

Pulpstar said:

What does everyone think of Monbiot's Phoenix tweet ?

Help me here, I can’t find it. Although I do note that he’s retweeting that extremely popular and strongly-worded RSPB England tweet, as are the Wildlife Trusts, the National Trust and every other conservation body on the internet. Truss and Kwarteng have chosen some powerful enemies. Profoundly unwise.

Make no mistake - we are also incredibly angry. We stand with @RSPBEngland in calling out the unprecedented attack on nature launched by UK Government over the last few days. We’ll be challenging this together and asking for our supporters to stand with us.

https://twitter.com/wildlifetrusts/status/1573574651325865985?s=46&t=FigcNZtoxniczq5xtFqGCQ

StuartDickson

SouthamObserver said:

StuartDickson said:

One of the notable features of that poll is how few respondents replied “Very favourable”:

Liz Truss / Keir Starmer

London 2% / 7%

Rest of South 4% / 3%

Midlands and Wales 2% / 3%

North 4% / 3%

Scotland none / 8%

(PeoplePolling / GB News; 1,298; 21 September)

This shows that not even core Con and Lab voters are impressed with their own leaders. Scottish Tories are ripping their hair out, and the lack of enthusiasm for Starmer in the north of England must be unprecedented for a Labour leader.

I would be very surprised if Jeremy Corbyn was more popular than Starmer anywhere.

Unfortunately for the Labour Party, Keir Starmer is not fighting Jeremy Corbyn at the next election. He’s fighting Liz Truss, Nicola Sturgeon, Ed Davey and Adam Price.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, I must slightly disagree. Yes, Starmer isn't a source of enthusiasm, but given the current Truss economic plan is going down about as well as Varro's cunning idea of attacking Hannibal at Cannae the bar for looking a better alternative than the incumbent government is lowered very substantially.

Mr. Dickson, what exactly has annoyed them so?

Casino_Royale

StuartDickson said:

Net favourability:

Liz Truss / Keir Starmer

London -45 / +8

Rest of South -26 / -24

Midlands and Wales -30 / -15

North -30 / -28

Scotland -52 / -18

(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,298; 21 September)

Starmer beating Truss everywhere, although Labour strategists will be perplexed as to why it is so close in the north of England. And, as always, the Scottish numbers look dire for Labour, as a net gain of 124 seats is dependent on one of three things:

A. An SNP collapse in Scotland
B. A Con collapse in England
C. A Lib Dem landslide in the south of England

None of those three scenarios looks likely at present, although B may come into play next year, unless the global economy perks up pronto. Likelihood of these scenarios happening at the next UK GE?

B 25/1 ?
C 33/1 ?
A 100/1 ?

If my odds are remotely near correct, then the current price for Lab Maj of 5/2 looks like staggeringly poor value.

If there's a serious prospect of change in the UK Government, and Starmer is clearly leading nationwide, then I expect Slabour to pick up about 15-20 seats north of the border.

JosiasJessop

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

ping said:

Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

The whole thread is interesting.

As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

For balance, Krugman:

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1573653503809134592

The result is that sterling depreciation actually *improves* Britain's net international investment position (the same thing happens to the US). So a balance-sheet currency crisis story doesn't seem to make sense

Krugman is quite correct.

Britain's foreign assets tend to be denominated in US Dollars, Euros and to a lesser extent Yuan, Aussie Dollars and the Yen.

By contrast, Britain's liabilities to foreigners tend to be Sterling denominated. There are exceptions (commodities firms tend to borrow in USDollars, for example), but mostly what we owe is in Sterling, while what we are owed is in other currencies.

And therefore, a weakening of the Pound (all things being equal) improves our net international investment position.

However that's not the whole story.

While Britain's existing positions have improved somewhat, so have the costs of importing things.

Hence the UK's Current Account registered a record deficit in 1Q.

moonshine

Kwarteng: I am having twice weekly meetings with the Governor to ensure alignment of policy.

So Bailey knew the size of this tax giveaway and yet still voted the day before to let uk base rates lag the Fed by a further 25bps. Bizarro.

I thought Truss was pretty clear in the leadership election. I will cut taxes and that probably means rates need to be higher. I do at times wonder whether BoE independence is all it’s cracked up to be given their record.

SouthamObserver

StuartDickson said:

SouthamObserver said:

StuartDickson said:

One of the notable features of that poll is how few respondents replied “Very favourable”:

Liz Truss / Keir Starmer

London 2% / 7%

Rest of South 4% / 3%

Midlands and Wales 2% / 3%

North 4% / 3%

Scotland none / 8%

(PeoplePolling / GB News; 1,298; 21 September)

This shows that not even core Con and Lab voters are impressed with their own leaders. Scottish Tories are ripping their hair out, and the lack of enthusiasm for Starmer in the north of England must be unprecedented for a Labour leader.

I would be very surprised if Jeremy Corbyn was more popular than Starmer anywhere.

Unfortunately for the Labour Party, Keir Starmer is not fighting Jeremy Corbyn at the next election. He’s fighting Liz Truss, Nicola Sturgeon, Ed Davey and Adam Price.

I was responding to your assertion that Starmer’s low popularity in the North of England was probably unprecedented.

Clutch_Brompton

I think that it is clear that Syria encouraged Putin. Clearly that must be Miliband's fault - after all he was PM and in charge of US foreign policy at the time wasn't he? What next - will people claim Starmer wasn't to blame for the mini-budget of 2022? Thankfully there will be those on hand to keep us on the straight and narrow....

SouthamObserver

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

Miliband did not stop the West intervening in Syria. Labour was not in government and the UK is not that powerful anyway. Miliband’s positioning was shameful and opportunistic. That’s it.

LostPassword

Ukraine are using ATACMS. No coincidence that this video emerges so soon after Russia's mobilisation starts. This gives Ukraine even greater range to hit Russian logistics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1573843064900272129

JosiasJessop

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

Miliband did not stop the West intervening in Syria. Labour was not in government and the UK is not that powerful anyway. Miliband’s positioning was shameful and opportunistic. That’s it.

As I recall it, he did. The US did not want to go in alone, and Cameron said he would go in as well. He had meetings with Miliband, and watered down the intervention so that Miliband would agree. Then, shortly before the vote, Miliband reneged.

That meant the UK could not go in, and Obama knew that meant his intervention was politically doomed as well.

And as I've said, that led to Crimea, Donbass, Salisbury and now the Ukraine invasion. We let Putin feel we were weak, and Miliband's 'shameful and opportunistic' positioning was central to that.

OnlyLivingBoy

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

ping said:

Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

The whole thread is interesting.

As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

For balance, Krugman:

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1573653503809134592

The result is that sterling depreciation actually *improves* Britain's net international investment position (the same thing happens to the US). So a balance-sheet currency crisis story doesn't seem to make sense

Krugman is quite correct.

Britain's foreign assets tend to be denominated in US Dollars, Euros and to a lesser extent Yuan, Aussie Dollars and the Yen.

By contrast, Britain's liabilities to foreigners tend to be Sterling denominated. There are exceptions (commodities firms tend to borrow in USDollars, for example), but mostly what we owe is in Sterling, while what we are owed is in other currencies.

And therefore, a weakening of the Pound (all things being equal) improves our net international investment position.

However that's not the whole story.

While Britain's existing positions have improved somewhat, so have the costs of importing things.

Hence the UK's Current Account registered a record deficit in 1Q.

I agree with Krugman, I don't see the conditions for a currency crisis. But I do expect to see a further weakening of the pound, especially against the USD, and it's highly likely that Cable goes below parity next year imho. Arguments for this include:
BOE reluctant to hike as much as the Fed;
Loss of faith in the government's competence and the UK's institutional framework;
Loss of competitiveness after Brexit;
Continued USD strength more broadly;
Cooling in the property market;
Likelihood of further increase in borrowing.
The main counter argument is that GBP has already fallen so far that UK assets are now value. I see that argument kicking in at some point but just not at current levels. In the meantime it is quite possible that we see some reversal of last week's losses given the speed and size of the move but I would be wary of treating that as the start of a genuine recovery.

Scott_xP

More civil service and political sources saying it’s unheard of for a spad — still less a Downing St chief-of-staff — to be paid via a private lobbying company

No10 last night briefed it was perfectly ordinary but offering no evidence or critically explaining why he’s doing this
https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1573720354555678720


There's a version of events in which the current inhabitants of the great offices of state are genuinely radical thinkers with a grand vision for a new and prosperous country in which everyone benefits.

But there's another version on which they are spivs and wide boys who will screw anything for a buck, intent on raping what's left of the economy before handing the mess off to somebody else to cleanup...

Scott_xP

Lizz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng's great economic gamble has terrified Tory MPs > Mail On Sunday >

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11246275/DAN-HODGES-Kwasinomics-easily-explained-hes-bet-Britain-red-roulette-table.html

DecrepiterJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.

SouthamObserver

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

Miliband did not stop the West intervening in Syria. Labour was not in government and the UK is not that powerful anyway. Miliband’s positioning was shameful and opportunistic. That’s it.

As I recall it, he did. The US did not want to go in alone, and Cameron said he would go in as well. He had meetings with Miliband, and watered down the intervention so that Miliband would agree. Then, shortly before the vote, Miliband reneged.
That meant the UK could not go in, and Obama knew that meant his intervention was politically doomed as well.
And as I've said, that led to Crimea,
Donbass, Salisbury and now the Ukraine invasion. We let Putin feel we were weak, and Miliband's 'shameful and opportunistic' positioning was central to that.

Ed Miliband was only ever an issue because Cameron was unable to bring the LibDems on board and, yes, Obama was worried about the domestic politics of it all. There was a collective failure of resolve in the Western democracies caused by leaders looking in, not out. That’s what Putin saw.

DecrepiterJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

Miliband did not stop the West intervening in Syria. Labour was not in government and the UK is not that powerful anyway. Miliband’s positioning was shameful and opportunistic. That’s it.

As I recall it, he did. The US did not want to go in alone, and Cameron said he would go in as well. He had meetings with Miliband, and watered down the intervention so that Miliband would agree. Then, shortly before the vote, Miliband reneged.

That meant the UK could not go in, and Obama knew that meant his intervention was politically doomed as well.

And as I've said, that led to Crimea, Donbass, Salisbury and now the Ukraine invasion. We let Putin feel we were weak, and Miliband's 'shameful and opportunistic' positioning was central to that.

Since Obama described not intervening in Syria as his best foreign policy decision, it is unlikely he was influenced by Ed Miliband or indeed David Cameron. The only person Cameron did persuade was, apparently, you.

Theuniondivvie

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

StuartDickson

Casino_Royale said:

StuartDickson said:

Net favourability:

Liz Truss / Keir Starmer

London -45 / +8

Rest of South -26 / -24

Midlands and Wales -30 / -15

North -30 / -28

Scotland -52 / -18

(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,298; 21 September)

Starmer beating Truss everywhere, although Labour strategists will be perplexed as to why it is so close in the north of England. And, as always, the Scottish numbers look dire for Labour, as a net gain of 124 seats is dependent on one of three things:

A. An SNP collapse in Scotland
B. A Con collapse in England
C. A Lib Dem landslide in the south of England

None of those three scenarios looks likely at present, although B may come into play next year, unless the global economy perks up pronto. Likelihood of these scenarios happening at the next UK GE?

B 25/1 ?
C 33/1 ?
A 100/1 ?

If my odds are remotely near correct, then the current price for Lab Maj of 5/2 looks like staggeringly poor value.

If there's a serious prospect of change in the UK Government, and Starmer is clearly leading nationwide, then I expect Slabour to pick up about 15-20 seats north of the border.

Such a scenario requires two things:

A. Scottish Labour increasing to 30% (from 18.6% last time). They are currently in the low 20s.

B. The SNP must drop to 35% (from 45% last time). We are currently in the mid to high 40s.

Both must happen: only one is insufficient.

In addition, SLab would have to win the Ground War/GOTV. They are in no fit state for that task.

The sub-sample in that PeoplePolling survey is:

SNP 62%
SLab 14%
SLD 10%
SCon 9%
Grn 3%
Ref -
oth 2% (presumably Alba)

I’m not saying Labour can’t achieve a 12 point swing against the SNP, I’m just saying that at the moment the swing may actually be going the other way.

ydoethur

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

They have a ham, a sick, all laid on in Richard Burgon.

Dura_Ace

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

Miliband did not stop the West intervening in Syria. Labour was not in government and the UK is not that powerful anyway. Miliband’s positioning was shameful and opportunistic. That’s it.

As I recall it, he did. The US did not want to go in alone, and Cameron said he would go in as well. He had meetings with Miliband, and watered down the intervention so that Miliband would agree. Then, shortly before the vote, Miliband reneged.

That meant the UK could not go in, and Obama knew that meant his intervention was politically doomed as well.

And as I've said, that led to Crimea, Donbass, Salisbury and now the Ukraine invasion. We let Putin feel we were weak, and Miliband's 'shameful and opportunistic' positioning was central to that.

See Derek Chollet's book on Obama. He was ASD (ISA) at Defence when all this was going on. Obama was concerned that striking Syria was risky (splashed and captured crew), would draw the US into yet another decades long Middle East conflict and didn't think he could get authorisation through Congress. So Obama and Kerry did a deal with Russia for the decommissioning of Syrian chemical weapons which partially worked and partially didn't as they were chlorine gassing the shit out of people a few years later. Milliband is not mentioned as being able to direct US foreign and military policy at his whim.

Trump bombed the fuck out of them after the 2017 chlorine incident and then Assad did it again a year later so it's not even clear that military action would have had any effect even if Miliband Minor did give Obama permission to do it.

StuartDickson

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

This is at the heart of Labour’s strategic conundrum: the more they ape the English Tories, the more distasteful they become to their target voters in Scotland. Mark Drakeford knows what he’s doing. Anas Sarwar is yet another in an astonishing line of SLab duds.

Labour have made their ‘Muscular Unionism’ (copyright M Gove) bed. Now they must lie in it. Sweet dreams are profoundly unlikely.

JosiasJessop

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

Miliband did not stop the West intervening in Syria. Labour was not in government and the UK is not that powerful anyway. Miliband’s positioning was shameful and opportunistic. That’s it.

As I recall it, he did. The US did not want to go in alone, and Cameron said he would go in as well. He had meetings with Miliband, and watered down the intervention so that Miliband would agree. Then, shortly before the vote, Miliband reneged.

That meant the UK could not go in, and Obama knew that meant his intervention was politically doomed as well.

And as I've said, that led to Crimea, Donbass, Salisbury and now the Ukraine invasion. We let Putin feel we were weak, and Miliband's 'shameful and opportunistic' positioning was central to that.

See Derek Chollet's book on Obama. He was ASD (ISA) at Defence when all this was going on. Obama was concerned that striking Syria was risky (splashed and captured crew), would draw the US into yet another decades long Middle East conflict and didn't think he could get authorisation through Congress. So Obama and Kerry did a deal with Russia for the decommissioning of Syrian chemical weapons which partially worked and partially didn't as they were chlorine gassing the shit out of people a few years later. Milliband is not mentioned as being able to direct US foreign and military policy at his whim.

Trump bombed the fuck out of them after the 2017 chlorine incident and then Assad did it again a year later so it's not even clear that military action would have had any effect even if Miliband Minor did give Obama permission to do it.

I believe the Russian deal was about a month after the failed vote. So the Russian deal was the only option left on the table after that, and the deal was hammered out. But as you say:

"Russia for the decommissioning of Syrian chemical weapons which partially worked and partially didn't as they were chlorine gassing the shit out of people a few years later."

How is that 'partially working' ? It failed.

Nigelb

Scott_xP said:

More civil service and political sources saying it’s unheard of for a spad — still less a Downing St chief-of-staff — to be paid via a private lobbying company

No10 last night briefed it was perfectly ordinary but offering no evidence or critically explaining why he’s doing this
https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1573720354555678720


There's a version of events in which the current inhabitants of the great offices of state are genuinely radical thinkers with a grand vision for a new and prosperous country in which everyone benefits.

But there's another version on which they are spivs and wide boys who will screw anything for a buck, intent on raping what's left of the economy before handing the mess off to somebody else to cleanup...

On that score.
A source who was present at a dinner attended by hedge-fund managers a week ago revealed: “They were all supporters of Truss and every one of them was shorting the pound.”

How the 'Biscotti Budget' came to be
https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1573724027776122884

JosiasJessop

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

Miliband did not stop the West intervening in Syria. Labour was not in government and the UK is not that powerful anyway. Miliband’s positioning was shameful and opportunistic. That’s it.

As I recall it, he did. The US did not want to go in alone, and Cameron said he would go in as well. He had meetings with Miliband, and watered down the intervention so that Miliband would agree. Then, shortly before the vote, Miliband reneged.

That meant the UK could not go in, and Obama knew that meant his intervention was politically doomed as well.

And as I've said, that led to Crimea, Donbass, Salisbury and now the Ukraine invasion. We let Putin feel we were weak, and Miliband's 'shameful and opportunistic' positioning was central to that.

Since Obama described not intervening in Syria as his best foreign policy decision, it is unlikely he was influenced by Ed Miliband or indeed David Cameron. The only person Cameron did persuade was, apparently, you.

LOL. Obama might be talking up his own position with a certain amount of hindsight there.

AS for your last line: I'm far from alone in making the connection.

Chris

Scott_xP said:

Lizz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng's great economic gamble has terrified Tory MPs > Mail On Sunday >

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11246275/DAN-HODGES-Kwasinomics-easily-explained-hes-bet-Britain-red-roulette-table.html

"Kwasi and Lizzie, lazy and silly ..."

Alistair

Welsh poll apparently, haven't found anything beyond this tweet:

https://twitter.com/GillibrandPeter/status/1573926820306624514

NEW: Experts at Cardiff University claim that if an election were held today - it would be close to electoral wipeout for the Conservatives here.

New poll by YouGov/ITV/Cardiff Uni:
Conservative - 23% (-3)
Labour - 46% (+5)
Liberal Democrats - 5% (-2)
Plaid Cymru - 15% (-1)

JosiasJessop

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.

"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"

ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.

I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.

StuartDickson

SouthamObserver said:

StuartDickson said:

SouthamObserver said:

StuartDickson said:

One of the notable features of that poll is how few respondents replied “Very favourable”:

Liz Truss / Keir Starmer

London 2% / 7%

Rest of South 4% / 3%

Midlands and Wales 2% / 3%

North 4% / 3%

Scotland none / 8%

(PeoplePolling / GB News; 1,298; 21 September)

This shows that not even core Con and Lab voters are impressed with their own leaders. Scottish Tories are ripping their hair out, and the lack of enthusiasm for Starmer in the north of England must be unprecedented for a Labour leader.

I would be very surprised if Jeremy Corbyn was more popular than Starmer anywhere.

Unfortunately for the Labour Party, Keir Starmer is not fighting Jeremy Corbyn at the next election. He’s fighting Liz Truss, Nicola Sturgeon, Ed Davey and Adam Price.

I was responding to your assertion that Starmer’s low popularity in the North of England was probably unprecedented.

If you can dig out some old polling evidence that shows that Jeremy Corbyn was less popular than Keir Starmer in the north of England, then I’ll be mightily impressed.

Of course, a Labour activist trying to win an insignificant brownie point against an SNP member on an obscure blog might not be the best use of your Sunday morning. But feel free.

DecrepiterJohnL

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

ping said:

Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

The whole thread is interesting.

As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

For balance, Krugman:

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1573653503809134592

The result is that sterling depreciation actually *improves* Britain's net international investment position (the same thing happens to the US). So a balance-sheet currency crisis story doesn't seem to make sense

Krugman is quite correct.

Britain's foreign assets tend to be denominated in US Dollars, Euros and to a lesser extent Yuan, Aussie Dollars and the Yen.

By contrast, Britain's liabilities to foreigners tend to be Sterling denominated. There are exceptions (commodities firms tend to borrow in USDollars, for example), but mostly what we owe is in Sterling, while what we are owed is in other currencies.

And therefore, a weakening of the Pound (all things being equal) improves our net international investment position.

However that's not the whole story.

While Britain's existing positions have improved somewhat, so have the costs of importing things.

Hence the UK's Current Account registered a record deficit in 1Q.

And Britain's assets, including its best companies and football clubs, become cheaper to foreign owners. Often they will be saddled with debt. Their profits flow out of the country. They will be sacrificed to save their foreign parents in harder times, even if they have not already been asset-stripped.

StuartDickson

Alistair said:

Welsh poll apparently, haven't found anything beyond this tweet:

https://twitter.com/GillibrandPeter/status/1573926820306624514

NEW: Experts at Cardiff University claim that if an election were held today - it would be close to electoral wipeout for the Conservatives here.

New poll by YouGov/ITV/Cardiff Uni:
Conservative - 23% (-3)
Labour - 46% (+5)
Liberal Democrats - 5% (-2)
Plaid Cymru - 15% (-1)

As I said: Mark Drakeford knows what he’s doing. Anas Sarwar is yet another in an astonishing line of SLab duds.

StillWaters

Foxy said:

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573775346213834753?t=CksIXkao7FpXpoqtzzUHGQ&s=19

How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!

What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?

If it wasn’t for the pound collapse most normal non-political people wouldn’t have figured the budget was a bad thing.

That sort of communication device is valuable

Sandpit

LostPassword said:

Ukraine are using ATACMS. No coincidence that this video emerges so soon after Russia's mobilisation starts. This gives Ukraine even greater range to hit Russian logistics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1573843064900272129

Well that will make one hell of a difference. It can hit every railway line in Russsian-occupied territory, half a mile inside the Ukranian border. Including the Kerch Bridge. As much of a total game-changer, as the original HIMARS.

Hope the conscripts enjoy freezing and starving, with no ammunition for most of the winter. Or maybe they get lucky, and can’t make it to Ukraine in the first place.

StuartDickson

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, I must slightly disagree. Yes, Starmer isn't a source of enthusiasm, but given the current Truss economic plan is going down about as well as Varro's cunning idea of attacking Hannibal at Cannae the bar for looking a better alternative than the incumbent government is lowered very substantially.

Mr. Dickson, what exactly has annoyed them so?

Conservation groups brand mini-budget an ‘attack on nature’
- RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and National Trust criticise plans to create 38 ‘investment zones’ across England

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/conservation-groups-brand-mini-budget-an-attack-on-nature

murali_s

Alistair said:

Welsh poll apparently, haven't found anything beyond this tweet:

https://twitter.com/GillibrandPeter/status/1573926820306624514

NEW: Experts at Cardiff University claim that if an election were held today - it would be close to electoral wipeout for the Conservatives here.

New poll by YouGov/ITV/Cardiff Uni:
Conservative - 23% (-3)
Labour - 46% (+5)
Liberal Democrats - 5% (-2)
Plaid Cymru - 15% (-1)

One for BigG to explain. The good Welsh folk know that the Tories are seriously crap. Tory wipeout incoming in Wales.

Dura_Ace

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

It's fucking shit is what it is. Revolution betrayed.

Foxy

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

Life moves fast, sometimes you need to stop and look around. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen on a political poster a bit distasteful.

On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.

StuartDickson

murali_s said:

Alistair said:

Welsh poll apparently, haven't found anything beyond this tweet:

https://twitter.com/GillibrandPeter/status/1573926820306624514

NEW: Experts at Cardiff University claim that if an election were held today - it would be close to electoral wipeout for the Conservatives here.

New poll by YouGov/ITV/Cardiff Uni:
Conservative - 23% (-3)
Labour - 46% (+5)
Liberal Democrats - 5% (-2)
Plaid Cymru - 15% (-1)

One for BigG to explain. The good Welsh folk know that the Tories are seriously crap. Tory wipeout incoming in Wales.

Is BigG voting Tory next time?

Nigelb

It’s known that both the US and Britain knew about the Holocaust for some time before they acted in that knowledge.
I’d not before seen this detailed account of how members of the US state department actively conspired to restrict that knowledge in order to prevent an effort to help Jews trying to flee Europe.
Britain doesn’t come out if it well, either.

‘The God-Damnedest Thing’: The Antisemitic Plot to Thwart U.S. Aid to Europe’s Jews and the Man Who Exposed It
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/23/henry-morgenthau-roosevelt-government-europes-jews-00058206

StillWaters

StuartDickson said:

Pulpstar said:

What does everyone think of Monbiot's Phoenix tweet ?

Help me here, I can’t find it. Although I do note that he’s retweeting that extremely popular and strongly-worded RSPB England tweet, as are the Wildlife Trusts, the National Trust and every other conservation body on the internet. Truss and Kwarteng have chosen some powerful enemies. Profoundly unwise.

Make no mistake - we are also incredibly angry. We stand with @RSPBEngland in calling out the unprecedented attack on nature launched by UK Government over the last few days. We’ll be challenging this together and asking for our supporters to stand with us.

https://twitter.com/wildlifetrusts/status/1573574651325865985?s=46&t=FigcNZtoxniczq5xtFqGCQ

That looks like the government has just listed counties rather than the detail of the enterprise zones

Nigelb

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

Ukraine are using ATACMS. No coincidence that this video emerges so soon after Russia's mobilisation starts. This gives Ukraine even greater range to hit Russian logistics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1573843064900272129

Well that will make one hell of a difference. It can hit every railway line in Russsian-occupied territory, half a mile inside the Ukranian border. Including the Kerch Bridge. As much of a total game-changer, as the original HIMARS.

Hope the conscripts enjoy freezing and starving, with no ammunition for most of the winter. Or maybe they get lucky, and can’t make it to Ukraine in the first place.

That’s not ATACAMS, though.

StuartDickson

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.

On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.

By the time of the coronation, folk are going to be sick to the back teeth of it. They’d be wise to get it over with quickly. Most European monarchies abolished coronation ceremonies long ago. With very good reason. Mourning the loss of a venerable old lady is one thing, sticking people’s noses in it with ostentatious waste of taxpayers’ cash is quite another.

Fishing

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

ping said:

Dominic Cummings linked to this tweet;

https://twitter.com/jnordvig/status/1573640347732811776?s=20&t=x-ziUdEAhneoNlgTxsw1FQ

The whole thread is interesting.

As I said in an earlier post, I expect a hawkish statement from Bailey, very soon. Perhaps even an emergency meeting.

For balance, Krugman:

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1573653503809134592

The result is that sterling depreciation actually *improves* Britain's net international investment position (the same thing happens to the US). So a balance-sheet currency crisis story doesn't seem to make sense

Krugman is quite correct.

Britain's foreign assets tend to be denominated in US Dollars, Euros and to a lesser extent Yuan, Aussie Dollars and the Yen.

By contrast, Britain's liabilities to foreigners tend to be Sterling denominated. There are exceptions (commodities firms tend to borrow in USDollars, for example), but mostly what we owe is in Sterling, while what we are owed is in other currencies.

And therefore, a weakening of the Pound (all things being equal) improves our net international investment position.

However that's not the whole story.

While Britain's existing positions have improved somewhat, so have the costs of importing things.

Hence the UK's Current Account registered a record deficit in 1Q.

Official statistics on overseas assets are notoriously worthless, even by the low standards of international economic numbers.

LostPassword

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

Ukraine are using ATACMS. No coincidence that this video emerges so soon after Russia's mobilisation starts. This gives Ukraine even greater range to hit Russian logistics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1573843064900272129

Well that will make one hell of a difference. It can hit every railway line in Russsian-occupied territory, half a mile inside the Ukranian border. Including the Kerch Bridge. As much of a total game-changer, as the original HIMARS.

Hope the conscripts enjoy freezing and starving, with no ammunition for most of the winter. Or maybe they get lucky, and can’t make it to Ukraine in the first place.

At this rate most of the conscripts will be forming a bucket brigade to move Russians supplies into Ukraine.

StillWaters

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

Miliband did not stop the West intervening in Syria. Labour was not in government and the UK is not that powerful anyway. Miliband’s positioning was shameful and opportunistic. That’s it.

As I recall it, he did. The US did not want to go in alone, and Cameron said he would go in as well. He had meetings with Miliband, and watered down the intervention so that Miliband would agree. Then, shortly before the vote, Miliband reneged.

That meant the UK could not go in, and Obama knew that meant his intervention was politically doomed as well.

And as I've said, that led to Crimea, Donbass, Salisbury and now the Ukraine invasion. We let Putin feel we were weak, and Miliband's 'shameful and opportunistic' positioning was central to that.

But Miliband got a “win” in the commons…

OldKingCole

Good morning everyone.
Looks like a nice bright day, if a little chilly.

As far as Syria was concerned I don't think there was a 'right' thing to do was there? Damned if we did, damned if we didn't.
To be honest, I suspect the right thing to do, in that part of the Middle East is to ask the Kurds what they want, and do it!

Edit; that last sentence isn't entirely serious!

Dura_Ace

LostPassword said:

Ukraine are using ATACMS. No coincidence that this video emerges so soon after Russia's mobilisation starts. This gives Ukraine even greater range to hit Russian logistics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1573843064900272129

I see we are at the anything any scrandy says on Twitter must be true stage of the conflict again.

That's regular lo-fat HIMARS. An ATACMS round is much girthier.

Nigelb

Dura_Ace said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

It's fucking shit is what it is. Revolution betrayed.

Labour isn’t a revolutionary or communist party, however much you’d like it to be.
So if they’re betraying anything, it isn’t the Revolution.

No issue with your first sentence. It’s naff and cynical.
Might work, though.

DecrepiterJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.

"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"

ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.

I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.

Miliband did not stop the West intervening. The United States made its own decision not to intervene. I've already mentioned Obama saying he was proud of this. Does that sound like he was forced into it by Ed Miliband? If you think Britain would have intervened without America, well, it is possible but then Cameron would need to have persuaded all of his own MPs, which he did not. If he had, it is still unlikely we'd have moved without US backing.

Foxy

Alistair said:

Welsh poll apparently, haven't found anything beyond this tweet:

https://twitter.com/GillibrandPeter/status/1573926820306624514

NEW: Experts at Cardiff University claim that if an election were held today - it would be close to electoral wipeout for the Conservatives here.

New poll by YouGov/ITV/Cardiff Uni:
Conservative - 23% (-3)
Labour - 46% (+5)
Liberal Democrats - 5% (-2)
Plaid Cymru - 15% (-1)

Done before the "Special Financial Operation", Sept 20-22.

SouthamObserver

StuartDickson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, I must slightly disagree. Yes, Starmer isn't a source of enthusiasm, but given the current Truss economic plan is going down about as well as Varro's cunning idea of attacking Hannibal at Cannae the bar for looking a better alternative than the incumbent government is lowered very substantially.

Mr. Dickson, what exactly has annoyed them so?

Conservation groups brand mini-budget an ‘attack on nature’
- RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and National Trust criticise plans to create 38 ‘investment zones’ across England

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/conservation-groups-brand-mini-budget-an-attack-on-nature

I wonder what King Charles III will make of the government's attacks on wildlife habitats and the environment generally.

LostPassword

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

Ukraine are using ATACMS. No coincidence that this video emerges so soon after Russia's mobilisation starts. This gives Ukraine even greater range to hit Russian logistics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1573843064900272129

Well that will make one hell of a difference. It can hit every railway line in Russsian-occupied territory, half a mile inside the Ukranian border. Including the Kerch Bridge. As much of a total game-changer, as the original HIMARS.

Hope the conscripts enjoy freezing and starving, with no ammunition for most of the winter. Or maybe they get lucky, and can’t make it to Ukraine in the first place.

That’s not ATACAMS, though.

I thought it was a bigger missile than the normal launch? Maybe I made a mistake.

Foxy

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everyone.
Looks like a nice bright day, if a little chilly.

As far as Syria was concerned I don't think there was a 'right' thing to do was there? Damned if we did, damned if we didn't.
To be honest, I suspect the right thing to do, in that part of the Middle East is to ask the Kurds what they want, and do it!

Edit; that last sentence isn't entirely serious!

Pretty close to the truth though!

In Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey the Kurds are as close to being the goodies as anyone can be.

Theuniondivvie

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.

On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.

Yep, the tacky opportunism is what struck me after I wtf-ed. As noted previously the QEII wave of emotion has subsided much more quickly than even I anticipated, and SKS & co may have missed that particular boat (stop mixing yr fcking metaphors-Ed). However I always thought Lab’s best move was concentrating on England rather than eg depending on some unlikely SLab revival; looks like SKS has decided to do the hard, dirty work required.

sbjme19

Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson.
It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.

Nigelb

I hadn’t realised Arizona’s new abortion law, now in effect, was written the century before last.

Arizona judge rules 19th century abortion ban can take effect
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/23/arizona-abortion-ban-roe-00058705

SouthamObserver

Even though it shouldn't, it does still surprise me that all those right-wing loons who want to go back to the 1980s forget that Thatcher prioritised tackling inflation, created significant slack in the labour market and had a much smaller pensioner cohort to worry about - and even then probably needed the spiralling income from North Sea oil and mass privatisations - to do what she did. If you're looking across the Atlantic, Reagan had the same labour and demographic advantages, plus the mighty dollar.

Carnyx

StuartDickson said:

Alistair said:

Welsh poll apparently, haven't found anything beyond this tweet:

https://twitter.com/GillibrandPeter/status/1573926820306624514

NEW: Experts at Cardiff University claim that if an election were held today - it would be close to electoral wipeout for the Conservatives here.

New poll by YouGov/ITV/Cardiff Uni:
Conservative - 23% (-3)
Labour - 46% (+5)
Liberal Democrats - 5% (-2)
Plaid Cymru - 15% (-1)

As I said: Mark Drakeford knows what he’s doing. Anas Sarwar is yet another in an astonishing line of SLab duds.

TBF he was second - or rather Slab were - at IIRC 20%, now ahead of the ScoTories at 18%, in that poll yesterday. Whether this is because the latter have been increasingly crap lately (and confused about what they support*), I'm not sure, or if it is because Mr S has been doing something good (but not that I have noticed lately).

*A good thing for Mr Ross as a football referee. But not as the local dept of a UK franchise.

Foxy

SouthamObserver said:

StuartDickson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, I must slightly disagree. Yes, Starmer isn't a source of enthusiasm, but given the current Truss economic plan is going down about as well as Varro's cunning idea of attacking Hannibal at Cannae the bar for looking a better alternative than the incumbent government is lowered very substantially.

Mr. Dickson, what exactly has annoyed them so?

Conservation groups brand mini-budget an ‘attack on nature’
- RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and National Trust criticise plans to create 38 ‘investment zones’ across England

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/conservation-groups-brand-mini-budget-an-attack-on-nature

I wonder what King Charles III will make of the government's attacks on wildlife habitats and the environment generally.

It will be an early test of whether he can keep a straight face reading the Kings Speech at the next State Opening of Parliament.

Perhaps all part of the plan to give him apoplexy and put Will "Nice but Dim" on the throne.

JosiasJessop

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.

"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"

ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.

I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.

Miliband did not stop the West intervening. The United States made its own decision not to intervene. I've already mentioned Obama saying he was proud of this. Does that sound like he was forced into it by Ed Miliband? If you think Britain would have intervened without America, well, it is possible but then Cameron would need to have persuaded all of his own MPs, which he did not. If he had, it is still unlikely we'd have moved without US backing.

And I've stated how he *did* stop the west intervening. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.

As I asked before: do you think that Miliband's actions made Putin think the west was divided and weak, or strong?

Nigelb

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

Ukraine are using ATACMS. No coincidence that this video emerges so soon after Russia's mobilisation starts. This gives Ukraine even greater range to hit Russian logistics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1573843064900272129

Well that will make one hell of a difference. It can hit every railway line in Russsian-occupied territory, half a mile inside the Ukranian border. Including the Kerch Bridge. As much of a total game-changer, as the original HIMARS.

Hope the conscripts enjoy freezing and starving, with no ammunition for most of the winter. Or maybe they get lucky, and can’t make it to Ukraine in the first place.

That’s not ATACAMS, though.

I thought it was a bigger missile than the normal launch? Maybe I made a mistake.

ATACAMS is a lot bigger, as Dura_Ace notes.

DavidL

sbjme19 said:

Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson.
It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.

Oh come on. Any government that doesn't have Nadine Dorries as a Secretary of State has to be a step up.

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.

On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.

Yep, the tacky opportunism is what struck me after I wtf-ed. As noted previously the QEII wave of emotion has subsided much more quickly than even I anticipated, and SKS & co may have missed that particular boat (stop mixing yr fcking metaphors-Ed). However I always thought Lab’s best move was concentrating on England rather than eg depending on some unlikely SLab revival; looks like SKS has decided to do the hard, dirty work required.

OTOH no harm in having a patriotic and QE2-commemorating bit at the start, with photos, when he's doing his beginning thing: doesn't look as if it will be there all the time. Ticks it off the list and avoids the Tories attacking him if he doesn't, and plastering the late Her Maj all over their conference.

Foxy

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.

"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"

ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.

I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.

Miliband did not stop the West intervening. The United States made its own decision not to intervene. I've already mentioned Obama saying he was proud of this. Does that sound like he was forced into it by Ed Miliband? If you think Britain would have intervened without America, well, it is possible but then Cameron would need to have persuaded all of his own MPs, which he did not. If he had, it is still unlikely we'd have moved without US backing.

And I've stated how he *did* stop the west intervening. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.

As I asked before: do you think that Miliband's actions made Putin think the west was divided and weak, or strong?

Putin knew we were divided about what to do already. The history of Western military intervention in the Middle East wasn't looking very appealing, even before deciding to back Assad or Al Qaida in the battle for Syria.

SouthamObserver

Worth remembering it's the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The late Queen was its patron. What does King Charles III make of his government's attacks on wildlife habitats and the environment generally?

Carnyx

Nigelb said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

Ukraine are using ATACMS. No coincidence that this video emerges so soon after Russia's mobilisation starts. This gives Ukraine even greater range to hit Russian logistics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1573843064900272129

Well that will make one hell of a difference. It can hit every railway line in Russsian-occupied territory, half a mile inside the Ukranian border. Including the Kerch Bridge. As much of a total game-changer, as the original HIMARS.

Hope the conscripts enjoy freezing and starving, with no ammunition for most of the winter. Or maybe they get lucky, and can’t make it to Ukraine in the first place.

That’s not ATACAMS, though.

I thought it was a bigger missile than the normal launch? Maybe I made a mistake.

ATACAMS is a lot bigger, as Dura_Ace notes.

Pic here on what looks like the same vehicle as in the video - it can only hold one.

https://militaryleak.com/2021/08/28/lockheed-martin-awarded-contract-for-us-army-and-romanian-land-forces-atacms-program/

Mexicanpete

Foxy said:

Alistair said:

Welsh poll apparently, haven't found anything beyond this tweet:

https://twitter.com/GillibrandPeter/status/1573926820306624514

NEW: Experts at Cardiff University claim that if an election were held today - it would be close to electoral wipeout for the Conservatives here.

New poll by YouGov/ITV/Cardiff Uni:
Conservative - 23% (-3)
Labour - 46% (+5)
Liberal Democrats - 5% (-2)
Plaid Cymru - 15% (-1)

Done before the "Special Financial Operation", Sept 20-22.

So after the mini budget event, crossover imminent?

Theuniondivvie

sbjme19 said:

Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson.
It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.

Jenkyns and Gullis both at Education. The only response to that can be ffs.

Foxy

DavidL said:

sbjme19 said:

Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson.
It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.

Oh come on. Any government that doesn't have Nadine Dorries as a Secretary of State has to be a step up.

Braverman as Home Sec? Hard to pick someone worse than Patel, but Truss managed it.

SouthamObserver

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

StuartDickson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, I must slightly disagree. Yes, Starmer isn't a source of enthusiasm, but given the current Truss economic plan is going down about as well as Varro's cunning idea of attacking Hannibal at Cannae the bar for looking a better alternative than the incumbent government is lowered very substantially.

Mr. Dickson, what exactly has annoyed them so?

Conservation groups brand mini-budget an ‘attack on nature’
- RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and National Trust criticise plans to create 38 ‘investment zones’ across England

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/conservation-groups-brand-mini-budget-an-attack-on-nature

I wonder what King Charles III will make of the government's attacks on wildlife habitats and the environment generally.

It will be an early test of whether he can keep a straight face reading the Kings Speech at the next State Opening of Parliament.

Perhaps all part of the plan to give him apoplexy and put Will "Nice but Dim" on the throne.

Can the RSPB retain its royal patronage?

rottenborough

If Kwasi Kwarteng’s ricocheting roulette ball lands on red, it will transform the economy, and his party’s political fortunes.

However, if it lands on black, it will destroy the nation’s finances and see his party cast into the political wilderness.

It is no exaggeration to say that Liz Truss’s premiership will live or die by the biggest fiscal gamble in post-war British history. But at least she won’t die wondering.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11246275/DAN-HODGES-Kwasinomics-easily-explained-hes-bet-Britain-red-roulette-table.html

Carnyx

SouthamObserver said:

Worth remembering it's the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The late Queen was its patron. What does King Charles III make of his government's attacks on wildlife habitats and the environment generally?

And HMtK is patron of the NT.

Pro_Rata

Wondering about the basis on which BBC labels FdI as far right, I unearthed this pretty decent explainer (doesn't seem to be paywalled).

Presumably, some fairly socially conservative parties do not get labelled thus:

https://www.thelocal.it/20220922/explained-is-brothers-of-italy-a-far-right-party/

DavidL

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

sbjme19 said:

Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson.
It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.

Oh come on. Any government that doesn't have Nadine Dorries as a Secretary of State has to be a step up.

Braverman as Home Sec? Hard to pick someone worse than Patel, but Truss managed it.

You obviously thought more highly of Patel than I did! Braverman is still a very poor appointment but getting her out of the AG spot does seem to have done it for the UK Bill of rights nonsense.

Eabhal

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.

On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.

Yep, the tacky opportunism is what struck me after I wtf-ed. As noted previously the QEII wave of emotion has subsided much more quickly than even I anticipated, and SKS & co may have missed that particular boat (stop mixing yr fcking metaphors-Ed). However I always thought Lab’s best move was concentrating on England rather than eg depending on some unlikely SLab revival; looks like SKS has decided to do the hard, dirty work required.

OTOH no harm in having a patriotic and QE2-commemorating bit at the start, with photos, when he's doing his beginning thing: doesn't look as if it will be there all the time. Ticks it off the list and avoids the Tories attacking him if he doesn't, and plastering the late Her Maj all over their conference.

Agree. I don't see any downside. Winds up a few ultra-lefties, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and draws a very clear line between Starmer and the Thornberry tweet.

Dura_Ace

sbjme19 said:

Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson.
It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.

Billy the Fysh is my MP. I hope he reads out some of my emails in Committee.

Fishing

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

I agree about Miliband, but Starmer is just as opportunist - he has just ditched the whole programme he was elected on because he thinks doing so will be popular, and he stuck around in Corbyn's cainbet for years, being the author of their opportunistic, cynical and ineffective Brexit policy. We won't know what he'll be like until (if) he is elected and has to take these decisions, of course, but I can easily see him sticking it to the Ukrainians or some other foreign people if it helped him control the Labour Party or got him a couple of extra points in the opinion polls.

TOPPING

StillWaters said:

Foxy said:

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573775346213834753?t=CksIXkao7FpXpoqtzzUHGQ&s=19

How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!

What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?

If it wasn’t for the pound collapse most normal non-political people wouldn’t have figured the budget was a bad thing.

That sort of communication device is valuable

People don't wake up on a given morning and think I'm going to short the pound. Equally, you could have listened to Truss at a Party rally and realised what direction she was heading.

People take currency bets because they take economic views and these people did just that it seems. They in so doing also showed governments their actions have real world consequences. Whether good or bad we of course funny know yet although we do know (@rcs1000) that ceteris is never particularly paribus.

People like @Foxy misunderestimate how it all works.

Carnyx

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.

On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.

Yep, the tacky opportunism is what struck me after I wtf-ed. As noted previously the QEII wave of emotion has subsided much more quickly than even I anticipated, and SKS & co may have missed that particular boat (stop mixing yr fcking metaphors-Ed). However I always thought Lab’s best move was concentrating on England rather than eg depending on some unlikely SLab revival; looks like SKS has decided to do the hard, dirty work required.

OTOH no harm in having a patriotic and QE2-commemorating bit at the start, with photos, when he's doing his beginning thing: doesn't look as if it will be there all the time. Ticks it off the list and avoids the Tories attacking him if he doesn't, and plastering the late Her Maj all over their conference.

Agree. I don't see any downside. Winds up a few ultra-lefties, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and draws a very clear line between Starmer and the Thornberry tweet.

The Rochester flag one? All of 8 years ago?

Theuniondivvie

Carnyx said:

SouthamObserver said:

Worth remembering it's the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The late Queen was its patron. What does King Charles III make of his government's attacks on wildlife habitats and the environment generally?

And HMtK is patron of the NT.

Her Majesty Jackie taking over at NTS. Neil Oliver’s boots will take some filling, mind.

DecrepiterJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.

"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"

ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.

I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.

Miliband did not stop the West intervening. The United States made its own decision not to intervene. I've already mentioned Obama saying he was proud of this. Does that sound like he was forced into it by Ed Miliband? If you think Britain would have intervened without America, well, it is possible but then Cameron would need to have persuaded all of his own MPs, which he did not. If he had, it is still unlikely we'd have moved without US backing.

And I've stated how he *did* stop the west intervening. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.

As I asked before: do you think that Miliband's actions made Putin think the west was divided and weak, or strong?

OK I've gone back and re-read all your comments on this thread. You seem to be depending on America being influenced by the British vote. As already posted by myself and Dura_Ace, there is strong circumstantial evidence this was not the case.

David Cameron could not persuade his own MPs to back him. He could not persuade America. Cameron also tried and failed to persuade Russia (and let's not ask what message that sent to Putin). There is no evidence for the causal line you have drawn between Ed Miliband and Ukraine.

TOPPING

StuartDickson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, I must slightly disagree. Yes, Starmer isn't a source of enthusiasm, but given the current Truss economic plan is going down about as well as Varro's cunning idea of attacking Hannibal at Cannae the bar for looking a better alternative than the incumbent government is lowered very substantially.

Mr. Dickson, what exactly has annoyed them so?

Conservation groups brand mini-budget an ‘attack on nature’
- RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and National Trust criticise plans to create 38 ‘investment zones’ across England

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/24/conservation-groups-brand-mini-budget-an-attack-on-nature

No investment no wealth no consumption no levelling up no improvement in economic circumstances no environmental impact. Is presumably what these groups want.

Scott_xP

TOPPING said:

People don't wake up on a given morning and think I'm going to short the pound.

Unless they are buddies with a Chancellor who told them he was going to cause a run on the pound...

Eabhal

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.

That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.

He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.

I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.

Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.

An inverted pyramid of piffle.

David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.

Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.

Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.

Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.

Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.

You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.

Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.

The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.

We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.

As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"

The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.

"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"

ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.

I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.

Miliband did not stop the West intervening. The United States made its own decision not to intervene. I've already mentioned Obama saying he was proud of this. Does that sound like he was forced into it by Ed Miliband? If you think Britain would have intervened without America, well, it is possible but then Cameron would need to have persuaded all of his own MPs, which he did not. If he had, it is still unlikely we'd have moved without US backing.

And I've stated how he *did* stop the west intervening. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.

As I asked before: do you think that Miliband's actions made Putin think the west was divided and weak, or strong?

Putin knew we were divided about what to do already. The history of Western military intervention in the Middle East wasn't looking very appealing, even before deciding to back Assad or Al Qaida in the battle for Syria.

Plenty of blame to spread around. I think Miliband behaved badly, but, in retrospect, I actually think May's response to Salisbury was more important.

At the time I thought it was tough, but the Russians had been spraying a nerve agent around a British city. That's when we should have cut all ties and enforced sanctions similar to what we have now.

Corbyn was appalling then, particularly in contrast to Blackford.

algarkirk

SKS's main aim will be to form a government, which is probable on current trends, rather than win an election, which is exceedingly unlikely.

There are lots of imponderables about how a minority government will be formed (SNP and all that) but there will be a government after the next GE, and Labour lead it if the Tories don't. We won't know how it can work till after the GE. The rest for now is huffing and puffing.

Eabhal

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder.
Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?

Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.

On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.

Yep, the tacky opportunism is what struck me after I wtf-ed. As noted previously the QEII wave of emotion has subsided much more quickly than even I anticipated, and SKS & co may have missed that particular boat (stop mixing yr fcking metaphors-Ed). However I always thought Lab’s best move was concentrating on England rather than eg depending on some unlikely SLab revival; looks like SKS has decided to do the hard, dirty work required.

OTOH no harm in having a patriotic and QE2-commemorating bit at the start, with photos, when he's doing his beginning thing: doesn't look as if it will be there all the time. Ticks it off the list and avoids the Tories attacking him if he doesn't, and plastering the late Her Maj all over their conference.

Agree. I don't see any downside. Winds up a few ultra-lefties, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and draws a very clear line between Starmer and the Thornberry tweet.

The Rochester flag one? All of 8 years ago?

Well, a line between Starmer and that kind of patronising stuff Labour used to come out with. There is a reason he's been going to pretty much every England game.