Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 8s8 seconds ago Corbyn and his team stoking up row with General Houghton. Excellent strategy. Defence is such a strong area for Labour at the moment.
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
He may be just the person to hold his seat. Sensible independent minded mp
I believe that Danzcuk will try to force his party to eject him rather that him simply leaving, because if he leaves his political career is over (not that if he stays or gets ejected makes any difference, it's dead anyway), and if he defects to another party it will only serve to prove the attack line that the anti-Corbyn MP's are really Tories in the wrong party.
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
He may be just the person to hold his seat. Sensible independent minded mp
I believe that Danzcuk will try to force his party to eject him rather that him simply leaving, because if he leaves his political career is over (not that if he stays or gets ejected makes any difference, it's dead anyway), and if he defects to another party it will only serve to prove the attack line that the anti-Corbyn MP's are really Tories in the wrong party.
You really don't like him do you. Seem to remember Gillian Duffy from Rochdale (Bigotgate) saying that she was lost to labour on the election of Corbyn
Cybercriminals broke into parliament’s computer network, hijacked computers holding sensitive information and presented a ransom demand to an MP, The Times can reveal.
Cybercriminals broke into parliament’s computer network, hijacked computers holding sensitive information and presented a ransom demand to an MP, The Times can reveal.
That is why I love computers that are too old to connect to the internet.
Ransom demand on what? Did they found something illegal or embarrassing? And will we see it on the front page of some tabloid?
It'd look far better for him if the leadership looked to have acted aggressively against him, given their own record on loyalty towards previous Labour regimes, at least one of which I'm quite sure some will have described as a war criminal.
Cybercriminals broke into parliament’s computer network, hijacked computers holding sensitive information and presented a ransom demand to an MP, The Times can reveal.
That is why I love computers that are too old to connect to the internet.
Ransom demand on what? Did they found something illegal or embarrassing? And will we see it on the front page of some tabloid?
I'm not really a techie, but this is what The Times say
The hackers compromised several computer systems that held confidential documents relating to parliamentary work by Chi Onwurah, the shadow digital minister, and files containing information about her employees.
It'd look far better for him if the leadership looked to have acted aggressively against him, given their own record on loyalty towards previous Labour regimes, at least one of which I'm quite sure some will have described as a war criminal.
That's why I say he's trying to force his ejection, it's the best of a bad bunch of options that he has left, other that kissing Corbyn's feet and saying sorry (unappealing really).
That's true although sideshows like Africa apart, in WWII Britain didn't get anywhere for over four years, from 1940-4; it's just that the Channel was too wide to lob shells across a la WWI.
I hate to be picky Mr Herdson, but the Germans could and did lob shells across the Channel, which is why the centre of Dover is rebuilt in 1960s brutalist style.
And I don't think my late grandfather would be too pleased to be told that his six years of hard fighting in the Middle East, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and finally Italy was just a 'sideshow'!
The Germans could have levelled Dover and it would have made little difference to the war effort. What they couldn't do was lob them across with the accuracy and in the number that they did during WWI.
And while I don't doubt the hardiness of the men fighting through North Africa and Italy, nor the conditions they had to endure (one of my grandfathers also followed that wartime route), the fact remains that the war was won, as far as Britain was concerned, in Western Europe, at sea and in the air. That's not to belittle the other theatres but to recognise those of primary importance and those which were secondary.
(I appreciate that I was a bit provocative in my description, though it was derived from the line in Lawrence of Arabia)
Even after D-Day, two-thirds of Wehrmacht casualties were sustained on the Eastern Front.
Indeed. The losses on the Eastern front are staggering (as are those in China, which is hardly ever mentioned in WWII but which lost 10m citizens).
Today I visited Sandhurst for the first time. So ironically missed watching the Cenotaph service.
Every generation of my family has had to fight in war, other than mine and - so far - my children's. Something for which I am truly grateful.
Anyway, no late night for me tonight. Am giving a talk on leadership and values tomorrow - so need to be reasonably awake for it all, if I'm going to make any headway with cynical traders......
Cybercriminals broke into parliament’s computer network, hijacked computers holding sensitive information and presented a ransom demand to an MP, The Times can reveal.
That is why I love computers that are too old to connect to the internet.
Ransom demand on what? Did they found something illegal or embarrassing? And will we see it on the front page of some tabloid?
I'm not really a techie, but this is what The Times say
The hackers compromised several computer systems that held confidential documents relating to parliamentary work by Chi Onwurah, the shadow digital minister, and files containing information about her employees.
Her biography doesn't present any red flags, she's actually a rare female engineer, and a supporter of Burnham though she nominated Corbyn.
She's like a black ethnic version of Thatcher even down to those eyes and lips that Mitterrand once said, creepy.
Cybercriminals broke into parliament’s computer network, hijacked computers holding sensitive information and presented a ransom demand to an MP, The Times can reveal.
That is why I love computers that are too old to connect to the internet.
Ransom demand on what? Did they found something illegal or embarrassing? And will we see it on the front page of some tabloid?
I'm not really a techie, but this is what The Times say
The hackers compromised several computer systems that held confidential documents relating to parliamentary work by Chi Onwurah, the shadow digital minister, and files containing information about her employees.
Her biography doesn't present any red flags, she's actually a rare female engineer, and a supporter of Burnham though she nominated Corbyn.
She's like a black ethnic version of Thatcher even down to those eyes and lips that Mitterrand once said, creepy.
I think the blackmail attempt was to stop her being publicly embarrassed that she had been hacked
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
Cybercriminals broke into parliament’s computer network, hijacked computers holding sensitive information and presented a ransom demand to an MP, The Times can reveal.
That is why I love computers that are too old to connect to the internet.
Ransom demand on what? Did they found something illegal or embarrassing? And will we see it on the front page of some tabloid?
I'm not really a techie, but this is what The Times say
The hackers compromised several computer systems that held confidential documents relating to parliamentary work by Chi Onwurah, the shadow digital minister, and files containing information about her employees.
Her biography doesn't present any red flags, she's actually a rare female engineer, and a supporter of Burnham though she nominated Corbyn.
She's like a black ethnic version of Thatcher even down to those eyes and lips that Mitterrand once said, creepy.
I think the blackmail attempt was to stop her being publicly embarrassed that she had been hacked
Nothing to be embarrassed about if someone commits a crime against you, it's the once who committed the crime that should be embarrassed.
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
They must have been so patient with Jeremy in Islington...
I think the reason was that Jeremy from Islington was actually popular with the local party. We'll have to see if Simon from Rochdale will be supported by his local party.
LOL! So, let's get this straight, having the electoral interests of the Labour Party at heart, and being right about what is damaging those interests, is a weakness in the Labour Party?
LOL! So, let's get this straight, having the electoral interests of the Labour Party at heart, and being right about what is damaging those interests, is a weakness in the Labour Party?
The Party was founded by Socialists - and finally, after decades, Socialists got their Party back on September 12th!
LOL! So, let's get this straight, having the electoral interests of the Labour Party at heart, and being right about what is damaging those interests, is a weakness in the Labour Party?
TBH it doesn't really matter what Corbyn does now in this respect. He'll be pilloried as disloyal to the Queen and contemptuous of those who gave their lives for their country, no matter how lustily he sings the National Anthem or how respectfully he bows his head at remembrance ceremonies. And quite reasonably so, given his history over the last 30 years. In fact the more he does to alter the impression, the more it will look as though he's just as hypocritical and dishonest as his supporters claim other politicians are.
Anecdotal evidence but I was watching the ceremony this morning with my wife (who isn't political and whose views are generally well to the left of mine, though she's a strong monarchist), and her comment on Corbyn laying his wreath was "that's not a bow!!", and said with some emphasis.
Of itself, it won't matter much but it does re-emphasise existing perceptions.
Oh gods - look, The Sun, there is plenty of much juicier material on the man, you don't need to turn the dial up to 11 on everything like this. I know people are on the watch out given his long standing views, but come on, he even had some decent points to raise today!
Front page of The Times says we're getting a June EU referendum
9/1 on a 2016 exit for Cam sounds value then.
That is good thinking
I got 9/1 with Hills (leader of Tories) you can get 10/1 with Ladbrokes - I might have accidentally passed on a tenner!
Ah.. If it's still there in the morning I'll pop to a shop
A speculative long term bet I vaguely fancy is Remi Garde to be next arsenal boss
He was Wengers first signing and a real favourite of his. If he keeps villa up and plays good football I think he's a real runner
33/1 available
Regular subscribers will be on Vardy top prem goalscorer at all levels from 33/1 downwards
Vardy just keeps on going. It looked like a nasty groin strain when he went down second half, but he seemed to run it off. He does tend to play through injuries which may not be wise in the longer term.
The biggest risk is if he leaves for another team, and is played out of position like when he plays for England, then winds up benchwarming. With Leicester he plays every week.
It is great to see a player who is desperate to play for his country. Compare with Rahim Sterling who "is too tired" or any number of others that pick up "minor injuries" just before international breaks.
Other teams results went our way today. Only one point (and goal difference) off top spot after 12 games. The stuff of dreams.
Front page of The Times says we're getting a June EU referendum
9/1 on a 2016 exit for Cam sounds value then.
That is good thinking
I got 9/1 with Hills (leader of Tories) you can get 10/1 with Ladbrokes - I might have accidentally passed on a tenner!
Ah.. If it's still there in the morning I'll pop to a shop
A speculative long term bet I vaguely fancy is Remi Garde to be next arsenal boss
He was Wengers first signing and a real favourite of his. If he keeps villa up and plays good football I think he's a real runner
33/1 available
Regular subscribers will be on Vardy top prem goalscorer at all levels from 33/1 downwards
Vardy just keeps on going. It looked like a nasty groin strain when he went down second half, but he seemed to run it off. He does tend to play through injuries which may not be wise in the longer term.
The biggest risk is if he leaves for another team, and is played out of position like when he plays for England, then winds up benchwarming. With Leicester he plays every week.
It is great to see a player who is desperate to play for his country. Compare with Rahim Sterling who "is too tired" or any number of others that pick up "minor injuries" just before international breaks.
Other teams results went our way today. Only one point (and goal difference) off top spot after 12 games. The stuff of dreams.
Yes my fear is a transfer window move... To a prem team and he still places, to a foreign club, (Real Madrid has been rumoured!) and its a goner
Front page of The Times says we're getting a June EU referendum
Front page of the Guardian has the UK losing influence on the world stage. The UK will never maintain or gain influence as long as they remain a member of the EU.
As far as economics goes David Smith economics editor of the Times points out that despite claims to the contrary the EU is still our most important export market and emerging economies are not exactly setting the growth counters clicking. PwC are producing a report later this week. The EU is projected to be out biggest export market until 2030.
Anecdotal evidence but I was watching the ceremony this morning with my wife (who isn't political and whose views are generally well to the left of mine, though she's a strong monarchist), and her comment on Corbyn laying his wreath was "that's not a bow!!", and said with some emphasis.
Of itself, it won't matter much but it does re-emphasise existing perceptions.
You and Mr Nabavi are right. I am not sure however Mr Corbyn particularly cares about these things. He and his friends want to take over the labour party. In most things that relate to the real world of the rest of us he is a novice.
Mr Fox at 9.40. Robertson was forced out by Lloyd George who wanted to win the War but was upset because to put it bluntly that was killing soldiers. Eventually his replacement did not sack Haig as he perhaps hoped and went along with army strategy. In early 1918 the British took on more responsibility for the line but LG refused to allow the necessary troop reinforcements. Thus the area where Ludendorff attacked was relatively thinly held.
Front page of The Times says we're getting a June EU referendum
9/1 on a 2016 exit for Cam sounds value then.
That is good thinking
I got 9/1 with Hills (leader of Tories) you can get 10/1 with Ladbrokes - I might have accidentally passed on a tenner!
Ah.. If it's still there in the morning I'll pop to a shop
A speculative long term bet I vaguely fancy is Remi Garde to be next arsenal boss
He was Wengers first signing and a real favourite of his. If he keeps villa up and plays good football I think he's a real runner
33/1 available
Regular subscribers will be on Vardy top prem goalscorer at all levels from 33/1 downwards
Vardy just keeps on going. It looked like a nasty groin strain when he went down second half, but he seemed to run it off. He does tend to play through injuries which may not be wise in the longer term.
The biggest risk is if he leaves for another team, and is played out of position like when he plays for England, then winds up benchwarming. With Leicester he plays every week.
It is great to see a player who is desperate to play for his country. Compare with Rahim Sterling who "is too tired" or any number of others that pick up "minor injuries" just before international breaks.
Other teams results went our way today. Only one point (and goal difference) off top spot after 12 games. The stuff of dreams.
Yes my fear is a transfer window move... To a prem team and he still places, to a foreign club, (Real Madrid has been rumoured!) and its a goner
I'm on lukaku and Kane at nice prices too...
And Gomis!
Just need Aguero injured a while longer
Both Lukaku and Kane look good bets, though Coutinio looks possible too and still at quite good odds.
Front page of The Times says we're getting a June EU referendum
Front page of the Guardian has the UK losing influence on the world stage. The UK will never maintain or gain influence as long as they remain a member of the EU.
As far as economics goes David Smith economics editor of the Times points out that despite claims to the contrary the EU is still our most important export market and emerging economies are not exactly setting the growth counters clicking. PwC are producing a report later this week. The EU is projected to be out biggest export market until 2030.
The long term trends are clear. I would prefer a global UK instead of being part of a Little European Union. If we decide to remain in the EU we will be shackled to it for decades to come.
Fine Gael look to have some improvement left in them by the odd point but Labour's position makes it difficult for that coalition to renew. Labour need to find a few points from somewhere but its a big leap.
That leaves Fianna Fail & Fine Gael at the head of the market where they should be. The alternative is that they go to the country again.
One quick point regarding the Russian airliner. When someone asked what UKG knew that prompted the plan to get British tourists out, two things I mentioned were signals intelligence that intimated 3rd party involvement and that regional intelligence agencies had shared information about what happened.
The first is now publicly known, the 2nd may soon be. It was the Israelis who shared.
(OT) On Saturday, as I was watching the Festival of Remembrance on TV, it occurred to me that it is ONLY 23 YEARS since George Ives appeared in the audience in the same programme in 1992, and was mentioned in passing by the then presenter Richard Baker. He was the last surviving veteran soldier of the Boer War, and died in 1993 aged 111.
I still can't get my head around this 'excess votes' business. Physical ballot papers (and if so which ones?) or pro-rated second preferences ( and if so how do you handle third preferences?)?
If the candidate has 125 votes and the quota is 100 votes, then 25 surplus votesa are transferred. That means that all 125 votes are transferred at a value of 25/125, i.e. 0.20.
In all circumstances, the vote is transferred to the next-available preference, whether that's the 2nd or 3rd or 5th or 17th. If a ballot paper is transferred from the 1st preference to the 3rd preference, that's because the 2nd preference candidate has already been elected or eliminated, and so is no longer available to receive any transferred votes.
The precise rules for transferring different bundles of votes sat different values vary between different versions of STV, but the basic principle is the same. (For example, the version of STV used in Northern Ireland is easier for hand-counting, and is simpler than the version used for local elections in Scotland (which need computer-counting).
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
They must have been so patient with Jeremy in Islington...
I don't recall Jeremy EVER being abusive about a Labour leader (or indeed anyone else) in the Mail. Danczuk has made a habit of it. It's not disagreement per se, but the manner, place and regularity of it that makes him appear to be seeking martyrdom. If a Tory MP had a column in the Mirror where he regularly slagged off Cameron and before him Major, sometimes obscenely, I dare say it would try patience too, even among those who agreed with him.
The Ministry of Defence being full of idiots is a far greater threat to our security than the seas being empty of Trident in my opinion.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
That's not true. Major threatened Saddam with nuclear weapons if Iraq used chemical weapons against British troops in the 1991 Iraq War. I presume he did that on the basis of being able to carry out the threat.
If it's possible to use the weapons for a WMD attack against troops in theatre then I'm quite sure it's possible to do it for a nuclear attack on the UK itself.
(Whether Major would actually have done it has to remain open to doubt. 'Controversial' wouldn't begin to describe such a decision. Even so, the fact remains that Saddam - who undoubtedly did have chemical weapons in 1991, even if he didn't by 2003 - chose not to use them. Deterrence works as the least-bad option).
I'd be interested to see the documentation of this. It sounds like utter codswallop.
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
They must have been so patient with Jeremy in Islington...
I don't recall Jeremy EVER being abusive about a Labour leader (or indeed anyone else) in the Mail. Danczuk has made a habit of it. It's not disagreement per se, but the manner, place and regularity of it that makes him appear to be seeking martyrdom. If a Tory MP had a column in the Mirror where he regularly slagged off Cameron and before him Major, sometimes obscenely, I dare say it would try patience too, even among those who agreed with him.
I think Labour would be completely legitimate in deselecting Danzcuk. To have a leader graciously invite him into the office after public criticism, and for him to then reprint the exact contents of that private conversation the next week is just the height of disrespect.
Front page of The Times says we're getting a June EU referendum
Front page of the Guardian has the UK losing influence on the world stage. The UK will never maintain or gain influence as long as they remain a member of the EU.
As far as economics goes David Smith economics editor of the Times points out that despite claims to the contrary the EU is still our most important export market and emerging economies are not exactly setting the growth counters clicking. PwC are producing a report later this week. The EU is projected to be out biggest export market until 2030.
Only because you're grouping together 27 countries as one to claim it as a single "export market". You have to compare apples with apples.
This seems ridiculous. I was as critical as anyone over his refusal to sing the national anthem, but a respectful nod is perfectly adequate in this situation.
The Ministry of Defence being full of idiots is a far greater threat to our security than the seas being empty of Trident in my opinion.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
That's not true. Major threatened Saddam with nuclear weapons if Iraq used chemical weapons against British troops in the 1991 Iraq War. I presume he did that on the basis of being able to carry out the threat.
If it's possible to use the weapons for a WMD attack against troops in theatre then I'm quite sure it's possible to do it for a nuclear attack on the UK itself.
(Whether Major would actually have done it has to remain open to doubt. 'Controversial' wouldn't begin to describe such a decision. Even so, the fact remains that Saddam - who undoubtedly did have chemical weapons in 1991, even if he didn't by 2003 - chose not to use them. Deterrence works as the least-bad option).
I'd be interested to see the documentation of this. It sounds like utter codswallop.
John Major: The Autobiography, p.223
"We made it clear that we would not tolerate any Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons, whether against troops or as a weapon of terror against unprotected civilian populations. So did the US. In private, Saddam Hussain received an unmistakable warning about the immediate and catastrophic consequences for Iraq of any such attacks on civilians. I hoped he would take notice but was not confident. I knew that if he did use these diabolical weapons, we would have to escalate our response to bring the war to a speedy and conclusive end before too many of our troops were exposed to them."
The Ministry of Defence being full of idiots is a far greater threat to our security than the seas being empty of Trident in my opinion.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
That's not true. Major threatened Saddam with nuclear weapons if Iraq used chemical weapons against British troops in the 1991 Iraq War. I presume he did that on the basis of being able to carry out the threat.
If it's possible to use the weapons for a WMD attack against troops in theatre then I'm quite sure it's possible to do it for a nuclear attack on the UK itself.
(Whether Major would actually have done it has to remain open to doubt. 'Controversial' wouldn't begin to describe such a decision. Even so, the fact remains that Saddam - who undoubtedly did have chemical weapons in 1991, even if he didn't by 2003 - chose not to use them. Deterrence works as the least-bad option).
I'd be interested to see the documentation of this. It sounds like utter codswallop.
I believe that' was the case; the US did the same from memory. If the little 'un lets me than I'll try to source it.
There was a doctrine that as the US and other countries had removed chemical and biological weapons from their arsenals, the only weapon they had to strike back with against a large-scale chem/bio attack were nuclear weapons. ISTR Obama eased it.
Might be wrong on that; I'd need to re-read my relevant notes.
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
They must have been so patient with Jeremy in Islington...
I don't recall Jeremy EVER being abusive about a Labour leader (or indeed anyone else) in the Mail. Danczuk has made a habit of it. It's not disagreement per se, but the manner, place and regularity of it that makes him appear to be seeking martyrdom. If a Tory MP had a column in the Mirror where he regularly slagged off Cameron and before him Major, sometimes obscenely, I dare say it would try patience too, even among those who agreed with him.
And yet saint Jeremy has full confidence in someone who slagged off Ed Balls et al. On this you fail to comment?
Cybercriminals broke into parliament’s computer network, hijacked computers holding sensitive information and presented a ransom demand to an MP, The Times can reveal.
And yet the politicians think it a good idea that every ISP holds all customers private viewing habits.
Mr Fox at 9.40. Robertson was forced out by Lloyd George who wanted to win the War but was upset because to put it bluntly that was killing soldiers. Eventually his replacement did not sack Haig as he perhaps hoped and went along with army strategy. In early 1918 the British took on more responsibility for the line but LG refused to allow the necessary troop reinforcements. Thus the area where Ludendorff attacked was relatively thinly held.
I’m very ignorant where military strategy is concerned, but it does seem to me that the Btitish, Fench and German High Commands on the Western Front all seemed to be be stuck in a sort of mindset whereby it was just a case of “standing toe to toe, giving blow for blow” without any consideration of an alternative.
Utterly ridiculous. The Prime Minister says himself this is the biggest decision in our lifetimes, yet we will only get a few months to weigh over options? The Scots got more than a year to truly understand the various arguments, and were considerably more knowledgeable about the situation by the time all was said and done. It sounds like No 10 wants people to decide with the least amount of consideration possible.
I believe that' was the case; the US did the same from memory. If the little 'un lets me than I'll try to source it.
There was a doctrine that as the US and other countries had removed chemical and biological weapons from their arsenals, the only weapon they had to strike back with against a large-scale chem/bio attack were nuclear weapons. ISTR Obama eased it.
Might be wrong on that; I'd need to re-read my relevant notes.
As for the prospect of the UK using nuclear weapons in GW1:
The British also made several threats to respond harshly to an Iraqi chemical attack. On 30 September 1990 it was reported that a senior officer with the British 7th Armored Division, being deployed to Saudi Arabia, claimed that British forces would retaliate with battlefield nuclear weapons if attacked by Iraqi chemical weapons.(18) On 1 October 1990, British Prime Margaret Thatcher noted that "[y]ou'd have to consider at the time, if chemical weapons were used against us, precisely what our reply should be."(19) Several days later, British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd stated that an Iraqi chemical attack would "provoke a response that would completely destroy that country."(20)
Utterly ridiculous. The Prime Minister says himself this is the biggest decision in our lifetimes, yet we will only get a few months to weigh over options? The Scots got more than a year to truly understand the various arguments, and were considerably more knowledgeable about the situation by the time all was said and done. It sounds like No 10 wants people to decide with the least amount of consideration possible.
Not e everyone needs more years of drivel on this topic. A few months is more than enough.
Utterly ridiculous. The Prime Minister says himself this is the biggest decision in our lifetimes, yet we will only get a few months to weigh over options? The Scots got more than a year to truly understand the various arguments, and were considerably more knowledgeable about the situation by the time all was said and done. It sounds like No 10 wants people to decide with the least amount of consideration possible.
Not e everyone needs more years of drivel on this topic. A few months is more than enough.
Except it's not drivel. As Cameron says himself, it's a very important question dealing with a whole range of topics. They had ten months just for the AV referendum, and this is considerably more complex than that.
Mr Fox at 9.40. Robertson was forced out by Lloyd George who wanted to win the War but was upset because to put it bluntly that was killing soldiers. Eventually his replacement did not sack Haig as he perhaps hoped and went along with army strategy. In early 1918 the British took on more responsibility for the line but LG refused to allow the necessary troop reinforcements. Thus the area where Ludendorff attacked was relatively thinly held.
I’m very ignorant where military strategy is concerned, but it does seem to me that the Btitish, Fench and German High Commands on the Western Front all seemed to be be stuck in a sort of mindset whereby it was just a case of “standing toe to toe, giving blow for blow” without any consideration of an alternative.
There was plenty of consideration given to alternatives. Britain started the war using methods little changed since Waterloo. By 1918, planners had effectively invented the essential components of Blitzkrieg and given a foresight of WWII.
But the world was unlucky that the war broke out at a time when the machine-gun was such a powerful defensive weapon without any practical counterweapon other than saturation bombing of enemy trenches. It simply wouldn't have been politically acceptable in 1915 to have sat around for three years waiting for the tank to be invented.
Utterly ridiculous. The Prime Minister says himself this is the biggest decision in our lifetimes, yet we will only get a few months to weigh over options? The Scots got more than a year to truly understand the various arguments, and were considerably more knowledgeable about the situation by the time all was said and done. It sounds like No 10 wants people to decide with the least amount of consideration possible.
Not e everyone needs more years of drivel on this topic. A few months is more than enough.
Except it's not drivel. As Cameron says himself, it's a very important question dealing with a whole range of topics. They had ten months just for the AV referendum, and this is considerably more complex than that.
8 more months is plenty. Its not as if it is something that has never been discussed before!
Mr Fox at 9.40. Robertson was forced out by Lloyd George who wanted to win the War but was upset because to put it bluntly that was killing soldiers. Eventually his replacement did not sack Haig as he perhaps hoped and went along with army strategy. In early 1918 the British took on more responsibility for the line but LG refused to allow the necessary troop reinforcements. Thus the area where Ludendorff attacked was relatively thinly held.
I’m very ignorant where military strategy is concerned, but it does seem to me that the Btitish, Fench and German High Commands on the Western Front all seemed to be be stuck in a sort of mindset whereby it was just a case of “standing toe to toe, giving blow for blow” without any consideration of an alternative.
There was plenty of consideration given to alternatives. Britain started the war using methods little changed since Waterloo. By 1918, planners had effectively invented the essential components of Blitzkrieg and given a foresight of WWII.
But the world was unlucky that the war broke out at a time when the machine-gun was such a powerful defensive weapon without any practical counterweapon other than saturation bombing of enemy trenches. It simply wouldn't have been politically acceptable in 1915 to have sat around for three years waiting for the tank to be invented.
There was also a consideration that on other fronts the Central powers were often doing well. The Somme was in part to take the pressure off the French at Verdun, and to allow the Russians to attack in the Brusilov offensive in Galicia. In 1917 Paschendale had to continue to keep the Germans from exploiting the French army mutiny, the Italian collapse at Caporetto and the Russian revolution.
Mr Fox at 9.40. Robertson was forced out by Lloyd George who wanted to win the War but was upset because to put it bluntly that was killing soldiers. Eventually his replacement did not sack Haig as he perhaps hoped and went along with army strategy. In early 1918 the British took on more responsibility for the line but LG refused to allow the necessary troop reinforcements. Thus the area where Ludendorff attacked was relatively thinly held.
I’m very ignorant where military strategy is concerned, but it does seem to me that the Btitish, Fench and German High Commands on the Western Front all seemed to be be stuck in a sort of mindset whereby it was just a case of “standing toe to toe, giving blow for blow” without any consideration of an alternative.
There was plenty of consideration given to alternatives. Britain started the war using methods little changed since Waterloo. By 1918, planners had effectively invented the essential components of Blitzkrieg and given a foresight of WWII.
But the world was unlucky that the war broke out at a time when the machine-gun was such a powerful defensive weapon without any practical counterweapon other than saturation bombing of enemy trenches. It simply wouldn't have been politically acceptable in 1915 to have sat around for three years waiting for the tank to be invented.
And Gallipoli was another desperate attempt by Churchill to find a different option and open up a more mobile second front. The outcome was somewhat suboptimal and a lesson is there that facing a different kind of army in very different terrain trench warfare every bit as horrible as the western front almost immediately broke out.
As you say in the period 1914-1917 technology so massively favoured the defence that any attack was doomed. Even if you broke through the lines the defenders would simply dig another trench.
What I find remarkable was that these trends were very evident in the last couple of years of the American Civil war, at least on the eastern front. In the west there was still room to move. I don't understand why the General Staffs of all the major nations seemed to learn so little from that experience.
Comments
Corbyn and his team stoking up row with General Houghton. Excellent strategy. Defence is such a strong area for Labour at the moment.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/663476601145937922
I believe that Danzcuk will try to force his party to eject him rather that him simply leaving, because if he leaves his political career is over (not that if he stays or gets ejected makes any difference, it's dead anyway), and if he defects to another party it will only serve to prove the attack line that the anti-Corbyn MP's are really Tories in the wrong party.
Latest German poll puts AfD on 9%, their highest ever rating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_German_federal_election#Poll_results
As you know, nothing major happens when Mike is on holiday
Cybercriminals broke into parliament’s computer network, hijacked computers holding sensitive information and presented a ransom demand to an MP, The Times can reveal.
Ransom demand on what?
Did they found something illegal or embarrassing?
And will we see it on the front page of some tabloid?
The hackers compromised several computer systems that held confidential documents relating to parliamentary work by Chi Onwurah, the shadow digital minister, and files containing information about her employees.
Every generation of my family has had to fight in war, other than mine and - so far - my children's. Something for which I am truly grateful.
Anyway, no late night for me tonight. Am giving a talk on leadership and values tomorrow - so need to be reasonably awake for it all, if I'm going to make any headway with cynical traders......
A speculative long term bet I vaguely fancy is Remi Garde to be next arsenal boss
He was Wengers first signing and a real favourite of his. If he keeps villa up and plays good football I think he's a real runner
33/1 available
Regular subscribers will be on Vardy top prem goalscorer at all levels from 33/1 downwards
She's like a black ethnic version of Thatcher even down to those eyes and lips that Mitterrand once said, creepy.
Goodnight.
We'll have to see if Simon from Rochdale will be supported by his local party.
Labour's coming home!
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/663484836288577536
It's a bit late to start being patriotic at 66.
Of itself, it won't matter much but it does re-emphasise existing perceptions.
Good night all.
The biggest risk is if he leaves for another team, and is played out of position like when he plays for England, then winds up benchwarming. With Leicester he plays every week.
It is great to see a player who is desperate to play for his country. Compare with Rahim Sterling who "is too tired" or any number of others that pick up "minor injuries" just before international breaks.
Other teams results went our way today. Only one point (and goal difference) off top spot after 12 games. The stuff of dreams.
I'm on lukaku and Kane at nice prices too...
And Gomis!
Just need Aguero injured a while longer
Robertson was forced out by Lloyd George who wanted to win the War but was upset because to put it bluntly that was killing soldiers. Eventually his replacement did not sack Haig as he perhaps hoped and went along with army strategy. In early 1918 the British took on more responsibility for the line but LG refused to allow the necessary troop reinforcements. Thus the area where Ludendorff attacked was relatively thinly held.
That leaves Fianna Fail & Fine Gael at the head of the market where they should be. The alternative is that they go to the country again.
One quick point regarding the Russian airliner. When someone asked what UKG knew that prompted the plan to get British tourists out, two things I mentioned were signals intelligence that intimated 3rd party involvement and that regional intelligence agencies had shared information about what happened.
The first is now publicly known, the 2nd may soon be. It was the Israelis who shared.
In all circumstances, the vote is transferred to the next-available preference, whether that's the 2nd or 3rd or 5th or 17th. If a ballot paper is transferred from the 1st preference to the 3rd preference, that's because the 2nd preference candidate has already been elected or eliminated, and so is no longer available to receive any transferred votes.
The precise rules for transferring different bundles of votes sat different values vary between different versions of STV, but the basic principle is the same. (For example, the version of STV used in Northern Ireland is easier for hand-counting, and is simpler than the version used for local elections in Scotland (which need computer-counting).
"We made it clear that we would not tolerate any Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons, whether against troops or as a weapon of terror against unprotected civilian populations. So did the US. In private, Saddam Hussain received an unmistakable warning about the immediate and catastrophic consequences for Iraq of any such attacks on civilians. I hoped he would take notice but was not confident. I knew that if he did use these diabolical weapons, we would have to escalate our response to bring the war to a speedy and conclusive end before too many of our troops were exposed to them."
There was a doctrine that as the US and other countries had removed chemical and biological weapons from their arsenals, the only weapon they had to strike back with against a large-scale chem/bio attack were nuclear weapons. ISTR Obama eased it.
Might be wrong on that; I'd need to re-read my relevant notes.
For the use of nukes in response to biological attacks (since, I believe, watered down):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#United_States
As for the prospect of the UK using nuclear weapons in GW1:
The British also made several threats to respond harshly to an Iraqi chemical attack. On 30 September 1990 it was reported that a senior officer with the British 7th Armored Division, being deployed to Saudi Arabia, claimed that British forces would retaliate with battlefield nuclear weapons if attacked by Iraqi chemical weapons.(18) On 1 October 1990, British Prime Margaret Thatcher noted that "[y]ou'd have to consider at the time, if chemical weapons were used against us, precisely what our reply should be."(19) Several days later, British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd stated that an Iraqi chemical attack would "provoke a response that would completely destroy that country."(20)
http://fas.org/irp/eprint/ds-threats.htm
But the world was unlucky that the war broke out at a time when the machine-gun was such a powerful defensive weapon without any practical counterweapon other than saturation bombing of enemy trenches. It simply wouldn't have been politically acceptable in 1915 to have sat around for three years waiting for the tank to be invented.
In the end Robertson was right. It was on the Western Front that the German collapse happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918)
As you say in the period 1914-1917 technology so massively favoured the defence that any attack was doomed. Even if you broke through the lines the defenders would simply dig another trench.
What I find remarkable was that these trends were very evident in the last couple of years of the American Civil war, at least on the eastern front. In the west there was still room to move. I don't understand why the General Staffs of all the major nations seemed to learn so little from that experience.