It is like this, if you want something you have to do something about it, do it with commitment and do it early. Instead the West did none of those things.
Yet more sense from our resident expert. Having missed earlier windows to act, the hesitation of then just becomes magnified from now on, no doubt.
Has the West handled Syria as badly as it possibly could have, or have there been any reasonable moves in your opinion?
In the early days the Free Syrian Army was essentially an ex military force, it made a rule out of not taking in random civilians and it had no Islamic extremist trappings. Early on it had the kernel of a 4C setup in Turkey and Jordan. That was the horse to back on the field to grow and expand. As regards the politicians they came later but the West had plenty of names to go for. It took them two years to attempt to create their own SNC after the previous SNC, a Muslim Brotherhood dominated front proved too difficult to handle.
As the refugee problem appeared and the action got closer and closer to Turkey the creation of an effective buffer zone would have been a logical step.
The Jordanian border offered the same and is exactly where the West's chosen rebels have operated from in the greatest number as an attempt to get to Damascus first.
What was Assad going to do if an effective safe zone was created? Whether it was backed by boots on the ground, air or missile cover makes no difference he'd have instantly lost territory. More importantly it would have made clear to Assad's coterie early that it my be better to make peace whilst the going was good.
Thirdly earlier intervention may well have stopped the likes of the Qataris etc getting involved which muddied waters considerably. It certainly might have helped against the appearance of large numbers of Jihadists coming across the Iraqi border.
One of the biggest reasons why the Jihadists got a reputation and gathered some native Syrians in their ranks was because
a) They seemed to have plenty of kit whilst large elements of other rebel units were buying stuff by the bullet.
b) they had a great publicity machine. It is fact that many Syrian insurgents got money to do videos of them in action, money they needed to get supplies.
As the West danced around the average Syrian began to have to make choices as they got involved in a life and death struggle. Over 70 000 dead, closer to half a million internally displaced.
The West did at least try to find members of Assad's officer corps and political allies to launch a coup but this didn't come off.
Two final point about the Jihadis:
1. there are two types, global and local. The globalists are really only in the shape of 1 or 2 groups in Syria.
2. The committed Jihadist forces if you are to take Israeli most fearful assessments represent 1 in 4 of the rebel forces.
1 in 4, at most. A considerable faction of which in turn a fraction aren't actually Syrian. The Syrians are a fairly nationalistic bunch and they wont be much up for outsiders.
No one can guarantee the result of any intervention, covert or overt, will get the result that was intended but what Western diplomats have been doing is using a lack of certainty as an excuse. Clearly Syria is not like Libya where Gaddafi was a bit of a case that no one much cared for.
You won't get it, they know that. Its paralysis by analysis.
Good thing early 'decisive' intervention worked so well in Iraq, isn't it?
Neoconservatives never learn.
For all the amusing armchair general antics getting overexcited about tank movements etc. there is nothing complicated about Syria.
It is a bloody civil war and anyone who thinks they can control the eventual political and regional outcome with some more arms or missile strikes are delusional. That goes for Russia just as much as the west.
Nothing to do with us, as sad as it is. All of the countries interfering whether Iran, Russia or Israel will get nothing but grief and diplomatic damage. We should help the refugees, and try mediation, but draw the line at anything military.
It is rare for mickpork to speak sense, but even a stopped clock is right every now and again.
Regarding electoral reform, couldnt there be some kind of small change whereby there are,say, 50 less constituencies, but the same number of MPs, the remaining 50 being split as per the % of the vote each party got?
So if UKIP got 20% of the vote in 2015 but no MPs they would be able to pick 10 of their candidates to speak /vote in the commons..
That's basically the Additional Member System, as e.g. in Germany. You can win seats by FPTP, or if you get 5% (or three FPTP seats) can can top up with as many candidates as needed to give you a proportional number of MPs. It can have quirky effects - if you gain votes to win an FPTP seat you might lose the right to an additional member, thus tipping out a colleague. But it does quite a good job of delivering both the constituency link and a fairly-represented parliament.
Good luck with persuading the big parties to back it.
It was designed by the Brits I am told. It was good enough for Germany but not good enough for the UK. Isn't this how the Scottish Parliament is elected [ more or less ].
Good thing early 'decisive' intervention worked so well in Iraq, isn't it?
Neoconservatives never learn.
For all the amusing armchair general antics getting overexcited about tank movements etc. there is nothing complicated about Syria.
It is a bloody civil war and anyone who thinks they can control the eventual political and regional outcome with some more arms or missile strikes are delusional. That goes for Russia just as much as the west.
Controlling the political and regional outcome? Of course that would be delusional. It does not therefore follow that doing anything is always both impossible to do effectively and ill advised. Usually it probably is, very usually in fact, but outside nations can and do have influence for the better occasionally as well as the very very bad, examples of the latter as we have seen to disastrous cost.
Caution is a very sensible position to take, and almost always the best approach though, of course. Humanitarian assistance seems the safest and best course almost all the time over any sort of direct action when not a direct participant already.
Though I do remember seeing a QT where several people in the audience were hotly against any action in Libya or anywhere else at all, which is a reasonable position to take, but also stated that Gaddafi should have stepped down sooner and not massacred his people, as if it were possible to stop him fighting back viciously in a civil war with the aim of deposing him, without lending any support to those who did oppose him. It really did help me harden my views somewhat, because I found it rather delusional that that audience claimed to want something to happen (or rather, did not want to see Gaddafi kill his own people for opposing him), but refused to countenance actually contributing anything toward that end.
Either the cost of intervention is always too high and morally repugnant, with horrible consequences, and so the horrors that upset us (when we hear about them) must be left to settle themselves out whatever the cost, or one can feel that the horrors witnessed justify the risk that catastrophe
It's at least consistent when people make either choice, but even though I'm as guilty of dancing on the fence with such delicate topics I am not well enough equipped to adequately decide upon, it still annoys me when people try to do both.
As I sometimes make myself unclear to you and make you think I am accusing you of positions that are not yours, rest assured Mick that all paragraphs after the second are my tangential musings from my comments in the first two paragraphs, and not an attack upon you.
I am terribly sorry Charles I must have missed the part where you actually responded to what I said, doubtless I fell asleep while you were wiffling on about eu waste which you will note my response is lacking any reference to.
The point for us mortals who live below the rarefied atmosphere that yourself and most politicians live in is simple this.
The DFID budget this year is 11 billion, assuming 45 million tax payers (erring well on the high side)
that works out at 244 pounds per tax payer per year.
For the many families that are struggling to put enough food on the table, to pay their fuel bills this squandering of their hard earned money to foreign governements many of which could afford to spend their own money is nothing but a slap in the face.
I made the point earlier that I'm not a fan of arbitrary numbers (0.7% of GDP) that are only designed to make politicians feel good about themselves.
Make the case that the spending is beneficial to our national security or to our economy (e.g. the arms contracts that someone mentioned) and it becomes justifiable, even to people who are struggling.
The EU was an example, in my mind, of bad spending by DFID - it's a lot, we don't have control over it (so can't decide the objectives) and we don't get any credit for it. So why do it?
You could have said a similar thing about Rwanda in 1994.
Or Biafra in 1968.
Or countless other civil wars and you could bring in Ethiopia if you want to have a pop at foreign aid.
The lunatic idea of not supporting dictators in the first place (usually for regional self interest) before hurriedly having to switch sides when their cavalier attitude to human rights leads to carnage, is of course pie on the sky.
Libya's parliament has passed a law banning officials from the Gaddafi era from holding political office.
The vote in the General National Congress (GNC) came a week after militias backing the law began besieging the ministries of justice and foreign affairs.
Rather than just asserting my belief that aid has no impact on terrorism I went to see if I could find any back up for my position. To my surprise I didn't find anything that showed me aid was irrelevant in stopping terrorism instead I found this. It has plenty of sources cited so you can check for veracity but from this it would seem that the correlation between foreign aid and terrorism is strongly suggested
I haven't had the chance to review the document, but Palestine is a very specific case.
Israel takes reasonable steps for its security (there has been a massive drop in suicide bombings since the fences were built). However, the cost is economic dislocation in Gaza in particular. EU aid to Gaza is just enough to prop up Hamas by preventing things getting too bad, so arguably propagating the situation.
Frankly speaking, while Hamas is in Gaza there will never been a solution: how can the Israelis negotiate with an organisation that refuses to acknowledge their right to exist?
I could not speak to the truth of that - the bad cases are no doubt widely highlighted than the successes - but it is the position I hear most commonly among people I know.
Personally I think the amounts we give is negligible compared to other spending and we can probably afford it, but if one follows positions 1 or 5, it is a quick and easy saving, so I understand the focus on it.
Libya's parliament has passed a law banning officials from the Gaddafi era from holding political office.
The vote in the General National Congress (GNC) came a week after militias backing the law began besieging the ministries of justice and foreign affairs.
Rather than just asserting my belief that aid has no impact on terrorism I went to see if I could find any back up for my position. To my surprise I didn't find anything that showed me aid was irrelevant in stopping terrorism instead I found this. It has plenty of sources cited so you can check for veracity but from this it would seem that the correlation between foreign aid and terrorism is strongly suggested
I think it's more that we tend to be eager to help areas where terrorists tend to recruit, on the theory that it makes young men less disaffected and thus less likely to be terrorists.
But most foreign aid goes to countries with no discernible UK-directed terrorism whatever. When was the last time you heard of an Indian, or Ethiopian, or Sri Lankan terrorist plot against Britain?
There are actually at least four positions on this:
1. Foreign aid is bad, we need the money 2. Foreign aid is good, it makes people like us and buy our stuff 3. Foreign aid is good, it reduces terrorism 4. Foreign aid is good, we can spare 1/140th of our income to help people in desperate need.
Number 2 tends to lead to tied aid, which is in my opinion morally shaky though maybe necessary to reassure taxpayers (don't buy the stuff you most need, buy whatever we happen to want to sell you). Number 3 leads naturally to the idea of military aid being classed as foreign aid, which is readily satirised ("We had to destroy the village to save it"). I support number 4.
Aid to Ethiopia is about stopping it becoming another Somalia. Prevention is better than cure. Call it the vaccination strategy if you like. That way the UKIPs will be sceptical but will do it anyway ;-)
In any event, who says all foreign aid needs to have the same objective. (1) just means spend an appropriate amount (2) and (3) can co-exist. (4) I'm open to, the British people are among the most generous in the world in foreign aid [and in particular Africa] - let's match individual citizens giving rather than the government just choosing to spend taxes on charity.
@Charles every terrorist situation in every country is to some extent unique
The point I was attempting to make is that it is easy to make an assertion that giving aid prevents terrorism. After many decades of doing so I would expect there to be evidence that could be cited to back this up. I think people who make that assertion have had long enough with the experiment and now it is time to show us the goods or stop making the claim.
Did you see the calculation about how much the DFID on average costs a tax payer? Do you not agree that those people who skip meals so their children can eat, the people who sleep in their coats and live in one room through the winter might think 244 pounds is a lot of money that they could find a much better use for.
The people making these decisions are people like you Charles, people who have never faced the choice of whether to stick their last fiver in the electric meter to keep warm or to buy a little food
It was designed by the Brits I am told. It was good enough for Germany but not good enough for the UK. Isn't this how the Scottish Parliament is elected [ more or less ].
Yes, we have a habit of knowing what's best for the natives,
AMS for Germany, Wales and Scotland... STV for Ireland and Malta...
while resolutely clinging-on to the penny-farthing electoral system for ourselves...
but also stated that Gaddafi should have stepped down sooner and not massacred his people, as if it were possible to stop him fighting back viciously in a civil war with the aim of deposing him, without lending any support to those who did oppose him.
While that was a call far too late and of little consequence it should not obviate from the fact that Libya was yet another in a long line of reversals. He didn't suddenly become a madman. He was always unstable and cavalier with human rights. Yet that did not stop the arms deals, rendition/torture and support. Early intervention shouldn't mean 'send in the bombers' as soon as the carnage breaks out or a dictator decides to get uppity with the west. (we'll leave that to the idiotic neocons) It should mean active harm reduction by slamming home the message that support should always be conditional on real progress on human rights.
Rest assured kle4 I am not taking anything personally nor do I find your remarks intemperate, but I despair when I see the same things played out in excuciating slow motion with some inexplicable expectations of different results.
The mood of Tory MPs will, I suspect, be largely determined by whether they think that Labour is beatable at the next election. At the moment, they think it is.
It was designed by the Brits I am told. It was good enough for Germany but not good enough for the UK. Isn't this how the Scottish Parliament is elected [ more or less ].
Yes, we have a habit of knowing what's best for the natives,
AMS for Germany, Wales and Scotland... STV for Ireland and Malta...
while resolutely clinging-on to the penny-farthing electoral system for ourselves...
Laughable.
You never know. We could soon see posts led by the sage Nabavi and Carlotta extolling the virtues of AV. STV will be a bit too much for them.
The point I was attempting to make is that it is easy to make an assertion that giving aid prevents terrorism. After many decades of doing so I would expect there to be evidence that could be cited to back this up. I think people who make that assertion have had long enough with the experiment and now it is time to show us the goods or stop making the claim.
Did you realise that throwing elephant powder out of the train window scares away elephants?
It's very difficult to prove a negative. Additionally, the whole anti-terrorism approach is relatively new - basically since Mitchell came in: previously it was about supporting our dictators or just shovelling money out the door
Did you see the calculation about how much the DFID on average costs a tax payer? Do you not agree that those people who skip meals so their children can eat, the people who sleep in their coats and live in one room through the winter might think 244 pounds is a lot of money that they could find a much better use for.
I agree, which is why I haven't tried to defend the £11bn / 0.7% GDP / £244. I'd argue you should spend enough to get the job done and no more. Aid should be about the national interest - there is a charitable aspect, but that's not the government's role.
The people making these decisions are people like you Charles, people who have never faced the choice of whether to stick their last fiver in the electric meter to keep warm or to buy a little food
That's true of any government system, and it's a failing but not sure I see an answer to that. You just need to have the right people in government.
but also stated that Gaddafi should have stepped down sooner and not massacred his people, as if it were possible to stop him fighting back viciously in a civil war with the aim of deposing him, without lending any support to those who did oppose him.
While that was a call far too late and of little consequence it should not obviate from the fact that Libya was yet another in a long line of reversals. He didn't suddenly become a madman. He was always unstable and cavalier with human rights.
True enough, and cavalier is putting it lightly.
I'd say we as a country are occasionally cavalier with human rights unfortuantely.
While those lives can never be brought back, it's great to see a murderer properly challenged.
Gerry is nothing other than an old and increasingly irrelevant blowhard.
Given sectarian tensions remain bogglingly high (for those of us not personally acquainted with the situation of course), what chance when the old guards finally move on the progress of recent years becomes further cemented and the rhetoric on all sides becomes less tense, I wonder?
You could have said a similar thing about Rwanda in 1994.
Or Biafra in 1968.
Or countless other civil wars and you could bring in Ethiopia if you want to have a pop at foreign aid.
The lunatic idea of not supporting dictators in the first place (usually for regional self interest) before hurriedly having to switch sides when their cavalier attitude to human rights leads to carnage, is of course pie on the sky.
Assad has never been backed by the West. And surely your comments about support being linked to progress on human rights should apply in the reverse direction: regress on human rights should be linked to active opposition. And when a tyrant has regressed as appallingly as Assad has done in this revolt, that should result in severe opposition.
Canadian terror suspect tortured in Syria after 'rendition' by US
Campaigners have demanded that the Bush administration be held accountable for the illegal seizure of a Canadian citizen who was handed over to Syrian authorities and subsequently tortured
Turns out the Conservative Party has been aware of a history of Evan's sexual incidents. I wonder if the Tory media will behave the same way add they did during Rennard-gate?
Sorry Charles that is total and utter labour shadow chancellors and you know it.
We have been giving aid to Pakistan etc now to quell terrorism that you should be able to at least point to a statistical correlation between aid and terrorism. No one is asking you to prove a negative. Show us the correlation or stop shovelling
Turns out the Conservative Party has been aware of a history of Evan's sexual incidents. I wonder if the Tory media will behave the same way add they did during Rennard-gate?
UKIP do well in slightly isolated parts of the country. Forest of Dean fits that bill, as does Boston&Skegness. Aylesbury was a special case, to do with HS2.
It was designed by the Brits I am told. It was good enough for Germany but not good enough for the UK. Isn't this how the Scottish Parliament is elected [ more or less ].
Yes, we have a habit of knowing what's best for the natives,
AMS for Germany, Wales and Scotland... STV for Ireland and Malta...
while resolutely clinging-on to the penny-farthing electoral system for ourselves...
Laughable.
You never know. We could soon see posts led by the sage Nabavi and Carlotta extolling the virtues of AV. STV will be a bit too much for them.
I think AV is now off the table, thanks to the strategic genius of Nick "eleven-dimensional chess" Clegg in calling a referendum and losing it.
The Tories will have to think of another system that works a lot like AV, but sounds different.
UKIP is now clearly the main challenger to Labour in white, working class urban and suburban seats and that will not worry Labour as long as it is gaining in Tory marginals, unless and until UKIP gains one of those seats
Interesting bit of trivia on Farage in ST, apparently he is descended from German cabinet makers who came to Britain in 1864
MickPORK/MB - In both the Rennard and Evans cases neither man has yet been proved guilty of anything, until they are I think the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies
MickPORK/MB - In both the Rennard and Evans cases neither man has yet been proved guilty of anything, until they are I think the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies
Good thing absolutely nobody has claimed they were guilty then, isn't it?
UKIP do well in slightly isolated parts of the country. Forest of Dean fits that bill, as does Boston&Skegness. Aylesbury was a special case, to do with HS2.
MickPork - I didn't say you had as yet, but wait until the final outcome is known before delving further
Perhaps that 'warning' should have been a touch louder when the PBtories were wetting themselves with glee over Rennard and posting quite freely. That also alludes to MB's point about hypocrisy in case you missed it.
It was designed by the Brits I am told. It was good enough for Germany but not good enough for the UK. Isn't this how the Scottish Parliament is elected [ more or less ].
Yes, we have a habit of knowing what's best for the natives,
AMS for Germany, Wales and Scotland... STV for Ireland and Malta...
while resolutely clinging-on to the penny-farthing electoral system for ourselves...
Laughable.
You never know. We could soon see posts led by the sage Nabavi and Carlotta extolling the virtues of AV. STV will be a bit too much for them.
I think AV is now off the table, thanks to the strategic genius of Nick "eleven-dimensional chess" Clegg in calling a referendum and losing it.
The Tories will have to think of another system that works a lot like AV, but sounds different.
MickPork - I cannot comment for others, and certainly was not 'wetting myself with glee' over Rennard, but in both cases I think the political point scoring should take a back seat compared to allowing the legal process to take its course!
* UKIP did not contest one ward. If they had done as well in that ward as the three others they did contest at the cost of the other parties then it is possible the constituency could end up a three way marginal with little between Con, Lab & UKIP
MickPork - I cannot comment for others, and certainly was not 'wetting myself with glee' over Rennard, but in both cases I think the political point scoring should take a back seat compared to allowing the legal process to take its course!
The Tories would not have pushed so hard on Rennard had the Eastleigh by-election not been in progress. They can now expect however that the LDs will push back hard on Evans on the principle that what is sauce for the goose....
Evans will be caught in the crossfire, as was Rennard.
I am about to busy myself with the fascinating task of aggregating votes in the 57 electoral divisions in Northamptonshire because the official website doesn't give the total number of votes cast for each party.
Regarding electoral reform, couldnt there be some kind of small change whereby there are,say, 50 less constituencies, but the same number of MPs, the remaining 50 being split as per the % of the vote each party got?
So if UKIP got 20% of the vote in 2015 but no MPs they would be able to pick 10 of their candidates to speak /vote in the commons..
Not quite the AMS system, which has a number of top-up MPs sufficient to approximate overall proportionality, the overall result being determined by the top-up list vote. The system you suggest is known as a "parallel system", similar to those used in Mexico and Japan, although with only a small proportional element. The FPTP and PR elements are de-linked, and run in parallel.
Disadvantages. 1. Does little to address overall electoral bias and disproportionality. ...
Right, that's what we've got in Japan. In the last election the LDP got 28.8% in the proportional section (which shows which party the voters prefer given a full slate of candidates and no tactical considerations) and ended up with 61% of the seats.
Andy you are welcome. They are approximations I cannot be sure that these figures apply exactly to the constituency boundaries but I think they are pretty close from what I can tell
Andy you are welcome. They are approximations I cannot be sure that these figures apply exactly to the constituency boundaries but I think they are pretty close from what I can tell
They're close enough to get the general picture which is the important thing.
I have had a crazy fantasy idea that if Nigel Evans has been falsely accused, then he could use parliamentary privilege to make a personal statement from the Speaker's chair and give the names and home addresses of the two men who have accused him. He wouldn't, of course, but if he is genuinely innocent then it might be fun if he did.
Is there a total of which directions the seat gains/losses have gone to/from each party? We know that UKIP is net + 139, but how many have they gained from each other party?; How many have they lost to each other party, etc.
Is there a total of which directions the seat gains/losses have gone to/from each party? We know that UKIP is net + 139, but how many have they gained from each other party?; How many have they lost to each other party, etc.
I don't have the figures for the current set of elections, but this is something I'm planning on having available when the 2014 contest comes around. It would be much like the distance matrix used in road atlases to describe how many seats each party won and lost from every other party (well maybe just transfer between the lab, con, ld, ukip, grn, ind and 'other'). I think google-docs should be able to cope with that - I hope so! An added bonus is that this would be 'live' as I update the spreadsheet with the latest ward-by-ward result.
The Tunbridge Wells result is amazing really: UKIP only 478 votes behind the Tories. For some reason they didn't do anywhere near as well in Tonbridge & Malling.
Am I right in thinking some of these results are not 100% perfect because the county council divisions often don't match up with the parliamentary constituency boundaries?
The Tunbridge Wells result is amazing really: UKIP only 478 votes behind the Tories. For some reason they didn't do anywhere near as well in Tonbridge & Malling.
If I remember rightly UKIP already had a councillor of some sort there. Although saying that if you draw a line across Kent from Whistable to Tunbridge Wells those constiuencies East of that line in general seem to have much higher vote shares for UKIP than those west of the line (with the exception of Sittingbourne and Sheppey which also has a high UKIP figure).
The Faversham one is also a bit strange as well when it is surrounded by areas where UKIP are strong. I suspect though its because UKIP didn't really contest Maidstone and surrounds other than the town itself that is the contributory factor.
Is there a total of which directions the seat gains/losses have gone to/from each party? We know that UKIP is net + 139, but how many have they gained from each other party?; How many have they lost to each other party, etc.
The page gives percentages to one decimal point and the overall votes cast but not the total votes for each party, although you can obviously get an approximate figure from the first two pieces of information:
It turns out only 9 out of 35 councils election result websites voting on Thursday give total votes for each party. The other 26 require the individual divisions to be aggregated.
The 9 are Bristol, Bucks, Cambs, Cumbria, Devon, Hants, Lancs, Leics, Notts.
Just as a bit of fun I've put together a summary of the UKIP position in Kent based on the rough constituency calculations I've posted to get an idea of what sort of targets they might have. The table below lists :- Constituency, Winner if using KCC election, UKIP position, UKIP lead in % vote share/ deficit behind leader in % vote share
Sittingbourne & Sheppey UKIP 1st +10.99% North Thanet UKIP 1st +7.95% South Thanet UKIP 1st +5.99% Folkestone & Hythe Con 2nd -0.41% Tunbridge Wells Con 2nd -1.87% Dover* Con 3rd -10.18% Dartford Con 2nd -8.54% Canterbury Con 2nd -9.73% Ashford Con 2nd -9.90% Gravesham Lab 3rd -16.90% Tonbridge & Malling Con 2nd -20.35% Maidstone & The Weald** LD 5th -24.69% Sevenoaks Con 2nd -26.43% Faversham & Mid Kent** Con 3rd -37.36%
* UKIP did not contest 1 seat. If they had and had performed similarly to the other two seats it is possible that the seat might become a three-way marginal **UKIP did not contest seats
Obviously the top five look pretty attractive but It might be worth looking at Ashford and above as potential UKIP targets given many of them are neighbouring constituencies in East Kent and some such as Ashford don't seem to have much campaigning activity generally. Dover and even Canterbury might become interesting 3 and 4 way marginals respectively looking at the figures.
Obviously the top five look pretty attractive but It might be worth looking at Ashford and above as potential UKIP targets given many of them are neighbouring constituencies in East Kent and some such as Ashford don't seem to have much campaigning activity generally. Dover and even Canterbury might become interesting 3 and 4 way marginals respectively looking at the figures.
The difficult bit for UKIP is going to be deciding where to commit resources: do they spread their resources across four or five seats in Kent, hoping to win them all, but running the risk that their footsoldiers are spread too thin. Or do they concentrate on one or two seats, to try and ensure they get at least one MP.
Comments
As the refugee problem appeared and the action got closer and closer to Turkey the creation of an effective buffer zone would have been a logical step.
The Jordanian border offered the same and is exactly where the West's chosen rebels have operated from in the greatest number as an attempt to get to Damascus first.
What was Assad going to do if an effective safe zone was created? Whether it was backed by boots on the ground, air or missile cover makes no difference he'd have instantly lost territory. More importantly it would have made clear to Assad's coterie early that it my be better to make peace whilst the going was good.
Thirdly earlier intervention may well have stopped the likes of the Qataris etc getting involved which muddied waters considerably. It certainly might have helped against the appearance of large numbers of Jihadists coming across the Iraqi border.
One of the biggest reasons why the Jihadists got a reputation and gathered some native Syrians in their ranks was because
a) They seemed to have plenty of kit whilst large elements of other rebel units were buying stuff by the bullet.
b) they had a great publicity machine. It is fact that many Syrian insurgents got money to do videos of them in action, money they needed to get supplies.
As the West danced around the average Syrian began to have to make choices as they got involved in a life and death struggle. Over 70 000 dead, closer to half a million internally displaced.
The West did at least try to find members of Assad's officer corps and political allies to launch a coup but this didn't come off.
Two final point about the Jihadis:
1. there are two types, global and local. The globalists are really only in the shape of 1 or 2 groups in Syria.
2. The committed Jihadist forces if you are to take Israeli most fearful assessments represent 1 in 4 of the rebel forces.
1 in 4, at most. A considerable faction of which in turn a fraction aren't actually Syrian. The Syrians are a fairly nationalistic bunch and they wont be much up for outsiders.
No one can guarantee the result of any intervention, covert or overt, will get the result that was intended but what Western diplomats have been doing is using a lack of certainty as an excuse. Clearly Syria is not like Libya where Gaddafi was a bit of a case that no one much cared for.
You won't get it, they know that. Its paralysis by analysis.
It is rare for mickpork to speak sense, but even a stopped clock is right every now and again.
Caution is a very sensible position to take, and almost always the best approach though, of course. Humanitarian assistance seems the safest and best course almost all the time over any sort of direct action when not a direct participant already.
Though I do remember seeing a QT where several people in the audience were hotly against any action in Libya or anywhere else at all, which is a reasonable position to take, but also stated that Gaddafi should have stepped down sooner and not massacred his people, as if it were possible to stop him fighting back viciously in a civil war with the aim of deposing him, without lending any support to those who did oppose him. It really did help me harden my views somewhat, because I found it rather delusional that that audience claimed to want something to happen (or rather, did not want to see Gaddafi kill his own people for opposing him), but refused to countenance actually contributing anything toward that end.
Either the cost of intervention is always too high and morally repugnant, with horrible consequences, and so the horrors that upset us (when we hear about them) must be left to settle themselves out whatever the cost, or one can feel that the horrors witnessed justify the risk that catastrophe
It's at least consistent when people make either choice, but even though I'm as guilty of dancing on the fence with such delicate topics I am not well enough equipped to adequately decide upon, it still annoys me when people try to do both.
As I sometimes make myself unclear to you and make you think I am accusing you of positions that are not yours, rest assured Mick that all paragraphs after the second are my tangential musings from my comments in the first two paragraphs, and not an attack upon you.
Make the case that the spending is beneficial to our national security or to our economy (e.g. the arms contracts that someone mentioned) and it becomes justifiable, even to people who are struggling.
The EU was an example, in my mind, of bad spending by DFID - it's a lot, we don't have control over it (so can't decide the objectives) and we don't get any credit for it. So why do it?
http://www.rte.ie/player/gb/show/10143929/
While those lives can never be brought back, it's great to see a murderer properly challenged.
Or countless other civil wars and you could bring in Ethiopia if you want to have a pop at foreign aid.
The lunatic idea of not supporting dictators in the first place (usually for regional self interest) before hurriedly having to switch sides when their cavalier attitude to human rights leads to carnage, is of course pie on the sky.
Libya's parliament has passed a law banning officials from the Gaddafi era from holding political office.
The vote in the General National Congress (GNC) came a week after militias backing the law began besieging the ministries of justice and foreign affairs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22423238
Israel takes reasonable steps for its security (there has been a massive drop in suicide bombings since the fences were built). However, the cost is economic dislocation in Gaza in particular. EU aid to Gaza is just enough to prop up Hamas by preventing things getting too bad, so arguably propagating the situation.
Frankly speaking, while Hamas is in Gaza there will never been a solution: how can the Israelis negotiate with an organisation that refuses to acknowledge their right to exist?
On second thoughts, why not ? They voted Tory before.
http://icai.independent.gov.uk/
is probably the most persuasive place to look.
In any event, who says all foreign aid needs to have the same objective. (1) just means spend an appropriate amount (2) and (3) can co-exist. (4) I'm open to, the British people are among the most generous in the world in foreign aid [and in particular Africa] - let's match individual citizens giving rather than the government just choosing to spend taxes on charity.
The point I was attempting to make is that it is easy to make an assertion that giving aid prevents terrorism. After many decades of doing so I would expect there to be evidence that could be cited to back this up. I think people who make that assertion have had long enough with the experiment and now it is time to show us the goods or stop making the claim.
Did you see the calculation about how much the DFID on average costs a tax payer? Do you not agree that those people who skip meals so their children can eat, the people who sleep in their coats and live in one room through the winter might think 244 pounds is a lot of money that they could find a much better use for.
The people making these decisions are people like you Charles, people who have never faced the choice of whether to stick their last fiver in the electric meter to keep warm or to buy a little food
AMS for Germany, Wales and Scotland... STV for Ireland and Malta...
while resolutely clinging-on to the penny-farthing electoral system for ourselves...
Laughable.
Rest assured kle4 I am not taking anything personally nor do I find your remarks intemperate, but I despair when I see the same things played out in excuciating slow motion with some inexplicable expectations of different results.
It's very difficult to prove a negative. Additionally, the whole anti-terrorism approach is relatively new - basically since Mitchell came in: previously it was about supporting our dictators or just shovelling money out the door I agree, which is why I haven't tried to defend the £11bn / 0.7% GDP / £244. I'd argue you should spend enough to get the job done and no more. Aid should be about the national interest - there is a charitable aspect, but that's not the government's role. That's true of any government system, and it's a failing but not sure I see an answer to that. You just need to have the right people in government.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/28/decc_energy_costs_comedy/
I'd say we as a country are occasionally cavalier with human rights unfortuantely.
The unparrallelled 'genius' of a referendum on a referendum continues unabated. Anyone seriously think this will fool UKIP?
If you tried to be a little more open minded you might learn something about why they're now voting UKIP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10039340/Nigel-Evans-Deputy-Speaker-accused-of-rape-was-interviewed-four-years-ago-about-inappropriate-sexual-behaviour.html
We have been giving aid to Pakistan etc now to quell terrorism that you should be able to at least point to a statistical correlation between aid and terrorism. No one is asking you to prove a negative. Show us the correlation or stop shovelling
Broxtowe:
Lab 7704
Con 7566
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/broxtowe/
I hope Cammie has learned from Clegg's rushed and confused statement after the Rennard story spiralled.
The Tories will have to think of another system that works a lot like AV, but sounds different.
Interesting bit of trivia on Farage in ST, apparently he is descended from German cabinet makers who came to Britain in 1864
Rough figures for Folkestone & Hythe Constituency on the KCC figures
Con 8368 32.66%
UKIP 8265 32.25%
Labour 3259 12.72%
Liberal Democrat 2543 9.92%
Green 2216 8.65%
Other 973 3.80%
Con 8148 34.39%
Lab 7821 33.01%
UKIP* 5584 23.57%
LD 1446 6.10%
Oth 693 2.93%
* UKIP did not contest one ward. If they had done as well in that ward as the three others they did contest at the cost of the other parties then it is possible the constituency could end up a three way marginal with little between Con, Lab & UKIP
MP Jo Swinson close to death after eating peanut
Evans will be caught in the crossfire, as was Rennard.
UKIP 7527 39.79%
Con 5448 28.80%
Lab 4963 26.24%
LD 667 3.53%
OMRLP 215 1.14%
Other 97 0.51%
Panicking lib dems should be assured that she is fine and not in a coma or anything dire.
Thanks for doing those constituency aggregates.
Libdem 5980 33.98%
Con 5656 32.14%
Lab** 2471 14.04%
Green 1740 9.89%
UKIP* 1635 9.29%
English Democrats 115 0.65%
* UKIP Contested only one of the 4 wards
** Labour contested only 3 of the 4 wards
Con 9508 38.01%
UKIP 7235 28.92%
Labour 3584 14.33%
Liberal Democrat 2438 9.75%
Green 1682 6.72%
Other 521 2.08%
BNP 48 0.19%
Con 6954 32.16%
UKIP 4850 22.43%
Lab 4155 19.22%
LD 3882 17.95%
Green 1782 8.24%
Con: 59,667 (36.53%)
Lab: 43,151 (26.42%)
UKIP: 36,607 (22.41%)
LD: 14,687 (8.99%)
Green: 2,500 (1.53%)
Others: 6,726 (4.12%)
Total: 163,338
Changes since 2010 general election:
Con: -10.85%
Lab: +0.70%
UKIP: +19.65%
LD: -10.10%
Green: +0.73%
Others: -0.14%
Swing, Con to Lab: 5.78%
It'll be interesting to see what happened in the marginal seats in Northampton.
Con 6620 53.26%
Labour 2717 21.86%
UKIP* 1976 15.90%
LD 664 5.34%
Green** 453 3.64%
* UKIP contested only 2 out of 3
** Greens contested 1 out of 3
If it turns out that he has been falsely accused, I hope there isn't any delay in the names of his accusers being made public.
Con 9178 35.89%
UKIP 8700 34.02%
LD 3263 12.76%
Labour 2961 11.58%
Green* 780 3.05%
Other 694 2.71%
* Green only contested 3/6
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFZXQnBLTWNaNUN6YlFzQWRfU25qSHc#gid=0
Con 11373 43.51%
UKIP 6052 23.16%
Liberal Democrats 3900 14.92%
Labour 3497 13.38%
Green* 1159 4.43%
EngDem* 155 0.59%
*5 out of 6 contested
Con 9093 51.00%
UKIP 4381 24.57%
Lab 2126 11.92%
LD* 1426 8.00%
Green Party** 446 2.50%
EngDem 246 1.38%
Oth 112 0.63%
* LD contested 4 out 5
** Green contested 2 out of 5
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHVhWDR5UnEwN05FWHFiR0hMQzhmX2c#gid=0
Labour 8497 35.46%
Con 8040 33.55%
UKIP* 4446 18.56%
EngDem 2333 9.74%
LD** 380 1.59%
Oth 265 1.11%
*UKIP 2 out of 3 contested
**LD 1 out of 3 contested
Am I right in thinking some of these results are not 100% perfect because the county council divisions often don't match up with the parliamentary constituency boundaries?
Their election website actually gives the total votes and percentages:
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/Election2013/Results/share.asp
The Faversham one is also a bit strange as well when it is surrounded by areas where UKIP are strong. I suspect though its because UKIP didn't really contest Maidstone and surrounds other than the town itself that is the contributory factor.
Con 39,581 (31.62%)
Lab 34,876 (27.86%)
UKIP 14,591 (11.66%)
LD 23,282 (18.60%)
Green 2,798 (2.24%)
Others 10,040 (8.02%)
Change since 2010 general election:
Con -7.81%
Lab -2.90%
UKIP +9.49%
LD -5.71%
Green +1.66%
Others +5.27%
Swing, Con to Lab: 2.45%
Con 7339 37.30%
UKIP 5657 28.76%
Lab 5314 27.01%
Oth 673 3.42%
EngDem * 421 2.14%
BNP 192 0.98%
Green ** 77 0.39%
* 5 out of 6
** 1 out 6
No LDs at all
http://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/elections2013/summary/
Actually, they are on this page:
http://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/elections2013/state/
http://i.imgur.com/Zj3j2qp.png
In this scenario:
Tories lose 1 seat to Other
Labour lose 6 seats to LD, 5 seats to Other
Other lose 3 seats to Tories, 2 to Labour, 1 to Green, and 1 to Independent.
All updated from a rather large backend spreadsheet!
As more and more councils get added to the dataset you will easily be able to see the most common direction which seats are changing.
http://election.hants.gov.uk/hwstate.aspx?id=175&year=2013
http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/your_council/local_democracy/aboutthecountycouncil/useyourvote/election_results/election_2013.htm
The page gives percentages to one decimal point and the overall votes cast but not the total votes for each party, although you can obviously get an approximate figure from the first two pieces of information:
http://elections.norfolk.gov.uk/summary.aspx
https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/Election2013/Home/DetailedResults
http://www.oxfordshireelection.org.uk/
Witney South and Central:
Lab 756
UKIP 746
Con 697
Green 132
LD 85
http://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=117
http://new.shropshire.gov.uk/elections-2013/unitary/results-full-text-list/
http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/council/election/2013/divisions.asp
http://moderngov.staffordshire.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=15&RPID=31692528
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/elections
http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/council/elections/forthcomingelections/unitaryandparishelections/unitary2013results.htm
http://democracy.anglesey.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=7&V=0&RPID=1000743096&LLL=0
The 9 are Bristol, Bucks, Cambs, Cumbria, Devon, Hants, Lancs, Leics, Notts.
Sittingbourne & Sheppey UKIP 1st +10.99%
North Thanet UKIP 1st +7.95%
South Thanet UKIP 1st +5.99%
Folkestone & Hythe Con 2nd -0.41%
Tunbridge Wells Con 2nd -1.87%
Dover* Con 3rd -10.18%
Dartford Con 2nd -8.54%
Canterbury Con 2nd -9.73%
Ashford Con 2nd -9.90%
Gravesham Lab 3rd -16.90%
Tonbridge & Malling Con 2nd -20.35%
Maidstone & The Weald** LD 5th -24.69%
Sevenoaks Con 2nd -26.43%
Faversham & Mid Kent** Con 3rd -37.36%
* UKIP did not contest 1 seat. If they had and had performed similarly to the other two seats it is possible that the seat might become a three-way marginal
**UKIP did not contest seats
Obviously the top five look pretty attractive but It might be worth looking at Ashford and above as potential UKIP targets given many of them are neighbouring constituencies in East Kent and some such as Ashford don't seem to have much campaigning activity generally. Dover and even Canterbury might become interesting 3 and 4 way marginals respectively looking at the figures.