Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.
Smith should not have appealed.
Competitive sport is not a game of morals.
Competitive politics is not a game or morals.
Not sometimes is it a game of respect for the Electorate.
Ask Ken Livingstone about the day after the night before: May 7th 1981, and what he did to the leadership of the GLC elected by the public.
If we vote to leave the EU then the next Tory leader must surely be from the Out camp. The opposite also applies. So don't bet on next PM until you are confident of the result of the referendum.
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.
Smith should not have appealed.
Competitive sport is not a game of morals. It is upto the players to appeal if they think their opponent may be out. It is upto the umpires (and especially the Third Umpire) to determine who is out or not.
Professional cricketers are not umpires and should not be presuming to do the umpires job for them.
(There is a very big ethical difference here where there is an element of doubt, versus where a player appeals when he knows the batsman is Not Out - eg a 'catcher' who knows for certain the ball bounced).
Obviously you are not a cricketer.
I grew up in Australia and am a massive cricket fan. I also clarified I was talking about Professional cricket - this may suprise you but no I am not a Professional Cricketer.
Me neither funny enough, but I know that, whether on the village green of the home or Cricket, you play within the spirit of the game, and if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be playing
The aussies made a big deal about the spirit of cricket after Philip Hughes tragic death... this was their chance to show they meant it
Personally, I don't want a player - whether for my local village team or for the England team - that isn't prepared to go that extra mile to win. A man who isn't prepared to cheat for his team and his country, shouldn't be in the team.
"The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title. "
There were multiple sources: I see you ignore those. And the accusation about the source is a bit funny from someone who, just last week, posted as a source a media organisation owned by a personal friend of Bashar Assad, ffs.
It is not flimsy: far from. The only thing that is flimsy are your repeated attempts to propagate Russian propaganda. As for your comments on chlorine: I believe you are utterly wrong about why Assad would want to use them. However there is at least one expert on PB on such matters, and it would be interesting to know his view on why they would be used.
Your linked article again relies on the fact that the OPCW did not ascribe blame for the attacks. That is because, as mentioned before, ascribing blame was not in their mandate. If Assad was not responsible, and it was a rebel group, you'd have expected him to be rather keen for them to ascribe blame.
And the last quote on your post was hilarious: given the number of Iranian and now Russian troops in Syria helping Assad's forces, it's clear that in order to prevail, the Syrian government needs foreign intervention. It's just that you probably don't see them as 'foreign'.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
As for chlorine, let's not forget that it was the first ever CW used in the era of industrialized warfare. 22 April 1915 Ypres. Why would it be used in Syria now? It is a basic chemical feedstock into many industrial chemical production processes and so it used in vast quantities for legitimate economic purposes. As such, trade in it is permitted and is in large quantities, so siphoning off smallish quantities for limited CW attacks would be easy. Why use a gas rather than bombs? Clearing buildings of opposition comes to mind. So does terror.
I grew up in Australia and am a massive cricket fan. I also clarified I was talking about Professional cricket - this may suprise you but no I am not a Professional Cricketer.
Me neither funny enough, but I know that, whether on the village green of the home or Cricket, you play within the spirit of the game, and if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be playing
The aussies made a big deal about the spirit of cricket after Philip Hughes tragic death... this was their chance to show they meant it
It has been the applied principle for decades that if there is uncertainty you are supposed to appeal and let the umpire decide. The umpire should have said Not Out but the Aussies were entirely within their rights to appeal.
I recall Shane Warne appealing for far more dodgy decisions than that one!
"The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title. "
There were multiple sources: I see you ignore those. And the accusation about the source is a bit funny from someone who, just last week, posted as a source a media organisation owned by a personal friend of Bashar Assad, ffs.
It is not flimsy: far from. The only thing that is flimsy are your repeated attempts to propagate Russian propaganda. As for your comments on chlorine: I believe you are utterly wrong about why Assad would want to use them. However there is at least one expert on PB on such matters, and it would be interesting to know his view on why they would be used.
Your linked article again relies on the fact that the OPCW did not ascribe blame for the attacks. That is because, as mentioned before, ascribing blame was not in their mandate. If Assad was not responsible, and it was a rebel group, you'd have expected him to be rather keen for them to ascribe blame.
And the last quote on your post was hilarious: given the number of Iranian and now Russian troops in Syria helping Assad's forces, it's clear that in order to prevail, the Syrian government needs foreign intervention. It's just that you probably don't see them as 'foreign'.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
As for chlorine, let's not forget that it was the first ever CW used in the era of industrialized warfare. 22 April 1915 Ypres. Why would it be used in Syria now? It is a basic chemical feedstock into many industrial chemical production processes and so it used in vast quantities for legitimate economic purposes. As such, trade in it is permitted and is in large quantities, so siphoning off smallish quantities for limited CW attacks would be easy. Why use a gas rather than bombs? Clearing buildings of opposition comes to mind. So does terror.
If we vote to leave the EU then the next Tory leader must surely be from the Out camp. The opposite also applies. So don't bet on next PM until you are confident of the result of the referendum.
But... if most of the members vote to leave?
That figure will never be known for certain (besides polls and we know how reliable they are) since the public don't sign their referendum ballots with a party membership.
''Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
...
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Do
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Yes, but the country has been getting more conservative, when Labour won seats in Dorset we had a Labour government with a comfortable majority, when the LDs won seats in Dorset they won around 20% of the vote and eyellow
...
At the moment it may not look likely that the Tories will lose their majority or Labour will win again, but that is not the same as for all eternity, eventually the pendulum will turn again as it always does. If the swing is enough then of course it is possible the Tories can again lose the 3 seats in Dorset they have lost in the last 3 decades, even if they are always likely to hold the 5 they have consistently held throughout those periods.
Dorset has always been a relatively affluent place filled with relatively wealthy retirees, often from the home counties and London, indeed I used to visit an elderly relatively who lived in a hotel near the seafront and was a staunch Tory.
Southampton Itchen and all the Cornish seats were won by Thatcher of course, that did not stop them going Labour or LD a decade later!
I never said Dorset was a bellweather area like the Midlands, and it clearly leans Tory, but nor is it an ultra Tory stronghold like Surrey either, where, apart from Guildford in 2001, every seat was won by the Tories throughout the Blair years
I think you really underestimate the fundamental problems the left of centre are facing outside metropolitan areas, and especially in the South where it has never really become fully established.
There is no appetite for socialism, true, but Dorset is not Surrey either, for starters it does not have the wealth of Surrey, the stockbroker belt and its house prices are not as inflated as high through City money. Dorset has also had a small 'hippyish' and radical tradition too, of course it was the home of the Tolpuddle martyrs, so if the mood does eventually swing against the Tories again Dorset will fall alway from the blues before Surrey does
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.
Smith should not have appealed.
Competitive sport is not a game of morals. It is upto the players to appeal if they think their opponent may be out. It is upto the umpires (and especially the Third Umpire) to determine who is out or not.
Professional cricketers are not umpires and should not be presuming to do the umpires job for them.
(There is a very big ethical difference here where there is an element of doubt, versus where a player appeals when he knows the batsman is Not Out - eg a 'catcher' who knows for certain the ball bounced).
Obviously you are not a cricketer.
I grew up in Australia and am a massive cricket fan. I also clarified I was talking about Professional cricket - this may suprise you but no I am not a Professional Cricketer.
Me neither funny enough, but I know that, whether on the village green of the home or Cricket, you play within the spirit of the game, and if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be playing
The aussies made a big deal about the spirit of cricket after Philip Hughes tragic death... this was their chance to show they meant it
Personally, I don't want a player - whether for my local village team or for the England team - that isn't prepared to go that extra mile to win. A man who isn't prepared to cheat for his team and his country, shouldn't be in the team.
Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser.
A man who is prepared to cheat for team and his country should recuse himself from sport completely and take to football that has long since been the preserve of such vile individuals in a business that no longer should enjoy the honour of being termed sport.
If we vote to leave the EU then the next Tory leader must surely be from the Out camp. The opposite also applies. So don't bet on next PM until you are confident of the result of the referendum.
But... if most of the members vote to leave?
That figure will never be known for certain (besides polls and we know how reliable they are) since the public don't sign their referendum ballots with a party membership.
The party should respect the country's decision.
The figure will be known from various surveys. The party will respect the country's decision and then vote against a europhile.
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
My apologies, Mr Mortimer. I had placed you as of the same age as Miss Apocalypse. I now realise that you must be much older and more experienced. Sorry about that.
But, picking up your point, of course the West Country is getting much more blue. All the yuppies, guppies and whatever have sold up their properties in London to foreigners at inflated prices, and are flocking down to the West Country, where local people cannot compete in the housing market. We have several examples of them here on PB.
But there is a reaction in the country, I think, to the Tory arrogance. And now that the Lib Dems are free from the contamination from their association with the Conservatives, I think that it will not be slow in making itself apparent.
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.
Smith should not have appealed.
Competitive sport is not a game of morals. It is upto the players to appeal if they think their opponent may be out. It is upto the umpires (and especially the Third Umpire) to determine who is out or not.
Professional cricketers are not umpires and should not be presuming to do the umpires job for them.
(There is a very big ethical difference here where there is an element of doubt, versus where a player appeals when he knows the batsman is Not Out - eg a 'catcher' who knows for certain the ball bounced).
Obviously you are not a cricketer.
I grew up in Australia and am a massive cricket fan. I also clarified I was talking about Professional cricket - this may suprise you but no I am not a Professional Cricketer.
Me neither funny enough, but I know that, whether on the village green of the home or Cricket, you play within the spirit of the game, and if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be playing
The aussies made a big deal about the spirit of cricket after Philip Hughes tragic death... this was their chance to show they meant it
"Cheap wickets and damn the honour of the game was my style " (H. Flashman)
I haven't ignored multiple sources, I've correctly identified that the only evidence we've so far been presented with (in any of your links) that these devices have been dropped from helicopters has been unverified eye witness accounts. And that the only eye witness with a researchable identity happens to come from a pro-revolutionary NGO. Eye witness accounts were not nearly enough for you to go on when they reported seeing fighter planes escorting MH17, so I'm surprised you find them so plausible now. Feel free to provide anything else of more substance.
I make no point about the OPCW not having a mandate to ascribe blame - I simply take that as it is. You're the one darkly hinting 'they all know he did it'. This sequence of events:
'According to its report, in May 2014, an OPCW team tried to investigate at the site of alleged chlorine gas attacks. The Syrian government gave the OPCW team passage to the rebel controlled area but the convoy was attacked by a rebel faction. None of the team members was injured but that stopped their on-site investigation. Instead, the OPCW worked with the well-funded opposition-supporting Violations Documentation Center to arrange interviews with numerous people from three villages. The interviews were conducted outside Syria, probably in Turkey. They gathered photographs, videos and other evidence and expressed “high confidence that chlorine had been used as a weapon in Syria” in three villages. They did not ascribe responsibility.'
-hardly indicates Assad involvement.
As for your last paragraph, facetiousness is not a substitute for an argument. You are asking us to believe, on the scantiest of evidence, that having just escaped US bombing, by the skin of his teeth, as a result of a Kerry slip up and a clever Russian wheeze, Assad, having agreed to give up his entire chemical arsenal, would start dropping chlorine on people half a mile from where weapons inspectors were staying, thus crossing Obama's 'red line'. To what end? For what purpose? As opposed to the insurgents, who have been using it for years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022100166.html (2007 Iraq) -and were desperate to secure Western intervention. Right, ok then.
We've heard several views on this thread about what occurred. It's perhaps best to let people judge for themselves whose is the most credible.
If we vote to leave the EU then the next Tory leader must surely be from the Out camp. The opposite also applies. So don't bet on next PM until you are confident of the result of the referendum.
But... if most of the members vote to leave?
That figure will never be known for certain (besides polls and we know how reliable they are) since the public don't sign their referendum ballots with a party membership.
The party should respect the country's decision.
The figure will be known from various surveys. The party will respect the country's decision and then vote against a europhile.
The party will respect the country's decision and vote for a europragmatist.
A europhile like Clarke is out of the question. A eurosceptic who immediately wants to re-open the decision (like the SNP) would be absurd. The party will go with a pragmatist.
A man who is prepared to cheat for team and his country should recuse himself from sport completely and take to football that has long since been the preserve of such vile individuals in a business that no longer should enjoy the honour of being termed sport.
Quite agree with Jack W. Sport and cheat should never be used in the same sentence, unless there is a negative in there somewhere. I am surprised at you, Young Smithson. I think you have been moving too long in Tory circles.......
Cricket Law 37.2 It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or no. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt.
It was for the umpires to decide. Not the Australians. The Australians were perfectly within their rights to appeal but the Third Umpire should have reviewed the images in real time not slow-mo and determined that it was clearly evasive action and not wilful.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
My apologies, Mr Mortimer. I had placed you as of the same age as Miss Apocalypse. I now realise that you must be much older and more experienced. Sorry about that.
But, picking up your point, of course the West Country is getting much more blue. All the yuppies, guppies and whatever have sold up their properties in London to foreigners at inflated prices, and are flocking down to the West Country, where local people cannot compete in the housing market. We have several examples of them here on PB.
But there is a reaction in the country, I think, to the Tory arrogance. And now that the Lib Dems are free from the contamination from their association with the Conservatives, I think that it will not be slow in making itself apparent.
Dorset has always attracted wealthy retirees from the South East and Sandbanks could match Surrey in terms of wealth and house prices, however many of the locals in Dorset still have relatively low wages and work in tourism, the service sector or agriculture and do not have the type of salaries to match the City
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of
Smith should not have appealed.
Competitive sport is not a game of morals. It is upto the players to appeal if they think their opponent may be out. It is upto the umpires (and especially the Third Umpire) to determine who is out or not.
Professional cricketers are not umpires and should not be presuming to do the umpires job for them.
(There is a very big ethical difference here where there is an element of doubt, versus where a player appeals when he knows the batsman is Not Out - eg a 'catcher' who knows for certain the ball bounced).
Obviously you are not a cricketer.
I grew up in Australia and am a massive cricket fan. I also clarified I was talking about Professional cricket - this may suprise you but no I am not a Professional Cricketer.
Me neither funny enough, but I know that, whether on the village green of the home or Cricket, you play within the spirit of the game, and if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be playing
The aussies made a big deal about the spirit of cricket after Philip Hughes tragic death... this was their chance to show they meant it
Personally, I don't want a player - whether for my local village team or for the England team - that isn't prepared to go that extra mile to win. A man who isn't prepared to cheat for his team and his country, shouldn't be in the team.
Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser.
A man who is prepared to cheat for team and his country should recuse himself from sport completely and take to football that has long since been the preserve of such vile individuals in a business that no longer should enjoy the honour of being termed sport.
Dishonourable behaviour, which stays within the letter of the rules, is entirely a part of cricket (eg Sarfraz Nawaz' dismissal of Andrew Hilditch for handling the ball). It's like playing Diplomacy.
If we vote to leave the EU then the next Tory leader must surely be from the Out camp. The opposite also applies. So don't bet on next PM until you are confident of the result of the referendum.
But... if most of the members vote to leave?
That figure will never be known for certain (besides polls and we know how reliable they are) since the public don't sign their referendum ballots with a party membership.
The party should respect the country's decision.
The figure will be known from various surveys. The party will respect the country's decision and then vote against a europhile.
The party will respect the country's decision and vote for a europragmatist.
A europhile like Clarke is out of the question. A eurosceptic who immediately wants to re-open the decision (like the SNP) would be absurd. The party will go with a pragmatist.
"A eurosceptic who immediately wants to re-open the decision (like the SNP) would be absurd." Who said they would? A eurosceptic who lined up with the "leave" camp has the credibility with the eurosceptic members. They can still say that the referendum has settled things and we move forward on that basis without mentioning a future referendum.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
HYUFD and myself had an amiable discussion that lasted for about eight days on a recent thread. I'm not saying who got bored and gave up first ...
The "EU Commission" does not have money of its own - only the money it takes from member countries, yes? So why is that number not subdivided between member states?
That's like saying the UK Government does not have money of its own - only money it takes from taxpayers.
While philosophically that is correct, the UK Government (and the EU) do have budgets and taxes/funding they raise that way and this expenditure is coming from that.
I disagree. The Commission spend has come from the taxpayers of the individual countries. The idea that there is a separate EU demos that is providing funds separate from those raised by the constituent states is false. As I said below the UK contribution should be viewed in this way, adding a further $36 million to what we gave last year and taking our contribution above half a billion dollars for the year.
Whether you like it or not the Commission has a budget that has been abrogated to it to spend. To pretend the money being spent by the Commission is being spent by the French national government etc is false - it is being sourced from French and English taxpayers yes, as has our government's expenditure has been sourced from our taxpayers.
But the ultimate source of taxes is not the UK government, it is taxpayers. Spending by the EU Commission is no more spending by Westminster than spending from Holyrood is. It may be sourced from British taxes, but it is not the British government it is the EU Commission that is spending the money.
No it is spending by the British taxpayer. When we hear that the UK has given $475 million last year we understand that it is the British taxpayer who has given that money. There is no such thing as a European taxpayer no matter how much the EU might wish it to be otherwise.
As such the money should always be attributed to the taxpayers of the nation that contributed it, particularly when taxpayers in one country give more than those in others to the EU budget.
Cricket Law 37.2 It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or no. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt.
It was for the umpires to decide. Not the Australians. The Australians were perfectly within their rights to appeal but the Third Umpire should have reviewed the images in real time not slow-mo and determined that it was clearly evasive action and not wilful.
Yes you are right, once the team appeal, the umps have to decide. The point is smith should have withdrawn the appeal
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, but I don't think there is much argument Surrey is more blue than Dorset
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
HYUFD and myself had an amiable discussion that lasted for about eight days on a recent thread. I'm not saying who got bored and gave up first ...
I think in the end that argument had gone in circles
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
"The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title. "
There were multiple sources: I see you ignore those. And the accusation about the source is a bit funny from someone who, just last week, posted as a source a media organisation owned by a personal friend of Bashar Assad, ffs.
It is not flimsy: far from. The only thing that is flimsy are your repeated attempts to propagate Russian propaganda. As for your comments on chlorine: I believe you are utterly wrong about why Assad would want to use them. However there is at least one expert on PB on such matters, and it would be interesting to know his view on why they would be used.
Your linked article again relies on the fact that the OPCW did not ascribe blame for the attacks. That is because, as mentioned before, ascribing blame was not in their mandate. If Assad was not responsible, and it was a rebel group, you'd have expected him to be rather keen for them to ascribe blame.
And the last quote on your post was hilarious: given the number of Iranian and now Russian troops in Syria helping Assad's forces, it's clear that in order to prevail, the Syrian government needs foreign intervention. It's just that you probably don't see them as 'foreign'.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
I'm slightly confused about your firing lines comment - the allegation was that these chlorine missiles were dropped from helicopters rather than the result of shelling?
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
HYUFD and myself had an amiable discussion that lasted for about eight days on a recent thread. I'm not saying who got bored and gave up first ...
I think in the end that argument had gone in circles
Yep. Want to start another one? I'll argue that Corbyn isn't the new Michael Foot.
I haven't ignored multiple sources, I've correctly identified that the only evidence we've so far been presented with (in any of your links) that these devices have been dropped from helicopters has been unverified eye witness accounts. And that the only eye witness with a researchable identity happens to come from a pro-revolutionary NGO. Eye witness accounts were not nearly enough for you to go on when they reported seeing fighter planes escorting MH17, so I'm surprised you find them so plausible now. Feel free to provide anything else of more substance.
I make no point about the OPCW not having a mandate to ascribe blame - I simply take that as it is. You're the one darkly hinting 'they all know he did it'. This sequence of events:
'According to its report, in May 2014, an OPCW team tried to investigate at the site of alleged chlorine gas attacks. The Syrian government gave the OPCW team passage to the rebel controlled area but the convoy was attacked by a rebel faction. None of the team members was injured but that stopped their on-site investigation. Instead, the OPCW worked with the well-funded opposition-supporting Violations Documentation Center to arrange interviews with numerous people from three villages. The interviews were conducted outside Syria, probably in Turkey. They gathered photographs, videos and other evidence and expressed “high confidence that chlorine had been used as a weapon in Syria” in three villages. They did not ascribe responsibility.'
-hardly indicates Assad involvement.
As for your last paragraph, facetiousness is not a substitute for an argument. You are asking us to believe, on the scantiest of evidence, that having just escaped US bombing, by the skin of his teeth, as a result of a Kerry slip up and a clever Russian wheeze, Assad, having agreed to give up his entire chemical arsenal, would start dropping chlorine on people half a mile from where weapons inspectors were staying, thus crossing Obama's 'red line'. To what end? For what purpose? As opposed to the insurgents, who have been using it for years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022100166.html (2007 Iraq) -and were desperate to secure Western intervention. Right, ok then.
We've heard several views on this thread about what occurred. It's perhaps best to let people judge for themselves whose is the most credible.
Or perhaps more importantly which is most likely to be correct.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
HYUFD and myself had an amiable discussion that lasted for about eight days on a recent thread. I'm not saying who got bored and gave up first ...
I think in the end that argument had gone in circles
Yep. Want to start another one? I'll argue that Corbyn isn't the new Michael Foot.
The new Tony Benn then? Think I will leave it there
"The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title. "
There were multiple sources: I see you ignore those. And the accusation about the source is a bit funny from someone who, just last week, posted as a source a media organisation owned by a personal friend of Bashar Assad, ffs.
It is not flimsy: far from. The only thing that is flimsy are your repeated attempts to propagate Russian propaganda. As for your comments on chlorine: I believe you are utterly wrong about why Assad would want to use them. However there is at least one expert on PB on such matters, and it would be interesting to know his view on why they would be used.
Your linked article again relies on the fact that the OPCW did not ascribe blame for the attacks. That is because, as mentioned before, ascribing blame was not in their mandate. If Assad was not responsible, and it was a rebel group, you'd have expected him to be rather keen for them to ascribe blame.
And the last quote on your post was hilarious: given the number of Iranian and now Russian troops in Syria helping Assad's forces, it's clear that in order to prevail, the Syrian government needs foreign intervention. It's just that you probably don't see them as 'foreign'.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
As for chlorine, let's not forget that it was the first ever CW used in the era of industrialized warfare. 22 April 1915 Ypres. Why would it be used in Syria now? It is a basic chemical feedstock into many industrial chemical production processes and so it used in vast quantities for legitimate economic purposes. As such, trade in it is permitted and is in large quantities, so siphoning off smallish quantities for limited CW attacks would be easy. Why use a gas rather than bombs? Clearing buildings of opposition comes to mind. So does terror.
Someone the other day mentioned you'd written a book on your experiences. Would you mind posting an amazon link? (Or you can PM me if you don't want to reveal your identity on a public forum)
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.
Smith should not have appealed.
Competitive sport is not a game of morals. It is upto the players to appeal if they think their opponent may be out. It is upto the umpires (and especially the Third Umpire) to determine who is out or not.
Professional cricketers are not umpires and should not be presuming to do the umpires job for them.
(There is a very big ethical difference here where there is an element of doubt, versus where a player appeals when he knows the batsman is Not Out - eg a 'catcher' who knows for certain the ball bounced).
Obviously you are not a cricketer.
I grew up in Australia and am a massive cricket fan. I also clarified I was talking about Professional cricket - this may suprise you but no I am not a Professional Cricketer.
Me neither funny enough, but I know that, whether on the village green of the home or Cricket, you play within the spirit of the game, and if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be playing
The aussies made a big deal about the spirit of cricket after Philip Hughes tragic death... this was their chance to show they meant it
Personally, I don't want a player - whether for my local village team or for the England team - that isn't prepared to go that extra mile to win. A man who isn't prepared to cheat for his team and his country, shouldn't be in the team.
Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser.
A man who is prepared to cheat should not be in the team or playing the game.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
You would imagine that Cable would have a lot more knowledge on the contest than ninety nine per cent of people who comment on this issues, like journos or partisans who are probably close to one senior Conservative or another
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
I'm slightly confused about your firing lines comment - the allegation was that these chlorine missiles were dropped from helicopters rather than the result of shelling?
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
I fear that Tim might have a little bit more knowledge about these matters than you.
On a side issue, I think there's a little confusion: AIUI, the attacks in 2013 were of sarin gas, performed by artillery shells. The recent chlorine attacks were barrel bombs, dropped from helicopters ((and, afaicr, planes on at least one occasion, although that must have been fairly inaccurate).
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, but I don't think there is much argument Surrey is more blue than Dorset
Which was never in question. It was whether Dorset was trending blue.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
Indeed; a carbonara had to be made. I was the stand-in cook this evening.
But, to be fair to @HYUFD, he was bang on about how popular Burnham would be in Labour party/country
The new Tony Benn then? Think I will leave it there
Both Foot and Benn were Parliamentary giants - even though I disagreed with them both about almost everything they said. Corbyn is certainly neither a Foot or a Benn.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, but I don't think there is much argument Surrey is more blue than Dorset
Which was never in question. It was whether Dorset was trending blue.
The country is trending blue at the moment, that was my point
I'm slightly confused about your firing lines comment - the allegation was that these chlorine missiles were dropped from helicopters rather than the result of shelling?
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
You do know @MTimT was involved in (led?) the UN's search for CW and WMD in Iraq? And he has spoken personally to the lead investigator in Syria. I suspect that he knows that of which he speaks.
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
Indeed; a carbonara had to be made. I was the stand-in cook this evening.
But, to be fair to @HYUFD, he was bang on about how popular Burnham would be in Labour party/country
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, but I don't think there is much argument Surrey is more blue than Dorset
No, I would say Surrey is more Conservative too. But that doesn't stop all the seats in Dorset staying Tory for the foreseeable.
Nor does it summarise the argument. I said Dorset has been getting bluer for years. I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary....just lots of references to past results.
"The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title. "
There were multiple sources: I see you ignore those. And the accusation about the source is a bit funny from someone who, just last week, posted as a source a media organisation owned by a personal friend of Bashar Assad, ffs.
It is not flimsy: far from. The only thing that is flimsy are your repeated attempts to propagate Russian propaganda. As for your comments on chlorine: I believe you are utterly wrong about why Assad would want to use them. However there is at least one expert on PB on such matters, and it would be interesting to know his view on why they would be used.
Your linked article again relies on the fact that the OPCW did not ascribe blame for the attacks. That is because, as mentioned before, ascribing blame was not in their mandate. If Assad was not responsible, and it was a rebel group, you'd have expected him to be rather keen for them to ascribe blame.
And the last quote on your post was hilarious: given the number of Iranian and now Russian troops in Syria helping Assad's forces, it's clear that in order to prevail, the Syrian government needs foreign intervention. It's just that you probably don't see them as 'foreign'.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
As for chlorine, let's not forget that it was the first ever CW used in the era of industrialized warfare. 22 April 1915 Ypres. Why would it be used in Syria now? It is a basic chemical feedstock into many industrial chemical production processes and so it used in vast quantities for legitimate economic purposes. As such, trade in it is permitted and is in large quantities, so siphoning off smallish quantities for limited CW attacks would be easy. Why use a gas rather than bombs? Clearing buildings of opposition comes to mind. So does terror.
Someone the other day mentioned you'd written a book on your experiences. Would you mind posting an amazon link? (Or you can PM me if you don't want to reveal your identity on a public forum)
I think I've been identified many times over the years on PB. Here's the link
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
You have not partaken of the culture of PB if you find it strange to be called a turnip as an "insult". It is much more prestigious if I call you a turnip , but it does show where you are going / etc and should make you think. If you need a description of a turnip let me know.
The new Tony Benn then? Think I will leave it there
Both Foot and Benn were Parliamentary giants - even though I disagreed with them both about almost everything they said. Corbyn is certainly neither a Foot or a Benn.
Indeed, certainly intellectually he is not a match for either, but he does perhaps have more of the stubborness and rigid commitment to ideology of Benn
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
I'm slightly confused about your firing lines comment - the allegation was that these chlorine missiles were dropped from helicopters rather than the result of shelling?
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
I fear that Tim might have a little bit more knowledge about these matters than you.
On a side issue, I think there's a little confusion: AIUI, the attacks in 2013 were of sarin gas, performed by artillery shells. The recent chlorine attacks were barrel bombs, dropped from helicopters ((and, afaicr, planes on at least one occasion, although that must have been fairly inaccurate).
Yes, my comments addressed the 2013 attacks, not the recent chlorine barrel bombs.
Sorry for any confusion, I was reacting to your comment that the UN had not been mandated to apportion blame, and assumed that was in relation to the report written in relation to their actual inspections.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
I'm slightly confused about your firing lines comment - the allegation was that these chlorine missiles were dropped from helicopters rather than the result of shelling?
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
I fear that Tim might have a little bit more knowledge about these matters than you.
On a side issue, I think there's a little confusion: AIUI, the attacks in 2013 were of sarin gas, performed by artillery shells. The recent chlorine attacks were barrel bombs, dropped from helicopters ((and, afaicr, planes on at least one occasion, although that must have been fairly inaccurate).
Yes. So on that 'side issue' he's having a senior moment and talking about a totally different and unrelated set of circumstances to the one we're talking about. Unless he is breaking the news that the report really is total bollocks and the chlorine bombs were launched via shelling, which would be a PB.com scoop.
Glad you're doing so well with that 'letting people judge for themselves' bit.
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
You would imagine that Cable would have a lot more knowledge on the contest than ninety nine per cent of people who comment on this issues, like journos or partisans who are probably close to one senior Conservative or another
Tbf, most journalists also seem to think Osborne will get the leadership after Cameron stands down. I haven't seen a real consensus among partisans regarding who they want to be Tory leader. Osborne is probably a lot more liked among Tories, than he used to be though - and if previous polls are an indicator on anything, then the novelty of a Boris leadership is the wane, too.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, t
No, I would say Surrey is more Conservative too. But that doesn't stop all the seats in Dorset staying Tory for the foreseeable.
Nor does it summarise the argument. I said Dorset has been getting bluer for years. I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary....just lots of references to past results.
I don't deny Dorset is going bluer, but the country is too, so it matches the present trend nationally
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
I'm slightly confused about your firing lines comment - the allegation was that these chlorine missiles were dropped from helicopters rather than the result of shelling?
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
I fear that Tim might have a little bit more knowledge about these matters than you.
On a side issue, I think there's a little confusion: AIUI, the attacks in 2013 were of sarin gas, performed by artillery shells. The recent chlorine attacks were barrel bombs, dropped from helicopters ((and, afaicr, planes on at least one occasion, although that must have been fairly inaccurate).
Yes. So on that 'side issue' he's having a senior moment and talking about a totally different and unrelated set of circumstances to the one we're talking about. Unless he is breaking the news that the report really is total bollocks and the chlorine bombs were launched via shelling, which would be a PB.com scoop.
Glad you're doing so well with that 'letting people judge for themselves' bit.
This conversation started off talking about the 2013 attacks. Now, if you're willing to admit Assad was responsible for those, then we've made progress ...
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
You have not partaken of the culture of PB if you find it strange to be called a turnip as an "insult". It is much more prestigious if I call you a turnip , but it does show where you are going / etc and should make you think. If you need a description of a turnip let me know.
LOL
I think this site should provide an online guide to PB culture when you sign-up, with turnip, chortle and titter etc all explained.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
I'm slightly confused about your firing lines comment - the allegation was that these chlorine missiles were dropped from helicopters rather than the result of shelling?
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
I fear that Tim might have a little bit more knowledge about these matters than you.
On a side issue, I think there's a little confusion: AIUI, the attacks in 2013 were of sarin gas, performed by artillery shells. The recent chlorine attacks were barrel bombs, dropped from helicopters ((and, afaicr, planes on at least one occasion, although that must have been fairly inaccurate).
Yes. So on that 'side issue' he's having a senior moment and talking about a totally different and unrelated set of circumstances to the one we're talking about. Unless he is breaking the news that the report really is total bollocks and the chlorine bombs were launched via shelling, which would be a PB.com scoop.
Glad you're doing so well with that 'letting people judge for themselves' bit.
This conversation started off talking about the 2013 attacks. Now, if you're willing to admit Assad was responsible for those, then we've made progress ...
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative,.... are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
...
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, t
No, I would say Surrey is more Conservative too. But that doesn't stop all the seats in Dorset staying Tory for the foreseeable.
Nor does it summarise the argument. I said Dorset has been getting bluer for years. I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary....just lots of references to past results.
I don't deny Dorset is going bluer, but the country is too, so it matches the present trend nationally
I'm glad you think so; hopefully those involved in opposition politics in the South of England will continue to expect easy gains in the South too. They'll be disappointed.
As an example - I campaigned in MD&NP in 2005 and 2015. The different is remarkable; I was shocked. Large new executive housing estates. Run down roads near my old school transformed into similarly executive renovated housing. The level of engagement in Tory politics has improved massively too. The latter is partly down to the candidates, but demographic change is really marked.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
Matt, I know you are thicker than one and appear to wear union jack underpants, but get out a bit more. Your pathetic little Englander jibe is sad. Firstly I am not a "cybernat" , pathetic media term, and secondly it is not limited to any specific person , though I would suggest you may be turnip of the day with your idiotic post.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroads
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, but I don't think there is much argument Surrey is more blue than Dorset
Which was never in question. It was whether Dorset was trending blue.
I suppose it rather depends on the chosen starting point. Compared with 1983 or 1987 it's rather more doubtful that it is trending blue.
"The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title. "
There were multiple sources: I see you ignore those. And the accusation about the source is a bit funny from someone who, just last week, posted as a source a media organisation owned by a personal friend of Bashar Assad, ffs.
It is not flimsy: far from. The only thing that is flimsy are your repeated attempts to propagate Russian propaganda. As for your comments on chlorine: I believe you are utterly wrong about why Assad would want to use them. However there is at least one expert on PB on such matters, and it would be interesting to know his view on why they would be used.
Your linked article again relies on the fact that the OPCW did not ascribe blame for the attacks. That is because, as mentioned before, ascribing blame was not in their mandate. If Assad was not responsible, and it was a rebel group, you'd have expected him to be rather keen for them to ascribe blame.
And the last quote on your post was hilarious: given the number of Iranian and now Russian troops in Syria helping Assad's forces, it's clear that in order to prevail, the Syrian government needs foreign intervention. It's just that you probably don't see them as 'foreign'.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
As for chlorine, let's not forget that it was the first ever CW used in the era of industrialized warfare. 22 April 1915 Ypres. Why would it be used in Syria now? It is a basic chemical feedstock into many industrial chemical production processes and so it used in vast quantities for legitimate economic purposes. As such, trade in it is permitted and is in large quantities, so siphoning off smallish quantities for limited CW attacks would be easy. Why use a gas rather than bombs? Clearing buildings of opposition comes to mind. So does terror.
Someone the other day mentioned you'd written a book on your experiences. Would you mind posting an amazon link? (Or you can PM me if you don't want to reveal your identity on a public forum)
I think I've been identified many times over the years on PB. Here's the link
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
I'm slightly confused about your firing lines comment - the allegation was that these chlorine missiles were dropped from helicopters rather than the result of shelling?
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
I fear that Tim might have a little bit more knowledge about these matters than you.
On a side issue, I think there's a little confusion: AIUI, the attacks in 2013 were of sarin gas, performed by artillery shells. The recent chlorine attacks were barrel bombs, dropped from helicopters ((and, afaicr, planes on at least one occasion, although that must have been fairly inaccurate).
Yes. So on that 'side issue' he's having a senior moment and talking about a totally different and unrelated set of circumstances to the one we're talking about. Unless he is breaking the news that the report really is total bollocks and the chlorine bombs were launched via shelling, which would be a PB.com scoop.
Glad you're doing so well with that 'letting people judge for themselves' bit.
This conversation started off talking about the 2013 attacks. Now, if you're willing to admit Assad was responsible for those, then we've made progress ...
Still letting people judge for themselves I see.
More than happy to let people judge for themselves.
That doesn't mean I should shut up when you spread rubbish. I mean, this isn't Putin's Russia. At least, it isn't for me...
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
I have to confess that I used it to describe some of the lesser lights on here, nothing whatsoever to do with Scottish nationalism. It is very descriptive however and is used by others nowadays as well.
I had the chance to talk to the head of the CW inspection shortly after his return. Indeed, his mandate stipulated that the report should not apportion blame. Ie. not only was he not mandated to do so, he was explicitly instructed not to do so.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
I'm slightly confused about your firing lines comment - the allegation was that these chlorine missiles were dropped from helicopters rather than the result of shelling?
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
I fear that Tim might have a little bit more knowledge about these matters than you.
On a side issue, I think there's a little confusion: AIUI, the attacks in 2013 were of sarin gas, performed by artillery shells. The recent chlorine attacks were barrel bombs, dropped from helicopters ((and, afaicr, planes on at least one occasion, although that must have been fairly inaccurate).
Yes, my comments addressed the 2013 attacks, not the recent chlorine barrel bombs.
Sorry for any confusion, I was reacting to your comment that the UN had not been mandated to apportion blame, and assumed that was in relation to the report written in relation to their actual inspections.
Yes, that was what I was referring to. The confusion was not yours, or mine for that matter.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
Matt, I know you are thicker than one and appear to wear union jack underpants, but get out a bit more. Your pathetic little Englander jibe is sad. Firstly I am not a "cybernat" , pathetic media term, and secondly it is not limited to any specific person , though I would suggest you may be turnip of the day with your idiotic post.
Clearly particularly used by cybernats who can't think of anything more creative :-D .
Cybernat = ritually abusive online Scottish Nat, so you qualify. Malc.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative,.... are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
...
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, t
No, I would say Surrey is more Conservative too. But that doesn't stop all the seats in Dorset staying Tory for the foreseeable.
I don't deny Dorset is going bluer, but the country is too, so it matches the present trend nationally
I'm glad you think so; hopefully those involved in opposition politics in the South of England will continue to expect easy gains in the South too. They'll be disappointed.
As an example - I campaigned in MD&NP in 2005 and 2015. The different is remarkable; I was shocked. Large new executive housing estates. Run down roads near my old school transformed into similarly executive renovated housing. The level of engagement in Tory politics has improved massively too. The latter is partly down to the candidates, but demographic change is really marked.
New housing estates are still going up all over the country, not just Dorset and need to if we are to help solve the housing problems we have
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I understand why they want to change the boundaries, but why are they reducing the number of MPs?
The population is going up rather than down and decreasing the number of MPs just makes parliament even less representative. If anything they should up it to 700 since the population has increased by over 10% in the last 30 years.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
That's probably quite true! This could only happen on PB though; where an insult is simultaneously a compliment.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
Matt, I know you are thicker than one and appear to wear union jack underpants, but get out a bit more. Your pathetic little Englander jibe is sad. Firstly I am not a "cybernat" , pathetic media term, and secondly it is not limited to any specific person , though I would suggest you may be turnip of the day with your idiotic post.
Clearly particularly used by cybernats who can't think of anything more creative :-D .
Cybernat = ritually abusive online Scottish Nat, so you qualify. Malc.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01,
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little,
Which was never in question. It was whether Dorset was trending blue.
I suppose it rather depends on the chosen starting point. Compared with 1983 or 1987 it's rather more doubtful that it is trending blue.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
Why thank you Anne, I hope you are having a pleasant evening.
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative,.... are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
...
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, t
No, I would say Surrey is more Conservative too. But that doesn't stop all the seats in Dorset staying Tory for the foreseeable.
I don't deny Dorset is going bluer, but the country is too, so it matches the present trend nationally
I'm glad you think so; hopefully those involved in opposition politics in the South of England will continue to expect easy gains in the South too. They'll be disappointed.
As an example - I campaigned in MD&NP in 2005 and 2015. The different is remarkable; I was shocked. Large new executive housing estates. Run down roads near my old school transformed into similarly executive renovated housing. The level of engagement in Tory politics has improved massively too. The latter is partly down to the candidates, but demographic change is really marked.
New housing estates are still going up all over the country, not just Dorset and need to if we are to help solve the housing problems we have
Rather expensive houses, these ones. Executive houses. I couldn't afford one.
I agree with @CopperSulphate on this. Back in July, I was reading that apparently Priti Patel's seat could also be endanger (so Priti4leader has even more obstacles to face!) I think it's reasonable to want to update the boundaries, but reducing the number of seats is a more questionable act. I see that the 1922 committee aren't all that happy about it, either so the chances of this actually happening could be quite slim.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
That's probably quite true! This could only happen on PB though; where an insult is simultaneously a compliment.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
Why thank you Anne, I hope you are having a pleasant evening.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Which turnip are we talking about? Is that what we call swede in the South (Brassica napus)? or Brassica rapa rapa? Or indeed jicama?
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative,.... are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
...
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, t
No, I would say Surrey is more Conservative too. But that doesn't stop all the seats in Dorset staying Tory for the foreseeable.
I don't deny Dorset is going bluer, but the country is too, so it matches the present trend nationally
I'm glad you think so; hopefully those involved in opposition politics in the South of England will continue to expect easy gains in the South too.
New housing estates are still going up all over the country, not just Dorset and need to if we are to help solve the housing problems we have
Rather expensive houses, these ones. Executive houses. I couldn't afford one.
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
Based on 600 seats, Dorset loses 1/2 a seat and has to have a cross-county seat with Wilts. The likeliest outcome is Bournemouth and Poole get 3 seats. Mid Dorset loses the Poole wards and gains some of N Dorset. The rest of N Dorset goes with some of Salisbury
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I understand why they want to change the boundaries, but why are they reducing the number of MPs?
The population is going up rather than down and decreasing the number of MPs just makes parliament even less representative. If anything they should up it to 700 since the population has increased by over 10% in the last 30 years.
Making Parliament smaller in no way makes it less representative. It just means we have fewer representatives.
Parliament's size has been creeping up for decades - there is no magic to 650 - the US federal system works just fine with far fewer Representatives and Senators to give one example.
The "payroll" vote is a far bigger issue, IMHO, than the number of MPs
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Which turnip are we talking about? Is that what we call swede in the South (Brassica napus)? or Brassica rapa rapa? Or indeed jicama?
I think we're referring to all kinds of turnips! Even when we're insulting people diversity and being inclusive is important
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative,.... are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Land held it until 2015
Nope - g majority.
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
...
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little, t
No, I would say Surrey is more Conservative too. But that doesn't stop all the seats in Dorset staying Tory for the foreseeable.
I don't deny Dorset is going bluer, but the country is too, so it matches the present trend nationally
I'm glad you think so; hopefully those involved in opposition politics in the South of England will continue to expect easy gains in the South too. They'll be disappointed.
New housing estates are still going up all over the country, not just Dorset and need to if we are to help solve the housing problems we have
Rather expensive houses, these ones. Executive houses. I couldn't afford one.
The loosening of planning rules and the inducements of "New Homes Bonus" has caused a house building boom in many areas. In my area its wall to wall building. Some of that of course is pent up demand from 2008 to 2012. Remember from putting in a planning application for a site and the site fully completed can easily be five years. This process is a lot quicker in a boom as house builders cant put them up quick enough, but following a lot of burnt fingers, house builders have a much more phased building plan.
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
I always get the impression MalcolmG doesn't really mean it, I think he's rather nice in a grizzly sort of way, whereas SeanT is putting heart and soul into it (at least at the time of scribing). The insults are more pleasant when experienced vicariously, but at least one feels they have been crafted and delivered in a professional manner.
I don't really go for the insulting thing. I lack the necessary level of aggression (related to my lack of personal interest in sports, I suspect) and probably the prerequisite standards of creativity too. Just couldn't be bothered with the investment of time, thought and passion that it requires, much more fun to be more chilled out.
People often grouch about "standards" of politeness and behaviour on PB but historically I think they're in relatively good shape. Some threads are bad-tempered but it has been almost ever thus. OGH was very strict on getting rid of the more tiresome insults (the "nits" stuff was really irksome, even for someone who isn't a Scottish Nationalist) and a lot of the long-running personal invectives have been cut out (primarily due to the retirement of certain posters, rather than people starting to behave better than before). I still think discussions here are more insightful when people can say what they think without fear of being shouted down, and it's just nicer company when people are more welcoming and friendly. I generally regard PB as a substitute for discussions in a pub; it's okay when heated so long as it's not got a nasty atmosphere with it, but it's best not to stay in the heated mood for too long or the (intellectual) food starts to go off.
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I understand why they want to change the boundaries, but why are they reducing the number of MPs?
The population is going up rather than down and decreasing the number of MPs just makes parliament even less representative. If anything they should up it to 700 since the population has increased by over 10% in the last 30 years.
Making Parliament smaller in no way makes it less representative. It just means we have fewer representatives.
Parliament's size has been creeping up for decades - there is no magic to 650 - the US federal system works just fine with far fewer Representatives and Senators to give one example.
The "payroll" vote is a far bigger issue, IMHO, than the number of MPs
The US Government, while having a greater size because of how big its economy is, actually is responsible for substantially less than Parliament. Their system sits on top of a pretty sophisticated (and utterly autonomous) series of state governments that control a whole manner of things that we would think ridiculous to be controlled at a local level.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I'm hosting a drinks party in London in a couple of weeks for a very impressive young Congressman (Dem). Any one who's interested send me a PM - prefer for potential donors but some flexibility.
Someone the other day mentioned you'd written a book on your experiences. Would you mind posting an amazon link? (Or you can PM me if you don't want to reveal your identity on a public forum)
I think I've been identified many times over the years on PB. Here's the link
As the chap in question: I was really asking whether you had many any headway on that follow-up that (unless my memory is failing me, which is possible) you were thinking of writing about the lead-up to the 2003 decision, which was something I was very interested in reading if it ever came to fruition. I was wondering whether you might be waiting for Chilcot (the modern-day equivalent of waiting for Godot...).
Comments
Not sometimes is it a game of respect for the Electorate.
Ask Ken Livingstone about the day after the night before: May 7th 1981, and what he did to the leadership of the GLC elected by the public.
Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser.
From the report, the munitions were clearly of Russian origin (photos with Cyrillic characters), which at that time only Assad's forces had access to. The firing lines unambiguously showed that the shells originated from positions held by Assad's artillery. There was no doubt.
As for chlorine, let's not forget that it was the first ever CW used in the era of industrialized warfare. 22 April 1915 Ypres. Why would it be used in Syria now? It is a basic chemical feedstock into many industrial chemical production processes and so it used in vast quantities for legitimate economic purposes. As such, trade in it is permitted and is in large quantities, so siphoning off smallish quantities for limited CW attacks would be easy. Why use a gas rather than bombs? Clearing buildings of opposition comes to mind. So does terror.
I recall Shane Warne appealing for far more dodgy decisions than that one!
"I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/yvette-cooper-surging
The party should respect the country's decision.
The party will respect the country's decision and then vote against a europhile.
But, picking up your point, of course the West Country is getting much more blue. All the yuppies, guppies and whatever have sold up their properties in London to foreigners at inflated prices, and are flocking down to the West Country, where local people cannot compete in the housing market. We have several examples of them here on PB.
But there is a reaction in the country, I think, to the Tory arrogance. And now that the Lib Dems are free from the contamination from their association with the Conservatives, I think that it will not be slow in making itself apparent.
A europhile like Clarke is out of the question. A eurosceptic who immediately wants to re-open the decision (like the SNP) would be absurd. The party will go with a pragmatist.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
A eurosceptic who lined up with the "leave" camp has the credibility with the eurosceptic members. They can still say that the referendum has settled things and we move forward on that basis without mentioning a future referendum.
As such the money should always be attributed to the taxpayers of the nation that contributed it, particularly when taxpayers in one country give more than those in others to the EU budget.
Yes you are right, once the team appeal, the umps have to decide. The point is smith should have withdrawn the appeal
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
The inspectors visited none of the sites, so there was no forensic or chemical analysis. There were also few medical records. The report is based upon 37 hand picked eye-witness's accounts. Most of the severely affected had apparently been shipped outside of Syria for treatment, so no record of them. None of those examined by the FFM had any abnormalities. The eye witness accounts were said to be inconsistent regarding times and dates, but this was put down to distress. Interestingly no children were interviewed. It's all in the report, which makes for interesting reading: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/138
If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
On a side issue, I think there's a little confusion: AIUI, the attacks in 2013 were of sarin gas, performed by artillery shells. The recent chlorine attacks were barrel bombs, dropped from helicopters ((and, afaicr, planes on at least one occasion, although that must have been fairly inaccurate).
But, to be fair to @HYUFD, he was bang on about how popular Burnham would be in Labour party/country
.....oh, wait.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/this-week-has-shown-why-yvette-cooper-is-the-right-person-to-lead-labour-10488226.html
No, I would say Surrey is more Conservative too. But that doesn't stop all the seats in Dorset staying Tory for the foreseeable.
Nor does it summarise the argument. I said Dorset has been getting bluer for years. I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary....just lots of references to past results.
http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Iraqs-Hidden-Weapons/dp/000653113X
If you need a description of a turnip let me know.
Yes, my comments addressed the 2013 attacks, not the recent chlorine barrel bombs.
Sorry for any confusion, I was reacting to your comment that the UN had not been mandated to apportion blame, and assumed that was in relation to the report written in relation to their actual inspections.
Glad you're doing so well with that 'letting people judge for themselves' bit.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I think this site should provide an online guide to PB culture when you sign-up, with turnip, chortle and titter etc all explained.
As an example - I campaigned in MD&NP in 2005 and 2015. The different is remarkable; I was shocked. Large new executive housing estates. Run down roads near my old school transformed into similarly executive renovated housing. The level of engagement in Tory politics has improved massively too. The latter is partly down to the candidates, but demographic change is really marked.
That doesn't mean I should shut up when you spread rubbish. I mean, this isn't Putin's Russia. At least, it isn't for me...
Cybernat = ritually abusive online Scottish Nat, so you qualify. Malc.
The population is going up rather than down and decreasing the number of MPs just makes parliament even less representative. If anything they should up it to 700 since the population has increased by over 10% in the last 30 years.
That's probably quite true! This could only happen on PB though; where an insult is simultaneously a compliment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dorset_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
In Bournemouth West the Tories had a majority of 12,410 in 2015, in 1983 they had a majority of 13,331 in the same seat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bournemouth_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
malc is that an insult :-)
Parliament's size has been creeping up for decades - there is no magic to 650 - the US federal system works just fine with far fewer Representatives and Senators to give one example.
The "payroll" vote is a far bigger issue, IMHO, than the number of MPs
I don't really go for the insulting thing. I lack the necessary level of aggression (related to my lack of personal interest in sports, I suspect) and probably the prerequisite standards of creativity too. Just couldn't be bothered with the investment of time, thought and passion that it requires, much more fun to be more chilled out.
People often grouch about "standards" of politeness and behaviour on PB but historically I think they're in relatively good shape. Some threads are bad-tempered but it has been almost ever thus. OGH was very strict on getting rid of the more tiresome insults (the "nits" stuff was really irksome, even for someone who isn't a Scottish Nationalist) and a lot of the long-running personal invectives have been cut out (primarily due to the retirement of certain posters, rather than people starting to behave better than before). I still think discussions here are more insightful when people can say what they think without fear of being shouted down, and it's just nicer company when people are more welcoming and friendly. I generally regard PB as a substitute for discussions in a pub; it's okay when heated so long as it's not got a nasty atmosphere with it, but it's best not to stay in the heated mood for too long or the (intellectual) food starts to go off.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I'm hosting a drinks party in London in a couple of weeks for a very impressive young Congressman (Dem). Any one who's interested send me a PM - prefer for potential donors but some flexibility.