Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
Obviously these statistics prove that British subjects don't need recourse to the ECtHR.
Individuals cannot be blamed for pursuing every remedy which is lawfully open to them against the government. Whether the convention rights ought to be recognised and given effect to in law is another matter. I have never seen a convincing argument for why matters of social, political and moral judgment over which reasonable people can and do disagree, should be the preserve of judges, as is inevitable if we remain party to the convention.
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
Only tangentially related but only two issues have struck me in the last week (I've been v busy on work and other matters):-
1. IS apparently capturing the port at Sirte on the Libyan coast - only a few hours away from the Italian mainland and, obviously, making it much easier for them to import/export arms/people etc. 2. The US Defence Secretary talking about UK's weakening defence role this morning.
How the Western world deals with IS seems to me to be one of the key issues of the next few years and yet there seems to be no strategy whatsoever, or none that appears to be working, anyway.
I think that most governments just hope it will go away. I simply can't understand the rationale for further defence cuts, when so much trouble is emerging on NATO's frontiers.
(1) Defence is expensive (2) They think cutting it won't cost votes, but a failure to spend more on something else will (3) Using armed force is politically risky and gives no guarantees of success or plaudits (4) It risks bringing tragedy closer to home in a way that's more politically damaging than letting it happen to people in faraway lands of which we know little and have little in common
Pretending that IS are not getting nearer and that this increases the risk of tragedies happening to people here on the European mainland is no way to conduct foreign or defence policy. Pretending and/or hoping that other armies or other fighters will defeat IS when all the evidence is that they have failed so far, lack the will or are otherwise two-faced about what their real interests are is not much of a policy either.
I honestly don't know what the answer is but I'm pretty certain that putting our fingers in our ears and hoping that the bad people will go away is not the answer. Sooner or later a confrontation of some kind is going to happen. A march through Paris (or Rome or London or Berlin or Tunis or wherever) and Twitter expressions of solidarity will not be sufficient.
I agree with you, and have written to my MP and the SoS for Defence to say as much.
41% of people want improving standards of healthcare in the NHS. In which case, they don't want to let Andy Burnham anywhere near power.
The scum who puts the reputation of a trust ahead of patient welfare.
And expects plaudits and a big round of applause for the staff for being so selfless.
Mr. Bumble the Beadle, in other words. If Dickens were alive today, he'd be writing much the same books, with only minor tweaks. They'd be about how Labour's NHS brought back filthy degrading workhouses, and they'd be about the teaching unions.
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
An excellent war fighting outfit. As indeed were many many other units in Afghan and elsewhere.
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
I know, I'm just belabouring the point, if we don't use something for its intended purpose should we still retain it.
My own screen name is the nickname of a Parachute Division which is now an Air Assault Division.
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
An excellent war fighting outfit. As indeed were many many other units in Afghan and elsewhere.
Hearts and minds, however, is another story...
One of my friend's blames the murder of the six redcaps in Iraq on the rubbishness of the Paras
And the Bishop of Rome is a Catholic. The question is whether decisions over issues such as assisted suicide, prisoner voting, whole life tariffs, immigration policy, school uniforms, or political advertising on radio and television should be taken by judges or by the democratically accountable branches of government. I have not the slightest doubt that every one of those issues is a matter for political rather than judicial resolution. The Convention, as interpreted by the Strasbourg Court, however, requires a judge to decide in each case whether the policy is "necessary in a democratic society", a test which in principle yields only one right answer. What is it about judges that makes them so peculiarly suited to resolve intractable questions of public policy over which reasonable people have disagreed for centuries?
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
I know, I'm just belabouring the point, if we don't use something for its intended purpose should we still retain it.
My own screen name is the nickname of a Parachute Division which is now an Air Assault Division.
We could rename it that. Effectively it is an elite mobile infrantry assault division.
But then you have all the issues around tradition, continuity, reputation, esprit de corps etc.
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
They are elite light infantry, one battalion of which are used to support the sas. We need to spend money on these elite forces, it's where we can make a difference.
Only tangentially related but only two issues have struck me in the last week (I've been v busy on work and other matters):-
1. IS apparently capturing the port at Sirte on the Libyan coast - only a few hours away from the Italian mainland and, obviously, making it much easier for them to import/export arms/people etc. 2. The US Defence Secretary talking about UK's weakening defence role this morning.
How the Western world deals with IS seems to me to be one of the key issues of the next few years and yet there seems to be no strategy whatsoever, or none that appears to be working, anyway.
I think that most governments just hope it will go away. I simply can't understand the rationale for further defence cuts, when so much trouble is emerging on NATO's frontiers.
(1) Defence is expensive (2) They think cutting it won't cost votes, but a failure to spend more on something else will (3) Using armed force is politically risky and gives no guarantees of success or plaudits (4) It risks bringing tragedy closer to home in a way that's more politically damaging than letting it happen to people in faraway lands of which we know little and have little in common
Pretending that IS are not getting nearer and that this increases the risk of tragedies happening to people here on the European mainland is no way to conduct foreign or defence policy. Pretending and/or hoping that other armies or other fighters will defeat IS when all the evidence is that they have failed so far, lack the will or are otherwise two-faced about what their real interests are is not much of a policy either.
I honestly don't know what the answer is but I'm pretty certain that putting our fingers in our ears and hoping that the bad people will go away is not the answer. Sooner or later a confrontation of some kind is going to happen. A march through Paris (or Rome or London or Berlin or Tunis or wherever) and Twitter expressions of solidarity will not be sufficient.
I agree with you, and have written to my MP and the SoS for Defence to say as much.
A recent publication has a list of all the strikes performed against IS in Iraq (strikes being more or less forbidden in Syria due to Miliband's treachery), They are being performed by GR4's and MQ-9's - in what is a change for warfare, unmanned platforms are making half the attacks.
One that made me laugh was:05/01/2015: Al Qaim. Tornado fired a Brimstone missile. Target: JCB.
I wondered if Roger was piloting it ...
As an aside, one of the things we should do is have a vote in parliament allowing us to perform such operations in Syria as well, instead of the intelligence overflights we are currently restricted to.
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
An excellent war fighting outfit. As indeed were many many other units in Afghan and elsewhere.
Hearts and minds, however, is another story...
One of my friend's blames the murder of the six redcaps in Iraq on the rubbishness of the Paras
I remember reading an account of it. I don't blame the paras (for that or Bloody Sunday, or any time they have ****ed up a situation, or exacerbated it, of which there have been a few...).
He persuaded me that UK defence policy is about putting Eurofighter ahead of literally everything else.
Is that the Lewis Page that write for the Register? If so, I'm not sure there's even been a single article of his that I've agreed with. He's particularly poor on defence, which is a shame given his experience. He comes across as having too many axes to grind.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
Really excellent batting this afternoon. I am beginning to think England can save this.
It's not impossible if we can get back out after tea for a couple of hours. We were over 200/1 in the first innings. I've been experimenting in this match with betting in-play, hence paying close attention and hanging around betting sites and blogs far too much. I should be green on all results, although have more tied up than I expected in both time and money. The next big call will be when England really do have no chance, which needs to be made in the next half an hour or so - preferably before the umpires call stumps and the odds move too much. A fascinating few days anyway!!
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
As this is the one and only blog for political betting then the one and only website for defence matters is ARRSE. They have a thread on Mr Page's article today. It is not flattering.
Really excellent batting this afternoon. I am beginning to think England can save this.
It's not impossible if we can get back out after tea for a couple of hours. We were over 200/1 in the first innings. I've been experimenting in this match with betting in-play, hence paying close attention and hanging around betting sites and blogs far too much. I should be green on all results, although have more tied up than I expected in both time and money. The next big call will be when England really do have no chance, which needs to be made in the next half an hour or so - preferably before the umpires call stumps and the odds move too much. A fascinating few days anyway!!
Getting out for a couple of hours batting today is not compatible with saving the test in my view. I can just about see England batting out a day. More than that and NZ deservedly win with a style of test match cricket that looks more like 20:20 than the stodge we have been used to. They are a real breath of fresh air.
Really excellent batting this afternoon. I am beginning to think England can save this.
It's not impossible if we can get back out after tea for a couple of hours. We were over 200/1 in the first innings. I've been experimenting in this match with betting in-play, hence paying close attention and hanging around betting sites and blogs far too much. I should be green on all results, although have more tied up than I expected in both time and money. The next big call will be when England really do have no chance, which needs to be made in the next half an hour or so - preferably before the umpires call stumps and the odds move too much. A fascinating few days anyway!!
Getting out for a couple of hours batting today is not compatible with saving the test in my view. I can just about see England batting out a day. More than that and NZ deservedly win with a style of test match cricket that looks more like 20:20 than the stodge we have been used to. They are a real breath of fresh air.
I'd think if we can get down to something like 320/9 required tomorrow that should be do-able with a fair wind and a pitch that more of a day 3/4 due to the rain. Agree entirely with the NZ attitude and style, rather envious of TSE who managed to watch a couple of days of it live.
Hard to disagree with Mr Lamb, although relying on a voting group with a poor record of getting out of bed before polling stations close seems a curious strategy.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
Defence industries are paid for and guided by governments. The French governments, even socialist ones, nurture their defence industries and think long term, choosing to think strategically to get export sales. Compare with the UK especially our lefties who think all weapons are immoral and that the money should be spent on benefits.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
I imagine a very big difference is that the British military has seen a lot more action than the French. Conflicts like Iraq are expensive and also result in the destruction of many assets. Each missile used costs a fortune let alone the destruction of tanks or choppers etc
If the French aren't getting into as many conflicts then it will get a lot more value for money as far as infrastructure is concerned.
Can't get my head round Junker's careless choice of words. Anyone would think he is a Kipper or incredibly delusional. If the IN campaign wins there should be a second referendum 5 years down the line to ensure that the reforms are deemed adequate.
“Brexit is not a question which arises, it’s not desired by the British,” Mr Juncker told Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.
“Cameron wants to dock his country permanently to Europe.”
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
As this is the one and only blog for political betting then the one and only website for defence matters is ARRSE. They have a thread on Mr Page's article today. It is not flattering.
Can't get my head round Junker's careless choice of words. Anyone would think he is a Kipper or incredibly delusional. If the IN campaign wins there should be a second referendum 5 years down the line to ensure that the reforms are deemed adequate.
“Brexit is not a question which arises, it’s not desired by the British,” Mr Juncker told Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.
“Cameron wants to dock his country permanently to Europe.”
What's he wrong about? There are no indications that Brexit is imminent, either from polling or from the now-superior gut feeling about the desire for stability in people's sentiments. And Cameron unambiguously does want to dock the UK permanently to Europe.
I see the candidate who supposedly "can make Labour win again" is still in 3rd place with the public, according to YouGov:
Andy Burnham 18% Yvette Cooper 9% Liz Kendall 7%
Obviously, the other two do have a bit of a headstart, but surely a truly talented politician would be forcing their way into the public consciousness by now after a few weeks of good media opportunities?
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
I know, I'm just belabouring the point, if we don't use something for its intended purpose should we still retain it.
My own screen name is the nickname of a Parachute Division which is now an Air Assault Division.
I thought you were showing a bit of form there, shame it was in jest.
A month after the 1992 election, the Tories recorded an 11% lead in an opinion poll, and were ahead by 16% in the local elections held around the same time.
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
I know, I'm just belabouring the point, if we don't use something for its intended purpose should we still retain it.
My own screen name is the nickname of a Parachute Division which is now an Air Assault Division.
We could rename it that. Effectively it is an elite mobile infrantry assault division.
But then you have all the issues around tradition, continuity, reputation, esprit de corps etc.
A month after the 1992 election, the Tories recorded an 11% lead in an opinion poll, and were ahead by 16% in the local elections held around the same time.
A month after the 1992 election there had been a majority Conservative government for 13 years so it was a very different situation.
A month after the 1992 election, the Tories recorded an 11% lead in an opinion poll, and were ahead by 16% in the local elections held around the same time.
A month after the 1992 election there had been a majority Conservative government for 13 years so it was a very different situation.
Sure, but I'm just making the point that the last time we got a "surprise" election result, the winner got a bounce (people like to think of themselves as part of the winning side?). It doesn't necessarily mean it will last, just as it didn't after 1992.
"Prisoners may be given vote because of human rights climbdown, Tory adviser warns Philip Hammond confirms that pulling out of the convention is 'not an option' as senior QC warns Britain could be forced to accept prisoner voting"
Can't get my head round Junker's careless choice of words. Anyone would think he is a Kipper or incredibly delusional. If the IN campaign wins there should be a second referendum 5 years down the line to ensure that the reforms are deemed adequate.
“Brexit is not a question which arises, it’s not desired by the British,” Mr Juncker told Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.
“Cameron wants to dock his country permanently to Europe.”
What's he wrong about? There are no indications that Brexit is imminent, either from polling or from the now-superior gut feeling about the desire for stability in people's sentiments. And Cameron unambiguously does want to dock the UK permanently to Europe. I think it will be close enough for the issue to not go away. Remaining in the EU does not necessary ensure stability. It is not a risk free option.
Only 3 candidates for 3 spots as Deputy Speaker. Incumbents Eleanor Laing and Lindsay Hoyle along with Natascha Engel (who is replacing Dawn Primarily who retired at GE).
They will still vote because they have to decide which Labour Deputy Speaker becomes Chairman of Ways and Means
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
What he may be talking about - which is arguably correct but toxic politically - is integrating the RAF into the army as an air support arm.
Can't get my head round Junker's careless choice of words. Anyone would think he is a Kipper or incredibly delusional.
Perhaps Juncker knows that the sight of raving Euro-sceptics banging on about Juncker does not help the out campaign.
Not sure how you reached that strange conclusion. I welcome such comments. Can only lead to more OUT votes
I reached the conclusion based on observing the results of the elections that matter in this country over the past 40 years.
Note that I didn't make any comment about how Juncker himself goes down with the British public, but the usual suspects becoming irate about second-hand comments from an interview with a German newspaper are just preaching to the choir.
Can't get my head round Junker's careless choice of words. Anyone would think he is a Kipper or incredibly delusional.
Perhaps Juncker knows that the sight of raving Euro-sceptics banging on about Juncker does not help the out campaign.
Not sure how you reached that strange conclusion. I welcome such comments. Can only lead to more OUT votes
I reached the conclusion based on observing the results of the elections that matter in this country over the past 40 years.
Note that I didn't make any comment about how Juncker himself goes down with the British public, but the usual suspects becoming irate about second-hand comments from an interview with a German newspaper are just preaching to the choir.
So the rise of a Eurosceptic party is irrelevant? I wonder what would have happened if the Tories refused to offer a referendum.
A month after the 1992 election, the Tories recorded an 11% lead in an opinion poll, and were ahead by 16% in the local elections held around the same time.
A month after the 1992 election there had been a majority Conservative government for 13 years so it was a very different situation.
The Tories started losing support in October 1992 when the mass pit closures were announced. Unlikely to be a repeat of that particular incident this time round.
The basic argument was that it enables people to raise issues in British courts with British judges, instead of taking their issue over the long and tortuous route to Strasbourg.
That worked well, didn't it? Number of cases against the United Kingdom allocated to a Chamber of the Strasbourg Court in 1999: 429. Number of cases against the United Kingdom allocated to a Chamber of the Strasbourg Court in 2010: 2766. [Donald et al., The UK and the European Court of Human Rights, EHRC Research Report no. 83, p. 31, table 4.1]
Note about 2010 figure : "This figure appears to include some of the 2,500 repetitive applications made in relation to prisoners’ right to vote, as indicated in Greens and MT v UK."
"Prisoners may be given vote because of human rights climbdown, Tory adviser warns Philip Hammond confirms that pulling out of the convention is 'not an option' as senior QC warns Britain could be forced to accept prisoner voting"
Can't get my head round Junker's careless choice of words. Anyone would think he is a Kipper or incredibly delusional.
Perhaps Juncker knows that the sight of raving Euro-sceptics banging on about Juncker does not help the out campaign.
Not sure how you reached that strange conclusion. I welcome such comments. Can only lead to more OUT votes
I reached the conclusion based on observing the results of the elections that matter in this country over the past 40 years.
Note that I didn't make any comment about how Juncker himself goes down with the British public, but the usual suspects becoming irate about second-hand comments from an interview with a German newspaper are just preaching to the choir.
So the rise of a Eurosceptic party is irrelevant? I wonder what would have happened if the Tories refused to offer a referendum.
If the Tories hadn't offered a referendum we'd have had Tory splits as a major story again and Miliband might have looked like the sane choice in the election.
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
I know, I'm just belabouring the point, if we don't use something for its intended purpose should we still retain it.
My own screen name is the nickname of a Parachute Division which is now an Air Assault Division.
We could rename it that. Effectively it is an elite mobile infrantry assault division.
But then you have all the issues around tradition, continuity, reputation, esprit de corps etc.
We still have cavalry regiments...
And lancers and horse artillery!
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
I see the candidate who supposedly "can make Labour win again" is still in 3rd place with the public, according to YouGov:
Andy Burnham 18% Yvette Cooper 9% Liz Kendall 7%
Obviously, the other two do have a bit of a headstart, but surely a truly talented politician would be forcing their way into the public consciousness by now after a few weeks of good media opportunities?
Mrs Balls always reminds me, somehow, of Isserley in Under the Skin.
I can vividly picture her driving around, picking up vodsels and injecting them with icpathua so they can be castrated, detongued and fattened for the oven.
Nuclear weapons are as useful to us as the Parachute Regiment or the RAF.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
Somewhat disingenuous of you, Mr. Eagles. I am sure the Paras have skills that go beyond jumping out of planes, just at the RAF is there for more than just shooting down any aircraft. And the fact that we have not been in a war that would have required them to do so, does not mean that they would not have done so on a different history arc.
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
Well the Paras have done other things like shooting innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
That's a bit unfair. Paras were key to securing and retaking the Falklands, liberating Sierra Leone and fought extremely hard against all out Taleban assaults in 2006-2008.
I know, I'm just belabouring the point, if we don't use something for its intended purpose should we still retain it.
My own screen name is the nickname of a Parachute Division which is now an Air Assault Division.
We could rename it that. Effectively it is an elite mobile infrantry assault division.
But then you have all the issues around tradition, continuity, reputation, esprit de corps etc.
We still have cavalry regiments...
And we have royal marine commandos that are landed in the middle of the desert by helicopter. Significant numbers if the Scots Guards are not even remotely Scottish. The admirals of the royal navy ordered giant aircraft carriers without catapults. I know which worries me the most.
Can't get my head round Junker's careless choice of words. Anyone would think he is a Kipper or incredibly delusional.
Perhaps Juncker knows that the sight of raving Euro-sceptics banging on about Juncker does not help the out campaign.
Not sure how you reached that strange conclusion. I welcome such comments. Can only lead to more OUT votes
I reached the conclusion based on observing the results of the elections that matter in this country over the past 40 years.
Note that I didn't make any comment about how Juncker himself goes down with the British public, but the usual suspects becoming irate about second-hand comments from an interview with a German newspaper are just preaching to the choir.
So the rise of a Eurosceptic party is irrelevant?
Yes completely irrelevant.
The so-called rise of UKIP has far more to do with Clegg becoming Deputy PM than it has to do with Euroscepticism.
Also I call it a so-called rise as the less than four million votes and one seat that UKIP received is the worst a third-placed in votes party has done since 1970.
Danny565 The problem with Kendall is she most appeals to staunch Tories, Labour needs a leader who can hold its core vote and win back those who voted Labour before but have swung to the Tories and UKIP
Only tangentially related but only two issues have struck me in the last week (I've been v busy on work and other matters):-
1. IS apparently capturing the port at Sirte on the Libyan coast - only a few hours away from the Italian mainland and, obviously, making it much easier for them to import/export arms/people etc. 2. The US Defence Secretary talking about UK's weakening defence role this morning.
How the Western world deals with IS seems to me to be one of the key issues of the next few years and yet there seems to be no strategy whatsoever, or none that appears to be working, anyway.
I think that most governments just hope it will go away. I simply can't understand the rationale for further defence cuts, when so much trouble is emerging on NATO's frontiers.
There is no rationale for further defence cuts. The whole of the Western World (so called), is acting in tandem like the 3 monkeys. See no IS, hear no IS, speak rubbish about IS.
A month after the 1992 election, the Tories recorded an 11% lead in an opinion poll, and were ahead by 16% in the local elections held around the same time.
A month after the 1992 election there had been a majority Conservative government for 13 years so it was a very different situation.
Sure, but I'm just making the point that the last time we got a "surprise" election result, the winner got a bounce (people like to think of themselves as part of the winning side?). It doesn't necessarily mean it will last, just as it didn't after 1992.
Wow -most utterly pointless poty - clutching at a hayrick methinks
Note about 2010 figure : "This figure appears to include some of the 2,500 repetitive applications made in relation to prisoners’ right to vote, as indicated in Greens and MT v UK."
The number of equivalent applications in 2013 and 2014 was 2519 and 1243 respectively, so the idea the 2010 figure is aberrant doesn't hold for a moment (see the annual report of the court for 2013, p. 192 and 2014, p. 166. It is indubitable that there has been a very large increase in litigation against the United Kingdom in Strasbourg since the 1998 Act came into force.
"Prisoners may be given vote because of human rights climbdown, Tory adviser warns Philip Hammond confirms that pulling out of the convention is 'not an option' as senior QC warns Britain could be forced to accept prisoner voting"
I can't see the law changing on this issue. The case law on this subject is genuinely insane. On the one hand, Strasbourg has held that a bright line rule removing the franchise from those detained pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment is incompatible with article 3 of the First Protocol. Yet they have also said that a bright line rule removing the franchise from those detained pursuant to a sentence in excess of four years is compatible. At least the court has retreated from the position that only those convicted of electoral offences can have the franchise removed.
Not true. Consider their views on Nimrod replacement, for instance.
What weapons does Nimrod carry?
Oh...
None. That's the point.
It did carry a lot, when it existed.
How many years was the Nimrod 4 in development, (first flight 2004 cancelled 2010) how many millions spent? Spent way beyond its budget. It was still not viable when it was cancelled. ie it never existed as a weapon system. There seemed to be a problem sticking new wings to old fuselages. Was this the way to run a defence department? Oh pardon me Labour were in charge. The mk2s had developed into a deathtrap.
Can't get my head round Junker's careless choice of words. Anyone would think he is a Kipper or incredibly delusional. If the IN campaign wins there should be a second referendum 5 years down the line to ensure that the reforms are deemed adequate.
“Brexit is not a question which arises, it’s not desired by the British,” Mr Juncker told Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.
“Cameron wants to dock his country permanently to Europe.”
What's he wrong about? There are no indications that Brexit is imminent, either from polling or from the now-superior gut feeling about the desire for stability in people's sentiments. And Cameron unambiguously does want to dock the UK permanently to Europe.
I think it will be close enough for the issue to not go away. Remaining in the EU does not necessary ensure stability. It is not a risk free option.
The EU certainly is the stability option. Nigel prefers free trade with, and mass migration from, Commonwealth countries like Kenya instead of EU countries like France. It's a hard sell.
Note about 2010 figure : "This figure appears to include some of the 2,500 repetitive applications made in relation to prisoners’ right to vote, as indicated in Greens and MT v UK."
The number of equivalent applications in 2013 and 2014 was 2519 and 1243 respectively, so the idea the 2010 figure is aberrant doesn't hold for a moment (see the annual report of the court for 2013, p. 192 and 2014, p. 166. It is indubitable that there has been a very large increase in litigation against the United Kingdom in Strasbourg since the 1998 Act came into force.
"Prisoners may be given vote because of human rights climbdown, Tory adviser warns Philip Hammond confirms that pulling out of the convention is 'not an option' as senior QC warns Britain could be forced to accept prisoner voting"
I can't see the law changing on this issue. The case law on this subject is genuinely insane. On the one hand, Strasbourg has held that a bright line rule removing the franchise from those detained pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment is incompatible with article 3 of the First Protocol. Yet they have also said that a bright line rule removing the franchise from those detained pursuant to a sentence in excess of four years is compatible. At least the court has retreated from the position that only those convicted of electoral offences can have the franchise removed.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem to matter what Strasbourg thinks, given Parliament's votes on the matter. They can't do anything to overrule Parliament.
Not true. Consider their views on Nimrod replacement, for instance.
What weapons does Nimrod carry?
Oh...
None. That's the point.
It did carry a lot, when it existed.
How many years was the Nimrod 4 in development, (first flight 2004 cancelled 2010) how many millions spent? Spent way beyond its budget. It was still not viable when it was cancelled. ie it never existed as a weapon system. There seemed to be a problem sticking new wings to old fuselages. Was this the way to run a defence department? Oh pardon me Labour were in charge. The mk2s had developed into a deathtrap.
I was talking about Nimrod replacements actually - and I certainly don't disagree with you about Nimrod. The lack of a timely replacement is the problem, and that is down to MoD planning.
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
Not quite correct. The BEF was mostly mechanised, but the British army had active cavalry units as late as 1942 in Arabia and India. I know this because my grandfather was a lieutenant in one of them (the Shropshire Yeomanry, later transferred to the Warwickshires). His horse was called Peaceful, which always struck me as an odd name for a cavalry horse - knowing my grandfather, I expect it was ironic! They were finally mechanised in March 1942.
Unnecessarily cheap and snide comment there, Charles..
I'm hoping to attend the leadership Hustings in London the week after next which has had to be moved to a larger phonebox apparently (now that's satire !)
I'm genuinely undecided between Tim and Norman at present (as I was last ime) and will be persuaded by the Hustings.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem to matter what Strasbourg thinks, given Parliament's votes on the matter. They can't do anything to overrule Parliament.
That is very true, although in Del Rio Prada v Spain (2014) 58 EHRR 37, 1081-1082 the Strasbourg Court has suggested that article 46 of the Convention requires a state to take general measures in its domestic legal order to end violations found by the Court so as to place the applicant, as far as possible, in the position he would have been had the violation not occurred. The danger is if the Strasbourg Court starts awarding damages to disenfranchised prisoners en masse in attempt to coerce a change in the law. Thus far the court has been reticent to do so. If it does, however, the government may be in some trouble.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
France has 131 Rafales delivered to the air force and navy. It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
Not quite correct. The BEF was mostly mechanised, but the British army had active cavalry units as late as 1942 in Arabia and India. I know this because my grandfather was a lieutenant in one of them (the Shropshire Yeomanry, later transferred to the Warwickshires). His horse was called Peaceful, which always struck me as an odd name for a cavalry horse - knowing my grandfather, I expect it was ironic! They were finally mechanised in March 1942.
The terrain and the temperatures on the Eastern front made cavalry a very useful arm of battle.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem to matter what Strasbourg thinks, given Parliament's votes on the matter. They can't do anything to overrule Parliament.
That is very true, although in Del Rio Prada v Spain (2014) 58 EHRR 37, 1081-1082 the Strasbourg Court has suggested that article 46 of the Convention requires a state to take general measures in its domestic legal order to end violations found by the Court so as to place the applicant, as far as possible, in the position he would have been had the violation not occurred. The danger is if the Strasbourg Court starts awarding damages to disenfranchised prisoners en masse in attempt to coerce a change in the law. Thus far the court has been reticent to do so. If it does, however, the government may be in some trouble.
How would a monetary award in any way make up for the loss of franchise to an individual prisoner? Will they next be trying to award prisoners the minimum wage for work done in the prison?
The number of equivalent applications in 2013 and 2014 was 2519 and 1243 respectively, so the idea the 2010 figure is aberrant doesn't hold for a moment
That data doesn't really back up your point. The 2014 number is around half the level for 2013 or 2010.
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
Not quite correct. The BEF was mostly mechanised, but the British army had active cavalry units as late as 1942 in Arabia and India. I know this because my grandfather was a lieutenant in one of them (the Shropshire Yeomanry, later transferred to the Warwickshires). His horse was called Peaceful, which always struck me as an odd name for a cavalry horse - knowing my grandfather, I expect it was ironic! They were finally mechanised in March 1942.
The terrain and the temperatures on the Eastern front made cavalry a very useful arm of battle.
Possibly, although whether that was why they were retained is another question.
In the 1930s - and I swear I am not making this up - a very senior general dismissed calls for tanks to replace horses in the British army. 'The horse has many advantages over the tank,' he said. 'To take one example, at the end of a day, you can get a horse to lie down, roll over and sit on its belly to have a cigarette. That is simply not possible with a tank.'
Sorry, I can't remember exactly who it was - but I remember wondering what he was smoking. The French had a number of very similar generals, of course.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
France has 131 Rafales delivered to the air force and navy. It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
I've long thought that buying stuff off the shelf from the Americans would enable us to get far more for our budget than we do at present.
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
Not quite correct. The BEF was mostly mechanised, but the British army had active cavalry units as late as 1942 in Arabia and India. I know this because my grandfather was a lieutenant in one of them (the Shropshire Yeomanry, later transferred to the Warwickshires). His horse was called Peaceful, which always struck me as an odd name for a cavalry horse - knowing my grandfather, I expect it was ironic! They were finally mechanised in March 1942.
The terrain and the temperatures on the Eastern front made cavalry a very useful arm of battle.
Possibly, although whether that was why they were retained is another question.
In the 1930s - and I swear I am not making this up - a very senior general dismissed calls for tanks to replace horses in the British army. 'The horse has many advantages over the tank,' he said. 'To take one example, at the end of a day, you can get a horse to lie down, roll over and sit on its belly to have a cigarette. That is simply not possible with a tank.'
Sorry, I can't remember exactly who it was - but I remember wondering what he was smoking. The French had a number of very similar generals, of course.
LOL! Lloyd George's War Memoirs are very funny in parts. There's one entry in the Index "Military Mind. Narrowness of. Regards thinking as a form of mutiny.". Captain Liddell-Hart's views on the use of armour were ignored by the British army in the 30's, but assiduously studied by the Germans.
But, on the Eastern front, road and rail links were dreadful, making it far harder to deploy armour effectively, or transport troops by vehicle. A horse is far more use in dense forest or the Pripet Marshes than a tank. And, engines often seized up in sub-zero temperatures.
Comments
Your points are well made.
Given our economic standing it is like owning a prestige car whilst you live in a tent.
It's very odd, especially as a story/comment like Mr Clayton's would read so oddly in the Scottish media those days as to discredit the source.
Mr. Bumble the Beadle, in other words. If Dickens were alive today, he'd be writing much the same books, with only minor tweaks. They'd be about how Labour's NHS brought back filthy degrading workhouses, and they'd be about the teaching unions.
Hearts and minds, however, is another story...
My own screen name is the nickname of a Parachute Division which is now an Air Assault Division.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/01/lib-dem-leadership-norman-lamb-cannabis-legalisation
But then you have all the issues around tradition, continuity, reputation, esprit de corps etc.
One that made me laugh was:05/01/2015: Al Qaim. Tornado fired a Brimstone missile. Target: JCB.
I wondered if Roger was piloting it ...
As an aside, one of the things we should do is have a vote in parliament allowing us to perform such operations in Syria as well, instead of the intelligence overflights we are currently restricted to.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-Dinosaurs-Blundering-Military/dp/0099484420/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433170885&sr=8-1&keywords=lewis+page
He persuaded me that UK defence policy is about putting Eurofighter ahead of literally everything else.
I blame leadership. At every level.
"And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry."
I've been experimenting in this match with betting in-play, hence paying close attention and hanging around betting sites and blogs far too much. I should be green on all results, although have more tied up than I expected in both time and money. The next big call will be when England really do have no chance, which needs to be made in the next half an hour or so - preferably before the umpires call stumps and the odds move too much. A fascinating few days anyway!!
I've not heard recently from Ed Balls - he's not phoned me once... I thought I was going to be a Lord by now.
Worrying.
I wonder if Labour's polling has been damaged by frontbenchers essentially saying the manifesto was a load of tosh but they campaigned on it anyway.
If the French aren't getting into as many conflicts then it will get a lot more value for money as far as infrastructure is concerned.
Oh...
What's he wrong about? There are no indications that Brexit is imminent, either from polling or from the now-superior gut feeling about the desire for stability in people's sentiments. And Cameron unambiguously does want to dock the UK permanently to Europe.
It did carry a lot, when it existed.
Andy Burnham 18%
Yvette Cooper 9%
Liz Kendall 7%
Obviously, the other two do have a bit of a headstart, but surely a truly talented politician would be forcing their way into the public consciousness by now after a few weeks of good media opportunities?
Philip Hammond confirms that pulling out of the convention is 'not an option' as senior QC warns Britain could be forced to accept prisoner voting"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11644188/Prisoners-may-be-given-vote-because-of-human-rights-climbdown-Tory-adviser-warns.html
I think it will be close enough for the issue to not go away. Remaining in the EU does not necessary ensure stability. It is not a risk free option.
They will still vote because they have to decide which Labour Deputy Speaker becomes Chairman of Ways and Means
Note that I didn't make any comment about how Juncker himself goes down with the British public, but the usual suspects becoming irate about second-hand comments from an interview with a German newspaper are just preaching to the choir.
The rise of UKIP is about much more than the EU.
On the other hand the British army went to war in 39 entirely motorised, while German Infantry used horses and wagons.
I can vividly picture her driving around, picking up vodsels and injecting them with icpathua so they can be castrated, detongued and fattened for the oven.
The admirals of the royal navy ordered giant aircraft carriers without catapults.
I know which worries me the most.
The so-called rise of UKIP has far more to do with Clegg becoming Deputy PM than it has to do with Euroscepticism.
Also I call it a so-called rise as the less than four million votes and one seat that UKIP received is the worst a third-placed in votes party has done since 1970.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently.
No kidding, Juncker!
Conservative Grandee Ken Clarke MP today (31/05/2015) revealed on live television that the British Prime minister’s EU renegotiation plan is a sham.
Well fancy that!
It was still not viable when it was cancelled. ie it never existed as a weapon system. There seemed to be a problem sticking new wings to old fuselages. Was this the way to run a defence department? Oh pardon me Labour were in charge. The mk2s had developed into a deathtrap.
The EU certainly is the stability option. Nigel prefers free trade with, and mass migration from, Commonwealth countries like Kenya instead of EU countries like France. It's a hard sell.
I'm hoping to attend the leadership Hustings in London the week after next which has had to be moved to a larger phonebox apparently (now that's satire !)
I'm genuinely undecided between Tim and Norman at present (as I was last ime) and will be persuaded by the Hustings.
It has 40 Mirage 2000 Fighters which are slowly being retired
It has 84 Mirage 2000 strike planes including 23 carrying 'the bomb'. The 61 remainder are to be modernised. It first flew in 1986.
So hundreds? A total of 150 Rafales of all types are meant to be delivered by 2019 it has about 6 operational squadrons using them. If Old Mirages are being modernised they cannot be flying.
Will they next be trying to award prisoners the minimum wage for work done in the prison?
Why the big decline in 2014.
In the 1930s - and I swear I am not making this up - a very senior general dismissed calls for tanks to replace horses in the British army. 'The horse has many advantages over the tank,' he said. 'To take one example, at the end of a day, you can get a horse to lie down, roll over and sit on its belly to have a cigarette. That is simply not possible with a tank.'
Sorry, I can't remember exactly who it was - but I remember wondering what he was smoking. The French had a number of very similar generals, of course.
But, on the Eastern front, road and rail links were dreadful, making it far harder to deploy armour effectively, or transport troops by vehicle. A horse is far more use in dense forest or the Pripet Marshes than a tank. And, engines often seized up in sub-zero temperatures.