Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft’s promised CON-LD battleground polls could ei

24

Comments

  • Options
    taffys said:

    awesome time for sport.

    peachy.

    Not much fun for those of us who must've been off school the day that the class was taught how to like sport. ;)

    Pity we poor sport dislikers. We find it easy enough to avoid watching sport but the trouble is that it's much harder to avoid hearing all about it in the workplace... endlessly...

    I wonder if it's too warm to hibernate?

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,147
    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.

    Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.

    At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.

    I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
    True, Charles Kennedy might be the only LD heavyweight left.
    He will probably keep his seat since he was ousted 9 years ago for the ridiculous charge of binge drinking not for policy, he is a lefty and not in the coalition and helds the title of the most popular LD leader.

    After the car crash of the coalition, he will probably take over.
    Farron and Carmichael will be there with Charlie.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited June 2014
    AndyJS said:

    Prior in trouble first ball with an LBW review.

    Squeaked it. Not an auspicious start. [Pedant mode: it was the second ball]
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,105
    @rosschawkins: excl: Nigel Farage reports over 200k of benefits in kind accumulated over more than decade to Electoral Commission.

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited June 2014
    Bloody Hell Fabregas!

    I know all teams think they have it bad, but we will be playing against van Persie, Adebayor, Nasri, Fabregas, Clichy & Sagna next season! The best players from our 07/08 team which was probably our best side since the invincibles

    Kolo's gone at the game, I cant include him!

    If QPR get Hleb I'm ripping up the season ticket I havent got!
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,105
    @rosschawkins: excl: Electoral Commission say deciding whether to take action against Farage
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2014
    ToryJim said:

    @rosschawkins: excl: Electoral Commission say deciding whether to take action against Farage

    Elections were run perfectly well before the Electoral Commission existed. A complete waste of money. In fact, if anything things have got more inefficient since it was established.
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.

    Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.

    At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.

    I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
    In a taxi scenario the Lib Dems could be left with the following MPs: Carmichael, Kennedy, Clegg, Foster, Farron, Lamb and Laws.

    All of those last three - all of which have majorities greater than 11,000 - would have to lose to make Kennedy the frontrunner for next leader.

    And with Kennedy you also run the risk that Scotland votes for Independence, entirely ruling him out.

    Probably Don Foster is a better bet. Besides Clegg and the other obvious leadership frontrunners he has the safest seat in England, so you don't have the Scottish dimension to worry about. That and his odds would surely be longer than 100-1.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,921

    taffys said:

    awesome time for sport.

    peachy.

    Not much fun for those of us who must've been off school the day that the class was taught how to like sport. ;)

    Pity we poor sport dislikers. We find it easy enough to avoid watching sport but the trouble is that it's much harder to avoid hearing all about it in the workplace... endlessly...

    I wonder if it's too warm to hibernate?

    You could aestivate ...

  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Speedy said:

    Speedy said:

    7-8% would be about one-third of their 2010 general election vote and would equate to about 2.3 million votes nationwide.


    The fewer votes the Lib Dems take nationally the more important the distribution of those votes locally becomes.

    On that theory the LD can keep 30 seats with just 2% of the vote nationally, in practice it doesn't work.
    The LD currently get 1.8 million votes on 6%, for the 20k in 30 seats, 10k in 30 seats and 2,5k in 570 you need 2.925 million votes.
    It totals to about 2.3 million votes, as I said. You've added an extra 600k in. 2.3 million votes would equate to about one-third of their vote in 2010.

    My proposition does not extend to the Lib Dems holding 30 seats on 2% of the vote, which is a very different thing to holding 30 seats on 8%. The former is absurd, whereas the latter is possible if their vote is sufficiently concentrated.. Worth remembering the 1997 general election when the Lib Dems lost votes but more than doubled the number of seats held.
    True I made an error on double counting those 30 seats, however that is still half a million votes more than with 6%, that's the point, they have fallen so low that even the Zulu strategy is suffering.
    On 1997 LD lost only 1% but gained plenty of Tory seats on a 5.5% swing plus tactical voting.
    This time its the LD that are losing more votes with a 5.5% swing to the Tories however tactical voting might still be there but what is the difference between the LD and CON these days?
    I never mentioned the 6% figure. In my post I also pointed out that if their vote is just a bit more spread out they could end up with less than ten seats.

    My point being that at that vote level - just below 10% - it is only local concentration of the Lib Dem vote, due to tactical voting and personal votes, that matters at all. It matters a lot more than when they are on ~20% of the vote.
    I mention 6% not 8% because they have fallen even further and there is the prospect that the decline might continue. I personally believe that the cutoff for the Zulu strategy is 8%, anything bellow that level and the personal concentration and tactical voting will start to fail.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,105

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.

    Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.

    At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.

    I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
    In a taxi scenario the Lib Dems could be left with the following MPs: Carmichael, Kennedy, Clegg, Foster, Farron, Lamb and Laws.

    All of those last three - all of which have majorities greater than 11,000 - would have to lose to make Kennedy the frontrunner for next leader.

    And with Kennedy you also run the risk that Scotland votes for Independence, entirely ruling him out.

    Probably Don Foster is a better bet. Besides Clegg and the other obvious leadership frontrunners he has the safest seat in England, so you don't have the Scottish dimension to worry about. That and his odds would surely be longer than 100-1.
    Don Foster is standing down.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,713
    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes · 6 mins
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARG WHEN WILL THEY LEARN pic.twitter.com/NagofB7wVJ

    After going on about the evil's of the Murdochs, seems Ed more than happy to pose with the Sun...
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    ToryJim said:

    @rosschawkins: excl: Electoral Commission say deciding whether to take action against Farage

    The suing and counter-suing continues.
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    ToryJim said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.

    Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.

    At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.

    I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
    In a taxi scenario the Lib Dems could be left with the following MPs: Carmichael, Kennedy, Clegg, Foster, Farron, Lamb and Laws.

    All of those last three - all of which have majorities greater than 11,000 - would have to lose to make Kennedy the frontrunner for next leader.

    And with Kennedy you also run the risk that Scotland votes for Independence, entirely ruling him out.

    Probably Don Foster is a better bet. Besides Clegg and the other obvious leadership frontrunners he has the safest seat in England, so you don't have the Scottish dimension to worry about. That and his odds would surely be longer than 100-1.
    Don Foster is standing down.
    Oh. Ooops.

  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,112
    edited June 2014
    I have a feeling Charles Kennedy will rule himself out if/when the next Lib-Dem leadership contest is.

    Whilst "heavy drinking" was indeed a strange reason to dump a leader, I think Kennedy's problem was far more serious than that - He certainly appeared on TV clearly drunk many times during the last Parliament and whilst it's hard to know where "heavy drinking" ends and "alcoholism" begins I would suspect CK falls into the later category.

    Thankfully it appears he has turned things around and found sobriety, but my guess is that he won't want the pressure and stress that goes with leading a political party again.

    He could well be "king maker" this time though. Paddy will lose of a lot of clout when Clegg goes...
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    ToryJim said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.

    Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.

    At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.

    I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
    In a taxi scenario the Lib Dems could be left with the following MPs: Carmichael, Kennedy, Clegg, Foster, Farron, Lamb and Laws.

    All of those last three - all of which have majorities greater than 11,000 - would have to lose to make Kennedy the frontrunner for next leader.

    And with Kennedy you also run the risk that Scotland votes for Independence, entirely ruling him out.

    Probably Don Foster is a better bet. Besides Clegg and the other obvious leadership frontrunners he has the safest seat in England, so you don't have the Scottish dimension to worry about. That and his odds would surely be longer than 100-1.
    Don Foster is standing down.
    Does he know something we don't know?
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited June 2014
    Speedy said:

    I mention 6% not 8% because they have fallen even further and there is the prospect that the decline might continue. I personally believe that the cutoff for the Zulu strategy is 8%, anything bellow that level and the personal concentration and tactical voting will start to fail.

    I place my trust in ICM.

    Edit: And more to the point, the recent decline in the Lib Dem share has been partly due to a move to the Greens, which I don't think will survive June, let alone the summer.

    It will probably subside before England are knocked out of the World Cup.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,176
    OT EU Cameron allegedly reaching the "bargaining" stage on Juncker, wanting Lansley to supervise a cluster of Commission posts. Seems like a hard sell - it's one thing getting a low-key person without much of a record into a top job, but someone who couldn't be trusted with a domestic ministry getting to mess with multiple portfolios? I still reckon they'd be better picking Hague or Osborne and aiming for one of the top few slots.

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/cameron-warming-juncker-302773
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,105
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Speedy said:

    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!

    What a humanitarian.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    ToryJim said:
    If they don't oust him by the conference he will stay until the inevitable end, which fittingly for the LD bunker is on the 70th anniversary of Germany surrendering.
  • Options
    I have viewed the LD core vote as being around 7% to 10%. Based on their overall vote comprising three factors, Core + Lefties + Protests.
    For them to lose all the Lefties and the Protests and drop below 10% does not feel plausible in a GE, the Euro's are different. So my guess is that on current trends the LDs will be in the 11% to 14% range at the GE. Seat wise this puts them in cliff edge situations similar to the Euros where they could lose circa 20 or 35 seats just depending on a small % falling the right/wrong way.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,415
    Anorak said:

    Speedy said:

    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!

    What a humanitarian.
    I once nearly incited a riot many years ago.

    Some Soap dodging SWP types were protesting in the centre of Manchester, and were asking for signatures to see Tony Blair at The Hague for lying to us over Iraq.

    I said, absolutely, Blair lied to me over Iraq, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq, and he failed to deliver.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,125
    Mr. Tokyo, I find it difficult to believe Osborne would go to Brussels.

    Mr. Anorak, he's like a reincarnation of St Barnabus.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,112
    edited June 2014
    ToryJim said:
    "Recently a Tory aide described him to me as being like an unwelcome guest hanging around at the end of a party refusing to leave"

    Ouch, LOL! :^O

    Clearly Clegg is finished in the long-term, but I do think the Lib-Dems will carry on with him up until May 2015. I mean, who in their right mind would want to take over the Lib-Dems in their current state?

    Far better to leave Clegg where he is and take the hit, then rebuild from the ruins of 2015 with whoever survives the slaughter...
  • Options
    Mike OGH main article could be prescient. Up to now only a few LD MPs have called for Clegg to go. However, if Lord A's polling shows that more than half the LD MPs are under threat then a lot more LD MPs are likely to join the call for him to go. The MPs have the power to force a change far far quicker than the party. They saw off Ming and Charlie.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,112
    Anorak said:

    Speedy said:

    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!

    What a humanitarian.
    You don't become one of the richest men in the world by being Mother Theresa, LOL.

  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    The neocons strike back:

    McCain:
    "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
    "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."

    Graham:
    "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"

    Hillary:
    "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"

    Boehner:
    "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,105
    And Murray loses.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    GIN1138 said:

    Anorak said:

    Speedy said:

    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!

    What a humanitarian.
    You don't become one of the richest men in the world by being Mother Theresa, LOL.

    GIN

    I fear it would be difficult to become any sort of man by being Mother Theresa.

  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Of course it doesn't help with the teasing comment Michael Ashcroft almost completed this afternoon.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Mike OGH main article could be prescient. Up to now only a few LD MPs have called for Clegg to go. However, if Lord A's polling shows that more than half the LD MPs are under threat then a lot more LD MPs are likely to join the call for him to go. The MPs have the power to force a change far far quicker than the party. They saw off Ming and Charlie.

    That is also one of the issues Clegg neutralized early on by getting the majority of the LD MP's in the government, no Clegg no government posts for LD MP's.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,112
    edited June 2014
    AveryLP said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Anorak said:

    Speedy said:

    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!

    What a humanitarian.
    You don't become one of the richest men in the world by being Mother Theresa, LOL.

    GIN

    I fear it would be difficult to become any sort of man by being Mother Theresa.

    Good point.
    ToryJim said:

    And Murray loses.

    I think Murray will definitely be Scottish this summer. ;)

  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Anorak said:

    Speedy said:

    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!

    What a humanitarian.
    I once nearly incited a riot many years ago.

    Some Soap dodging SWP types were protesting in the centre of Manchester, and were asking for signatures to see Tony Blair at The Hague for lying to us over Iraq.

    I said, absolutely, Blair lied to me over Iraq, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq, and he failed to deliver.
    Doing wars in the middle east does wonders on the oil price.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,147

    Mike OGH main article could be prescient. Up to now only a few LD MPs have called for Clegg to go. However, if Lord A's polling shows that more than half the LD MPs are under threat then a lot more LD MPs are likely to join the call for him to go. The MPs have the power to force a change far far quicker than the party. They saw off Ming and Charlie.

    I do hope not !

    My betting position looks substantially better with a mortally wounded Clegg floundering his way to the GE2015 line.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,112
    edited June 2014
    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,147
    Speedy said:

    Anorak said:

    Speedy said:

    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!

    What a humanitarian.
    I once nearly incited a riot many years ago.

    Some Soap dodging SWP types were protesting in the centre of Manchester, and were asking for signatures to see Tony Blair at The Hague for lying to us over Iraq.

    I said, absolutely, Blair lied to me over Iraq, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq, and he failed to deliver.
    Doing wars in the middle east does wonders on the oil price.
    I'm fairly confident that my bet that oil will be over £50 at year end will be a winner.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,007
    Speedy said:

    The neocons strike back:

    McCain:
    "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
    "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."

    Graham:
    "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"

    Hillary:
    "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"

    Boehner:
    "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"

    http://www.crestock.com/uploads/blog/2009/propaganda-parodies/13-vietnam-difference.jpg
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,007
    Speedy said:

    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!

    http://www.worldofbadger.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/wantoil.jpg
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Speedy said:

    The neocons strike back:

    McCain:
    "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
    "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."

    Graham:
    "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"

    Hillary:
    "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"

    Boehner:
    "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"

    http://www.crestock.com/uploads/blog/2009/propaganda-parodies/13-vietnam-difference.jpg
    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 24m
    It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?

    Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/

    Congress is now getting in line behind strikes, but W.H. still refusing.
    Jeff Zeleny ‏@jeffzeleny 7m
    Closed-door Iraq briefing ends in Senate. Joe Manchin says air strikes might be only way they can regroup.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    GIN1138 said:

    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...

    That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Speedy said:

    The neocons strike back:

    McCain:
    "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
    "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."

    Graham:
    "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"

    Hillary:
    "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"

    Boehner:
    "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"

    I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,007

    Anorak said:

    Speedy said:

    The media circus has begun.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
    Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!

    What a humanitarian.
    I once nearly incited a riot many years ago.

    Some Soap dodging SWP types were protesting in the centre of Manchester, and were asking for signatures to see Tony Blair at The Hague for lying to us over Iraq.

    I said, absolutely, Blair lied to me over Iraq, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq, and he failed to deliver.
    http://www.narrativedesign.org/images/Remixed-Propaganda-2.jpg
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,986
    Iraq is looking truly disastrous. If this goes on too long or as badly as it looks now start trying to find an electable republican for 2016. Really unfair considering who caused the mess but life is not fair. Ask the Liberal Democrats.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Joe Benton, Labour MP for Bootle, confirms his retirement.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited June 2014
    Speedy said:


    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 24m
    It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?

    Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/

    These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
  • Options
    Speedy said:

    Mike OGH main article could be prescient. Up to now only a few LD MPs have called for Clegg to go. However, if Lord A's polling shows that more than half the LD MPs are under threat then a lot more LD MPs are likely to join the call for him to go. The MPs have the power to force a change far far quicker than the party. They saw off Ming and Charlie.

    That is also one of the issues Clegg neutralized early on by getting the majority of the LD MP's in the government, no Clegg no government posts for LD MP's.
    Yes but it could be viewed now as No Clegg and Yes to a £65k job.
    The Govt jobs are 80% complete with at most 11 months left.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,112
    edited June 2014

    GIN1138 said:

    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...

    That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
    The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010

    Those were the my friend...
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    I have viewed the LD core vote as being around 7% to 10%. Based on their overall vote comprising three factors, Core + Lefties + Protests.
    For them to lose all the Lefties and the Protests and drop below 10% does not feel plausible in a GE, the Euro's are different. So my guess is that on current trends the LDs will be in the 11% to 14% range at the GE. Seat wise this puts them in cliff edge situations similar to the Euros where they could lose circa 20 or 35 seats just depending on a small % falling the right/wrong way.

    Their (NEV) local election vote share has fallen every year this parliament: 16%, 15%, 13%, 11%.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,986
    Yet another 50 run partnership in good time. England desperately need one of these to go on if they are to get a grip on the game. Looking like a really interesting game though
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    The neocons strike back:

    McCain:
    "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
    "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."

    Graham:
    "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"

    Hillary:
    "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"

    Boehner:
    "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"

    I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
    I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,209
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...

    That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
    The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010

    Those were the my friend...
    LDs were never in government under Ming.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,007
    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:


    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 24m
    It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?

    Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/

    These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
    So where did ISIS get all their kit?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    May have already been reported — Alastair Redman selected by Tories in Argyll & Bute:

    http://forargyll.com/2014/06/scottish-conservatives-select-general-election-candidate/
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    The neocons strike back:

    McCain:
    "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
    "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."

    Graham:
    "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"

    Hillary:
    "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"

    Boehner:
    "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"

    I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
    I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
    With American logistical backing, the FSA would have been able to take out ISIS easily once they took over the Syrian state. I'm sure we'll be giving heavy backing to Maliki in the next month and then we will see how overwhelmed ISIS can get when confronted with a government with proper Western-backing.
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited June 2014

    I have viewed the LD core vote as being around 7% to 10%. Based on their overall vote comprising three factors, Core + Lefties + Protests.
    For them to lose all the Lefties and the Protests and drop below 10% does not feel plausible in a GE, the Euro's are different. So my guess is that on current trends the LDs will be in the 11% to 14% range at the GE. Seat wise this puts them in cliff edge situations similar to the Euros where they could lose circa 20 or 35 seats just depending on a small % falling the right/wrong way.

    Their (NEV) local election vote share has fallen every year this parliament: 16%, 15%, 13%, 11%.
    Thanks, 11% to 14% seems plausible at the GE. >15% is now looking to be for LD dreamers.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:


    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 24m
    It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?

    Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/

    These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
    So where did ISIS get all their kit?
    A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,415
    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...

    That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
    The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010

    Those were the my friend...
    LDs were never in government under Ming.
    Because Ming wasn't Merciless as leader and that's why they didn't enter government under Ming.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Sunil_Prasannan

    "So where did ISIS get all their kit?"

    From the FSA fighters they were beheading, from the Iraq army, and from Sunni states and donors who see them as a bullwark against the Shia?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,147
    Just shifted my green onto Lanka, neutral England now, red on the draw.

    5-1 looks a big price imo.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Obama — "I don't rule out anything".
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    DavidL said:

    Iraq is looking truly disastrous. If this goes on too long or as badly as it looks now start trying to find an electable republican for 2016. Really unfair considering who caused the mess but life is not fair. Ask the Liberal Democrats.

    It will hit Rand Paul's chances if this goes on for long.
    It's clear that at least an american bombing campaign is needed but how can he support it?
    And if Baghdad falls the neocons will have a narrative to push back.
    The best he can do is to say "I was right of not supporting the syrian rebels, look what happened, I will support american airstikes on ISIS but I will never support boots on the ground".
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Smarmeron said:

    @Sunil_Prasannan

    "So where did ISIS get all their kit?"

    From the FSA fighters they were beheading, from the Iraq army, and from Sunni states and donors who see them as a bullwark against the Shia?

    The Sunni states are mainly backing the Islamic Front, another group. Groups like ISIS and al-Nusra generally view the various Sunni states as being illegitimate Western puppets.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,209

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...

    That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
    The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010

    Those were the my friend...
    LDs were never in government under Ming.
    Because Ming wasn't Merciless as leader and that's why they didn't enter government under Ming.
    All hail Ming!
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,105
    AndyJS said:

    Obama — "I don't rule out anything".

    No he will just prevaricate so long that most of the options won't be implementable.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,986
    Are the Saudis really going to sit back and let the west bomb the army they have built (let's not pretend otherwise) off the map? We could be facing a serious parting of the ways here.

    Buying oil futures is a little adventurous for me but if it wasn't....
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:


    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 24m
    It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?

    Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/

    These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
    So where did ISIS get all their kit?
    A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
    Cogh america Cough

  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,007
    DavidL said:

    Iraq is looking truly disastrous. If this goes on too long or as badly as it looks now start trying to find an electable republican for 2016. Really unfair considering who caused the mess but life is not fair. Ask the Liberal Democrats.

    http://propagandaremix.com/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/posters/blinders.jpg
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    The neocons strike back:

    McCain:
    "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
    "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."

    Graham:
    "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"

    Hillary:
    "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"

    Boehner:
    "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"

    I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
    I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
    With American logistical backing, the FSA would have been able to take out ISIS easily once they took over the Syrian state. I'm sure we'll be giving heavy backing to Maliki in the next month and then we will see how overwhelmed ISIS can get when confronted with a government with proper Western-backing.
    The FSA was creamed by ISIS a long time ago, not sure in the chaos of an FSA victory over Assad ISIS would have lost from them.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,007
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...

    That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
    The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010

    Those were the my friend...
    LDs were never in government under Ming.
    Because Ming wasn't Merciless as leader and that's why they didn't enter government under Ming.
    All hail Ming!
    Hail, Ming! Hail! Ruler of the Universe!

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOmUW5QyqQ
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:


    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 24m
    It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?

    Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/

    These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
    So where did ISIS get all their kit?
    A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
    Cogh america Cough

    America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,007
    Socrates said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @Sunil_Prasannan

    "So where did ISIS get all their kit?"

    From the FSA fighters they were beheading, from the Iraq army, and from Sunni states and donors who see them as a bullwark against the Shia?

    The Sunni states are mainly backing the Islamic Front, another group. Groups like ISIS and al-Nusra generally view the various Sunni states as being illegitimate Western puppets.
    We have just launched a Middle East edition of our glorious newspaper - the Sunni on Sunday!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,209

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...

    That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
    The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010

    Those were the my friend...
    LDs were never in government under Ming.
    Because Ming wasn't Merciless as leader and that's why they didn't enter government under Ming.
    All hail Ming!
    Hail, Ming! Hail! Ruler of the Universe!

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOmUW5QyqQ
    So who in the LDs is General Kala?
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    ToryJim said:

    AndyJS said:

    Obama — "I don't rule out anything".

    No he will just prevaricate so long that most of the options won't be implementable.
    You're kidding right? In Afghanistan, Obama committed to a major surge to combat the insurgency there. Obama was the guy leading the charge for a tough response on Ukraine, while the EU twiddled its thumbs. On Syria, he wanted to take tough action to provide logistical support to the FSA after the poison gas attacks, but the British parliament delayed things and then the HMG got cold feet and pulled out entirely.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,007
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...

    That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
    The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010

    Those were the my friend...
    LDs were never in government under Ming.
    Because Ming wasn't Merciless as leader and that's why they didn't enter government under Ming.
    All hail Ming!
    Hail, Ming! Hail! Ruler of the Universe!

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOmUW5QyqQ
    So who in the LDs is General Kala?
    Lynne Featherstone? Sarah Teather?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,147
    I vaguely know a couple of Syrians - one of them has this https://scontent-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/1472840_10151767656142484_960669801_ n.jpg on their facebook page now...

    I assume it is Al Nusra ?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,209

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...

    That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
    The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010

    Those were the my friend...
    LDs were never in government under Ming.
    Because Ming wasn't Merciless as leader and that's why they didn't enter government under Ming.
    All hail Ming!
    Hail, Ming! Hail! Ruler of the Universe!

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOmUW5QyqQ
    So who in the LDs is General Kala?
    Lynne Featherstone? Sarah Teather?
    Not Shirley WIlliams? :')
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:


    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 24m
    It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?

    Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/

    These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
    So where did ISIS get all their kit?
    A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
    Cogh america Cough

    America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?
    America gave tons of money, weapons and supplies to the syrian rebels despite the warnings that it will lead to terrorists getting the hands on them like Afghanistan in the 1980's, well guess what? Most of those ended in the hands of ISIS creating a sequel to the 1980's Afghanistan fiasco.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    The neocons strike back:

    McCain:
    "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
    "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."

    Graham:
    "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"

    Hillary:
    "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"

    Boehner:
    "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"

    I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
    I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
    With American logistical backing, the FSA would have been able to take out ISIS easily once they took over the Syrian state. I'm sure we'll be giving heavy backing to Maliki in the next month and then we will see how overwhelmed ISIS can get when confronted with a government with proper Western-backing.
    The FSA was creamed by ISIS a long time ago, not sure in the chaos of an FSA victory over Assad ISIS would have lost from them.
    They only lost out to ISIS because the FSA ran out of money. If you're a rebel soldier in a civil war and you're not being paid not being armed properly, you go over to the other groups who can afford to arm and feed you. If the FSA had been able to overrun Assad, they would have taken over the wealthy Western parts of the country. Once they were recognised as the legitimate government, we could also have allowed them to take over Assad's bank accounts we have frozen.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,105
    Socrates said:

    ToryJim said:

    AndyJS said:

    Obama — "I don't rule out anything".

    No he will just prevaricate so long that most of the options won't be implementable.
    You're kidding right? In Afghanistan, Obama committed to a major surge to combat the insurgency there. Obama was the guy leading the charge for a tough response on Ukraine, while the EU twiddled its thumbs. On Syria, he wanted to take tough action to provide logistical support to the FSA after the poison gas attacks, but the British parliament delayed things and then the HMG got cold feet and pulled out entirely.
    I think you are rewriting history there, his response on Syria was lackadaisical in the extreme. Obama when faced with the big calls has eventually made a half hearted one extremely late in the day.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,986
    SeanT said:

    How can this not be a thread about Iraq???

    Iraq is like World War Z.

    A psychotic caliphate is emerging in the Middle East (thanks Tony), which threatens global stability. American power is now so weak no one can fix it. This could engulf the world.

    And pb talks about con-ld battlegrounds.

    It's almost reassuring, and also ludicrous.

    In fairness there is a test match on.

  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:


    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 24m
    It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?

    Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/

    These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
    So where did ISIS get all their kit?
    A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
    Cogh america Cough

    America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?
    America gave tons of money, weapons and supplies to the syrian rebels despite the warnings that it will lead to terrorists getting the hands on them like Afghanistan in the 1980's, well guess what? Most of those ended in the hands of ISIS creating a sequel to the 1980's Afghanistan fiasco.
    I'm sure you'll be able to back up your claim that most of the weapons provided to the FSA ended up in the hands of ISIS. Oh wait, it's just your raw anti-American prejudice. Your assessment of Afghanistan is also a massive oversimplification, but given it's difficult to keep you straight on the facts of Syria, I won't open up another argument front.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?

    It would hardly be the first time Socrates. Have you seen Charlie Wilson's War? All along in these conflicts its been about trying to identify who are our real friends and who are our enemies.

    It's impossible. Nobody there likes us. Except maybe Israel.

    The best thing Obama can do now is repeal the law banning the US from exporting oil, so the price doesn't go through the ceiling.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    ToryJim said:

    Socrates said:

    ToryJim said:

    AndyJS said:

    Obama — "I don't rule out anything".

    No he will just prevaricate so long that most of the options won't be implementable.
    You're kidding right? In Afghanistan, Obama committed to a major surge to combat the insurgency there. Obama was the guy leading the charge for a tough response on Ukraine, while the EU twiddled its thumbs. On Syria, he wanted to take tough action to provide logistical support to the FSA after the poison gas attacks, but the British parliament delayed things and then the HMG got cold feet and pulled out entirely.
    I think you are rewriting history there, his response on Syria was lackadaisical in the extreme. Obama when faced with the big calls has eventually made a half hearted one extremely late in the day.
    Well, I would have taken a stronger line on Syria earlier, but the fact remains that he was the strongest on intervention of all Western leaders, and his hands were tied by the fact that a combination of Miliband's self-interested politicking and Cameron's cold feet withdrew the US's closest ally from the fray.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Nadal loses his first match at the Halle grass court tournament to Dustin Brown of Germany 6:4 6:1
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    ISIS is a classic example of why you shouldn't fund rebel groups to get rid of enemy governments, in the end they become a more serious and uncontrollable threat than the last guy.
    Other examples are: Taliban, Libyan rebels, Latin American drug cartels, Latin American dictators and the Khmer Rouge.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    SeanT said:

    How can this not be a thread about Iraq???

    Iraq is like World War Z.

    A psychotic caliphate is emerging in the Middle East (thanks Tony), which threatens global stability. American power is now so weak no one can fix it. This could engulf the world.

    And pb talks about con-ld battlegrounds.

    It's almost reassuring, and also ludicrous.

    Don't panic, Sean.

    Barry is "concerned" and "watching events in Iraq" closely.

    He is "considering all options" and "hasn't ruled anything out yet."

    Some people, Socrates for example, even believe he may act decisively...

    ...in due course.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Victoria Ayling selected by UKIP in Great Grimsby. She stood in 2010 for the Tories:

    http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Ukip-s-election-hopeful/story-21210872-detail/story.html

    Local election result:

    UKIP 6,104
    Lab 4,716
    Con 2,963
    LD 2,418
    Ind 619
    Green 433
    TUSC 213
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,147
    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    The neocons strike back:

    McCain:
    "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
    "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."

    Graham:
    "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"

    Hillary:
    "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"

    Boehner:
    "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"

    I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
    I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
    With American logistical backing, the FSA would have been able to take out ISIS easily once they took over the Syrian state. I'm sure we'll be giving heavy backing to Maliki in the next month and then we will see how overwhelmed ISIS can get when confronted with a government with proper Western-backing.
    The FSA was creamed by ISIS a long time ago, not sure in the chaos of an FSA victory over Assad ISIS would have lost from them.
    So far as I can tell FSA and other associated Mujahideens including Al Qaeda are fighting around Homs, Aleppo and Damascus - though it seems Assad is well on top there.

    ISIS is operating further east, establishing their de facto caliphate between the Tigris and Euphrates.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Presumably Israel will not be nonchalent about developments
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    SeanT said:

    How can this not be a thread about Iraq???

    Iraq is like World War Z.

    A psychotic caliphate is emerging in the Middle East (thanks Tony), which threatens global stability. American power is now so weak no one can fix it. This could engulf the world.

    And pb talks about con-ld battlegrounds.

    It's almost reassuring, and also ludicrous.

    Out of interest, have you been to Iraq?
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    JackW said:

    Nadal loses his first match at the Halle grass court tournament to Dustin Brown of Germany 6:4 6:1

    It won't be long before Rafa is playing for Scotland, Jack.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,209
    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    Nadal loses his first match at the Halle grass court tournament to Dustin Brown of Germany 6:4 6:1

    It won't be long before Rafa is playing for Scotland, Jack.
    Didn't know you supported the restoration of the Jacobite branch, Avery (at least I think the current claimant is a Spanish noble). Of course, it would be correct Scotland would be senior in such a union.
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    SeanT said:

    How can this not be a thread about Iraq???

    Iraq is like World War Z.

    A psychotic caliphate is emerging in the Middle East (thanks Tony), which threatens global stability. American power is now so weak no one can fix it. This could engulf the world.

    And pb talks about con-ld battlegrounds.

    It's almost reassuring, and also ludicrous.

    You don't really understand this internet thing do you?
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Socrates said:

    ToryJim said:

    Socrates said:

    ToryJim said:

    AndyJS said:

    Obama — "I don't rule out anything".

    No he will just prevaricate so long that most of the options won't be implementable.
    You're kidding right? In Afghanistan, Obama committed to a major surge to combat the insurgency there. Obama was the guy leading the charge for a tough response on Ukraine, while the EU twiddled its thumbs. On Syria, he wanted to take tough action to provide logistical support to the FSA after the poison gas attacks, but the British parliament delayed things and then the HMG got cold feet and pulled out entirely.
    I think you are rewriting history there, his response on Syria was lackadaisical in the extreme. Obama when faced with the big calls has eventually made a half hearted one extremely late in the day.
    Well, I would have taken a stronger line on Syria earlier, but the fact remains that he was the strongest on intervention of all Western leaders, and his hands were tied by the fact that a combination of Miliband's self-interested politicking and Cameron's cold feet withdrew the US's closest ally from the fray.
    On what basis were his hands tied? The UK's force projection capabilities are pathetic. It's not as if he needed us either politically or militarily.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,147
    ISIS make AL Qaeda look like Lib Dems on a sunday afternoon.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Speedy said:


    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 24m
    It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?

    Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/

    These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
    So where did ISIS get all their kit?
    A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
    Cogh america Cough

    America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?
    America gave tons of money, weapons and supplies to the syrian rebels despite the warnings that it will lead to terrorists getting the hands on them like Afghanistan in the 1980's, well guess what? Most of those ended in the hands of ISIS creating a sequel to the 1980's Afghanistan fiasco.
    I'm sure you'll be able to back up your claim that most of the weapons provided to the FSA ended up in the hands of ISIS. Oh wait, it's just your raw anti-American prejudice. Your assessment of Afghanistan is also a massive oversimplification, but given it's difficult to keep you straight on the facts of Syria, I won't open up another argument front.
    http://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/what-did-islamic-front-plunder-fsa-weapons-depot
    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/12/islamic_front_brigad.php
    "Ahrar al Sham also was involved in the recent takeover of a large cache of weapons and munitions owned by the Free Syrian Army."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/14/assad-use-chemical-weapons-confirmed-us-officials-say/

    "As the White House appeared poised to send military aid to Syrian rebels, new concerns arose that the weapons will inevitably fall into the hands of terrorist groups who count themselves among hundreds of factions that form the rag-tag Free Syrian Army."
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    RobD said:

    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    Nadal loses his first match at the Halle grass court tournament to Dustin Brown of Germany 6:4 6:1

    It won't be long before Rafa is playing for Scotland, Jack.
    "the restoration of the Jacobite branch"
    Does this involve a surgical procedure, Rob?

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,209
    AveryLP said:

    RobD said:

    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    Nadal loses his first match at the Halle grass court tournament to Dustin Brown of Germany 6:4 6:1

    It won't be long before Rafa is playing for Scotland, Jack.
    "the restoration of the Jacobite branch"
    Does this involve a surgical procedure, Rob?

    All I know is JackW may require medical attention if it were to pass.
This discussion has been closed.