Many have still not recieved their ballots. I have friends who have not recieved the ballot by e mail or post yet. They have e mailed to say they have not recieved them as requested by 1st September. They have tried to ring Labour, but the phones were switched off all afternoon. Then the phones came on,with a message saying they are only available bettwen 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday. Maybe hope for Cooper yet.
Many have still not recieved their ballots. I have friends who have not recieved the ballot by e mail or post yet. They have e mailed to say they have not recieved them as requested by 1st September. They have tried to ring Labour, but the phones were switched off all afternoon. Then the phones came on,with a message saying they are only available bettwen 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday. Maybe hope for Cooper yet.
It would be an interesting legal case. Would a previous lifetime annuity have stopped paying if it could be shown definitively that Lazarus was dead before being miraculously raised from the dead?
It would be a holy alliance between the insurance company and those wishing to believe in the miracle.
Its sometimes said that those who are "brought back to life" from a stopped heart by technology were "technically dead for x minutes". That could be media misreporting and not medically/legally accurate but I don't think actuaries have ever stopped payments because of that.
I think disappointingly the answer will be that in difficult cases a death certificate is final., or similar. The remedy if that is incorrect will be negligence on the part of the doctor (unlikely) or fraud (on the part of the doctor and/or policyholder).
Was Lazarus given a death certificate the first time?
For Germany the rising migration rates while unpopular may actually be a very good thing economically. The situation in the UK is very different to Germany demographically. We have a healthy birth rate above the death rate so are "naturally" growing our population, plus we have a high inward net migration rate already.
In Germany the death rate far exceeds the birth rate and the trend was for that to be getting worse not better. Plus the net migration rate before this "crisis" was considerably lower than ours.
As a result Germany's population has been declining not rising and ageing. That is not a healthy position to be in at all. As a result we are/were forecast to overtake Germany as the number one economy in Europe potentially by 2030.
In one way Germany offering the migrants a home kills two birds with one stone. These migrants need a home, Germany needs people.
There is plenty to criticize Corbyn for without having to resort to articles from the (predominantly) Zionist website Harry's Place. It hardly builds up your credibility as a slayer of the illiberal.
Are you suggesting that the image of Jeremy Corbyn's letter on that page is a forgery? If not, what does it matter where the article was published?
If Harry's Place is unacceptable, how about Labour Uncut?
"UNCUT: Corbyn’s silence over child abuse in Islington is typical of how he picks and chooses his causes 31/08/2015, 09:25:29 PM by Richard Scorer
“After that meeting, we never heard another thing. No letter, no phone call, I never, ever saw him speak about it. In fact, whenever I saw Jeremy afterwards, at Stop The War marches and events like that, I’d always go up to him and say: ‘This scandal is still going on, Jeremy.’ He’d be very polite, but he never did anything.”
These are the words of Liz Davies, a former social worker who tried to blow the whistle on the sexual abuse of children in council-run care homes in Islington in the 1980s and 1990s. Davies was talking recently to the Daily Mail about her attempts to persuade her local MP, Jeremy Corbyn, to support victims and whistleblowers -and his silence on a major public scandal."
The comments are worth reading. Some Corbyn supporters apparently condone child abuse.
Evertone is against Corbyn ''Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of ignoring mounting evidence of human rights abuses by Russian-backed militias in Ukraine. The Ukrainian human rights activist Halya Coynash said that Mr Corbyn, the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest, was so blinded by his opposition to Nato and US foreign policy that he was forgetting that Russia breached international law by invading Crimea and supporting militias that seized control in east Ukraine.'' (The Times)
There is a migration plan I would be happy to support: the West supports and arranges for an evacuation of almost the entire population of Syria to numerous western countries, spends 5-10 years training them in the latest warfare techniques, and then returns them to Syria in order to defeat both Assad and ISIS.
Almost certainly the ones fleeing would be happy with that.
By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died.
Utter steaming empty scaredycatness from the 4 Labour leadership candidates on C4 right now. Anything not to give a number we should take on the current migrant issue ( don't want to scare the voters do we?), and complete rubbish about "getting councils to come forward and offer places".
Ok their electorate at present is not the general populace granted but God alive. They are crap.
It is perfectly reasonable to use QE in a Depression, indeed Keynesian economics 101. It's another way of increasing government debt effectively to increase demand when no one else will. The issue is - we are no longer in a depression situation. Growth is weak, productivity low, balance of payments off the scale, but its not a depression IMHO. I doubt Keynes would be keen on more QE at this stage.
Which is why Corbyn is wrong, Japan has been "investing" for a very long time now with little to show for it. If there is an argument for splurging cash on infrastructure to stimulate the wider economy Corbyn needs to find a better example, if anything what has happened in Japan suggests that we should do elsewise.
As far as I understand it, Japan is trying something pretty experimental - hence the so-called Abenomics moniker. Personally I think there is some further scope in UK to borrow for infrastructure, because it can be done at such a low rate - giving future generations new transport links or whatever at a bargain price relatively. But that's not full scale Abenomics.
Investing in infrastructure or anything with poor returns is bad for a country because it wastes resources, whether it is a company or a government doing the investing. The UK should be investing in projects with good returns that will improve productivity and thus increase our wealth. Given the weak busines case, HS2, for example, must be a dubious use of £50bn of government money. The country's resources should be better utilised.
Motorways run at about £30m a mile in build cost. The productivity benefits couled be very large from just 500 more motorway miles by passing clogged up areas etc at a cost of circa £15 bn.
"Motorways run at about £30m a mile in build cost." Are you sure about this figure? The new A14 bypass is planned to cost £1.5 billion for 22 miles - a little over £68 million per mile. Admittedly, this is more complex, as only 12.5 miles is new road, and the rest upgrades.
Hmmm. I'd like to see a more up-to-date figure, and directly sourced.
The M6 toll road cost £900 million for 27 miles, and opened in 2002. That's more than the £30 million figure per mile, even back then. Construction cost inflation would have pushed that up considerably.
Utter steaming empty scaredycatness from the 4 Labour leadership candidates in C4. Anything not to give a number we should take on the current migrant issue ( don't want to scare the voters do we?), and complete rubbish about "getting councils to come forward and offer places".
Ok their electorate at present is not the general populace granted but God alive. They are crap.
The % share by political party of the 155 submissions in the above poll so far is surprisingly representative of the UK population. After normalising and putting through Electoral Calculus the results are:
Watching the 4 Labour leadership contenders on C4. Mrs Balls clearly getting under the skin of her 'colleagues'. Constantly cutting across the others when they are speaking. She was asked the question "do you mean this country takes in 10,000 refugees as a one-off, or do you mean 10,000 per month?" It is quite clear from her rather evasive answer, that she means approx. 10,000 per month (depending on what local councils can take!) This puts a very different perspective on what she was saying earlier.
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
Utter steaming empty scaredycatness from the 4 Labour leadership candidates in C4. Anything not to give a number we should take on the current migrant issue ( don't want to scare the voters do we?), and complete rubbish about "getting councils to come forward and offer places".
Ok their electorate at present is not the general populace granted but God alive. They are crap.
Agreed. Not easy for ABC for sure, but I am mentally screaming at the telly at their honed ability to say nothing at all. Who farms out immigration/asylum to councils ffs? Why the utter refusal to answer if taking 10k this month also means 10k next month and the month after??? Aggh!
The % share by political party of the 155 submissions in the above poll so far is surprisingly representative of the UK population. After normalising and putting through Electoral Calculus the results are:
I had assumed that PB was overwhelmingly Tory from the comments. What can explain that?
The Tories won 37% at the election, Labour 30%, the LDs 8%, UKIP 13% and the Greens 4%. So PB leans fractionally more Tory than Labour compared to the population as a whole, as well as containing more LD and Green supporters and fewer backers of UKIP
The % share by political party of the 155 submissions in the above poll so far is surprisingly representative of the UK population. After normalising and putting through Electoral Calculus the results are:
I had assumed that PB was overwhelmingly Tory from the comments. What can explain that?
"Shy" Tories are more confident when they can retain their anonymity, and therefore post more. Thus, they seem more numerous than they actually are. This can appear slightly intimidating to non-Tories. (Disclosure - I do feel this at times myself)
It's not dissimilar to the phenomenon whereby supporters of "YES" in the Scottish Referendum appeared to be more numerous than "NO" supporters.
They are not unreasonable to expect that the usual bars for taxpayer funds being spent on referendums are upheld.
* Point 1: There are too few UK-wide referendums for the statement "usual bars for taxpayer funds being spent on referendums" to be defensible - referendums aren't usual. * Point 2: The UK Government spent taxpayer money advocating a "stay" vote in the 1974 European Referendum. * Point 3: The relevant law governing referendums (PPERA 2000) does not mention preventing the UK Government from taking a stance nor funding it. Arguably, Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 52.1[2] specifically allows it. * Point 4: I was characterising the "OUT"s as wishing to skew the result by preventing the "IN"s from speaking, and I gave examples to that effect. Whether they are unreasonable for doing so is a separate discussion, altho' an obvious one.
your allegatiom that anyone[1] wanting an out dislikes foreigners is rather childish.
If I was alleging that everybody[1] who wants an "OUT" does so because of a dislike of foreigners then you would be correct to pull me up on it. But I was not doing that. I was pointing out and satirising the reasons that "OUT"s use to ban people from speaking. Reportage isn't advocacy. Satire isn't advocacy.
Notes [1] I assume you meant "everybody" here. "Anybody" would imply "at least one" [2] "...For the purposes of this Part none of the following shall be regarded as a donation...any other facilities provided in pursuance of any right conferred on candidates or a party at an election or a referendum by any enactment..." see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41
The % share by political party of the 155 submissions in the above poll so far is surprisingly representative of the UK population. After normalising and putting through Electoral Calculus the results are:
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The % share by political party of the 155 submissions in the above poll so far is surprisingly representative of the UK population. After normalising and putting through Electoral Calculus the results are:
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
Can you not read: “.....MANY....” --- not all.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
It was too big a risk that he would be toppled only for ISIS now to be in control of Damascus
In what is probably a first on PB someone is going to admit to not understanding something (genuinely, not the pretend "I don't understand what you are saying..." technique used to mean " I understand exactly what you are saying but am pretending that such wrong headed thinking is beneath me")
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Question for PBers. I'm thinking of going to Zagreb in a couple of weeks time for the Arsenal match but looking at the cost of a flight to Zagreb I'm thinking of flying to Vienna and getting the train to Zagreb from there. Given what's going on in Hungary at the moment, does anyone think that getting the train could be a bit dodgy?
I had assumed that PB was overwhelmingly Tory from the comments. What can explain that?
The most obvious explanation is that you were wrong and PB is not overwhelmingly Tory.
At a time when plenty of LDs and even Labour people can seem pretty down on Labour, if they are disliking where Labour are headed, , the Tory majority probably appears more overwhelming than in fact it is.
Question for PBers. I'm thinking of going to Zagreb in a couple of weeks time for the Arsenal match but looking at the cost of a flight to Zagreb I'm thinking of flying to Vienna and getting the train to Zagreb from there. Given what's going on in Hungary at the moment, does anyone think that getting the train could be a bit dodgy?
Try flying to Ljubljana and getting the train from there. You should have no problems.
Croatia is outside Schengen so your passport presumably will be checked on the train.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Ah but don't forget Assad used Chemical weapons.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
Question for PBers. I'm thinking of going to Zagreb in a couple of weeks time for the Arsenal match but looking at the cost of a flight to Zagreb I'm thinking of flying to Vienna and getting the train to Zagreb from there. Given what's going on in Hungary at the moment, does anyone think that getting the train could be a bit dodgy?
Try flying to Ljubljana and getting the train from there. You should have no problems.
Croatia is outside Schengen so your passport presumably will be checked on the train.
Thanks, I'll look at that. I like the idea of getting the train - I'm not pushed for time.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Ah but don't forget Assad used Chemical weapons.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
When do we invade I wonder.
Nice to see you being so flippant about the use of chemical weapons.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Ah but don't forget Assad used Chemical weapons.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
When do we invade I wonder.
Assad may well have used chemical weapons but that was only after the civil war has well and truly kicked off. As William Hague, the FCO , the BBC (I remember well some of the interviews of Syrian officials) and divers lace-panty folks were serious back-seat supporters of the rebels then they really should feel some shame at the result of their encouragement.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
LOL
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
Indeed, this is the graphic which brings home the extent of this crisis:
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
Can you not read: “.....MANY....” --- not all.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
Of course I can read. But I suggest you re-read what you wrote, and try to work out why rumours in a place in Westminster, of all places, does not equate to guilt. As the McAlpine case proves.
True. But Corbyn claims to be different. This was his constituency. He was told. He chose to do nothing. He claims to be on the side of the oppressed. Who is more oppressed than parentless children abused by those who should care for them? Ann Cryer MP was told and - courageously - spoke out. He did not. Let's not have this man of principle fighting for the underdog bollocks anymore. It's nauseating bullsh*t.
I think your posts have gone way beyond what is reasonable on Corbyn (& I am not particularly a supporter of his).
Corbyn is no more or no less culpable on child abuse than many (probably almost all) other MPs, many councillors, almost everyone who belongs to political parties, almost everyone at the BBC, almost everyone at boarding schools or at Chethams’ Music school or the Royal Northern College of Music, and so on.
Fair enough to criticise Corbyn, but now let’s hear you criticism of all these other Goddam organisations as well.
And a new LotO.
I was responding to someone else who raised the Labour Uncut article. I am more than happy to condemn those organisations which have failed children. I have done so repeatedly on this blog. I think people who abuse children, who ignore children who complain, who ignore whistleblowers, who treat under-age girls as "willing", who fail to pursue the perpetrators are a disgrace and should have the full force of the law used against them. Margaret Hodge in particular should play no part in public life for the disgraceful way in which she behaved over this issue. Corbyn's failure is one of omission, no different than many others, as you point out. But he is standing for LoTo so it is right that his actions be scrutinised, particularly as he and his supporters are presenting him and his politics as some kind of new politics, different from the old.
And it turns out that he is not so very different after all. So let's have less of the moral self-righteousness from him and his supporters.
I loathed Corbyn long before he stood for the leadership. He represents to my mind the worst of the Left in this country.
I would love for there to be a decent left of centre party that I could honourably consider voting for. Labour under Corbyn will not be such a party. And the people who will suffer are those for whom such a party should speak, those who want good government, who want a strong worthwhile opposition, those who want decency in public life, those who want strong liberal Enlightenment values to have a real voice in this country, those who want a decent, honourable Left.
And if you think that makes me go over the top, well, too bad. Maybe you have a point. But I care about decency in public life and I care rather more for decency within the Labour Party than some of its own supporters it seems.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
So the result of our encouragement actually led to a bad situation being worse. So much worse that half of the population is either dead or fled and a bunch of murderous nutters are now in charge of great chunks of the country.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Ah but don't forget Assad used Chemical weapons.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
When do we invade I wonder.
Assad may well have used chemical weapons but that was only after the civil war has well and truly kicked off. As William Hague, the FCO , the BBC (I remember well some of the interviews of Syrian officials) and divers lace-panty folks were serious back-seat supporters of the rebels then they really should feel some shame at the result of their encouragement.
Hang on, you're blaming Hague and others in the UK for supporting a group other than the one who used the chemical weapons?
Really?
I think your dislike of certain individuals has overcome your usual common sense.
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
When communism collapsed in the Eastern Bloc it took a long time for the new states to turn around and for democracy and liberal values to take root. The Arab Spring will likely follow a similar if more difficult path, and it's worth nothing that some countries are doing a lot better than others, such as Tunisia and Algeria.
Whatever the end result of the Arab Spring turns out to be it was not a Western plot. The people in North Africa and the Middle East wanted change and acted, lets hope they get something better in the long run.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Ah but don't forget Assad used Chemical weapons.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
When do we invade I wonder.
Nice to see you being so flippant about the use of chemical weapons.
The flippancy I'd suggest comes from those cherry picking their horridness by who uses them.
But I'm still rather bemused why you think death by chemical weapons is worse than death by any other weapon.
The all time top killer from memory is the humble AK47. Has any state proposed banning them yet ?
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
LOL
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
How exactly were you going to invade the place ?
Our forces have been cut somewhat, but are still one of the best funded and equipped in the globe. Certainly better than Syria's army - but we were never talking about invasion and nor were we intending to fight alone, we were going to be a side-player with the USA in case you've forgotten. What I'm suggesting we should have done is followed through with what we'd said beforehand - the idea of using chemical weapons on a populace was a red line that we would take action if it happened. It was shown to have happened and following a disgraceful showing in Parliament we said "no we're not going to support the Syrians afterall".
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
So the result of our encouragement actually led to a bad situation being worse. So much worse that half of the population is either dead or fled and a bunch of murderous nutters are now in charge of great chunks of the country.
That in your own terms is a good thing.
No, the result of our disengagement led to a situation being worse.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
LOL
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Ah but don't forget Assad used Chemical weapons.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
When do we invade I wonder.
Nice to see you being so flippant about the use of chemical weapons.
The flippancy I'd suggest comes from those cherry picking their horridness by who uses them.
But I'm still rather bemused why you think death by chemical weapons is worse than death by any other weapon.
The all time top killer from memory is the humble AK47. Has any state proposed banning them yet ?
I know you're not being serious, but here's a starter:
In what is probably a first on PB someone is going to admit to not understanding something (genuinely, not the pretend "I don't understand what you are saying..." technique used to mean " I understand exactly what you are saying but am pretending that such wrong headed thinking is beneath me")
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
Can anyone explain?
I think it's quite clear? Powell is saying he is unconditionally patriotic and that the truth of any set of values one may espouse would not depend on the outcome of a war.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
LOL
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
How exactly were you going to invade the place ?
Our forces have been cut somewhat, but are still one of the best funded and equipped in the globe. Certainly better than Syria's army - but we were never talking about invasion and nor were we intending to fight alone, we were going to be a side-player with the USA in case you've forgotten. What I'm suggesting we should have done is followed through with what we'd said beforehand - the idea of using chemical weapons on a populace was a red line that we would take action if it happened. It was shown to have happened and following a disgraceful showing in Parliament we said "no we're not going to support the Syrians afterall".
Utter disgrace.
So if Assad had decided to simply butcher his populace with conventional arms as dictators are doing even today that would have been fine ?
It strikes me that once again we have lots of well meaning folk not thinking about what they are doing and how it will all pan out.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
LOL
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
How exactly were you going to invade the place ?
Our forces have been cut somewhat, but are still one of the best funded and equipped in the globe. Certainly better than Syria's army - but we were never talking about invasion and nor were we intending to fight alone, we were going to be a side-player with the USA in case you've forgotten. What I'm suggesting we should have done is followed through with what we'd said beforehand - the idea of using chemical weapons on a populace was a red line that we would take action if it happened. It was shown to have happened and following a disgraceful showing in Parliament we said "no we're not going to support the Syrians afterall".
Utter disgrace.
You only fight wars when the alternative is not worse, the risk of toppling Assad and replacing him by Islamic extremists was not worth risking the life of one British soldier or airmen. The absolute most that could have been considered against Assad was a few Cruise missiles sent as a warning after the chemical attacks
Question for PBers. I'm thinking of going to Zagreb in a couple of weeks time for the Arsenal match but looking at the cost of a flight to Zagreb I'm thinking of flying to Vienna and getting the train to Zagreb from there. Given what's going on in Hungary at the moment, does anyone think that getting the train could be a bit dodgy?
I've had a quick look and I think the Vienna-Zagreb train goes via Austria, Slovenia and Croatia, not via Hungary. You can check that via the DB Bahn website or other sites
Although to be honest with you, I find direct routes are always easier so if you can afford it, take the plane. I'm not a fan of rail travel.
It would be an interesting legal case. Would a previous lifetime annuity have stopped paying if it could be shown definitively that Lazarus was dead before being miraculously raised from the dead?
It would be a holy alliance between the insurance company and those wishing to believe in the miracle.
There have been somewhat similar death penalty cases. If someone is hanged or electrocuted, and subsequently revived, what happens to them? Are they deemed to have been executed, and therefore, they go free, or does the process have to be repeated?
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Ah but don't forget Assad used Chemical weapons.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
When do we invade I wonder.
Assad may well have used chemical weapons but that was only after the civil war has well and truly kicked off. As William Hague, the FCO , the BBC (I remember well some of the interviews of Syrian officials) and divers lace-panty folks were serious back-seat supporters of the rebels then they really should feel some shame at the result of their encouragement.
Hang on, you're blaming Hague and others in the UK for supporting a group other than the one who used the chemical weapons?
Really?
I think your dislike of certain individuals has overcome your usual common sense.
No, Mr Jessup, at the time the bleeding hearts were encouraging the Arab Spring nobody had used chemical weapons. That came later when deluded people on the ground started to believe in the "Arab Spring" nonsense and civil war broke out.
Nobody in the bleeding-heart crowd seems willing to own up to actually have some responsibility for the resultant God-awful mess. No great surprise I don't see Cameron saying much about the state of anarchy in Libya either.
However, I know now that Assad is a very bad man and the Arab Spring was a very good thing, even though it has led to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths and a flood of refugees banging at Europe's gates (to say nothing of what it has done to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey).
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
Indeed, this is the graphic which brings home the extent of this crisis:
Having taken a few months away from PB - when last I was here Liz Kendall was the exciting person with the big future - I can say in my little corner of the outside world the only real topic of political conversation is immigration.
There is one thing on which I am willing to pay some small tribute to Corbyn and that is that he voted against ID cards. Just as Dianne Abbott gave a very good speech against detention without trial in the pre-2010 Parliament.
I still don't want him as LoTo though, though I hope that Labour wholly rethink the authoritarianism they fell into as New Labour.
The SNP have 56/59 seats already. How much is Osborne going to lose to them? Worst case scenario we lose one seat to them.
I think that way of thinking is exactly the problem Iain Martin has... Conservatives treating Scotland as a means to English popularity, rather than as an end in and of itself, betrays a governing strategy that has already mentally partitioned Britain.
In what is probably a first on PB someone is going to admit to not understanding something (genuinely, not the pretend "I don't understand what you are saying..." technique used to mean " I understand exactly what you are saying but am pretending that such wrong headed thinking is beneath me")
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
Can anyone explain?
I think it's quite clear? Powell is saying he is unconditionally patriotic and that the truth of any set of values one may espouse would not depend on the outcome of a war.
The difference is British conservatism is based around institutions (e.g. the British state), while American conservatism is based around the values enshrined in the US founding documents.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
LOL
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
How exactly were you going to invade the place ?
Our forces have been cut somewhat, but are still one of the best funded and equipped in the globe. Certainly better than Syria's army - but we were never talking about invasion and nor were we intending to fight alone, we were going to be a side-player with the USA in case you've forgotten. What I'm suggesting we should have done is followed through with what we'd said beforehand - the idea of using chemical weapons on a populace was a red line that we would take action if it happened. It was shown to have happened and following a disgraceful showing in Parliament we said "no we're not going to support the Syrians afterall".
Utter disgrace.
So if Assad had decided to simply butcher his populace with conventional arms as dictators are doing even today that would have been fine ?
(snip)
No: in fact, western concern in what was going on in Syria pre-dated the use of chemical weapons. And with good reason: just look at the 1981, and particularly the 1982, Hama massacres for examples of what people feared Assad might do.
No, Mr Jessup, at the time the bleeding hearts were encouraging the Arab Spring nobody had used chemical weapons. That came later when deluded people on the ground started to believe in the "Arab Spring" nonsense and civil war broke out.
Nobody in the bleeding-heart crowd seems willing to own up to actually have some responsibility for the resultant God-awful mess. No great surprise I don't see Cameron saying much about the state of anarchy in Libya either.
However, I know now that Assad is a very bad man and the Arab Spring was a very good thing, even though it has led to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths and a flood of refugees banging at Europe's gates (to say nothing of what it has done to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey).
I suppose Assad and Gaddafi were a very good thing in your eyes? I'm sure you'd have been happy to be ruled by them?
Being contrarian for the sake of it does not make you big or clever.
It would be an interesting legal case. Would a previous lifetime annuity have stopped paying if it could be shown definitively that Lazarus was dead before being miraculously raised from the dead?
Taking refuge in pedantry for the moment,[1] if it was a annuity based on the life of one person, then payments stop on the first death: there is no provision for second or other subsequent deaths
So if Assad had decided to simply butcher his populace with conventional arms as dictators are doing even today that would have been fine ?
It strikes me that once again we have lots of well meaning folk not thinking about what they are doing and how it will all pan out.
No we should have acted then too. But we said unequivocally that we would act if he used chemical weapons only to turn around and decide not to afterall. That dishonesty removes all credibility we have and takes responsibility for what has happened since.
The SNP have 56/59 seats already. How much is Osborne going to lose to them? Worst case scenario we lose one seat to them.
I think that way of thinking is exactly the problem Iain Martin has... Conservatives treating Scotland as a means to English popularity, rather than as an end in and of itself, betrays a governing strategy that has already mentally partitioned Britain.
Except that Osborne also believes that what he is doing is good for Scotland, with the added bonus that it irritates the SNP etc - a classic win/win.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Ah but don't forget Assad used Chemical weapons.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
When do we invade I wonder.
Assad may well have used chemical weapons but that was only after the civil war has well and truly kicked off. As William Hague, the FCO , the BBC (I remember well some of the interviews of Syrian officials) and divers lace-panty folks were serious back-seat supporters of the rebels then they really should feel some shame at the result of their encouragement.
Hang on, you're blaming Hague and others in the UK for supporting a group other than the one who used the chemical weapons?
Really?
I think your dislike of certain individuals has overcome your usual common sense.
No, Mr Jessup, at the time the bleeding hearts were encouraging the Arab Spring nobody had used chemical weapons. That came later when deluded people on the ground started to believe in the "Arab Spring" nonsense and civil war broke out.
Nobody in the bleeding-heart crowd seems willing to own up to actually have some responsibility for the resultant God-awful mess. No great surprise I don't see Cameron saying much about the state of anarchy in Libya either.
However, I know now that Assad is a very bad man and the Arab Spring was a very good thing, even though it has led to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths and a flood of refugees banging at Europe's gates (to say nothing of what it has done to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey).
Allowing people the chance to decide their future for themselves is a good thing - even if they aren't yet mature enough to choose a good future.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
LOL
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
How exactly were you going to invade the place ?
Our forces have been cut somewhat, but are still one of the best funded and equipped in the globe. Certainly better than Syria's army - but we were never talking about invasion and nor were we intending to fight alone, we were going to be a side-player with the USA in case you've forgotten. What I'm suggesting we should have done is followed through with what we'd said beforehand - the idea of using chemical weapons on a populace was a red line that we would take action if it happened. It was shown to have happened and following a disgraceful showing in Parliament we said "no we're not going to support the Syrians afterall".
Utter disgrace.
You're saying that a democratic vote in parliament is an 'utter disgrace' ???
Perhaps you would prefer it if the UK was run under Middle Eastern 'Strong Man' lines where it could go around attacking other countries whenever it felt like it.
And how did a democratic vote in the UK parliament stop any other country from bombing Assad if that's what they wanted to do ?
No, Mr Jessup, at the time the bleeding hearts were encouraging the Arab Spring nobody had used chemical weapons. That came later when deluded people on the ground started to believe in the "Arab Spring" nonsense and civil war broke out.
Nobody in the bleeding-heart crowd seems willing to own up to actually have some responsibility for the resultant God-awful mess. No great surprise I don't see Cameron saying much about the state of anarchy in Libya either.
However, I know now that Assad is a very bad man and the Arab Spring was a very good thing, even though it has led to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths and a flood of refugees banging at Europe's gates (to say nothing of what it has done to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey).
I suppose Assad and Gaddafi were a very good thing in your eyes? I'm sure you'd have been happy to be ruled by them?
Being contrarian for the sake of it does not make you big or clever.
If it's a choice between Gadaffi/Assad on the one hand, and assorted Islamonutters on the other, I'll go for the former. Still more so if it's Mubarrak vs the latter.
But, the problem with Gadaffi/Assad is that they'd already lost control. They had to resort to widespread massacres to retain control, and even that probably wouldn't have worked.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Ah but don't forget Assad used Chemical weapons.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
When do we invade I wonder.
Assad may well have used chemical weapons but that was only after the civil war has well and truly kicked off. As William Hague, the FCO , the BBC (I remember well some of the interviews of Syrian officials) and divers lace-panty folks were serious back-seat supporters of the rebels then they really should feel some shame at the result of their encouragement.
Hang on, you're blaming Hague and others in the UK for supporting a group other than the one who used the chemical weapons?
Really?
I think your dislike of certain individuals has overcome your usual common sense.
No, Mr Jessup, at the time the bleeding hearts were encouraging the Arab Spring nobody had used chemical weapons. That came later when deluded people on the ground started to believe in the "Arab Spring" nonsense and civil war broke out.
Nobody in the bleeding-heart crowd seems willing to own up to actually have some responsibility for the resultant God-awful mess. No great surprise I don't see Cameron saying much about the state of anarchy in Libya either.
However, I know now that Assad is a very bad man and the Arab Spring was a very good thing, even though it has led to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths and a flood of refugees banging at Europe's gates (to say nothing of what it has done to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey).
Yes, I am well aware of the timings of the events. And I'm not sure you're correct in saying that people who wanted more democracy were 'deluded'.
The SNP have 56/59 seats already. How much is Osborne going to lose to them? Worst case scenario we lose one seat to them.
I think that way of thinking is exactly the problem Iain Martin has... Conservatives treating Scotland as a means to English popularity, rather than as an end in and of itself, betrays a governing strategy that has already mentally partitioned Britain.
Except that Osborne also believes that what he is doing is good for Scotland, with the added bonus that it irritates the SNP etc - a classic win/win.
As per the "one seat to lose" argument, I don't really think G Osborne cares what Scottish people think of the government.
In what is probably a first on PB someone is going to admit to not understanding something (genuinely, not the pretend "I don't understand what you are saying..." technique used to mean " I understand exactly what you are saying but am pretending that such wrong headed thinking is beneath me")
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
Can anyone explain?
I think it's quite clear? Powell is saying he is unconditionally patriotic and that the truth of any set of values one may espouse would not depend on the outcome of a war.
Powell was always interesting even when controversial, because he pursued ideas to their logical end, even where most people recoil. I think he's saying that values are abstract concepts, not dependent on military success, though he's also saying he'd fight for Britain regardless of values. He is in theory correct about the former - if, say, Zorostrianism is correct, it is still correct even though it is no longer followed by many. However, most of us would be pleased if values we thought were good were also widely-followed.
I'd also disagree with part 2. We normally praise Germans who opposed the Nazis. Nothing wrong with being fond of one's country, but not being willing kill for it regardless of its values.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
LOL
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
How exactly were you going to invade the place ?
Our disgraceful showing in Parliament we said "no we're not going to support the Syrians afterall".
Utter disgrace.
So if Assad had decided to simply butcher his populace with conventional arms as dictators are doing even today that would have been fine ?
(snip)
No: in fact, western concern in what was going on in Syria pre-dated the use of chemical weapons. And with good reason: just look at the 1981, and particularly the 1982, Hama massacres for examples of what people feared Assad might do.
Different Assad.
And again a somewhat arbitrary position, on that premise we should have invaded North Korea some time this decade, overthrown Mugabe, occupied Somalia and be rolling our tabks through ISIS land.
I'd suggest to you that HMG thought it could get easy regime change for not much effort and hadn't thought through what might replace it.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing?
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Good things can have bad consequences, especially when you don't back them up. We shirked on supporting the Syrian populace disgracefully and so what was an opportunity for improvement became something worse. ISIS stepped into the vacuum our isolationism permitted.
LOL
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
How exactly were you going to invade the place ?
Our forces have been cut somewhat, but are still one of the best funded and equipped in the globe. Certainly better than Syria's army - but we were never talking about invasion and nor were we intending to fight alone, we were going to be a side-player with the USA in case you've forgotten. What I'm suggesting we should have done is followed through with what we'd said beforehand - the idea of using chemical weapons on a populace was a red line that we would take action if it happened. It was shown to have happened and following a disgraceful showing in Parliament we said "no we're not going to support the Syrians afterall".
Utter disgrace.
So if Assad had decided to simply butcher his populace with conventional arms as dictators are doing even today that would have been fine ?
It strikes me that once again we have lots of well meaning folk not thinking about what they are doing and how it will all pan out.
Its also deemed fine if a few British cruise missiles or drones kill some unfortunates who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - its all classed as 'collatoral damage'.
It strikes me that Middle Eastern warmongering gives some Tories the same sort of warm feeling inside that spending more money does to Labour politicians.
Never mid the result it shows they 'care'.
There's also the aspect that Avery said - Tories never turn down an opportunity to 'bomb ragheads'.
Not easy for ABC for sure, but I am mentally screaming at the telly at their honed ability to say nothing at all.
Well, it was partly Corbyn's willingness to give polite straight answers that made me vote for him. I disagree with some of his thoughts, but I'm glad he doesn't try to disguise them in blancmange, and I think it won't do British politics any harm to have that quality knocking around: Cameron may find it slightly unnerving too.
The SNP have 56/59 seats already. How much is Osborne going to lose to them? Worst case scenario we lose one seat to them.
In case you didn't realise, there's Holyrood 2016 elections where Ruth is hoping to add to her 15 out of 129 seats.
I do realise, I just don't particularly care. 2020 is the next major election.
I also take issue with Ian Martin's final paragraph equating this with Brown's announcement during the Tory Conference, saying don't make announcements during Conference or another party's leadership election. Sorry but Conference lasts about four days, this leadership election started four months ago, during which time the LD have elected their leader already. There is a pretty significant timing difference there, is running the country supposed to be suspended for four months just because a party wants to drag out its election?
Not easy for ABC for sure, but I am mentally screaming at the telly at their honed ability to say nothing at all.
Well, it was partly Corbyn's willingness to give polite straight answers that made me vote for him. I disagree with some of his thoughts, but I'm glad he doesn't try to disguise them in blancmange, and I think it won't do British politics any harm to have that quality knocking around: Cameron may find it slightly unnerving too.
Maybe, but I am really suspicious that he will retain straight answers if he has to do the top job. Bland, obfuscations are the order of the day because political opponents jump on the slightest hint of poor choice of words ('swarming' being a case in point) to condemn people. Given the speeches I've seen show Corbyn is no strange to the meaningless cliche despite being so apparently 'different', I don't know that he will react that differently to anyone else in the top job, even if his fundamental difference from the Spads mean it will be a little different.
In what is probably a first on PB someone is going to admit to not understanding something (genuinely, not the pretend "I don't understand what you are saying..." technique used to mean " I understand exactly what you are saying but am pretending that such wrong headed thinking is beneath me")
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
Can anyone explain?
Powell was stating that "values" are not concrete nouns: you cannot touch them and although they arguably have a birth date, they cannot have a death date. Objects that cannot die cannot be destroyed. You cannot fight for them nor against them
Conversely, "land" and "people" are concrete nouns: you can touch them, you can destroy them utterly. Since they can die, you can fight for them.
I think he was missing the point. You cannot kill an idea, but you can kill people that hold an idea. Values may not exist, but people that hold those values do, and you can fight for and against them.
As to whether this embodies the difference between English Toryism and American Republicanism, I do not know the answer to that question.
In what is probably a first on PB someone is going to admit to not understanding something (genuinely, not the pretend "I don't understand what you are saying..." technique used to mean " I understand exactly what you are saying but am pretending that such wrong headed thinking is beneath me")
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
Can anyone explain?
I think it's quite clear? Powell is saying he is unconditionally patriotic and that the truth of any set of values one may espouse would not depend on the outcome of a war.
I Powell was always interesting even when controversial, because he pursued ideas to their logical end, even where most people recoil. I think he's saying that values are abstract concepts, not dependent on military success, though he's also saying he'd fight for Britain regardless of values. He is in theory correct about the former - if, say, Zorostrianism is correct, it is still correct even though it is no longer followed by many. However, most of us would be pleased if values we thought were good were also widely-followed.
I'd also disagree with part 2. We normally praise Germans who opposed the Nazis. Nothing wrong with being fond of one's country, but not being willing kill for it regardless of its values.
Yet the Valkyrie plotters were described as traitors even in allied newsreels at the time. It is only in subsequent years that they and the White Rose Movement have been held up as "good germans".
The SNP have 56/59 seats already. How much is Osborne going to lose to them? Worst case scenario we lose one seat to them.
I think that way of thinking is exactly the problem Iain Martin has... Conservatives treating Scotland as a means to English popularity, rather than as an end in and of itself, betrays a governing strategy that has already mentally partitioned Britain.
Except that Osborne also believes that what he is doing is good for Scotland, with the added bonus that it irritates the SNP etc - a classic win/win.
As per the "one seat to lose" argument, I don't really think G Osborne cares what Scottish people think of the government.
Its a bit chicken and egg but frankly why should he? If the Scottish public want to elect a one party slate and won't vote Tory no matter what then why should the Tories give a damn about them?
I think the Tories care more for Scotland than Scotland cares for the Tories though.
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
There have been similar suggestions made about the instinctively absurd claims made against Harvey Proctor/Heath etc etc.
No: in fact, western concern in what was going on in Syria pre-dated the use of chemical weapons. And with good reason: just look at the 1981, and particularly the 1982, Hama massacres for examples of what people feared Assad might do.
Different Assad.
And again a somewhat arbitrary position, on that premise we should have invaded North Korea some time this decade, overthrown Mugabe, occupied Somalia and be rolling our tabks through ISIS land.
I'd suggest to you that HMG thought it could get easy regime change for not much effort and hadn't thought through what might replace it.
The Charles Atlas Foreign Policy
Yes, I know it was Bashar's father, but it was the same regime and, sadly, "like father, like son" is sometimes valid. And there was plenty of indication that Bashar wasn't the most stable person, either in temperament or position.
No, I think HMG were faced with a terrible choice: not to do anything and see tens of thousands slaughtered (even after which, the situation may not have been finalised), or to try and support people who wanted democracy against a dictator.
It's not as if the outcome of any of the alternatives were clear: supporting Assad, as some on here seem to be calling for, supporting the army rebels and protesters, as we wanted to do, or just sitting on our hands and whistling.
There is a reason why politicians obfuscate. It is basically a necessary part of the job. Even more so for those in Government who will often have to keep secret about things which they would much rather reveal to avert political flak.
It is very easy being a "straight talker" when you only need to appeal to a narrow constituency and aren't in a position to wield power. Being attracted towards someone for these purposes is just an indulgence, and they will soon be forced to disappoint once the reality of their position intrudes.
Not easy for ABC for sure, but I am mentally screaming at the telly at their honed ability to say nothing at all.
Well, it was partly Corbyn's willingness to give polite straight answers that made me vote for him. I disagree with some of his thoughts, but I'm glad he doesn't try to disguise them in blancmange, and I think it won't do British politics any harm to have that quality knocking around: Cameron may find it slightly unnerving too.
I can see the lack of blancmange is "attractive" so to speak. To be fair post my comments Burnham in particular was very clear about his opposition to unilateral nuclear disarmament ( and I agreed with every word he said on that), and LK had her moments as did even YC in opposing JC's money printing.
However, the lasting impression is a spadocracy trained for years to be bland in a "on the one hand/ what I think is important/that's not the question/we should be concerned" way coming up against a person with real conviction. It shows, and not in a good way.
Sadly for Labour in my view ( though clearly you disagree - fair enough, it's your right and I defend your right etc) those convictions seem set in aspic circa 1975 and are simply bonkers and indeed dangerous for the well being of the people of this country. Hey ho, one of us is wrong and time will tell and all that.
Comments
Many have still not recieved their ballots.
I have friends who have not recieved the ballot by e mail or post yet.
They have e mailed to say they have not recieved them as requested by 1st September.
They have tried to ring Labour, but the phones were switched off all afternoon.
Then the phones came on,with a message saying they are only available bettwen 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday.
Maybe hope for Cooper yet.
New Statesman retweeted
The Staggers @TheStaggers 2h2 hours ago
Why it's a mistake to assume that Jeremy Corbyn has already won, by @ShabanaMahmood http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/why-its-mistake-assume-jeremy-corbyn-has-already-won …
Was Lazarus given a death certificate the first time?
Corbyn Win
Burnham 16.91%
Cooper 13.09%
Corbyn 65.43%
Kendall 4.57%
Apologies for the double entry - Obviously I don't expect Cooper to win on 13.09%...
Good luck all!
In Germany the death rate far exceeds the birth rate and the trend was for that to be getting worse not better. Plus the net migration rate before this "crisis" was considerably lower than ours.
As a result Germany's population has been declining not rising and ageing. That is not a healthy position to be in at all. As a result we are/were forecast to overtake Germany as the number one economy in Europe potentially by 2030.
In one way Germany offering the migrants a home kills two birds with one stone. These migrants need a home, Germany needs people.
''Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of ignoring mounting evidence of human rights abuses by Russian-backed militias in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian human rights activist Halya Coynash said that Mr Corbyn, the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest, was so blinded by his opposition to Nato and US foreign policy that he was forgetting that Russia breached international law by invading Crimea and supporting militias that seized control in east Ukraine.'' (The Times)
By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died.
Ok their electorate at present is not the general populace granted but God alive. They are crap.
The M6 toll road cost £900 million for 27 miles, and opened in 2002. That's more than the £30 million figure per mile, even back then. Construction cost inflation would have pushed that up considerably.
It'd be good to find an 'official' answer ...
Re: Comp – 24hrs on the naughty step for the chap who has Kendall winning by 100%
It's beyond bizarre. Arguably AV has been key to this sucking up behaviour.
Con 38% 337 seats
Lab 28% 215 seats
LD 15% 18 seats
UKIP 8% 1 seat
Grn 6% 1 seat
Con majority 24.
I had assumed that PB was overwhelmingly Tory from the comments. What can explain that?
She was asked the question "do you mean this country takes in 10,000 refugees as a one-off, or do you mean 10,000 per month?" It is quite clear from her rather evasive answer, that she means approx. 10,000 per month (depending on what local councils can take!) This puts a very different perspective on what she was saying earlier.
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
It's not dissimilar to the phenomenon whereby supporters of "YES" in the Scottish Referendum appeared to be more numerous than "NO" supporters.
* Point 2: The UK Government spent taxpayer money advocating a "stay" vote in the 1974 European Referendum.
* Point 3: The relevant law governing referendums (PPERA 2000) does not mention preventing the UK Government from taking a stance nor funding it. Arguably, Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 52.1[2] specifically allows it.
* Point 4: I was characterising the "OUT"s as wishing to skew the result by preventing the "IN"s from speaking, and I gave examples to that effect. Whether they are unreasonable for doing so is a separate discussion, altho' an obvious one. If I was alleging that everybody[1] who wants an "OUT" does so because of a dislike of foreigners then you would be correct to pull me up on it. But I was not doing that. I was pointing out and satirising the reasons that "OUT"s use to ban people from speaking. Reportage isn't advocacy. Satire isn't advocacy.
Notes
[1] I assume you meant "everybody" here. "Anybody" would imply "at least one"
[2] "...For the purposes of this Part none of the following shall be regarded as a donation...any other facilities provided in pursuance of any right conferred on candidates or a party at an election or a referendum by any enactment..." see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41
The Labour readers don't comment because what's the point? You'll just invite misery on yourself when everyone else "chortles" at you.
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/638731317337825280
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
Can anyone explain?
* The CBI
* The UK government
* "Europe" (various definitions)
* The BBC
* Nigel Farage
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
Croatia is outside Schengen so your passport presumably will be checked on the train.
Coincidentally ISIS are also using chemical weapons ( nicked from Assad ).
When do we invade I wonder.
and what were you suggesting we do ? Cameron has cut the forces to the bone. Syria has a bigger army than we have with more tanks, more artillery and they're fighting on home soil.
How exactly were you going to invade the place ?
http://theorkneyvole.com/2015/09/01/stv-to-televise-alistair-carmichael-court-hearing-live-in-uk-tv-first-scotland-news/
And it turns out that he is not so very different after all. So let's have less of the moral self-righteousness from him and his supporters.
I loathed Corbyn long before he stood for the leadership. He represents to my mind the worst of the Left in this country.
I would love for there to be a decent left of centre party that I could honourably consider voting for. Labour under Corbyn will not be such a party. And the people who will suffer are those for whom such a party should speak, those who want good government, who want a strong worthwhile opposition, those who want decency in public life, those who want strong liberal Enlightenment values to have a real voice in this country, those who want a decent, honourable Left.
And if you think that makes me go over the top, well, too bad. Maybe you have a point. But I care about decency in public life and I care rather more for decency within the Labour Party than some of its own supporters it seems.
That in your own terms is a good thing.
Really?
I think your dislike of certain individuals has overcome your usual common sense.
Whatever the end result of the Arab Spring turns out to be it was not a Western plot. The people in North Africa and the Middle East wanted change and acted, lets hope they get something better in the long run.
But I'm still rather bemused why you think death by chemical weapons is worse than death by any other weapon.
The all time top killer from memory is the humble AK47. Has any state proposed banning them yet ?
Utter disgrace.
http://www.capx.co/george-osbornes-trident-stunt-is-a-gift-to-the-snp/
Although when he made it he was apparantly thought the question referred to the events of 1968 rather than those of 1789.
In which case far from being a display of oriental inscrutability it was merely a non-commital diplomatic response.
As to the Middle East that's much easier - there's a choice between 'Strong Men', militant Islam or violent anarchy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-chemical-weapons-are-different/279482/
It strikes me that once again we have lots of well meaning folk not thinking about what they are doing and how it will all pan out.
Although to be honest with you, I find direct routes are always easier so if you can afford it, take the plane. I'm not a fan of rail travel.
Nobody in the bleeding-heart crowd seems willing to own up to actually have some responsibility for the resultant God-awful mess. No great surprise I don't see Cameron saying much about the state of anarchy in Libya either.
However, I know now that Assad is a very bad man and the Arab Spring was a very good thing, even though it has led to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths and a flood of refugees banging at Europe's gates (to say nothing of what it has done to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey).
Although this:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03401/Batmanghelidjh-por_3401737b.jpg
also caused comment.
I still don't want him as LoTo though, though I hope that Labour wholly rethink the authoritarianism they fell into as New Labour.
Being contrarian for the sake of it does not make you big or clever.
[1] Who am I kidding: I live there...:-(
Perhaps you would prefer it if the UK was run under Middle Eastern 'Strong Man' lines where it could go around attacking other countries whenever it felt like it.
And how did a democratic vote in the UK parliament stop any other country from bombing Assad if that's what they wanted to do ?
But, the problem with Gadaffi/Assad is that they'd already lost control. They had to resort to widespread massacres to retain control, and even that probably wouldn't have worked.
I'd also disagree with part 2. We normally praise Germans who opposed the Nazis. Nothing wrong with being fond of one's country, but not being willing kill for it regardless of its values.
And again a somewhat arbitrary position, on that premise we should have invaded North Korea some time this decade, overthrown Mugabe, occupied Somalia and be rolling our tabks through ISIS land.
I'd suggest to you that HMG thought it could get easy regime change for not much effort and hadn't thought through what might replace it.
The Charles Atlas Foreign Policy
It strikes me that Middle Eastern warmongering gives some Tories the same sort of warm feeling inside that spending more money does to Labour politicians.
Never mid the result it shows they 'care'.
There's also the aspect that Avery said - Tories never turn down an opportunity to 'bomb ragheads'.
I also take issue with Ian Martin's final paragraph equating this with Brown's announcement during the Tory Conference, saying don't make announcements during Conference or another party's leadership election. Sorry but Conference lasts about four days, this leadership election started four months ago, during which time the LD have elected their leader already. There is a pretty significant timing difference there, is running the country supposed to be suspended for four months just because a party wants to drag out its election?
Conversely, "land" and "people" are concrete nouns: you can touch them, you can destroy them utterly. Since they can die, you can fight for them.
I think he was missing the point. You cannot kill an idea, but you can kill people that hold an idea. Values may not exist, but people that hold those values do, and you can fight for and against them.
As to whether this embodies the difference between English Toryism and American Republicanism, I do not know the answer to that question.
I think the Tories care more for Scotland than Scotland cares for the Tories though.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
twitter.com/itvnews/status/638801325178900480
How long has this unholy fool been associating with journalists?
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ ...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3218034/The-Islamic-welfare-State-Men-line-receive-handouts-ISIS-run-benefits-office-Islamists-boast-helping-poor-ignoring-role-bringing-poverty-region.html
And again a somewhat arbitrary position, on that premise we should have invaded North Korea some time this decade, overthrown Mugabe, occupied Somalia and be rolling our tabks through ISIS land.
I'd suggest to you that HMG thought it could get easy regime change for not much effort and hadn't thought through what might replace it.
The Charles Atlas Foreign Policy
Yes, I know it was Bashar's father, but it was the same regime and, sadly, "like father, like son" is sometimes valid. And there was plenty of indication that Bashar wasn't the most stable person, either in temperament or position.
No, I think HMG were faced with a terrible choice: not to do anything and see tens of thousands slaughtered (even after which, the situation may not have been finalised), or to try and support people who wanted democracy against a dictator.
It's not as if the outcome of any of the alternatives were clear: supporting Assad, as some on here seem to be calling for, supporting the army rebels and protesters, as we wanted to do, or just sitting on our hands and whistling.
It is very easy being a "straight talker" when you only need to appeal to a narrow constituency and aren't in a position to wield power. Being attracted towards someone for these purposes is just an indulgence, and they will soon be forced to disappoint once the reality of their position intrudes.
However, the lasting impression is a spadocracy trained for years to be bland in a "on the one hand/ what I think is important/that's not the question/we should be concerned" way coming up against a person with real conviction. It shows, and not in a good way.
Sadly for Labour in my view ( though clearly you disagree - fair enough, it's your right and I defend your right etc) those convictions seem set in aspic circa 1975 and are simply bonkers and indeed dangerous for the well being of the people of this country. Hey ho, one of us is wrong and time will tell and all that.