Here on the coast in southern Spain you get coffee, water, orange juice and mini-doughnuts all for €1.50 - and you sit overlooking a sunny Mediterranean for free - a pleasant 24 degrees today
Interesting article, I think Corbyn's comments today show he is as much interested in an ideal world as the real one.
He's more interested in the middle east than middle England.
An unusual criticism to make considering our own Government has ring-fenced a ridiculously spendthrift foreign aid budget and is currently engaging our hollowed out armed services in a fruitless bombing campaign in the Middle East that it wishes to extend into another country.
Your view appears to be:
Russian bombing in support of Syria (which they wish to extend into Iraq): good and hopeful.
US/UK bombing in support of Iraq (which the UK wish to extend into Syria): bad and fruitless.
There is actually a non-bonkers argument for this, which is that when the former colonial powers intervene in one of the countries they've colonized then repeatedly re-invaded or whose governments they've overturned, not necessarily to the benefit of the people living there, they inevitably rally people in defence of the side they're attacking.
This is a particularly strong argument for the _UK_ to stay out and let other countries deal with it, since they have a very high ratio of colonial baggage to practical military capability.
It's a particularly weak argument. The former colonial power in Syria were the Ottomans (with a brief Egyptian incursion), and they were followed (I think) by a short-lived Kingdom and then a French mandate.
Aside from that, well done!
It would be an argument for Britain to get involved in Syria and not Iraq.
I think the appropriate word relates less to vengeance than justice. It also does much for morale generally as so often one feels powerless against the random nature of hostage taking and execution. It may just also help to begin the process of making the potential 'replacements' understand the game they're playing is for real. Finally unless you have a convincing alternative and credible strategy carping from the sidelines is pretty naff.
vengeance vs justice - in my view the latter deserves some kind of process. even trial in absentia perhaps.
probably most people who have made their way to ISIS are more or less aware of the realities of their situation.
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
At the start of the year no-one would have said that Corbyn would have a chance of becoming leader of the Labour party. Bearing that in mind, it is hard to predict how far he might go.
That said, I do not believe that he intends to fight the next general election. My hunch is that he wants to change policy, put in place a fresh younger, left winger and then be seen as a Labour Party hero in the Tony Benn mould.
''Here on the coast in southern Spain you get coffee, water, orange juice and mini-doughnuts all for €1.50 - and you sit overlooking a sunny Mediterranean for free - a pleasant 24 degrees today''
I go to Andalusia a few times a year myself. Two beers and tapas, four euros tops. Amazing value.
Only trouble is, its difficult to get p8ssed, because every time you get a beer you get food.
I think the appropriate word relates less to vengeance than justice. It also does much for morale generally as so often one feels powerless against the random nature of hostage taking and execution. It may just also help to begin the process of making the potential 'replacements' understand the game they're playing is for real. Finally unless you have a convincing alternative and credible strategy carping from the sidelines is pretty naff.
vengeance vs justice - in my view the latter deserves some kind of process. even trial in absentia perhaps.
probably most people who have made their way to ISIS are more or less aware of the realities of their situation.
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
Apart from that - I think posting YouTube videos of yourself beheading various innocent hostages kinda proves your guilt. Being turned into pink mist was too good for him.
I'd give him less than 24hrs in prison before he had a fatal accident too.
I think the appropriate word relates less to vengeance than justice. It also does much for morale generally as so often one feels powerless against the random nature of hostage taking and execution. It may just also help to begin the process of making the potential 'replacements' understand the game they're playing is for real. Finally unless you have a convincing alternative and credible strategy carping from the sidelines is pretty naff.
vengeance vs justice - in my view the latter deserves some kind of process. even trial in absentia perhaps.
probably most people who have made their way to ISIS are more or less aware of the realities of their situation.
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
I think the appropriate word relates less to vengeance than justice. It also does much for morale generally as so often one feels powerless against the random nature of hostage taking and execution. It may just also help to begin the process of making the potential 'replacements' understand the game they're playing is for real. Finally unless you have a convincing alternative and credible strategy carping from the sidelines is pretty naff.
vengeance vs justice - in my view the latter deserves some kind of process. even trial in absentia perhaps.
probably most people who have made their way to ISIS are more or less aware of the realities of their situation.
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
So you do lack an alternative strategy. Also pretty crass to pretend that today's work is the sum total of the current strategy. Regarding your first point -in a war situation people die you need to suck it up and take your side.
So you do lack an alternative strategy. Also pretty crass to pretend that today's work is the sum total of the current strategy. Regarding your first point -in a war situation people die you need to suck it up and take your side.
I'm not upset that the man is dead, far from it. But to pretend that finding guys like him and blowing them up is a strategy is kind of ridiculous.
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
yes fair enough, (although video evidence might look fairly convincing) but how about the other point:
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
'infamous' Is lining people up and beheading them in public a credible strategy? Is taking hostages and beheading them or making them sit on land mines a credible strategy? Is it a credible military strategy to vote against striking back at these people like labour do?
I am sick tired and fed up of and with the Labour Party. It's worthless.
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
yes fair enough, (although video evidence might look fairly convincing) but how about the other point:
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
'infamous' Is lining people up and beheading them in public a credible strategy? Is taking hostages and beheading them or making them sit on land mines a credible strategy? Is it a credible military strategy to vote against striking back at these people like labour do?
I am sick tired and fed up of and with the Labour Party. It's worthless.
So you do lack an alternative strategy. Also pretty crass to pretend that today's work is the sum total of the current strategy. Regarding your first point -in a war situation people die you need to suck it up and take your side.
I'm not upset that the man is dead, far from it. But to pretend that finding guys like him and blowing them up is a strategy is kind of ridiculous.
It helps with the propaganda war (Join ISIS and we will find you and we WILL kill you) is the message. So it is of value.
I don't feel comfortable with the summary execution by drone, but if due process was to have been carried out, someone would have to go out and collect the wretch. However, it appears that Corbyn & others would refuse to allow that form of intervention to occur.
Hello from a regular lurker, have posted in the past but not for a long time.
I am an officer of a CLP with a Labour MP who supported Liz Kendall for leader. I have been around in the Labour Party for many years and I have personal experience of the left/right battles of the 80s and 90s.
For people like me at the grassroots level, the main change that has come about since Corbyn was elected is that the party is now much more inward looking. Our CLP has more than doubled its membership, but this has not led to any increase in doorstep activity - the reverse is the case. The new members are, in general, white, middle class and uninterested in electoral politics. Most do nothing at all, but a few come along to meetings, pontifcate on the subject of the day (the evils of cuts etc etc) and then depart, apparently in the belief that something useful has been achieved by this process. A minority are extreme left activists trying to rerun the entryist tactics from the 1980s.
The net result is that we now spend a great deal of time and effort on internal organisation to ensure that the newcomers are not successful in their attempts to attack councillors and MPs - enemies of the people in the eyes of some of the trotskyists now emerging from under their stones. We have to make sure we have people to speak against the impossibilists, make sure we have enough people at the meetings to defeat their proposals and generally keep an eye on their activities to ensure we keep one step ahead of them. In my CLP the early signs are encouraging in that we have easily kept them at bay, but all of this activity is a huge distraction - it demoralises people and takes up time that could otherwise be spent engaging with ordinary voters.
I cannot see this situation changing whilst Corbyn is leader. He seems completely uninterested in the party election machinery (staffers say that they have virtually no contact with the leader's office) and whilst he may have said that he doesn't want to see attempts to remove moderate MPs everyone knows that most of the people closest to him do not share that view.
Hardly anyone, even those who were naive enough to vote for him, thinks he will become prime minister. It is hard to take him seriously. And if the party doesn't take him seriously then it is hardly likely to persuade the country.
Interesting article, I think Corbyn's comments today show he is as much interested in an ideal world as the real one.
He's more interested in the middle east than middle England.
An unusual criticism to make considering our own Government has ring-fenced a ridiculously spendthrift foreign aid budget and is currently engaging our hollowed out armed services in a fruitless bombing campaign in the Middle East that it wishes to extend into another country.
Your view appears to be:
Russian bombing in support of Syria (which they wish to extend into Iraq): good and hopeful.
US/UK bombing in support of Iraq (which the UK wish to extend into Syria): bad and fruitless.
There is actually a non-bonkers argument for this, which is that when the former colonial powers intervene in one of the countries they've colonized then repeatedly re-invaded or whose governments they've overturned, not necessarily to the benefit of the people living there, they inevitably rally people in defence of the side they're attacking.
This is a particularly strong argument for the _UK_ to stay out and let other countries deal with it, since they have a very high ratio of colonial baggage to practical military capability.
It's a particularly weak argument. The former colonial power in Syria were the Ottomans (with a brief Egyptian incursion), and they were followed (I think) by a short-lived Kingdom and then a French mandate.
Aside from that, well done!
It would be an argument for Britain to get involved in Syria and not Iraq.
Yes, with caveats.
The British major involvement in Iraq started in the First World War, and was an effect of both the spoils of that war and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company - the dash for oil (a consequence of Churchill's decision that Britain's warships were to be fired by oil, not coal).
But AIUI we only invaded Iraq as part of the First World War conflict against the Ottomans, who were the enemy. The collapse of the Ottoman empire could hardly be blamed on us (it had been going on for a few hundred years), and we were left with the spoils.
I've looked into this a little from a modern perspective, and I'll be darned if I can work out what (on a major scale) could have been done to prevent the problems we have nowadays, short of capitulation to the Ottoman Empire, and support of that empire.
And even that probably would not have worked in the long term.
Hello from a regular lurker, have posted in the past but not for a long time.
I am an officer of a CLP with a Labour MP who supported Liz Kendall for leader. I have been around in the Labour Party for many years and I have personal experience of the left/right battles of the 80s and 90s.
For people like me at the grassroots level, the main change that has come about since Corbyn was elected is that the party is now much more inward looking. Our CLP has more than doubled its membership, but this has not led to any increase in doorstep activity - the reverse is the case. The new members are, in general, white, middle class and uninterested in electoral politics. Most do nothing at all, but a few come along to meetings, pontifcate on the subject of the day (the evils of cuts etc etc) and then depart, apparently in the belief that something useful has been achieved by this process. A minority are extreme left activists trying to rerun the entryist tactics from the 1980s.
The net result is that we now spend a great deal of time and effort on internal organisation to ensure that the newcomers are not successful in their attempts to attack councillors and MPs - enemies of the people in the eyes of some of the trotskyists now emerging from under their stones. We have to make sure we have people to speak against the impossibilists, make sure we have enough people at the meetings to defeat their proposals and generally keep an eye on their activities to ensure we keep one step ahead of them. In my CLP the early signs are encouraging in that we have easily kept them at bay, but all of this activity is a huge distraction - it demoralises people and takes up time that could otherwise be spent engaging with ordinary voters.
I cannot see this situation changing whilst Corbyn is leader. He seems completely uninterested in the party election machinery (staffers say that they have virtually no contact with the leader's office) and whilst he may have said that he doesn't want to see attempts to remove moderate MPs everyone knows that most of the people closest to him do not share that view.
Hardly anyone, even those who were naive enough to vote for him, thinks he will become prime minister. It is hard to take him seriously. And if the party doesn't take him seriously then it is hardly likely to persuade the country.
@DPJHodges: Corbyn and other Labour spokesman now have to answer question "would you have authorised drone strike that killed Jihadi John".
Does the British Prime Minister now control United States' armed forces? Has anyone told Donald Trump?
The British prime minister does control the use of UK drones and if American intelligence had indicated JJ, was in their area of responsibility, they would have requested a British strike. It is a perfectly valid question, but you knew that.
I am not in the American area of responsibility! ;0
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
yes fair enough, (although video evidence might look fairly convincing) but how about the other point:
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
From where I sit it certainly doesn't look like being part of a credible military strategy, but then nor does having half a dozen old Tornados popping over to take out Toyota pick-up trucks with £100,000 missiles. One might also remember that those Tornados should have been retired because Cameron's defence review said that we would not need them.
I have no idea what the UK strategy is in the Middle East and I very doubt anyone in the MoD has any better idea. Cameron has just dragged us into another war with no idea how to win it or even what winning looks like.
@DPJHodges: Corbyn and other Labour spokesman now have to answer question "would you have authorised drone strike that killed Jihadi John".
Does the British Prime Minister now control United States' armed forces? Has anyone told Donald Trump?
The British prime minister does control the use of UK drones and if American intelligence had indicated JJ, was in their area of responsibility, they would have requested a British strike. It is a perfectly valid question, but you knew that.
I am not in the American area of responsibility! ;0
Totally agree with Mr Brind and have said so on here repeatedly. Corbyn has no intention of becoming PM it is a massive ego trip where he drives around the country holding two fingers up.
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
yes fair enough, (although video evidence might look fairly convincing) but how about the other point:
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
From where I sit it certainly doesn't look like being part of a credible military strategy, but then nor does having half a dozen old Tornados popping over to take out Toyota pick-up trucks with £100,000 missiles. One might also remember that those Tornados should have been retired because Cameron's defence review said that we would not need them.
I have no idea what the UK strategy is in the Middle East and I very doubt anyone in the MoD has any better idea. Cameron has just dragged us into another war with no idea how to win it or even what winning looks like.
As for his strategic defence review, it is about as useful as Churchill's 10 year rule on wars.
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
This gets much more interesting when the same bet is played simultaneously against multiple players, all playing each other one on one. We did that in Negotiation Analysis. At that point, your Expected Return calculation becomes entirely dependent on how you model other players' knowledge and strategy. Much more fun than a simple mathematical calculation.
Don Brind's articles are consistently too partisan and would perhaps belong better on somewhere like LabourList than here. It's also irritating and highly discourteous that he doesn't ever engage with the comments made beneath his articles, as pretty much all other authors always do.
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
@DPJHodges: Corbyn and other Labour spokesman now have to answer question "would you have authorised drone strike that killed Jihadi John".
Does the British Prime Minister now control United States' armed forces? Has anyone told Donald Trump?
The British prime minister does control the use of UK drones and if American intelligence had indicated JJ, was in their area of responsibility, they would have requested a British strike. It is a perfectly valid question, but you knew that.
I am not in the American area of responsibility! ;0
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
yes fair enough, (although video evidence might look fairly convincing) but how about the other point:
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
From where I sit it certainly doesn't look like being part of a credible military strategy, but then nor does having half a dozen old Tornados popping over to take out Toyota pick-up trucks with £100,000 missiles. One might also remember that those Tornados should have been retired because Cameron's defence review said that we would not need them.
I have no idea what the UK strategy is in the Middle East and I very doubt anyone in the MoD has any better idea. Cameron has just dragged us into another war with no idea how to win it or even what winning looks like.
As for his strategic defence review, it is about as useful as Churchill's 10 year rule on wars.
Yeah and we are going to get another one in the next week or two. Cameron's Strategic Defence Reviews = George Osborne's Defence Cuts. However, the DfID budget is ring fenced so we are all OK .
I went to see the Danny Boyle film about Steve Jobs. The guy on the door said "well that's an hour and a half you'll never get back".
"Crap?" I asked.
"Apparently they're taking it off all over the place" he answered.
.....and I'm a technophobe
but I loved it!
Wonderful dialogue written like a stage play. As good a performance by Fassbender as I've seen and even Kate Winslett rose to the occasion. Well done Danny Boyle.
Hardly anyone, even those who were naive enough to vote for him, thinks he will become prime minister. It is hard to take him seriously. And if the party doesn't take him seriously then it is hardly likely to persuade the country.
I guess the same could have been said about Ed back in 2010 - yet he lasted all the way to GE2015.
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
Do you act differently if given £2.80 compared to being given £2.8 million ?
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
Do you act differently if given £2.80 compared to being given £2.8 million ?
Hello from a regular lurker, have posted in the past but not for a long time.
I am an officer of a CLP with a Labour MP who supported Liz Kendall for leader. I have been around in the Labour Party for many years and I have personal experience of the left/right battles of the 80s and 90s.
For people like me at the grassroots level, the main change that has come about since Corbyn was elected is that the party is now much more inward looking. Our CLP has more than doubled its membership, but this has not led to any increase in doorstep activity - the reverse is the case. The new members are, in general, white, middle class and uninterested in electoral politics. Most do nothing at all, but a few come along to meetings, pontifcate on the subject of the day (the evils of cuts etc etc) and then depart, apparently in the belief that something useful has been achieved by this process. A minority are extreme left activists trying to rerun the entryist tactics from the 1980s.
The net result is that we now spend a great deal of time and effort on internal organisation to ensure that the newcomers are not successful in their attempts to attack councillors and MPs - enemies of the people in the eyes of some of the trotskyists now emerging from under their stones. We have to make sure we have people to speak against the impossibilists, make sure we have enough people at the meetings to defeat their proposals and generally keep an eye on their activities to ensure we keep one step ahead of them. In my CLP the early signs are encouraging in that we have easily kept them at bay, but all of this activity is a huge distraction - it demoralises people and takes up time that could otherwise be spent engaging with ordinary voters.
I cannot see this situation changing whilst Corbyn is leader. He seems completely uninterested in the party election machinery (staffers say that they have virtually no contact with the leader's office) and whilst he may have said that he doesn't want to see attempts to remove moderate MPs everyone knows that most of the people closest to him do not share that view.
Hardly anyone, even those who were naive enough to vote for him, thinks he will become prime minister. It is hard to take him seriously. And if the party doesn't take him seriously then it is hardly likely to persuade the country.
It's different in the sense that the entryists of the late 70s and early 80s were the ones who went to all the branch meetings whilst it was mostly moderate long standing members who couldn't be bothered. If the new members are mostly as lazy as anothernick says then it will be much easier to suppress their influence.
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
yes fair enough, (although video evidence might look fairly convincing) but how about the other point:
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
From where I sit it certainly doesn't look like being part of a credible military strategy, but then nor does having half a dozen old Tornados popping over to take out Toyota pick-up trucks with £100,000 missiles. One might also remember that those Tornados should have been retired because Cameron's defence review said that we would not need them.
I have no idea what the UK strategy is in the Middle East and I very doubt anyone in the MoD has any better idea. Cameron has just dragged us into another war with no idea how to win it or even what winning looks like.
@HurstLlama Agreed that we have nothing in the ME that looks like a strategy at the moment. To be fair, it is pointless for the UK alone to have a strategy as we do not have the means on our own of affecting the outcome of the game. But we should be part of a greater strategy of interested and willing players, and lack of that has to fall squarely on Obama's shoulders.
@ dugarbandier Targeting key figures can be part of a successful military strategy. The Colonials used it against the British with great effect in the War of Independence/Revolutionary War by specifically targeting British officers so that the men would not be lead effectively. It was, of course, the entire purpose of Shock and Awe - to take out the leadership so that the bulk of the Iraqi forces would be uncoordinated. It is clearly also a part of the War on Terror, but with doubtful success.
Personally, I always also ask the question "What would we do if we didn't do this?" If we do nothing, we are basically saying that ISIS can continue as is with impunity. That is unacceptable to me. Sometimes an ineffective policy is actually better than nothing (other times, I admit, it is worse).
Fair point. Good to see that Walthamstow have rebuffed them twice so far, but as @anothernick notes - it's soul-sapping pointless stuff against your own side.
Hello from a regular lurker, have posted in the past but not for a long time.
I am an officer of a CLP with a Labour MP who supported Liz Kendall for leader. I have been around in the Labour Party for many years and I have personal experience of the left/right battles of the 80s and 90s.
snip for space
It's different in the sense that the entryists of the late 70s and early 80s were the ones who went to all the branch meetings whilst it was mostly moderate long standing members who couldn't be bothered. If the new members are mostly as lazy as anothernick says then it will be much easier to suppress their influence.
Don Brind's articles are consistently too partisan and would perhaps belong better on somewhere like LabourList than here. It's also irritating and highly discourteous that he doesn't ever engage with the comments made beneath his articles, as pretty much all other authors always do.
Don Brind's articles are consistently too partisan and would perhaps belong better on somewhere like LabourList than here. It's also irritating and highly discourteous that he doesn't ever engage with the comments made beneath his articles, as pretty much all other authors always do.
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
You are absolutely right.
From an economics perspective, you have to remember that each incremental pound brings you less utility.
So, if you owe Don Corleone £30 or if you are utterly penniless, then you choose 1. Otherwise, you choose 5 or 6.
Totally OT - I'm watching a lot of true crime/forensics drama at the mo and hadn't considered firearms being mainly right-handed re cartridge ejecting. Are certain brands made for left-handers?
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
yes fair enough, (although video evidence might look fairly convincing) but how about the other point:
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
From where I sit it certainly doesn't look like being part of a credible military strategy, but then nor does having half a dozen old Tornados popping over to take out Toyota pick-up trucks with £100,000 missiles. One might also remember that those Tornados should have been retired because Cameron's defence review said that we would not need them.
I have no idea what the UK strategy is in the Middle East and I very doubt anyone in the MoD has any better idea. Cameron has just dragged us into another war with no idea how to win it or even what winning looks like.
@HurstLlama Agreed that we have nothing in the ME that looks like a strategy at the moment. To be fair, it is pointless for the UK alone to have a strategy as we do not have the means on our own of affecting the outcome of the game. But we should be part of a greater strategy of interested and willing players, and lack of that has to fall squarely on Obama's shoulders.
@ dugarbandier Targeting key figures can be part of a successful military strategy. The Colonials used it against the British with great effect in the War of Independence/Revolutionary War by specifically targeting British officers so that the men would not be lead effectively. It was, of course, the entire purpose of Shock and Awe - to take out the leadership so that the bulk of the Iraqi forces would be uncoordinated. It is clearly also a part of the War on Terror, but with doubtful success.
Personally, I always also ask the question "What would we do if we didn't do this?" If we do nothing, we are basically saying that ISIS can continue as is with impunity. That is unacceptable to me. Sometimes an ineffective policy is actually better than nothing (other times, I admit, it is worse).
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
Do you act differently if given £2.80 compared to being given £2.8 million ?
We all do :-)
If those numbers were in thousands, it would be obvious to most.
Everyone except for @Charles or Philip Green would choose 1 or 2 in those circumstances.
So you do lack an alternative strategy. Also pretty crass to pretend that today's work is the sum total of the current strategy. Regarding your first point -in a war situation people die you need to suck it up and take your side.
I'm not upset that the man is dead, far from it. But to pretend that finding guys like him and blowing them up is a strategy is kind of ridiculous.
I went to see the Danny Boyle film about Steve Jobs. The guy on the door said "well that's an hour and a half you'll never get back".
"Crap?" I asked.
"Apparently they're taking it off all over the place" he answered.
.....and I'm a technophobe
but I loved it!
Wonderful dialogue written like a stage play. As good a performance by Fassbender as I've seen and even Kate Winslett rose to the occasion. Well done Danny Boyle.
It really has flopped badly in the US. Only $16.9m (£11.m) to date in the US after three weeks of wide release. Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin you would think it would be a hit.
It is a pity Jihadi John wasn't having a barbecue with all his little playmates..
He was definitely blown up with 3-4 others, the Mail suggesting the London "rapper" guy, who they seem to have taken a huge interest in judging by the vast numbers of stories about a guy who was once played on Radio 1 Xtra and his dad is a known extremist.
No doubt someone else has said it but it matters not whether Corbyn wants to be PM, he is completely unelectable.
Corbyn will systematically destroy existing Labour structures and replace with like minded extremists , then Labour as we know it will not exist. There are either going to be mass defections or the creation of a new centre party populated by LD's and sensible Labourites.
How are you going to have a trial? Who is going to do the investigation and where are the witnesses?
yes fair enough, (although video evidence might look fairly convincing) but how about the other point:
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
From where I sit it certainly doesn't look like being part of a credible military strategy, but then nor does having half a dozen old Tornados popping over to take out Toyota pick-up trucks with £100,000 missiles. One might also remember that those Tornados should have been retired because Cameron's defence review said that we would not need them.
I have no idea what the UK strategy is in the Middle East and I very doubt anyone in the MoD has any better idea. Cameron has just dragged us into another war with no idea how to win it or even what winning looks like.
@HurstLlama Agreed that we have nothing in the ME that looks like a strategy at the moment. To be fair, it is pointless for the UK alone to have a strategy as we do not have the means on our own of affecting the outcome of the game. But we should be part of a greater strategy of interested and willing players, and lack of that has to fall squarely on Obama's shoulders.
@ dugarbandier Targeting key figures can be part of a successful military strategy. The Colonials used it against the British with great effect in the War of Independence/Revolutionary War by specifically targeting British officers so that the men would not be lead effectively. It was, of course, the entire purpose of Shock and Awe - to take out the leadership so that the bulk of the Iraqi forces would be uncoordinated. It is clearly also a part of the War on Terror, but with doubtful success.
Personally, I always also ask the question "What would we do if we didn't do this?" If we do nothing, we are basically saying that ISIS can continue as is with impunity. That is unacceptable to me. Sometimes an ineffective policy is actually better than nothing (other times, I admit, it is worse).
Mr. T, The Septics had a very clever fellow playing on their side a few years ago. He came out with a doctrine which said, if the USA goes to war it should go all in - with enough troops, equipment and support to win. Otherwise it should not go to war at all. A very sound doctrine in my view and one which the UK as well as the USA should follow.
Of course, it rather does depend on the politicians knowing why they are going to war, what they want to achieve and so knowing what victory looks like. Such high level thinking seems completely beyond the likes of Obama and Cameron.
Interesting article, I think Corbyn's comments today show he is as much interested in an ideal world as the real one.
He's more interested in the middle east than middle England.
An unusual criticism to make considering our own Government has ring-fenced a ridiculously spendthrift foreign aid budget and is currently engaging our hollowed out armed services in a fruitless bombing campaign in the Middle East that it wishes to extend into another country.
Your view appears to be:
Russian bombing in support of Syria (which they wish to extend into Iraq): good and hopeful.
US/UK bombing in support of Iraq (which the UK wish to extend into Syria): bad and fruitless.
There is actually a non-bonkers argument for this, which is that when the former colonial powers intervene in one of the countries they've colonized then repeatedly re-invaded or whose governments they've overturned, not necessarily to the benefit of the people living there, they inevitably rally people in defence of the side they're attacking.
This is a particularly strong argument for the _UK_ to stay out and let other countries deal with it, since they have a very high ratio of colonial baggage to practical military capability.
It's a particularly weak argument. The former colonial power in Syria were the Ottomans (with a brief Egyptian incursion), and they were followed (I think) by a short-lived Kingdom and then a French mandate.
Aside from that, well done!
Now do the history of the UK's involvement in Iraq.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 17s17 seconds ago Most significant thing Corbyn's done in first 2 months as leader is totally validate Tory charge he can't be trusted on national security.
No doubt someone else has said it but it matters not whether Corbyn wants to be PM, he is completely unelectable.
Corbyn will systematically destroy existing Labour structures and replace with like minded extremists , then Labour as we know it will not exist. There are either going to be mass defections or the creation of a new centre party populated by LD's and sensible Labourites.
I feel a modest wager coming on. Mr. Root how about a decent lunch on the fact that there will be no mass defections and now new centre party created in the lifetime of this Parliament?
Don Brind's articles are consistently too partisan and would perhaps belong better on somewhere like LabourList than here. It's also irritating and highly discourteous that he doesn't ever engage with the comments made beneath his articles, as pretty much all other authors always do.
far too important than us mortals?
Yes, although it is satisfying to have my prejudices about BBC journalists confirmed.
"Party insiders are, meanwhile, braced for a rash of revelations about conflicts at the top of Ukip in a book, being serialised next week, by Matthew Goodwin, the academic who co-wrote Revolt on the Right...
“Goodwin was there throughout the campaign, he saw everything, he was given full access . . . sometimes it wasn’t that pretty,” said one party veteran. “If what was said at the time has made its way into the book there will be some pretty sharp exchanges between Douglas Carswell and other senior party figures.” "
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
If it's a multiple-toss game then yes, 5 or 6 are equally good. As a one-toss game though, 6 could easily be a rotten choice: you have a 50/50 chance of the worst outcome out of all twelve. That you have a 50/50 chance of the best one is beside the point if it's heads that comes up.
Even if it is a repeated game with a small number of repetitions, the expected returns are sufficiently close to give a reasonable (though obviously sub-50%) chance of option 6 being worst-performing.
What's that phrase from the King James bible? "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
Jihadi John did not get the full measure of what he did to those poor hostages. So I understand why this widow feels as she did. But at least he is dead. We are all better off without him.
There is one further point, tangentially relevant to a topic we have been discussing in recent days. Emwazi came to the UK as a refugee from another war in the Middle East, a war where this country was taking action to free his home country, Kuwait, to make it possible for his people to be free again and for his family (as his father has done) go home again.
We may think that giving people refuge should make them grateful. We may think that fighting to rescue their country should make them grateful. But clearly not all do agree or find other views more attractive.
Unless we really deal with the ideology that radicalises young men and women, who would bet against some of those being given refuge now turning against their adopted countries in the future?
Don Brind's articles are consistently too partisan and would perhaps belong better on somewhere like LabourList than here. It's also irritating and highly discourteous that he doesn't ever engage with the comments made beneath his articles, as pretty much all other authors always do.
David Herdson and TSE, who've been part of the posting team for along time, are very strong Tory activists and you have to read what they write in that context. Don Brind looks at things from a different standpoint and brings some balance.
If you don't like it you don't like the way I run my site then you don't have to come here.
What's that phrase from the King James bible? "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
Jihadi John did not get the full measure of what he did to those poor hostages. So I understand why this widow feels as she did. But at least he is dead. We are all better off without him.
snip
He's dead and can't butcher any more innocent victims.
Would they rather he was still alive and able to face trial if caught, whilst still chopping heads off?
"We were young once". Come off it Mr Brind. What Fisher did in relation to Emily Benn (declaration of interest here: I know and like her) didn't happen years ago. It happened 5 months ago.
I will repost what I put on the previous thread as it's more relevant to this one.
Fisher was not simply being "critical of Labour". He was actively saying that people should not vote for the Labour candidate. He was saying violent and crude things about Labour people. Now Corbyn can't change what happened in the past. But it is perfectly legitimate to question his judgment in appointing him and in continuing to support him even after he has been suspended. What a person has said and done in the recent past does have a bearing on the sort of person they are now and on whether they are fit and proper to be a senior advisor within Labour. And Corbyn's choice of him shows that he places - whatever he may say - little value on decent behaviour. It shows poor judgment on his part.
I don't know whether Corbyn wants to be PM. I don't care. I most certainly don't want him to be PM. And unless Labour comes to its senses I will be doing my level best to ensure that come 2010 or whenever the election is held he does not become PM.
Cyclefree, read your posts yesterday rather too late to comment on those threads. Hope all comes back well on the medical side. My wife is just going through that too now - positive for early stage - so I well understand the stress. Good luck.
Thank you. I'm so sorry to hear that. I wish your wife and you the very best.
What's that phrase from the King James bible? "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
Jihadi John did not get the full measure of what he did to those poor hostages. So I understand why this widow feels as she did. But at least he is dead. We are all better off without him.
There is one further point, tangentially relevant to a topic we have been discussing in recent days. Emwazi came to the UK as a refugee from another war in the Middle East, a war where this country was taking action to free his home country, Kuwait, to make it possible for his people to be free again and for his family (as his father has done) go home again.
We may think that giving people refuge should make them grateful. We may think that fighting to rescue their country should make them grateful. But clearly not all do agree or find other views more attractive.
Unless we really deal with the ideology that radicalises young men and women, who would bet against some of those being given refuge now turning against their adopted countries in the future?
"who would bet against some of those being given refuge now turning against their adopted countries in the future?"
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
If it's a multiple-toss game then yes, 5 or 6 are equally good. As a one-toss game though, 6 could easily be a rotten choice: you have a 50/50 chance of the worst outcome out of all twelve. That you have a 50/50 chance of the best one is beside the point if it's heads that comes up.
Even if it is a repeated game with a small number of repetitions, the expected returns are sufficiently close to give a reasonable (though obviously sub-50%) chance of option 6 being worst-performing.
If you are a regular bettor, you take best value for as long as your bank allows.
5 or 6 is the correct answer assuming you don't owe a gangster £28-£34
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
Do you act differently if given £2.80 compared to being given £2.8 million ?
The correct answer is 5 or 6 absent a utility model, given, as @isam points out, that they provide the largest expected payoff.
That said, your point is well-made. There is plenty of fun literature about the behaviour or not of homus economicus.
An early probability question asks students which they would back in a two horse race between a horse with three legs (odds 1,000,000/1) and a horse with four legs (odds 1/2). Some students usually put up their hands saying they would back the three-legged horse.
The question is then amended so that the stake would be the lifetime net worth of the students after which 100% back the four-legged horse.
The unregrettable demise of Jihadi John has to be seen in the context of fighting an asymmetric war against unconventional opponents, who rely heavily on disseminating videos of their gruesome activities as a deliberate part of their strategy. Up to now they've been able to do that, and be seen to do that, with a large measure of impunity.
It's important that we show that there is no impunity, therefore the tactical value of the drone strike is far in excess of just taking out one particularly unpleasant individual.
@DPJHodges: Corbyn and other Labour spokesman now have to answer question "would you have authorised drone strike that killed Jihadi John".
Does the British Prime Minister now control United States' armed forces? Has anyone told Donald Trump?
The British prime minister does control the use of UK drones and if American intelligence had indicated JJ, was in their area of responsibility, they would have requested a British strike. It is a perfectly valid question, but you knew that.
What's that phrase from the King James bible? "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
Jihadi John did not get the full measure of what he did to those poor hostages. So I understand why this widow feels as she did. But at least he is dead. We are all better off without him.
There is one further point, tangentially relevant to a topic we have been discussing in recent days. Emwazi came to the UK as a refugee from another war in the Middle East, a war where this country was taking action to free his home country, Kuwait, to make it possible for his people to be free again and for his family (as his father has done) go home again.
We may think that giving people refuge should make them grateful. We may think that fighting to rescue their country should make them grateful. But clearly not all do agree or find other views more attractive.
Unless we really deal with the ideology that radicalises young men and women, who would bet against some of those being given refuge now turning against their adopted countries in the future?
Interesting article, I think Corbyn's comments today show he is as much interested in an ideal world as the real one.
He's more interested in the middle east than middle England.
An unusual criticism to make considering our own Government has ring-fenced a ridiculously spendthrift foreign aid budget and is currently engaging our hollowed out armed services in a fruitless bombing campaign in the Middle East that it wishes to extend into another country.
Your view appears to be:
Russian bombing in support of Syria (which they wish to extend into Iraq): good and hopeful.
US/UK bombing in support of Iraq (which the UK wish to extend into Syria): bad and fruitless.
Yes, that's exactly my view, and I'll tell you why. The Russian campaign fully acknowledges that bombed territory needs to be held by ground forces, and has (undoubtedly for strategic reasons as well as military ones, but it doesn't make them any less right) identified the Syrian Government and army as the only organisation capable of doing that - a widely held belief. As a consequence it is slowly but indisputably liberating territory from Al Nusra, ISIS, and other Islamist groups.
By contrast the US spent 13 months bombing holes in the dessert (and not very many of those - the operational tempo is nothing compared with the Russian campaign) whilst ISIS enjoyed a vast expansion in territory. Its only ground 'allies' were the so-called moderate rebels, who the US avowedly expected to fight both ISIS and the Syrian army. Of course they didn't do this, they attacked the army and worked with Nusra and other terrorist groups.
Your view rather bizarrely appears to be that a bombing campaign is a bombing campaign is a bombing campaign.
What's that phrase from the King James bible? "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
Jihadi John did not get the full measure of what he did to those poor hostages. So I understand why this widow feels as she did. But at least he is dead. We are all better off without him.
There is one further point, tangentially relevant to a topic we have been discussing in recent days. Emwazi came to the UK as a refugee from another war in the Middle East, a war where this country was taking action to free his home country, Kuwait, to make it possible for his people to be free again and for his family (as his father has done) go home again.
We may think that giving people refuge should make them grateful. We may think that fighting to rescue their country should make them grateful. But clearly not all do agree or find other views more attractive.
Unless we really deal with the ideology that radicalises young men and women, who would bet against some of those being given refuge now turning against their adopted countries in the future?
@cyclefree Thinking of you and wishing you the very best.
You raise a good point. Do we even fully understand the the mechanism of radicalisation?
Comments
a) Jihadi John continuing to roam free, and chopping the heads of more people
and
b) Jihadi John dying in a drone strike
(Which are the two possible options)
Then she would choose b.
It is the US families that are most bitter... they wonder why as much effort wasn't made to save their sons
Just HOW bent do you have to be to be barred from standing as FIFA president ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34795824
Edit: https://www.facebook.com/dolcevitamojacar/?fref=ts
probably most people who have made their way to ISIS are more or less aware of the realities of their situation.
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
That said, I do not believe that he intends to fight the next general election. My hunch is that he wants to change policy, put in place a fresh younger, left winger and then be seen as a Labour Party hero in the Tony Benn mould.
I go to Andalusia a few times a year myself. Two beers and tapas, four euros tops. Amazing value.
Only trouble is, its difficult to get p8ssed, because every time you get a beer you get food.
I'd give him less than 24hrs in prison before he had a fatal accident too.
is singling out famous individuals and killing them a credible military strategy? or just window dressing?
Its a credible military strategy. Jihadi John was the pin-up boy for many potential angry young men, some of them British.
His death speaks volumes to those contemplating joining him
Is lining people up and beheading them in public a credible strategy?
Is taking hostages and beheading them or making them sit on land mines a credible strategy?
Is it a credible military strategy to vote against striking back at these people like labour do?
I am sick tired and fed up of and with the Labour Party. It's worthless.
I think Hattie might agree he has been held to account in the court of public opinion...
Not a complete strategy, mind- but part of it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-iowa-belt-stupid/index.html?sr=twCNN111315donald-trump-ben-carson-iowa-belt-stupid0122PMVODtopLink&linkId=18727780
The families of the victims are echoing Corbyn's sentiments
I am an officer of a CLP with a Labour MP who supported Liz Kendall for leader. I have been around in the Labour Party for many years and I have personal experience of the left/right battles of the 80s and 90s.
For people like me at the grassroots level, the main change that has come about since Corbyn was elected is that the party is now much more inward looking. Our CLP has more than doubled its membership, but this has not led to any increase in doorstep activity - the reverse is the case. The new members are, in general, white, middle class and uninterested in electoral politics. Most do nothing at all, but a few come along to meetings, pontifcate on the subject of the day (the evils of cuts etc etc) and then depart, apparently in the belief that something useful has been achieved by this process. A minority are extreme left activists trying to rerun the entryist tactics from the 1980s.
The net result is that we now spend a great deal of time and effort on internal organisation to ensure that the newcomers are not successful in their attempts to attack councillors and MPs - enemies of the people in the eyes of some of the trotskyists now emerging from under their stones. We have to make sure we have people to speak against the impossibilists, make sure we have enough people at the meetings to defeat their proposals and generally keep an eye on their activities to ensure we keep one step ahead of them. In my CLP the early signs are encouraging in that we have easily kept them at bay, but all of this activity is a huge distraction - it demoralises people and takes up time that could otherwise be spent engaging with ordinary voters.
I cannot see this situation changing whilst Corbyn is leader. He seems completely uninterested in the party election machinery (staffers say that they have virtually no contact with the leader's office) and whilst he may have said that he doesn't want to see attempts to remove moderate MPs everyone knows that most of the people closest to him do not share that view.
Hardly anyone, even those who were naive enough to vote for him, thinks he will become prime minister. It is hard to take him seriously. And if the party doesn't take him seriously then it is hardly likely to persuade the country.
No it isn't. The strategy is to dissuade new recruits and shatter the morale of existing combatants.
In that sense its a perfectly rational strategy.
The British major involvement in Iraq started in the First World War, and was an effect of both the spoils of that war and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company - the dash for oil (a consequence of Churchill's decision that Britain's warships were to be fired by oil, not coal).
But AIUI we only invaded Iraq as part of the First World War conflict against the Ottomans, who were the enemy. The collapse of the Ottoman empire could hardly be blamed on us (it had been going on for a few hundred years), and we were left with the spoils.
I've looked into this a little from a modern perspective, and I'll be darned if I can work out what (on a major scale) could have been done to prevent the problems we have nowadays, short of capitulation to the Ottoman Empire, and support of that empire.
And even that probably would not have worked in the long term.
What an outstanding, superb post.
"I sentence you to 72 Virgin trains."
"No! No! Please, 10,000 hours of waterboarding instead, m'lord!"
Good luck with holding them back.
I have no idea what the UK strategy is in the Middle East and I very doubt anyone in the MoD has any better idea. Cameron has just dragged us into another war with no idea how to win it or even what winning looks like.
www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/books/review/19bkr-clark.t.html?_r=0
The Fall Of The Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East. Eugene Rogan
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Farage would be using a Bakelite Telephone, a Parker 51 and paper.
I went to see the Danny Boyle film about Steve Jobs. The guy on the door said "well that's an hour and a half you'll never get back".
"Crap?" I asked.
"Apparently they're taking it off all over the place" he answered.
.....and I'm a technophobe
but I loved it!
Wonderful dialogue written like a stage play. As good a performance by Fassbender as I've seen and even Kate Winslett rose to the occasion. Well done Danny Boyle.
Unless I had £28m in the bank
@HurstLlama Agreed that we have nothing in the ME that looks like a strategy at the moment. To be fair, it is pointless for the UK alone to have a strategy as we do not have the means on our own of affecting the outcome of the game. But we should be part of a greater strategy of interested and willing players, and lack of that has to fall squarely on Obama's shoulders.
@ dugarbandier Targeting key figures can be part of a successful military strategy. The Colonials used it against the British with great effect in the War of Independence/Revolutionary War by specifically targeting British officers so that the men would not be lead effectively. It was, of course, the entire purpose of Shock and Awe - to take out the leadership so that the bulk of the Iraqi forces would be uncoordinated. It is clearly also a part of the War on Terror, but with doubtful success.
Personally, I always also ask the question "What would we do if we didn't do this?" If we do nothing, we are basically saying that ISIS can continue as is with impunity. That is unacceptable to me. Sometimes an ineffective policy is actually better than nothing (other times, I admit, it is worse).
From an economics perspective, you have to remember that each incremental pound brings you less utility.
So, if you owe Don Corleone £30 or if you are utterly penniless, then you choose 1. Otherwise, you choose 5 or 6.
Judging by the latest Kurdish advances, that is exactly what they are doing.
If those numbers were in thousands, it would be obvious to most.
Everyone except for @Charles or Philip Green would choose 1 or 2 in those circumstances.
Corbyn will systematically destroy existing Labour structures and replace with like minded extremists , then Labour as we know it will not exist. There are either going to be mass defections or the creation of a new centre party populated by LD's and sensible Labourites.
Of course, it rather does depend on the politicians knowing why they are going to war, what they want to achieve and so knowing what victory looks like. Such high level thinking seems completely beyond the likes of Obama and Cameron.
Most significant thing Corbyn's done in first 2 months as leader is totally validate Tory charge he can't be trusted on national security.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a576fbe-8881-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896.html#axzz3rMZwijNZ
I wasn't aware of this:
"Party insiders are, meanwhile, braced for a rash of revelations about conflicts at the top of Ukip in a book, being serialised next week, by Matthew Goodwin, the academic who co-wrote Revolt on the Right...
“Goodwin was there throughout the campaign, he saw everything, he was given full access . . . sometimes it wasn’t that pretty,” said one party veteran. “If what was said at the time has made its way into the book there will be some pretty sharp exchanges between Douglas Carswell and other senior party figures.” "
Even if it is a repeated game with a small number of repetitions, the expected returns are sufficiently close to give a reasonable (though obviously sub-50%) chance of option 6 being worst-performing.
Jihadi John did not get the full measure of what he did to those poor hostages. So I understand why this widow feels as she did. But at least he is dead. We are all better off without him.
There is one further point, tangentially relevant to a topic we have been discussing in recent days. Emwazi came to the UK as a refugee from another war in the Middle East, a war where this country was taking action to free his home country, Kuwait, to make it possible for his people to be free again and for his family (as his father has done) go home again.
We may think that giving people refuge should make them grateful. We may think that fighting to rescue their country should make them grateful. But clearly not all do agree or find other views more attractive.
Unless we really deal with the ideology that radicalises young men and women, who would bet against some of those being given refuge now turning against their adopted countries in the future?
If you don't like it you don't like the way I run my site then you don't have to come here.
Would they rather he was still alive and able to face trial if caught, whilst still chopping heads off?
Thank you. I'm so sorry to hear that. I wish your wife and you the very best.
it's about 1/100
5 or 6 is the correct answer assuming you don't owe a gangster £28-£34
That said, your point is well-made. There is plenty of fun literature about the behaviour or not of homus economicus.
An early probability question asks students which they would back in a two horse race between a horse with three legs (odds 1,000,000/1) and a horse with four legs (odds 1/2). Some students usually put up their hands saying they would back the three-legged horse.
The question is then amended so that the stake would be the lifetime net worth of the students after which 100% back the four-legged horse.
It's important that we show that there is no impunity, therefore the tactical value of the drone strike is far in excess of just taking out one particularly unpleasant individual.
By contrast the US spent 13 months bombing holes in the dessert (and not very many of those - the operational tempo is nothing compared with the Russian campaign) whilst ISIS enjoyed a vast expansion in territory. Its only ground 'allies' were the so-called moderate rebels, who the US avowedly expected to fight both ISIS and the Syrian army. Of course they didn't do this, they attacked the army and worked with Nusra and other terrorist groups.
Your view rather bizarrely appears to be that a bombing campaign is a bombing campaign is a bombing campaign.
You raise a good point. Do we even fully understand the the mechanism of radicalisation?