I've never quite understood why the SNP never had a backup plan for the currency in the event that using the pound wasn't going to be possible.
It looked like a massive oversight years ago, how did Salmond manage to get caught out so badly when he's had all this time to prepare an answer?
Because until 2008, the Euro was going to be their currency. Remember, "Independence in Europe". It was a reassuring slogan saying we will be independent but, don't worry, we will still be part of Europe.
In Scotland, there isn't that broadly semi racist Euro phobia that we have in parts of England[ London excluded ]
What a stupid and ignorant comment. Being opposed to membership of a single currency - particularly one that has brought so much grief to many of its members - is in now way racist, semi or otherwise. The fact that those of us who always opposed the Euro project have been proved right really must stick in your craw.
Some of us question the long term viability of Europe as a political entity if it wishes to achieve harmonisation and ever closer union.
The fact that it is extremely hard to find a long term success of disparate nations fused into a cohesive single unit should tell us something about the history of 'super' nation building using individual nations as the building blocks.
About the best example may well be UK, which some want to break up.
Someone forgot to tell that to the Ukranians ! Also, in their darkest days, there was no clamour in Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, or, indeed, Ireland to come out of the Euro.
Sterling today has a favourable interest rate differential to the Euro. It will not always be the same. If you look at the last 35 years, the pound has had more "crashes" than most currencies.
What a simplistic view. It has nothing to do with 'crashes' nor with exchange rates and currecny values. It has everything to do with trying to shoe horn extremely divergent economies into a single economic model and the consequences of that for the economies of the countries and the living standards of their populations.
Member ship of the Euro has been a disaster for many southern European countries (and it is not over yet by any means) and those who persist in defending the project are quite simply fools.
DavidL, congrats to your daughter. I read Law at Durham, albeit some 30-odd years ago. Durham itself is a beautiful place to be for 3 years - you can walk everywhere and although it is hardly Rio in festival week (the biggest society in my time was the Christian Union...) you can be in Newcastle in a jiffy, with all the dubious pleasures of its nightlife. It is also a very college-based society - there are quite limited options for accommodation outside. It is certainly a good place to knuckle down and get a degree that will serve her well through her career. And contrary to SeanT, it is much easier to get to know a broad range of contacts through life because you are all together all the time, rather than spending time apart crossing London to your digs.
If I had my time again though, I probably wouldn't have done a Law degree. Spend three years doing something less enervating than discussing making bridges that were never designed to meet in the middle. Do astronomy or archaeology or something else beginning with A. Then spend a year doing the law catch-up - if that is really what she still wants.
MM
That's a very interesting viewpoint about specialising too early.
I would loved to have done history (still my best hobby and am castle-mad to the annoyance of my family) but ended up doing Chemical Engineering as I was very good at Chemistry. Business at Harvard sort of rounded me off, but whilst still getting excited about new technology, my first love will always be history and its application to today and tomorrow and perhaps makes me a more-rounded person.
That’s the problem with any vocational degree. Interest in the early years outside ones own field is often regarded as eccentric!
So it PB composed mostly of eccentrics with weird view-points?
I've never quite understood why the SNP never had a backup plan for the currency in the event that using the pound wasn't going to be possible.
It looked like a massive oversight years ago, how did Salmond manage to get caught out so badly when he's had all this time to prepare an answer?
Because until 2008, the Euro was going to be their currency. Remember, "Independence in Europe". It was a reassuring slogan saying we will be independent but, don't worry, we will still be part of Europe.
In Scotland, there isn't that broadly semi racist Euro phobia that we have in parts of England[ London excluded ]
What a stupid and ignorant comment. Being opposed to membership of a single currency - particularly one that has brought so much grief to many of its members - is in now way racist, semi or otherwise. The fact that those of us who always opposed the Euro project have been proved right really must stick in your craw.
Quite right, Richard. But the very fact that someone might think it racist I think is an indicator of how the Euro went wrong - or, at least, how people saw different visions for it. "Racist" points to a unifying political project where inclusivity/exclusivity was a factor rather than (merely) a tool for economic co-operation and growth.
Unfortunately I think you read too much into Surbiton's comments. He is simply falling back on the age old position of all Europhiles when they have lost every other argument which is to play the racism card. There is no more to it than that.
I've never quite understood why the SNP never had a backup plan for the currency in the event that using the pound wasn't going to be possible.
It looked like a massive oversight years ago, how did Salmond manage to get caught out so badly when he's had all this time to prepare an answer?
Erm...because the only options then are: 1. 'Dollarisation' a la Panama - just use Sterling anyway. But no lender of last resort, no backstop for Scottish banking system and the entire financial services industry heads south. Huge problem also of physical availability of notes and coins. Local bank runs out of notes on a Tuesday afternoon = bank run. Very, very unstable arrangement unless the 'cuckoo' user is WAY smaller than the parent provider (as is the case of Panama/USA). 2. The Euro - good luck with that! 3. The Groat. Actually the only real option for a truly 'indpendent' Scotland. But this implies a balanced budget and the ability to borrow in the bond markets. Good luck with that in the big deficit, statist lefty Jockutopia. 4. All the above mean that Scotland's extant national debt would be in a foreign currency (the Pound). Repaying their share in Sterling could become unserviceable quickly if exchange rates move.
Which adds up to a fact that has been obvious to all but Salmond for a LONG time. Scotland could manage fine as a truly independent nation - but only with its own currency/central bank/regulator and a debt/deficit trajectory that would not take it rapidly to Argentinian territory. So lefty welfare statism is not on the cards. The Scotland of Adam Smith would be a fine country. But that mindset seems part of Scotland's heritage not its current reality.
The lefty welfare system works fine for the Scandinavians - the happiest people on Earth ! High taxation, high spending. That's what is needed, everywhere.
Scandinaviams also enjoy the highest living standards, the highest educational and the highest health standards.
Not too bad for being lefty. Even the Swedish Conservatives will be lefty here in the UK.
DavidL, congrats to your daughter. I read Law at Durham, albeit some 30-odd years ago. Durham itself is a beautiful place to be for 3 years - you can walk everywhere and although it is hardly Rio in festival week (the biggest society in my time was the Christian Union...) you can be in Newcastle in a jiffy, with all the dubious pleasures of its nightlife. It is also a very college-based society - there are quite limited options for accommodation outside. It is certainly a good place to knuckle down and get a degree that will serve her well through her career. And contrary to SeanT, it is much easier to get to know a broad range of contacts through life because you are all together all the time, rather than spending time apart crossing London to your digs.
If I had my time again though, I probably wouldn't have done a Law degree. Spend three years doing something less enervating than discussing making bridges that were never designed to meet in the middle. Do astronomy or archaeology or something else beginning with A. Then spend a year doing the law catch-up - if that is really what she still wants.
Depends where you go in London. UCL has great accommodation in central London (as it is the oldest uni), so most students spend 1st year in halls or college digs, and often the 3rd year as well. My first year I lived in Fitzrovia, and much of my last year on Gower Street (only millionaires could normally do this).
It also has a very vibrant Union where everyone goes. So you get the advantages of a campus life AND the benefiits of being right in the middle of London. LSE isn't quite as good as this but it is still very lively.
Crappier universities in the capital are much more like your description. But David's daughter sounds like she's a bright spark who would be aiming for the top.
I wholly agree with your description about a law degree. Total waste of time to do it as a degree. Much better to do something fun and pointless (I did Philosophy - it was perfect); then switch to Law after you graduate.
When we were students we got dole money and housing benefit, as well as grants and free tuition. London was more of a possibility back then. It's a truly great city, but very expensive - especially for students. And well paid jobs in law are scarcer than they have ever been before.
Unless DavidL is subsidising, his daughter will need to get herself a job to get through three years in London. And she should definitely not do law. If you are going to spend the money do something that you will truly enjoy.
DavidL, congrats to your daughter. I read Law at Durham, albeit some 30-odd years ago. Durham itself is a beautiful place to be for 3 years - you can walk everywhere and although it is hardly Rio in festival week (the biggest society in my time was the Christian Union...) you can be in Newcastle in a jiffy, with all the dubious pleasures of its nightlife. It is also a very college-based society - there are quite limited options for accommodation outside. It is certainly a good place to knuckle down and get a degree that will serve her well through her career. And contrary to SeanT, it is much easier to get to know a broad range of contacts through life because you are all together all the time, rather than spending time apart crossing London to your digs.
If I had my time again though, I probably wouldn't have done a Law degree. Spend three years doing something less enervating than discussing making bridges that were never designed to meet in the middle. Do astronomy or archaeology or something else beginning with A. Then spend a year doing the law catch-up - if that is really what she still wants.
Many thanks for that and all the other comments. I tend to agree. I was, Kinnock like, the first member of my family to go to University in a 1,000 generations (probably ever actually). I had no idea what to expect but I had vague aspirations of being able to answer the questions on University Challenge by the end of it. I thought I was going to get an education.
Instead I had 4 years of people talking to me about law which is a deathly dull subject. I got to do an extra subject in economics which was great fun and I quite liked some of the philosophy/sociological stuff around the edges but it was a serious disappointment.
I bitterly regretted not doing something I actually cared about or was interested in. Law has given me a safe and solid career but it is a waste of a University life. I tend to call it a "techie subject" where regurgitation of facts is more important than actually thinking.
I have discussed this with my daughter whose first love is English. She is thinking about it.
Excluding 'Don't Knows' is the polling consensus not around 60 NO / 40 YES at the moment? Unless this turns into the polling screw up of all time then we're heading for a result that should make the question go away for a long time.
Scotland is going to move instead onto a debate about the nature and terms of Devomax - and, I hope, so is England. This futile Sindy debate has been killed but so has the continued political acceptability of the West Lothian Question. A more federal UK is coming.
Scotland will get Devomax and that will mean a new settlement for England too. Because Devomax affects al other parts of the UK it could never have been part of this referendum as al parts of the UK will have to agree to it.
For DavidL from previous thread: Congratulations to your daughter!
Durham is very good for law so would recommend that. I am a bit biased as my husband taught there and I have hired lawyers who studied there but it has a good recommendation. Durham and surrounding countryside is also a lovely place to live.
I am less impressed with the LSE.
Whatever your daughter chooses I hope she enjoys her time at university. My daughter is starting this autumn and - and I'm sure some on this thread will appreciate this - she will be studying Classical Civilization.
We're now waiting for GCSE results........fingers crossed.
Now that is a proper University subject. Best of luck to her and thanks for the info.
DavidL, congrats to your daughter. I read Law at Durham, albeit some 30-odd years ago. Durham itself is a beautiful place to be for 3 years - you can walk everywhere and although it is hardly Rio in festival week (the biggest society in my time was the Christian Union...) you can be in Newcastle in a jiffy, with all the dubious pleasures of its nightlife. It is also a very college-based society - there are quite limited options for accommodation outside. It is certainly a good place to knuckle down and get a degree that will serve her well through her career. And contrary to SeanT, it is much easier to get to know a broad range of contacts through life because you are all together all the time, rather than spending time apart crossing London to your digs.
If I had my time again though, I probably wouldn't have done a Law degree. Spend three years doing something less enervating than discussing making bridges that were never designed to meet in the middle. Do astronomy or archaeology or something else beginning with A. Then spend a year doing the law catch-up - if that is really what she still wants.
MM
That's a very interesting viewpoint about specialising too early.
I would loved to have done history (still my best hobby and am castle-mad to the annoyance of my family) but ended up doing Chemical Engineering as I was very good at Chemistry. Business at Harvard sort of rounded me off, but whilst still getting excited about new technology, my first love will always be history and its application to today and tomorrow and perhaps makes me a more-rounded person.
If one is going to a proper university, as opposed to a jumped up polytechnic, then I don't think it matters what one reads as the real benefit is in training the mind to research, reason, and explain. Study of skills and knowledge needed for a career can come later. So I'd say the first degree should be in a subject that one loves. The chance to immerse oneself for three years in a passionate interest is a luxury and a pleasure that may not come again in one's life.
Excluding 'Don't Knows' is the polling consensus not around 60 NO / 40 YES at the moment? Unless this turns into the polling screw up of all time then we're heading for a result that should make the question go away for a long time.
Scotland is going to move instead onto a debate about the nature and terms of Devomax - and, I hope, so is England. This futile Sindy debate has been killed but so has the continued political acceptability of the West Lothian Question. A more federal UK is coming.
Scotland will get Devomax and that will mean a new settlement for England too. Because Devomax affects al other parts of the UK it could never have been part of this referendum as al parts of the UK will have to agree to it.
You honestly think Labour would go for that with all the problems it would give them?
An MSP recounts how he was eating in the restaurant of the Scottish Parliament recently when Alex Salmond came in. Upon sitting down, the First Minister regally held out his hands. An accompanying flunkey whipped out some hand sanitiser and reverently smeared it on to the sacred mitts of power.
A small thing, perhaps, but small things can contain big truths. The man who no longer believes he should have to apply his own soap is the same man who swaggered into last Tuesday’s debate with Alistair Darling expecting to walk it and who staggered out two hours later having been roundly thrashed. I don’t think the two events are entirely unconnected. A question: Is King Eck going a bit Louis XIV?
DavidL, congrats to your daughter. I read Law at Durham, albeit some 30-odd years ago. Durham itself is a beautiful place to be for 3 years - you can walk everywhere and although it is hardly Rio in festival week (the biggest society in my time was the Christian Union...) you can be in Newcastle in a jiffy, with all the dubious pleasures of its nightlife. It is also a very college-based society - there are quite limited options for accommodation outside. It is certainly a good place to knuckle down and get a degree that will serve her well through her career. And contrary to SeanT, it is much easier to get to know a broad range of contacts through life because you are all together all the time, rather than spending time apart crossing London to your digs.
If I had my time again though, I probably wouldn't have done a Law degree. Spend three years doing something less enervating than discussing making bridges that were never designed to meet in the middle. Do astronomy or archaeology or something else beginning with A. Then spend a year doing the law catch-up - if that is really what she still wants.
MM
That's a very interesting viewpoint about specialising too early.
I would loved to have done history (still my best hobby and am castle-mad to the annoyance of my family) but ended up doing Chemical Engineering as I was very good at Chemistry. Business at Harvard sort of rounded me off, but whilst still getting excited about new technology, my first love will always be history and its application to today and tomorrow and perhaps makes me a more-rounded person.
That’s the problem with any vocational degree. Interest in the early years outside ones own field is often regarded as eccentric!
So it PB composed mostly of eccentrics with weird view-points?
I didn’t get the impression that most of us, if graduates, had read vocational subjects.
There are certainly some, naming no names, who might be described as eccentric and one or two, again without naming anyone, who seem to merit the description “weird”!
def out of London for Uni. Or, in weak form, you should be at Uni which is a significant distance away from home.
Oxbridge of course is Oxbridge, then there are great unis, St. Andrews', Durham, Exeter, Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Edinburgh, etc, etc, etc.
If you are going to London then you are going to LSE or Imperial because they are LSE & Imperial and you are a very bright button so fair enough.
But to go to a Uni in London otherwise means you missing out on the dislocation and insulation of a place of learning for the sake of learning. There is no need to get a headstart on going out to London pubs/clubs, there's plenty of time for that.
Meanwhile, if you are "away" at Uni then you explore the town, of course you do, but your head is at an educational adventure rather than global city's nightlife.
(Edit: and @DavidL adding congrats to your daughter)
DavidL, congrats to your daughter. I read Law at Durham, albeit some 30-odd years ago. Durham itself is a beautiful place to be for 3 years - you can walk everywhere and although it is hardly Rio in festival week (the biggest society in my time was the Christian Union...) you can be in Newcastle in a jiffy, with all the dubious pleasures of its nightlife. It is also a very college-based society - there are quite limited options for accommodation outside. It is certainly a good place to knuckle down and get a degree that will serve her well through her career. And contrary to SeanT, it is much easier to get to know a broad range of contacts through life because you are all together all the time, rather than spending time apart crossing London to your digs.
If I had my time again though, I probably wouldn't have done a Law degree. Spend three years doing something less enervating than discussing making bridges that were never designed to meet in the middle. Do astronomy or archaeology or something else beginning with A. Then spend a year doing the law catch-up - if that is really what she still wants.
MM
That's a very interesting viewpoint about specialising too early.
I would loved to have done history (still my best hobby and am castle-mad to the annoyance of my family) but ended up doing Chemical Engineering as I was very good at Chemistry. Business at Harvard sort of rounded me off, but whilst still getting excited about new technology, my first love will always be history and its application to today and tomorrow and perhaps makes me a more-rounded person.
If one is going to a proper university, as opposed to a jumped up polytechnic, then I don't think it matters what one reads as the real benefit is in training the mind to research, reason, and explain. Study of skills and knowledge needed for a career can come later. So I'd say the first degree should be in a subject that one loves. The chance to immerse oneself for three years in a passionate interest is a luxury and a pleasure that may not come again in one's life.
That is exactly how I feel. Before law got all pretentious and "academic" it was a second degree after a proper degree in something interesting. The costs are considerable but I still think that is the way to go.
DavidL, congrats to your daughter. I read Law at Durham, albeit some 30-odd years ago. Durham itself is a beautiful place to be for 3 years - you can walk everywhere and although it is hardly Rio in festival week (the biggest society in my time was the Christian Union...) you can be in Newcastle in a jiffy, with all the dubious pleasures of its nightlife. It is also a very college-based society - there are quite limited options for accommodation outside. skip
If I had my time again though, I probably wouldn't have done a Law degree. Spend three years doing something less enervating than discussing making bridges that were never designed to meet in the middle. Do astronomy or archaeology or something else beginning with A. Then spend a year doing the law catch-up - if that is really what she still wants.
Depends where you go in London. UCL has great accommodation in central London (as it is the oldest uni), so most students spend 1st year in halls or college digs, and often the 3rd year as well. My first year I lived in Fitzrovia, and much of my last year on Gower Street (only millionaires could normally do this).
It also has a very vibrant Union where everyone goes. So you get the advantages of a campus life AND the benefiits of being right in the middle of London. LSE isn't quite as good as this but it is still very lively.
Crappier universities in the capital are much more like your description. But David's daughter sounds like she's a bright spark who would be aiming for the top.
I wholly agree with your description about a law degree. Total waste of time to do it as a degree. Much better to do something fun and pointless (I did Philosophy - it was perfect); then switch to Law after you graduate.
When we were students we got dole money and housing benefit, as well as grants and free tuition. London was more of a possibility back then. It's a truly great city, but very expensive - especially for students. And well paid jobs in law are scarcer than they have ever been before.
Unless DavidL is subsidising, his daughter will need to get herself a job to get through three years in London. And she should definitely not do law. If you are going to spend the money do something that you will truly enjoy.
SO
You were in clover.
I did get free tuition, but even though I had both scholarships and grants - all were means tested - which meant I was at the mercy of my father's generosity, whose requirement was to inspect my bank statement every term and for me to justify all expenditure before giving me my next term's expenditure.
He did not favour any sort of alcohol consumption and neither fast nor slow women.
Excluding 'Don't Knows' is the polling consensus not around 60 NO / 40 YES at the moment? Unless this turns into the polling screw up of all time then we're heading for a result that should make the question go away for a long time.
Scotland is going to move instead onto a debate about the nature and terms of Devomax - and, I hope, so is England. This futile Sindy debate has been killed but so has the continued political acceptability of the West Lothian Question. A more federal UK is coming.
Scotland will get Devomax and that will mean a new settlement for England too. Because Devomax affects al other parts of the UK it could never have been part of this referendum as al parts of the UK will have to agree to it.
You honestly think Labour would go for that with all the problems it would give them?
I've never quite understood why the SNP never had a backup plan for the currency in the event that using the pound wasn't going to be possible.
It looked like a massive oversight years ago, how did Salmond manage to get caught out so badly when he's had all this time to prepare an answer?
Erm...because the only options then are: 1. 'Dollarisation' a la Panama - just use Sterling anyway. But no lender of last resort, no backstop for Scottish banking system and the entire financial services industry heads south. Huge problem also of physical availability of notes and coins. Local bank runs out of notes on a Tuesday afternoon = bank run. Very, very unstable arrangement unless the 'cuckoo' user is WAY smaller than the parent provider (as is the case of Panama/USA). 2. The Euro - good luck with that! 3. The Groat. Actually the only real option for a truly 'indpendent' Scotland. But this implies a balanced budget and the ability to borrow in the bond markets. Good luck with that in the big deficit, statist lefty Jockutopia. 4. All the above mean that Scotland's extant national debt would be in a foreign currency (the Pound). Repaying their share in Sterling could become unserviceable quickly if exchange rates move.
Which adds up to a fact that has been obvious to all but Salmond for a LONG time. Scotland could manage fine as a truly independent nation - but only with its own currency/central bank/regulator and a debt/deficit trajectory that would not take it rapidly to Argentinian territory. So lefty welfare statism is not on the cards. The Scotland of Adam Smith would be a fine country. But that mindset seems part of Scotland's heritage not its current reality.
The lefty welfare system works fine for the Scandinavians - the happiest people on Earth ! High taxation, high spending. That's what is needed, everywhere.
Scandinaviams also enjoy the highest living standards, the highest educational and the highest health standards.
Not too bad for being lefty. Even the Swedish Conservatives will be lefty here in the UK.
Um No. Norway only manages to maintain its livings standards by being one of the richest countries in the world due to its oil wealth. It also has one of the highest percentages of its citizens choosing to live overseas and one of the commonest reasons given for that is its high tax policies. Sweden meanwhile is steadily having to abandon its crazy socialist policies as it has been unable to afford them.
I am afraid the lefty dream of high tax high spend Scandinavia is simply a myth based on not understanding the underlying economic facts.
If I had my time again though, I probably wouldn't have done a Law degree. Spend three years doing something less enervating than discussing making bridges that were never designed to meet in the middle. Do astronomy or archaeology or something else beginning with A. Then spend a year doing the law catch-up - if that is really what she still wants.
Depends where you go in London. UCL has great accommodation in central London (as it is the oldest uni), so most students spend 1st year in halls or college digs, and often the 3rd year as well. My first year I lived in Fitzrovia, and much of my last year on Gower Street (only millionaires could normally do this).
It also has a very vibrant Union where everyone goes. So you get the advantages of a campus life AND the benefiits of being right in the middle of London. LSE isn't quite as good as this but it is still very lively.
Crappier universities in the capital are much more like your description. But David's daughter sounds like she's a bright spark who would be aiming for the top.
I wholly agree with your description about a law degree. Total waste of time to do it as a degree. Much better to do something fun and pointless (I did Philosophy - it was perfect); then switch to Law after you graduate.
When we were students we got dole money and housing benefit, as well as grants and free tuition. London was more of a possibility back then. It's a truly great city, but very expensive - especially for students. And well paid jobs in law are scarcer than they have ever been before.
Unless DavidL is subsidising, his daughter will need to get herself a job to get through three years in London. And she should definitely not do law. If you are going to spend the money do something that you will truly enjoy.
Oh I will be subsidising don't worry about that! But she will still need a job. In fairness she has one at the moment selling conservatories and double glazing and does really well at it. She has no fear of work.
I also got quite a generous grant. I worked every summer at University and occasionally at Christmas and Easter as well but not during term time and I left University with no debt at all. I am really concerned about what we are doing to our youth today and what the long term implications of student debt are going to be (a weaker housing market, a greater tendency to work abroad, people more resistant to a further increase in what is already a high marginal rate of tax being obvious examples).
DavidL, I agree about the worries over long-term student debt. I was in a similar position to Mr F, although my father did not have views about what I should spend my money on. My children who went to Uni both went after working for three or four years so were treated as adults and had grants, although the elder managed a great deal better on his, and needed far less support than the younger, for whom ready cash burned a hole in his pocket. Like you I started my working life with no debt, although until I actually got paid I had no money either!
My two graduate grandchildren though have massive amounts of debt and I’m not entirely sure how they are going to be able to fund house purchase. Not a problem for either at the moment, but grandson now has a very steady girl-friend and presumably before long they’ll want a place of their own.
def out of London for Uni. Or, in weak form, you should be at Uni which is a significant distance away from home.
Oxbridge of course is Oxbridge, then there are great unis, St. Andrews', Durham, Exeter, Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Edinburgh, etc, etc, etc.
If you are going to London then you are going to LSE or Imperial because they are LSE & Imperial and you are a very bright button so fair enough.
But to go to a Uni in London otherwise means you missing out on the dislocation and insulation of a place of learning for the sake of learning. There is no need to get a headstart on going out to London pubs/clubs, there's plenty of time for that.
Meanwhile, if you are "away" at Uni then you explore the town, of course you do, but your head is at an educational adventure rather than global city's nightlife.
(Edit: and @DavidL adding congrats to your daughter)
UCL is older and greater than either LSE or Imperial. The latter is particularly dull (albeit prestigious) as it is full of geeks doing civil engineering. Might be fun to be a girl surrounded by boys, tho, I suppose. But when I was at UCL all the Imperial bods came over to our Union to have fun.
UCL:
"Described by The Sunday Times as 'an intellectual powerhouse with a world-class reputation', UCL is consistently ranked as one of the top three multifaculty universities in the UK and features in the top 5 universities worldwide. The university is located on a compact site in the heart of London and is surrounded by the greatest concentration of libraries, museums, archives and professional bodies in Europe. "
Meanwhile the Ditherer of the Free World has dropped two small bombs and a leaflet on a couple of ISIS trucks, possibly blowing up a tyre.
Bomb these bastards to hell!
I am starting to loathe Obama. There's prudent caution, and then there's rank, swithering cowardice.
*) Much of Syria under ISIL control. *) Much of Iraq invaded and threatened by ISIL. *) Deaths and atrocities in both countries. *) Kurdish areas invaded and threatened. *) Brits going over to fight with ISIL. *) The use of chemical weapons unpunished. *) + many more.
Does anyone really think the situation would be worse today if we had performed the planned operations in Syria last year? If so, how?
The swithering cowardice occurred last year, and was much closer to home than America ...
Meanwhile the Ditherer of the Free World has dropped two small bombs and a leaflet on a couple of ISIS trucks, possibly blowing up a tyre.
Bomb these bastards to hell!
I am starting to loathe Obama. There's prudent caution, and then there's rank, swithering cowardice.
At least Obama is doing something, our PM is refusing calls to recall Parliament and debate the situation in Iraq and possible intervention. Weak.
You know exactly why not: Clegg/Miliband will jump on a "not in my name" bandwagon and the media will portray Cameron as gung-ho, while the majority in the country will shake their heads and wag their fingers disapprovingly.
That's a remarkably efficient use of a single infantry unit. I guess it shows that religious zealotry can be advantageous in warfare, when people are not only prepared to die but will actively seek to die to assist their army.
Obama is right that nothing much can be done in Iraq until al Maliki is replaced. He is at least partly responsible for what has happened and needs to go urgently. His tenure has been an unmitigated catastrophe.
The Iraqis have to form some sort of government of national unity. They have to at least show they are doing something for themselves for any American efforts to come to anything.
Meanwhile the Ditherer of the Free World has dropped two small bombs and a leaflet on a couple of ISIS trucks, possibly blowing up a tyre.
Bomb these bastards to hell!
I am starting to loathe Obama. There's prudent caution, and then there's rank, swithering cowardice.
*) Much of Syria under ISIL control. *) Much of Iraq invaded and threatened by ISIL. *) Deaths and atrocities in both countries. *) Kurdish areas invaded and threatened. *) Brits going over to fight with ISIL. *) The use of chemical weapons unpunished. *) + many more.
Does anyone really think the situation would be worse today if we had performed the planned operations in Syria last year? If so, how?
The swithering cowardice occurred last year, and was much closer to home than America ...
An idiotic conflation of arguments given that the people we would have been supporting last year (had people like you got their way and we had attacked the Assad regime in Syria) were ISIS themselves or their allies. You really think it would have made things better for us to take sides and allow ISIS even more power than they have now?
Meanwhile the Ditherer of the Free World has dropped two small bombs and a leaflet on a couple of ISIS trucks, possibly blowing up a tyre.
Bomb these bastards to hell!
I am starting to loathe Obama. There's prudent caution, and then there's rank, swithering cowardice.
*) Much of Syria under ISIL control. *) Much of Iraq invaded and threatened by ISIL. *) Deaths and atrocities in both countries. *) Kurdish areas invaded and threatened. *) Brits going over to fight with ISIL. *) The use of chemical weapons unpunished. *) + many more.
Does anyone really think the situation would be worse today if we had performed the planned operations in Syria last year? If so, how?
The swithering cowardice occurred last year, and was much closer to home than America ...
We can discuss who should have done what, when, why or how a year ago, or ten years ago, when we reach the sunlit uplands of peace.
The fact is RIGHT NOW we are facing an actual genocide, and an evil equivalent to the Nazis is rapidly expanding in the most volatile region on earth - and Obama is golfing in Martha's Vineyard.
It don't look good, do it?
And you want to arm the Kurds, who had a very serious and nasty terrorist group engaged in a war that has killed tens of thousands until 2011 (when they got preoccupied with fighting in Syria).
There's no right answer here; but arming the Kurds could be a long-term disaster. We need Turkey to continue excellently helping refugees (at no small cost to themselves), and not get them dragged further in to this war.
The time to act was last year (if not earlier). The fact we did not is to our shame.
Meanwhile the Ditherer of the Free World has dropped two small bombs and a leaflet on a couple of ISIS trucks, possibly blowing up a tyre.
Bomb these bastards to hell!
I am starting to loathe Obama. There's prudent caution, and then there's rank, swithering cowardice.
*) Much of Syria under ISIL control. *) Much of Iraq invaded and threatened by ISIL. *) Deaths and atrocities in both countries. *) Kurdish areas invaded and threatened. *) Brits going over to fight with ISIL. *) The use of chemical weapons unpunished. *) + many more.
Does anyone really think the situation would be worse today if we had performed the planned operations in Syria last year? If so, how?
The swithering cowardice occurred last year, and was much closer to home than America ...
We can discuss who should have done what, when, why or how a year ago, or ten years ago, when we reach the sunlit uplands of peace.
The fact is RIGHT NOW we are facing an actual genocide, and an evil equivalent to the Nazis is rapidly expanding in the most volatile region on earth - and Obama is golfing in Martha's Vineyard.
It don't look good, do it?
And you want to arm the Kurds, who had a very serious and nasty terrorist group engaged in a war that has killed tens of thousands until 2011 (when they got preoccupied with fighting in Syria).
There's no right answer here; but arming the Kurds could be a long-term disaster. We need Turkey to continue excellently helping refugees (at no small cost to themselves), and not get them dragged further in to this war.
The time to act was last year (if not earlier). The fact we did not is to our shame.
The shame is what a conservative government has done to our armed forces. Like many other armchair generals, you are asking for our young people to risk their lives when they are far short of being properly supported, financed and looked after when they wind up blown to bits.
This at a time when the vast majority of their compatriots are p*ssing it up against the walls at really nice colleges before going on to really nice lives
Meanwhile the Ditherer of the Free World has dropped two small bombs and a leaflet on a couple of ISIS trucks, possibly blowing up a tyre.
Bomb these bastards to hell!
I am starting to loathe Obama. There's prudent caution, and then there's rank, swithering cowardice.
*) Much of Syria under ISIL control. *) Much of Iraq invaded and threatened by ISIL. *) Deaths and atrocities in both countries. *) Kurdish areas invaded and threatened. *) Brits going over to fight with ISIL. *) The use of chemical weapons unpunished. *) + many more.
Does anyone really think the situation would be worse today if we had performed the planned operations in Syria last year? If so, how?
The swithering cowardice occurred last year, and was much closer to home than America ...
An idiotic conflation of arguments given that the people we would have been supporting last year (had people like you got their way and we had attacked the Assad regime in Syria) were ISIS themselves or their allies. You really think it would have made things better for us to take sides and allow ISIS even more power than they have now?
The fact is, ISIL got plenty of weapons when they went into Iraq earlier this year. Their problem appears to be manpower and logistics, rather than weaponry. If we had helped the moderate FSA (or even just punished Assad), then Assad might have been defeated. At worst, we would have a situation no worse then we have at the moment. At best, we might have had a Syrian government we could back to the hilt.
And letting the use of chemical weapons go unpunished -again - is hideous. Apologists for Assad should be ashamed of themselves.
The blood from these latest deaths is on their hands.
The lefty welfare system works fine for the Scandinavians - the happiest people on Earth ! High taxation, high spending. That's what is needed, everywhere.
Scandinaviams also enjoy the highest living standards, the highest educational and the highest health standards.
Not too bad for being lefty. Even the Swedish Conservatives will be lefty here in the UK.
The biggest issue with this will be getting the rich to pay their increased taxes. What is to stop them moving to Carlisle or Berwick and commuting to the Central Belt?
If you watch Alex Salmond's performances at First Ministers questions on a regular basis you might not have been so surprised at Alex Salmond's poor performance in the Indy debate last week. Bottom line, neither he or the Yes campaign had an effective alternative to a currency union with the UK. And unless Ed Miliband has a credible economic alternative to current Coalition Government, he is going to struggle in any Leadership debate when it comes to this issue.
*) Much of Syria under ISIL control. *) Much of Iraq invaded and threatened by ISIL. *) Deaths and atrocities in both countries. *) Kurdish areas invaded and threatened. *) Brits going over to fight with ISIL. *) The use of chemical weapons unpunished. *) + many more.
Does anyone really think the situation would be worse today if we had performed the planned operations in Syria last year? If so, how?
The swithering cowardice occurred last year, and was much closer to home than America ...
We can discuss who should have done what, when, why or how a year ago, or ten years ago, when we reach the sunlit uplands of peace.
The fact is RIGHT NOW we are facing an actual genocide, and an evil equivalent to the Nazis is rapidly expanding in the most volatile region on earth - and Obama is golfing in Martha's Vineyard.
It don't look good, do it?
And you want to arm the Kurds, who had a very serious and nasty terrorist group engaged in a war that has killed tens of thousands until 2011 (when they got preoccupied with fighting in Syria).
There's no right answer here; but arming the Kurds could be a long-term disaster. We need Turkey to continue excellently helping refugees (at no small cost to themselves), and not get them dragged further in to this war.
The time to act was last year (if not earlier). The fact we did not is to our shame.
The shame is what a conservative government has done to our armed forces. Like many other armchair generals, you are asking for our young people to risk their lives when they are far short of being properly supported, financed and looked after when they wind up blown to bits.
This at a time when the vast majority of their compatriots are p*ssing it up against the walls at really nice colleges before going on to really nice lives
(as discussed below).
Get real.
No, I am not. Leaving aside the military funding debate, AFAICR the vote last year did not call for boots on the ground.
Anyone who has read PB in the past knows I want a well-funded fit-for-purpose armed forces. Like most people on PB, I've got no idea a) exactly what that means, and b) how it can be funded.
I maintain my position that if we had acted last year - or earlier - the situation in Iraq and Syria today would be much better. It's hard to see how it could be worse.
Meanwhile the Ditherer of the Free World has dropped two small bombs and a leaflet on a couple of ISIS trucks, possibly blowing up a tyre.
Bomb these bastards to hell!
I am starting to loathe Obama. There's prudent caution, and then there's rank, swithering cowardice.
*) Much of Syria under ISIL control. *) Much of Iraq invaded and threatened by ISIL. *) Deaths and atrocities in both countries. *) Kurdish areas invaded and threatened. *) Brits going over to fight with ISIL. *) The use of chemical weapons unpunished. *) + many more.
Does anyone really think the situation would be worse today if we had performed the planned operations in Syria last year? If so, how?
The swithering cowardice occurred last year, and was much closer to home than America ...
We can discuss who should have done what, when, why or how a year ago, or ten years ago, when we reach the sunlit uplands of peace.
The fact is RIGHT NOW we are facing an actual genocide, and an evil equivalent to the Nazis is rapidly expanding in the most volatile region on earth - and Obama is golfing in Martha's Vineyard.
It don't look good, do it?
And you want to arm the Kurds, who had a very serious and nasty terrorist group engaged in a war that has killed tens of thousands until 2011 (when they got preoccupied with fighting in Syria).
There's no right answer here; but arming the Kurds could be a long-term disaster. We need Turkey to continue excellently helping refugees (at no small cost to themselves), and not get them dragged further in to this war.
The time to act was last year (if not earlier). The fact we did not is to our shame.
ISIS needs to be stopped in all honesty, Assad is a ghastly figure who has most likely used chemical weapons against his own population and we may indeed be helping/supporting terrorist organisations by fighting ISIS right now but quite honestly the Caliphate that is being established right now is the most ghastly thing I've ever seen in my life.
There are alot of Dictatorships, despots and terrorists around but this lot are the worst - heck I'd probably help Mugabe, Kim Jong Un to defeat Caliph Ibrahim. Remember in World War 2 we had to get the awful Joseph Stalin onside, we are where we are - sometimes Realpolitik demands we deal with some nasty people.
def out of London for Uni. Or, in weak form, you should be at Uni which is a significant distance away from home.
Oxbridge of course is Oxbridge, then there are great unis, St. Andrews', Durham, Exeter, Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Edinburgh, etc, etc, etc.
If you are going to London then you are going to LSE or Imperial because they are LSE & Imperial and you are a very bright button so fair enough.
But to go to a Uni in London otherwise means you missing out on the dislocation and insulation of a place of learning for the sake of learning. There is no need to get a headstart on going out to London pubs/clubs, there's plenty of time for that.
Meanwhile, if you are "away" at Uni then you explore the town, of course you do, but your head is at an educational adventure rather than global city's nightlife.
(Edit: and @DavidL adding congrats to your daughter)
I don't think "Durham" can really compare. Indeed the Fenlands and Oxfordshire are a bit pathetic in comparison.
UCL produces well balanced graduates. They have chips on both shoulders that they didn't got to Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial
Also forgot to mention: UCL has the best drugs, and the hottest girls. And our founder is mummified and kept in a big glass box in the cloisters. Can any other uni beat that?
ISIS/ISIL/Jabhat al-Nusra != FSA. Punishing Assad for using chemical weapons != arming ISIS.
So no, I did not want to support ISIS. That's a shocking allegation.
(edited)
Nope its is an absolutely accurate accusation and you should be ashamed for trying to weasel out of it. You wanted us to attack Assad. That meant then and now helping ISIS/Islamic State in their war. Any attack we made on Assad was bound to improve the strategic situation for ISIS and all the other radical elements in Syria. All you would have done would be to make it easier for ISIS to carry forward their campaign into Iraq sooner than they did.
This is the very reason why the sort of intervention you wanted in Syria last year was such a fundamentally stupid idea. If you cannot control the ground war then you have no way of determining who will benefit and who will not from your actions.
The Americans at least do have people on the ground in Kurdistan and do at least seem to be coordinating properly with those resisting ISIS. You would have us chuck bombs from thousands of feet up in the air and pretend we were doing any good at all. It is moronic.
The fact is, ISIL got plenty of weapons when they went into Iraq earlier this year. Their problem appears to be manpower and logistics, rather than weaponry. If we had helped the moderate FSA (or even just punished Assad), then Assad might have been defeated. At worst, we would have a situation no worse then we have at the moment. At best, we might have had a Syrian government we could back to the hilt.
And letting the use of chemical weapons go unpunished -again - is hideous. Apologists for Assad should be ashamed of themselves.
The blood from these latest deaths is on their hands.
The FSA was and still is ready for a "walkover". They were led by expatriate Chalabi type people more interested in making a fast buck. The victor would always have been ISIL because whether you like it or not, they believe in their cause.
The West knows bugger all about the Middle East. We deposed Gaddafi, great ! Who has replaced him ? That's the trouble. We do not even know who is in charge in Libya ! What a farce !
Assad like Saddam is a brutal dictator. The next one will be the same, probably worse. But, at least, the minorities, even Jews, were safe under them whatever their rhetoric !
One thing you failed to mention was who finances the ISIL / ISIS / Islamic State. It is just bullshit hat their money comes from looting banks etc. How did they form an army to do that in the first place.
Look no further than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE. Our "friends". WE can have sanctions against Putin's cronies but somehow we miss out on these financiers.
And what about our intelligence ? How did ISIL suddenly form an army which has taken over a third of Iraq ?
Less said the better about the drunk and alcoholic brigade !
Meanwhile the Ditherer of the Free World has dropped two small bombs and a leaflet on a couple of ISIS trucks, possibly blowing up a tyre.
Bomb these bastards to hell!
I am starting to loathe Obama. There's prudent caution, and then there's rank, swithering cowardice.
*) Much of Syria under ISIL control. *) Much of Iraq invaded and threatened by ISIL. *) Deaths and atrocities in both countries. *) Kurdish areas invaded and threatened. *) Brits going over to fight with ISIL. *) The use of chemical weapons unpunished. *) + many more.
Does anyone really think the situation would be worse today if we had performed the planned operations in Syria last year? If so, how?
The swithering cowardice occurred last year, and was much closer to home than America ...
An idiotic conflation of arguments given that the people we would have been supporting last year (had people like you got their way and we had attacked the Assad regime in Syria) were ISIS themselves or their allies. You really think it would have made things better for us to take sides and allow ISIS even more power than they have now?
The fact is, ISIL got plenty of weapons when they went into Iraq earlier this year. Their problem appears to be manpower and logistics, rather than weaponry. If we had helped the moderate FSA (or even just punished Assad), then Assad might have been defeated. At worst, we would have a situation no worse then we have at the moment. At best, we might have had a Syrian government we could back to the hilt.
And letting the use of chemical weapons go unpunished -again - is hideous. Apologists for Assad should be ashamed of themselves.
The blood from these latest deaths is on their hands.
The fact is, ISIL got plenty of weapons when they went into Iraq earlier this year. Their problem appears to be manpower and logistics, rather than weaponry. If we had helped the moderate FSA (or even just punished Assad), then Assad might have been defeated. At worst, we would have a situation no worse then we have at the moment. At best, we might have had a Syrian government we could back to the hilt.
And letting the use of chemical weapons go unpunished -again - is hideous. Apologists for Assad should be ashamed of themselves.
The blood from these latest deaths is on their hands.
The FSA was and still is ready for a "walkover". They were led by expatriate Chalabi type people more interested in making a fast buck. The victor would always have been ISIL because whether you like it or not, they believe in their cause.
The West knows bugger all about the Middle East. We deposed Gaddafi, great ! Who has replaced him ? That's the trouble. We do not even know who is in charge in Libya ! What a farce !
Assad like Saddam is a brutal dictator. The next one will be the same, probably worse. But, at least, the minorities, even Jews, were safe under them whatever their rhetoric !
One thing you failed to mention was who finances the ISIL / ISIS / Islamic State. It is just bullshit hat their money comes from looting banks etc. How did they form an army to do that in the first place.
Look no further than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE. Our "friends". WE can have sanctions against Putin's cronies but somehow we miss out on these financiers.
And what about our intelligence ? How did ISIL suddenly form an army which has taken over a third of Iraq ?
Less said the better about the drunk and alcoholic brigade !
The money trail to IS should be thoroughly investigated.
And our enemies are getting wise to it. As soon as we start the bombing campaigns they are ready with the injured children footage that has the left up in arms and inflames the situation even more. These are precisely the cards they are playing in Gaza.
And you want to arm the Kurds, who had a very serious and nasty terrorist group engaged in a war that has killed tens of thousands until 2011 (when they got preoccupied with fighting in Syria).
There's no right answer here; but arming the Kurds could be a long-term disaster. We need Turkey to continue excellently helping refugees (at no small cost to themselves), and not get them dragged further in to this war.
The time to act was last year (if not earlier). The fact we did not is to our shame.
ISIS needs to be stopped in all honesty, Assad is a ghastly figure who has most likely used chemical weapons against his own population and we may indeed be helping/supporting terrorist organisations by fighting ISIS right now but quite honestly the Caliphate that is being established right now is the most ghastly thing I've ever seen in my life.
There are alot of Dictatorships, despots and terrorists around but this lot are the worst - heck I'd probably help Mugabe, Kim Jong Un to defeat Caliph Ibrahim. Remember in World War 2 we had to get the awful Joseph Stalin onside, we are where we are - sometimes Realpolitik demands we deal with some nasty people.
ISIL needs to be stopped. Sadly, it's hard to see how that can now be done without either boots on the ground, or fighting by proxy.
Unfortunately, there are few proxies left. That was not the case least year.
Aerial bombing will not stop ISIL now; it may dent them and harm their operations, but it is hard to stop an idea. And that idea - an Islamic Caliphate - is sadly now alive and kicking. It will be difficult to put it back in the box. Add in the fact we have a sunni vs shia vs everyone else dimension to the situation - a conflict that has lasted almost since the prophet's time - and I cannot see a way forward without wholesale redrawing of the map of the Middle East.
One thing we could do is try to stop the funding of these groups. It requires more agile minds than mine to work out how that could be done, especially when there are nation-state players heavily involved with competing insurgent groups.
Meanwhile the Ditherer of the Free World has dropped two small bombs and a leaflet on a couple of ISIS trucks, possibly blowing up a tyre.
Bomb these bastards to hell!
I am starting to loathe Obama. There's prudent caution, and then there's rank, swithering cowardice.
At least Obama is doing something, our PM is refusing calls to recall Parliament and debate the situation in Iraq and possible intervention. Weak.
You know exactly why not: Clegg/Miliband will jump on a "not in my name" bandwagon and the media will portray Cameron as gung-ho, while the majority in the country will shake their heads and wag their fingers disapprovingly.
Then force Miliband and Clegg to own the pictures and videos of dying AMD beheaded children in Iraq by voting down a military intervention in Parliament. Britain cannot stand by and watch as hundreds of thousands are displaced and threatened with extermination by a group of vile terrorists. Of Miliband thinks otherwise then let him declare that openly so the people can judge his actions. Again I will say that Dougie's piece in the Sunday Telegraph is very telling in that no mention was made about the US military intervention and no words on whether Labour would support Britian joining said intervention. Labour and pandering and appeasing terrorists like ISIL and Hamas because they are afraid of losing their Muslim voter base in this country. Dave needs to have the cojones to recall Parliament and force a vote on military intervention. The secretary of the '22 has called on Dave and so has General Sir Richard Dannat.
And you want to arm the Kurds, who had a very serious and nasty terrorist group engaged in a war that has killed tens of thousands until 2011 (when they got preoccupied with fighting in Syria).
There's no right answer here; but arming the Kurds could be a long-term disaster. We need Turkey to continue excellently helping refugees (at no small cost to themselves), and not get them dragged further in to this war.
The time to act was last year (if not earlier). The fact we did not is to our shame.
ISIS needs to be stopped in all honesty, Assad is a ghastly figure who has most likely used chemical weapons against his own population and we may indeed be helping/supporting terrorist organisations by fighting ISIS right now but quite honestly the Caliphate that is being established right now is the most ghastly thing I've ever seen in my life.
There are alot of Dictatorships, despots and terrorists around but this lot are the worst - heck I'd probably help Mugabe, Kim Jong Un to defeat Caliph Ibrahim. Remember in World War 2 we had to get the awful Joseph Stalin onside, we are where we are - sometimes Realpolitik demands we deal with some nasty people.
ISIL needs to be stopped. Sadly, it's hard to see how that can now be done without either boots on the ground, or fighting by proxy.
Unfortunately, there are few proxies left. That was not the case least year.
Aerial bombing will not stop ISIL now; it may dent them and harm their operations, but it is hard to stop an idea. And that idea - an Islamic Caliphate - is sadly now alive and kicking. It will be difficult to put it back in the box. Add in the fact we have a sunni vs shia vs everyone else dimension to the situation - a conflict that has lasted almost since the prophet's time - and I cannot see a way forward without wholesale redrawing of the map of the Middle East.
One thing we could do is try to stop the funding of these groups. It requires more agile minds than mine to work out how that could be done, especially when there are nation-state players heavily involved with competing insurgent groups.
"Add in the fact we have a sunni vs shia vs everyone else dimension to the situation - a conflict that has lasted almost since the prophet's time - "
And...pray tell me , how many such sectarian insurgent type conflicts can you recall before 2003 of the ferocity we have today ? We went into Afganistan, fine ! In Iraq and Libya we simply lit the touchpaper ! We are simply harvesting an ill planned, ill informed foray. The consequences are all there to see !
Given the tendency of ISIS, like the Taliban (are they related in any way?) to use suicide bombers surely we need to support and encourage those Muslin clerics who point out the stupidity (and I understand the non-Quaranic nature) of thse attacks.
All the 'Britain cannot stand idly by' merchants want other people to go and risk their lives and other people to pay the huge bills that a British military intervention would inevitably incur.
The electricity company EDF has temporarily shut down two of its nuclear power stations, Heysham 1 and Hartlepool.
It said it was a precautionary measure after finding a defect, in June, in one of the boilers at Heysham 1.
The problem was first detected during a routine boiler inspection, which led to one of the station's two nuclear reactors being shut down.
All four reactors at the stations will be shut as they are of similar design.
The company said all the boilers associated with the two nuclear reactors at Heysham 1, and with the two nuclear reactors at Hartlepool, would be inspected to make sure they were safe.
"Until the results of the further inspections are known it is not possible to advise exact return to service dates for these four reactors, however, an initial estimate is that these investigations will take around eight weeks," said EDF.
And you want to arm the Kurds, who had a very serious and nasty terrorist group engaged in a war that has killed tens of thousands until 2011 (when they got preoccupied with fighting in Syria).
There's no right answer here; but arming the Kurds could be a long-term disaster. We need Turkey to continue excellently helping refugees (at no small cost to themselves), and not get them dragged further in to this war.
The time to act was last year (if not earlier). The fact we did not is to our shame.
ISIS needs to be stopped in all honesty, Assad is a ghastly figure who has most likely used chemical weapons against his own population and we may indeed be helping/supporting terrorist organisations by fighting ISIS right now but quite honestly the Caliphate that is being established right now is the most ghastly thing I've ever seen in my life.
There are alot of Dictatorships, despots and terrorists around but this lot are the worst - heck I'd probably help Mugabe, Kim Jong Un to defeat Caliph Ibrahim. Remember in World War 2 we had to get the awful Joseph Stalin onside, we are where we are - sometimes Realpolitik demands we deal with some nasty people.
ISIL needs to be stopped. Sadly, it's hard to see how that can now be done without either boots on the ground, or fighting by proxy.
Unfortunately, there are few proxies left. That was not the case least year.
Aerial bombing will not stop ISIL now; it may dent them and harm their operations, but it is hard to stop an idea. And that idea - an Islamic Caliphate - is sadly now alive and kicking. It will be difficult to put it back in the box. Add in the fact we have a sunni vs shia vs everyone else dimension to the situation - a conflict that has lasted almost since the prophet's time - and I cannot see a way forward without wholesale redrawing of the map of the Middle East.
One thing we could do is try to stop the funding of these groups. It requires more agile minds than mine to work out how that could be done, especially when there are nation-state players heavily involved with competing insurgent groups.
Assad as an anti-ISIS proxy is complicated. Forgetting the moral element for the moment - the actual strategic situation in Syria is about as clear as mud - previously there was a sort of de-facto NAP between IS and the Syrian Army but as both IS and the Syrian Army have made gains/retook areas and eliminated other rebel groups (The Free Syrian Army is very weak from what I can work out right now) and now most of the oil and gas is under the control of IS so they may well come into natural conflict.
The support to the FSA has failed, and may well be helping IS now. Time to switch tack slightly in Syria/Iraq as is seeming to happen.
Mr. Taffys, whilst there's certainly a moral argument against ISIS, I'm more concerned by the strategic problems it would pose us if that state were allowed to continue and expand.
One suspects their major exports would be suicide bombers and extremism.
If ISIS took over Syria and Iraq they'd surely aim for Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. Even if they were defeated there, it would involve a massive regional war.
In the idea that anything we could do by dropping bombs from 10,000 feet would in any way change the situation in Syria in a way we would consider acceptable. Weakening Assad would not just have helped the FSA. In fact given how factional and weak they were in the overall scheme of things it would have done little to help them at all. The main beneficiaries of any attack on Assad would have been ISIS and its allies who have a far better organised command structure and were far better placed to take advantage of any Assad weakness.
I am sick and tired of the old mantra of 'we must do something' from those who have no idea of what exactly we should do beyond chucking a few bombs around and 'punishing' people. It is ignorant and childish. At least in Iraq the US have people on the ground alongside the Kurds and could have (if they chose) a clear mission criteria of preventing the advance of ISIS into Kurdish areas. Something that was not possible in Syria given the fractured nature of the war and the lack of clearly defined geographic positions for the various factions.
An MSP recounts how he was eating in the restaurant of the Scottish Parliament recently when Alex Salmond came in. Upon sitting down, the First Minister regally held out his hands. An accompanying flunkey whipped out some hand sanitiser and reverently smeared it on to the sacred mitts of power.
A small thing, perhaps, but small things can contain big truths. The man who no longer believes he should have to apply his own soap is the same man who swaggered into last Tuesday’s debate with Alistair Darling expecting to walk it and who staggered out two hours later having been roundly thrashed. I don’t think the two events are entirely unconnected. A question: Is King Eck going a bit Louis XIV?
I know someone who is a germophobe, it isn't that bizarre.
He's from the Sheldon Cooper school of hygiene.
Hot air blowers are incubators and spewers of bacteria and pestilence. Frankly it would be more hygienic if they just had a plague infested gibbon sneeze my hands dry.
More amusing to watch too...
Still don't believe the part of the story where his aide puts on the sanitiser for him.
I can actually believe that - if his flunky is carrying the santiser it's just as easy to put it on as to hand over the bottle. It's the flunky doing the rubbing in that I struggle with...
You will be used to your flunkies doing it for you for sure, however why you would expect a normal human being to do the same is hard to imagine.
No - as I've said before, I don't have any "flunkies", although my Foundation has a full-time professional team of 6.
I think @decreiptJohn had the most likely chain of events - Salmond borrowed someone elses sanitiser (which was the context I was thinking of) and it was delivery direct to hand. Entirely natural behaviour and totally exaggerated by the MSP.
Given the tendency of ISIS, like the Taliban (are they related in any way?) to use suicide bombers surely we need to support and encourage those Muslin clerics who point out the stupidity (and I understand the non-Quaranic nature) of thse attacks.
ISIS / Taliban / Al Qaeda are not necessarily on the same page. In fact, Al Qaeda are allegedly concerned that ISIS are too extreme.
And some Al Qaeda fighters are leaving it to join ISIS.
The problem with clerics is that all you need are a few that promote extremism. People who are angry / disaffected / religious nutjobs will listen to these few, rather than the majority. People want to listen to the message they like.
This is one reason why we need to stamp out (how?) extremist preachers here in the UK.
The electricity company EDF has temporarily shut down two of its nuclear power stations, Heysham 1 and Hartlepool.
It said it was a precautionary measure after finding a defect, in June, in one of the boilers at Heysham 1.
The problem was first detected during a routine boiler inspection, which led to one of the station's two nuclear reactors being shut down.
All four reactors at the stations will be shut as they are of similar design.
The company said all the boilers associated with the two nuclear reactors at Heysham 1, and with the two nuclear reactors at Hartlepool, would be inspected to make sure they were safe.
"Until the results of the further inspections are known it is not possible to advise exact return to service dates for these four reactors, however, an initial estimate is that these investigations will take around eight weeks," said EDF.
Mark Simmonds, Junior Foreign Office Minister resigns. Standing down as MP next year.
Cameron on Holiday.
Boston and Skegness, a possible UKIP target.
Interesting to see another MP with a strong UKIP challenge jump before the voters have the chance to push them. Makes you wonder what they know - does the strength of UKIP there correspond to the weakness of the Con organisation, because their best people have switched sides like Sean Fear did?
'the Muslim clerics who point out the stupidity (and I understand the non-Quaranic nature) of these attacks.
Such as????
BBC, 11th July. Leading UK-based Shia and Sunni imams and clerics have filmed a video message urging young British Muslims against fighting in Iraq and Syria.
They say their film is designed to be distributed online and via social media to counter "digital propaganda" put out by Isis and other extremist groups.
It comes amid concern about radicalised Britons who are travelling abroad.
Abu Muntasir, from the Ipswich-based charity Jimas, describes Isis as "evil" and urges people not to "get mixed up".
One suspects their major exports would be suicide bombers and extremism.
We should have thought of this when we were neglecting injured service men coming back from Iraq, protecting extremists calling British soldiers child murderers, allowing soldiers' families to live in ramshackle accommodation and doling out P45s by the boatload to service personnel.
Before we go on any international ventures, we need to get our own house in order.
And our house is very definitely not in order, as I suspect our politicians are very aware.
In the idea that anything we could do by dropping bombs from 10,000 feet would in any way change the situation in Syria in a way we would consider acceptable. Weakening Assad would not just have helped the FSA. In fact given how factional and weak they were in the overall scheme of things it would have done little to help them at all. The main beneficiaries of any attack on Assad would have been ISIS and its allies who have a far better organised command structure and were far better placed to take advantage of any Assad weakness.
I am sick and tired of the old mantra of 'we must do something' from those who have no idea of what exactly we should do beyond chucking a few bombs around and 'punishing' people. It is ignorant and childish. At least in Iraq the US have people on the ground alongside the Kurds and could have (if they chose) a clear mission criteria of preventing the advance of ISIS into Kurdish areas. Something that was not possible in Syria given the fractured nature of the war and the lack of clearly defined geographic positions for the various factions.
"The main beneficiaries of any attack on Assad would have been ISIS and its allies who have a far better organised command structure and were far better placed to take advantage of any Assad weakness."
A massive assumption. And as I said below, there were great opportunities for better outcomes, and the current situation could hardly be worse.
"I am sick and tired of the old mantra of 'we must do something' "
If you read what I've written, I'm not saying that. In fact, I'm saying that arming the Kurds might be a really bad idea (tm).
But the question you need to ask is when you would get to the stage where you believed something needed to be done. If a Caliphate is created? If it spreads through Turkey and Northern Africa? If it spreads (as many of its adherents want) through Europe?
Boston & Skegness was reckoned to be UKIP's best chance until a few months ago when the likes of Thanet, Grimsby and Folkestone seemed to supersede it.
In fact this news indeed means that UKIP's 3 best chances have no sitting MP defending the constituency: Boston, Thanet South, Great Grimsby.
37% is good for Labour with Populus, but 35% is decent for the Tories too. 2% is OK for Monday, I suspect Con lead or level by Friday.
Is it not 37% and 33%? Not very easy to read the actual result which bit is it on?
Ack think I was looking at the wrong one.
I'm noting Lib Dem weighting from 74 to 104 means they are (in my opinion) slightly weaker than their headline VI in this poll. I suspect UKIP are a point or two stronger given their consistent downweighting too. Whatever those figures are.
After Simmonds announcement I believe the situation with retirements so far is
24 Conservatives +2 deselections (Yeo and McIntosh. In McIntosh's case it's not clear what she will do) 29 Labour +1 forced by CLP (Joe Benton who lost the trigger ballot for reselection) 9 LD 1 Plaid Eric Joyce
In the idea that anything we could do by dropping bombs from 10,000 feet would in any way change the situation in Syria in a way we would consider acceptable. Weakening Assad would not just have helped the FSA. In fact given how factional and weak they were in the overall scheme of things it would have done little to help them at all. The main beneficiaries of any attack on Assad would have been ISIS and its allies who have a far better organised command structure and were far better placed to take advantage of any Assad weakness.
I am sick and tired of the old mantra of 'we must do something' from those who have no idea of what exactly we should do beyond chucking a few bombs around and 'punishing' people. It is ignorant and childish. At least in Iraq the US have people on the ground alongside the Kurds and could have (if they chose) a clear mission criteria of preventing the advance of ISIS into Kurdish areas. Something that was not possible in Syria given the fractured nature of the war and the lack of clearly defined geographic positions for the various factions.
"The main beneficiaries of any attack on Assad would have been ISIS and its allies who have a far better organised command structure and were far better placed to take advantage of any Assad weakness."
A massive assumption. And as I said below, there were great opportunities for better outcomes, and the current situation could hardly be worse.
"I am sick and tired of the old mantra of 'we must do something' "
If you read what I've written, I'm not saying that. In fact, I'm saying that arming the Kurds might be a really bad idea (tm).
But the question you need to ask is when you would get to the stage where you believed something needed to be done. If a Caliphate is created? If it spreads through Turkey and Northern Africa? If it spreads (as many of its adherents want) through Europe?
It's a mess. And it;s getting messier by the day.
And "polite" not to say "correct" opinion has it of course that Samuel Huntington had it all wrong and we aren't in a clash of civilisations...
In the idea that anything we could do by dropping bombs from 10,000 feet would in any way change the situation in Syria in a way we would consider acceptable. Weakening Assad would not just have helped the FSA. In fact given how factional and weak they were in the overall scheme of things it would have done little to help them at all. The main beneficiaries of any attack on Assad would have been ISIS and its allies who have a far better organised command structure and were far better placed to take advantage of any Assad weakness.
I am sick and tired of the old mantra of 'we must do something' from those who have no idea of what exactly we should do beyond chucking a few bombs around and 'punishing' people. It is ignorant and childish. At least in Iraq the US have people on the ground alongside the Kurds and could have (if they chose) a clear mission criteria of preventing the advance of ISIS into Kurdish areas. Something that was not possible in Syria given the fractured nature of the war and the lack of clearly defined geographic positions for the various factions.
"The main beneficiaries of any attack on Assad would have been ISIS and its allies who have a far better organised command structure and were far better placed to take advantage of any Assad weakness."
A massive assumption. And as I said below, there were great opportunities for better outcomes, and the current situation could hardly be worse.
"I am sick and tired of the old mantra of 'we must do something' "
If you read what I've written, I'm not saying that. In fact, I'm saying that arming the Kurds might be a really bad idea (tm).
But the question you need to ask is when you would get to the stage where you believed something needed to be done. If a Caliphate is created? If it spreads through Turkey and Northern Africa? If it spreads (as many of its adherents want) through Europe?
It's a mess. And it;s getting messier by the day.
You do something when it will make a clear strategic difference and will actually help achieve your aims - whether they are military or humanitarian. Right now there is the potential to do that by supporting the Kurds and by coordinating action with the Iranians. That opportunity did not exist in Syria last year - nor does it now (in Syria) given that to hinder one side we would have to be helping the other and both sides are unacceptable to us.
The electricity company EDF has temporarily shut down two of its nuclear power stations, Heysham 1 and Hartlepool.
It said it was a precautionary measure after finding a defect, in June, in one of the boilers at Heysham 1.
The problem was first detected during a routine boiler inspection, which led to one of the station's two nuclear reactors being shut down.
All four reactors at the stations will be shut as they are of similar design.
The company said all the boilers associated with the two nuclear reactors at Heysham 1, and with the two nuclear reactors at Hartlepool, would be inspected to make sure they were safe.
"Until the results of the further inspections are known it is not possible to advise exact return to service dates for these four reactors, however, an initial estimate is that these investigations will take around eight weeks," said EDF.
Time to dust off your chemical engineering textbooks (you must have kept Perrys surely?) and save the lights!!
It is on the shelves behind me, in the library of about 500 technical tomes.
However, it is a little out of date and Lees is much better. Defects, cracks or leaks are another matter altogether - that goes back to design and asset management.
All the 'Britain cannot stand idly by' merchants want other people to go and risk their lives and other people to pay the huge bills that a British military intervention would inevitably incur.
All while they continue with their nice lives.
I would join the military, but I don't think they would have me, below average height, below average body mass and poor stamina!
I think I would make a good tactician though for the same reason I make a good analyst, but again one can hardly waltz into that position.
Also, if you have read my posts you will have noticed that I have called for increased military spending on the basics while cutting fancy equipment like the carriers and non-existent planes. We need more and better armed troops who get paid a decent wage and are reintegrated back into society better than now. The government have an absolutely piss-poor record on military expenditure regardless of the spending blackhole left behind by the last lot. They should have cancelled some of the procurement contracts and told the lobbyists in the industry to go and do one.
Commons Speaker John Bercow has been criticised after it emerged he charged taxpayers £1,300 to attend an MP’s funeral.
Mr Bercow was one of a host of MPs at the Manchester service for popular Labour backbencher Paul Goggins who collapsed and died while out running in January.
He charged £239.10 for a return train journey to Manchester for him and two staff, plus £112.50 for a car from Parliament to Euston station and back the next day.
Is Phillip Hammond proving to be a bad choice as Foreign Secretary ? Two minister have now resigned weeks after Hammond took over. I just wonder whether he has expressed views that people don't agree with. Hague proved to be quite good at the diplomatic stuff, whereas Hammond may be willing to give his view, which might clash with colleagues views.
I'm not surprised that Mark Simmonds is standing down in Vilnius Central. I remember telling tim last year on here that my anecdotal evidence (the local pubs) suggested Ukip were surging.
My ex-Labour brother had already gone over to the dark side.
It's interesting how the likes of Ken Clarke, Alan Haselhurst and Richard Shepherd are still intending to contest their seats despite being first elected in the 1970s, but at the same time people like Mark Simmonds, Laura Sandys, Dan Byles, Jessica Lee are standing down after just a few years.
Is Phillip Hammond proving to be a bad choice as Foreign Secretary ? Two minister have now resigned weeks after Hammond took over. I just wonder whether he has expressed views that people don't agree with. Hague proved to be quite good at the diplomatic stuff, whereas Hammond may be willing to give his view, which might clash with colleagues views.
Hammond is known to be quite hawkish, though not a neo-con unlike Fallon. That may rile up a few people in the FCO which tends to be pro-Arab rather than pro-Israel. This resignation is for personal reasons though and the MP is standing down in 2015 so it probably isn't related to any policy decisions.
I think Cameron has played a blinder with Hammond though and getting the pro-Arab/pro-EU Hague out. Hammond is better aligned to US foreign policy than Hague ever was, he kept looking to the EU and Cathy Ashton for guidance.
If Hammond can drive through a pro-Israel agenda in the FCO he will be making headway. Israel is one of our only allies in that region, the house of Saud and Qatar (our other supposed allies) are the ones funding ISIL and Hamas so any break from the pro-Arab nature of the FCO is a good thing for our interests.
Commons Speaker John Bercow has been criticised after it emerged he charged taxpayers £1,300 to attend an MP’s funeral.
Mr Bercow was one of a host of MPs at the Manchester service for popular Labour backbencher Paul Goggins who collapsed and died while out running in January.
He charged £239.10 for a return train journey to Manchester for him and two staff, plus £112.50 for a car from Parliament to Euston station and back the next day.
Commons Speaker John Bercow has been criticised after it emerged he charged taxpayers £1,300 to attend an MP’s funeral.
Mr Bercow was one of a host of MPs at the Manchester service for popular Labour backbencher Paul Goggins who collapsed and died while out running in January.
He charged £239.10 for a return train journey to Manchester for him and two staff, plus £112.50 for a car from Parliament to Euston station and back the next day.
Commons Speaker John Bercow has been criticised after it emerged he charged taxpayers £1,300 to attend an MP’s funeral.
Mr Bercow was one of a host of MPs at the Manchester service for popular Labour backbencher Paul Goggins who collapsed and died while out running in January.
He charged £239.10 for a return train journey to Manchester for him and two staff, plus £112.50 for a car from Parliament to Euston station and back the next day.
Surely most people would pay for their own expenses when attending a funeral and why take two staff? Also a taxi does not cost £112.50 to go to Euston from Parliament and back.
Commons Speaker John Bercow has been criticised after it emerged he charged taxpayers £1,300 to attend an MP’s funeral.
Mr Bercow was one of a host of MPs at the Manchester service for popular Labour backbencher Paul Goggins who collapsed and died while out running in January.
He charged £239.10 for a return train journey to Manchester for him and two staff, plus £112.50 for a car from Parliament to Euston station and back the next day.
Surely most people would pay for their own expenses when attending a funeral and why take two staff? Also a taxi does not cost £112.50 to go to Euston from Parliament and back.
He was there in a professional capacity, not personal. It's quite why he needed to bring two staff with him I don't get - what on earth did they do there that couldn't be done in his office ?
Comments
Member ship of the Euro has been a disaster for many southern European countries (and it is not over yet by any means) and those who persist in defending the project are quite simply fools.
MailOnline Sport @MailSport 13s
WATCH: Diego Maradona slaps journalist after accusing him of winking at his ex-girlfriend http://dailym.ai/1r4MhYZ
Scandinaviams also enjoy the highest living standards, the highest educational and the highest health standards.
Not too bad for being lefty. Even the Swedish Conservatives will be lefty here in the UK.
Unless DavidL is subsidising, his daughter will need to get herself a job to get through three years in London. And she should definitely not do law. If you are going to spend the money do something that you will truly enjoy.
Instead I had 4 years of people talking to me about law which is a deathly dull subject. I got to do an extra subject in economics which was great fun and I quite liked some of the philosophy/sociological stuff around the edges but it was a serious disappointment.
I bitterly regretted not doing something I actually cared about or was interested in. Law has given me a safe and solid career but it is a waste of a University life. I tend to call it a "techie subject" where regurgitation of facts is more important than actually thinking.
I have discussed this with my daughter whose first love is English. She is thinking about it.
I need a lie down
I would go green if no SNP
There are certainly some, naming no names, who might be described as eccentric and one or two, again without naming anyone, who seem to merit the description “weird”!
Oxbridge of course is Oxbridge, then there are great unis, St. Andrews', Durham, Exeter, Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Edinburgh, etc, etc, etc.
If you are going to London then you are going to LSE or Imperial because they are LSE & Imperial and you are a very bright button so fair enough.
But to go to a Uni in London otherwise means you missing out on the dislocation and insulation of a place of learning for the sake of learning. There is no need to get a headstart on going out to London pubs/clubs, there's plenty of time for that.
Meanwhile, if you are "away" at Uni then you explore the town, of course you do, but your head is at an educational adventure rather than global city's nightlife.
(Edit: and @DavidL adding congrats to your daughter)
You were in clover.
I did get free tuition, but even though I had both scholarships and grants - all were means tested - which meant I was at the mercy of my father's generosity, whose requirement was to inspect my bank statement every term and for me to justify all expenditure before giving me my next term's expenditure.
He did not favour any sort of alcohol consumption and neither fast nor slow women.
I am afraid the lefty dream of high tax high spend Scandinavia is simply a myth based on not understanding the underlying economic facts.
More clever ideas from our Maoist chancellor.
I also got quite a generous grant. I worked every summer at University and occasionally at Christmas and Easter as well but not during term time and I left University with no debt at all. I am really concerned about what we are doing to our youth today and what the long term implications of student debt are going to be (a weaker housing market, a greater tendency to work abroad, people more resistant to a further increase in what is already a high marginal rate of tax being obvious examples).
Smoked Salmond.
Like you I started my working life with no debt, although until I actually got paid I had no money either!
My two graduate grandchildren though have massive amounts of debt and I’m not entirely sure how they are going to be able to fund house purchase. Not a problem for either at the moment, but grandson now has a very steady girl-friend and presumably before long they’ll want a place of their own.
*) Much of Iraq invaded and threatened by ISIL.
*) Deaths and atrocities in both countries.
*) Kurdish areas invaded and threatened.
*) Brits going over to fight with ISIL.
*) The use of chemical weapons unpunished.
*) + many more.
Does anyone really think the situation would be worse today if we had performed the planned operations in Syria last year? If so, how?
The swithering cowardice occurred last year, and was much closer to home than America ...
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/isis-captures-town-northeast-baghdad
That's a remarkably efficient use of a single infantry unit. I guess it shows that religious zealotry can be advantageous in warfare, when people are not only prepared to die but will actively seek to die to assist their army.
The Iraqis have to form some sort of government of national unity. They have to at least show they are doing something for themselves for any American efforts to come to anything.
There's no right answer here; but arming the Kurds could be a long-term disaster. We need Turkey to continue excellently helping refugees (at no small cost to themselves), and not get them dragged further in to this war.
The time to act was last year (if not earlier). The fact we did not is to our shame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey–PKK_conflict
The shame is what a conservative government has done to our armed forces. Like many other armchair generals, you are asking for our young people to risk their lives when they are far short of being properly supported, financed and looked after when they wind up blown to bits.
This at a time when the vast majority of their compatriots are p*ssing it up against the walls at really nice colleges before going on to really nice lives
(as discussed below).
Get real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army
The fact is, ISIL got plenty of weapons when they went into Iraq earlier this year. Their problem appears to be manpower and logistics, rather than weaponry. If we had helped the moderate FSA (or even just punished Assad), then Assad might have been defeated. At worst, we would have a situation no worse then we have at the moment. At best, we might have had a Syrian government we could back to the hilt.
And letting the use of chemical weapons go unpunished -again - is hideous. Apologists for Assad should be ashamed of themselves.
The blood from these latest deaths is on their hands.
Punishing Assad for using chemical weapons != arming ISIS.
So no, I did not want to support ISIS. That's a shocking allegation.
(edited)
Anyone who has read PB in the past knows I want a well-funded fit-for-purpose armed forces. Like most people on PB, I've got no idea a) exactly what that means, and b) how it can be funded.
I maintain my position that if we had acted last year - or earlier - the situation in Iraq and Syria today would be much better. It's hard to see how it could be worse.
There are alot of Dictatorships, despots and terrorists around but this lot are the worst - heck I'd probably help Mugabe, Kim Jong Un to defeat Caliph Ibrahim. Remember in World War 2 we had to get the awful Joseph Stalin onside, we are where we are - sometimes Realpolitik demands we deal with some nasty people.
Clegg and Miliband are getting exactly what they voted for.
From a recent The Apprentice, here is a top Conservative peer being discombobulated by a UCL graduate's cultural awareness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcDhGLjUWYo
This is the very reason why the sort of intervention you wanted in Syria last year was such a fundamentally stupid idea. If you cannot control the ground war then you have no way of determining who will benefit and who will not from your actions.
The Americans at least do have people on the ground in Kurdistan and do at least seem to be coordinating properly with those resisting ISIS. You would have us chuck bombs from thousands of feet up in the air and pretend we were doing any good at all. It is moronic.
And our enemies are getting wise to it. As soon as we start the bombing campaigns they are ready with the injured children footage that has the left up in arms and inflames the situation even more. These are precisely the cards they are playing in Gaza.
It is not worth it.
Unfortunately, there are few proxies left. That was not the case least year.
Aerial bombing will not stop ISIL now; it may dent them and harm their operations, but it is hard to stop an idea. And that idea - an Islamic Caliphate - is sadly now alive and kicking. It will be difficult to put it back in the box. Add in the fact we have a sunni vs shia vs everyone else dimension to the situation - a conflict that has lasted almost since the prophet's time - and I cannot see a way forward without wholesale redrawing of the map of the Middle East.
One thing we could do is try to stop the funding of these groups. It requires more agile minds than mine to work out how that could be done, especially when there are nation-state players heavily involved with competing insurgent groups.
Cameron on Holiday.
And...pray tell me , how many such sectarian insurgent type conflicts can you recall before 2003 of the ferocity we have today ? We went into Afganistan, fine ! In Iraq and Libya we simply lit the touchpaper ! We are simply harvesting an ill planned, ill informed foray. The consequences are all there to see !
I dislike this modern tendency to put military action to the vote. Better to take action or not (it's an executive decision, after all).
If it's feasible, we should bomb ISIS as much as we can.
All while they continue with their nice lives.
It said it was a precautionary measure after finding a defect, in June, in one of the boilers at Heysham 1.
The problem was first detected during a routine boiler inspection, which led to one of the station's two nuclear reactors being shut down.
All four reactors at the stations will be shut as they are of similar design.
The company said all the boilers associated with the two nuclear reactors at Heysham 1, and with the two nuclear reactors at Hartlepool, would be inspected to make sure they were safe.
"Until the results of the further inspections are known it is not possible to advise exact return to service dates for these four reactors, however, an initial estimate is that these investigations will take around eight weeks," said EDF.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28738074
The support to the FSA has failed, and may well be helping IS now. Time to switch tack slightly in Syria/Iraq as is seeming to happen.
Such as????
One suspects their major exports would be suicide bombers and extremism.
If ISIS took over Syria and Iraq they'd surely aim for Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. Even if they were defeated there, it would involve a massive regional war.
http://www.populus.co.uk/Poll/Voting-Intention-112/
I am sick and tired of the old mantra of 'we must do something' from those who have no idea of what exactly we should do beyond chucking a few bombs around and 'punishing' people. It is ignorant and childish. At least in Iraq the US have people on the ground alongside the Kurds and could have (if they chose) a clear mission criteria of preventing the advance of ISIS into Kurdish areas. Something that was not possible in Syria given the fractured nature of the war and the lack of clearly defined geographic positions for the various factions.
No - as I've said before, I don't have any "flunkies", although my Foundation has a full-time professional team of 6.
I think @decreiptJohn had the most likely chain of events - Salmond borrowed someone elses sanitiser (which was the context I was thinking of) and it was delivery direct to hand. Entirely natural behaviour and totally exaggerated by the MSP.
And some Al Qaeda fighters are leaving it to join ISIS.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689776/Now-Taliban-warns-ISIS-Islamist-rebels-Iraq-avoid-extremism-calls-new-council-jihadi-factions-page.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26016318
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fighters-abandoning-al-qaeda-affiliates-to-join-islamic-state-us-officials-say/2014/08/09/c5321d10-1f08-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html
The problem with clerics is that all you need are a few that promote extremism. People who are angry / disaffected / religious nutjobs will listen to these few, rather than the majority. People want to listen to the message they like.
This is one reason why we need to stamp out (how?) extremist preachers here in the UK.
Another war between western powers and radical Islam.
They say their film is designed to be distributed online and via social media to counter "digital propaganda" put out by Isis and other extremist groups.
It comes amid concern about radicalised Britons who are travelling abroad.
Abu Muntasir, from the Ipswich-based charity Jimas, describes Isis as "evil" and urges people not to "get mixed up".
We should have thought of this when we were neglecting injured service men coming back from Iraq, protecting extremists calling British soldiers child murderers, allowing soldiers' families to live in ramshackle accommodation and doling out P45s by the boatload to service personnel.
Before we go on any international ventures, we need to get our own house in order.
And our house is very definitely not in order, as I suspect our politicians are very aware.
A massive assumption. And as I said below, there were great opportunities for better outcomes, and the current situation could hardly be worse.
"I am sick and tired of the old mantra of 'we must do something' "
If you read what I've written, I'm not saying that. In fact, I'm saying that arming the Kurds might be a really bad idea (tm).
But the question you need to ask is when you would get to the stage where you believed something needed to be done. If a Caliphate is created? If it spreads through Turkey and Northern Africa? If it spreads (as many of its adherents want) through Europe?
It's a mess. And it;s getting messier by the day.
In fact this news indeed means that UKIP's 3 best chances have no sitting MP defending the constituency: Boston, Thanet South, Great Grimsby.
I'm noting Lib Dem weighting from 74 to 104 means they are (in my opinion) slightly weaker than their headline VI in this poll. I suspect UKIP are a point or two stronger given their consistent downweighting too. Whatever those figures are.
24 Conservatives +2 deselections (Yeo and McIntosh. In McIntosh's case it's not clear what she will do)
29 Labour +1 forced by CLP (Joe Benton who lost the trigger ballot for reselection)
9 LD
1 Plaid
Eric Joyce
Populus
Lab 37 (+2) Con 33 (-3) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 12 (+1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/OmOnline_Vote_11-08-2014_BPC.pdf
However, it is a little out of date and Lees is much better. Defects, cracks or leaks are another matter altogether - that goes back to design and asset management.
Ed is Crap is PM Less than 9 months to go
I think I would make a good tactician though for the same reason I make a good analyst, but again one can hardly waltz into that position.
Also, if you have read my posts you will have noticed that I have called for increased military spending on the basics while cutting fancy equipment like the carriers and non-existent planes. We need more and better armed troops who get paid a decent wage and are reintegrated back into society better than now. The government have an absolutely piss-poor record on military expenditure regardless of the spending blackhole left behind by the last lot. They should have cancelled some of the procurement contracts and told the lobbyists in the industry to go and do one.
I completely fail to see how we can ask our young people to fight a horrible enemy like ISIS under the current social arrangements we have in Britain.
It is impossible. And anybody contemplating asking them should be completely ashamed of themselves.
Commons Speaker John Bercow has been criticised after it emerged he charged taxpayers £1,300 to attend an MP’s funeral.
Mr Bercow was one of a host of MPs at the Manchester service for popular Labour backbencher Paul Goggins who collapsed and died while out running in January.
He charged £239.10 for a return train journey to Manchester for him and two staff, plus £112.50 for a car from Parliament to Euston station and back the next day.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721701/
I'm talking about slashing welfare by 30bn and giving it straight to the armed forces. That is what it would take.
I'm not surprised that Mark Simmonds is standing down in Vilnius Central. I remember telling tim last year on here that my anecdotal evidence (the local pubs) suggested Ukip were surging.
My ex-Labour brother had already gone over to the dark side.
I think Cameron has played a blinder with Hammond though and getting the pro-Arab/pro-EU Hague out. Hammond is better aligned to US foreign policy than Hague ever was, he kept looking to the EU and Cathy Ashton for guidance.
If Hammond can drive through a pro-Israel agenda in the FCO he will be making headway. Israel is one of our only allies in that region, the house of Saud and Qatar (our other supposed allies) are the ones funding ISIL and Hamas so any break from the pro-Arab nature of the FCO is a good thing for our interests.
"Why should we be surprised?" you ask ....
I'm never surprised at the rancid bile of the "Mail".
No idea why he needed two staff to join him though.
Surely most people would pay for their own expenses when attending a funeral and why take two staff? Also a taxi does not cost £112.50 to go to Euston from Parliament and back.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/travel/holidays/cruises/article4169572.ece