@bbclaurak: Senior Labour MP tells me Corbyn 'heading for a bit of a showdown' at PLP tonight over his comments on Paris attacks in last few days
@DPJHodges: Not actually about Corbyn any more, it's about the shadow cabinet and the PLP. If they continue to tolerate this the blame rests with them.
A "bit of a showdown". If I was one of the more sensible based in reality Labour MPs out there, I would be livid at him.
I would say "oh to be a fly on the wall" but given that the PLP is leaking like a sieve at present we'll no doubt be given a full blow-by-blow account by 10.30 tonight.
If it's anything like his Shadow Cabinet appointments, you'll be able to hear the meeting on the other side of the Thames.
BTW, I pride myself on being a scientist and an amateur economist, and do not agree that evidence naturally leads to liberal economic policies. I guess some of that depends on what 'liberal' definition you are using. I would be more libertarian.
It is not that evidence leads to liberal economic values. It is that an emprical worldview which bases decisions on evidence leads to liberalism (socially and economically) because an individual might have better information than a central authority. Think Popper's Open Society and Hayek's decentralised information, as well as the classic liberals.
In France, there is no God, there is no King, there is only 'Country'.
Which might be why the Frogs have been thumped in every war they have fought for the last two hundred and odd years (and a not a few before that).
I wonder whether they might use the Foreign Legion. Apart from being let down in N Vietnam they’ve a pretty good record!
I’ve also been diretcted to a Septic site called DC Whispers which, a week or so ago, published a long article (http://dcwhispers.com/russias-putin-issues-order-on-isis-annihilate-them/) which suggests that the soon to appear Russian boots-on-the-ground in ISIS areas will be expected to take no prisoners.
I have worked with ex Foreign Legion Special Forces.
These past few days Corbyn has made the biggest blunder since Gaius Terentius Varro decided that the clear open ground just down the road from Cannae offered an excellent prospect for shattering Hannibal’s army.
BTW, I pride myself on being a scientist and an amateur economist, and do not agree that evidence naturally leads to liberal economic policies. I guess some of that depends on what 'liberal' definition you are using. I would be more libertarian.
It is not that evidence leads to liberal economic values. It is that an emprical worldview which bases decisions on evidence leads to liberalism (socially and economically) because an individual might have better information than a central authority. Think Popper's Open Society and Hayek's decentralised information, as well as the classic liberals.
On that definition of liberal, then I am with you. In the US, that would most definitely be viewed as the opposite of 'liberal' (read progressive and big government) and firmly in the 'libertarian' worldview.
Personally, I regard this as more analogous to Afghanistan than the stupid diversion that was Iraq. These people hold territory and a safe(ish) haven on the face of the planet. That is not a tolerable state of affairs. It must end.
+1. I think the case for war is stronger than Afghanistan if anything, Al Qaeda was not the Taliban, and the terrorists there were Saudi. Al Baghdadi is Al Baghdadi, and IS is IS !
Where we went wrong in Afghanistan is that we should have gone in fast and hard, killed everyone in the Al Qaeda camps, everyone else who was stupid enough to get in the way and then got out again. It was the nation building nonsense that got us bogged down. I hope we don't repeat that mistake.
PoliticsHome VERIFIED ACCOUNT @politicshome 2 hrs2 hours ago
Corbyn on Isis: "At the end of the day all wars have to end by political discussion." #skynews
Funny.. I can't remember when WW2 ended with 'political discussion'.
True, though perhaps an even more pertinent point is that while most wars end by political discussion, they only do so when either one side is close to defeated and wants a settlement, or both sides are ready to talk and compromise.
Interestingly, there was a big discussion within Las Alamos and the scientists were polled on whether they wanted to drop the Bomb on a Japanese city first, or give them a demonstration of its destructive capability. 83% of the scientists voted for a demonstration.
That idea soon got chucked in the bin by Truman...
Seriously how the feck do you manage to get on the side of Jihadi John?
I'll tell you. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour opposition-- a Labour opposition -- hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out grants to the jihadis. .
In France, there is no God, there is no King, there is only 'Country'.
Which might be why the Frogs have been thumped in every war they have fought for the last two hundred and odd years (and a not a few before that).
I wonder whether they might use the Foreign Legion. Apart from being let down in N Vietnam they’ve a pretty good record!
I’ve also been diretcted to a Septic site called DC Whispers which, a week or so ago, published a long article (http://dcwhispers.com/russias-putin-issues-order-on-isis-annihilate-them/) which suggests that the soon to appear Russian boots-on-the-ground in ISIS areas will be expected to take no prisoners.
"Gas was first pumped into the theater which rendered most inside unconscious. (and is believed to have caused the deaths of some of the hostages) Then Russian special forces entered the theater and proceeded to do what they were trained, and ordered by Putin himself, to do – they killed every one of the Muslim terrorists. No mercy was given to any of them. If a terrorist was found already passed out from the gas, an assault rifle was soon aimed at their heads and their life terminated."
Is that true? I mean I can believe it, given how Putin administration has dealt with descenters both at home and abroad. I mean unlike Corbyn if somebody from Putin's mob invites you to meet for a cup of tea and a chat, you better watch out whats in your tea. And I am not talking about some sort of hipster unpasterized camel's milk.
The Russkies have remained very quiet as to what exactly was in the gas used. It's long suspected to have been developed as a weapon.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
I am completely at a loss to know what to say about Jeremy Corbyn's latest interventions. I can only assume that he is a passionate pacifist and cannot bring himself to compromise his principles.
The British public are going to be utterly bewildered.
They probably will be bewildered, but only because they haven't been paying much attention.
Anyone who has been paying attention won't be in the least bewildered. His interventions are exactly as expected, and exactly as predicted here and elsewhere.
Yes although we have said it a thousand times we always get some useful idiot telling us that this is the new, refreshing type of politics.
Jezza has never moved out of the students' union. He harks back fondly to the days spent picketing Barclays before staying up all night putting the world to rights with his Troops Out buddies.
He has simply not moved on from simplistic, idealist rubbish with the closest he gets to addressing the myriad politics being a feeble "I wouldn't have started from here".
ED BALLS WHERE ARE YOU COME BACK AND LEAD THE INSURGENCY.
Been out so catching up but having started on the BBC website the contrast between the Corbyn snippets higlighted on there vs Hollande's 'we will destroy IS' are breathtakingly stark given their positioning on the political spectrum....
Have to admit, old Saddam is looking like a beacon of peace and tolerance compared to this lot in the Middle East right now !!!
Rule of thumb: if in doubt, back the guy wearing the suit and tie, or lots of gold braid, over a turbaned rabble waving black flags screaming "Allahu Akbar"...
So Hollande calls the Paris outrage "an act of war", launches airstrikes the next night, and today vows "to destroy IS".
Good on him.
Meantime, Cameron is terrified of "another Iraq", of suffering a defeat in Parliament, and Corbyn continues to mutter "oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck" to himself during every interview whilst trying to work out how on earth he ended up in this mess...
And we call the French the cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
BTW, I pride myself on being a scientist and an amateur economist, and do not agree that evidence naturally leads to liberal economic policies. I guess some of that depends on what 'liberal' definition you are using. I would be more libertarian.
It is not that evidence leads to liberal economic values. It is that an emprical worldview which bases decisions on evidence leads to liberalism (socially and economically) because an individual might have better information than a central authority. Think Popper's Open Society and Hayek's decentralised information, as well as the classic liberals.
On that definition of liberal, then I am with you. In the US, that would most definitely be viewed as the opposite of 'liberal' (read progressive and big government) and firmly in the 'libertarian' worldview.
It's annoying how the word liberal has been misused so much in the US that it's original meaning has been lost over there.
I'm careful not to call us libertarian as I don't think that matches what we're about. Our focus is definitely on providing people with critical thinking skills and access to lifelong learning so that they can flourish in a free society.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
I'm all for MPs acting individually according to their consciences, rather than according to party whip. It's up to them to justify their actions to their constituents. In this case, that might prove rather hard.
The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.
Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
Richard Nabavi of course doctors will oppose change for change's sake - they are used to dealing with evidence and acting on it. I'm worked for the NHS for just over 20 years and cn remember at least 6 major reorganisations in that time. All of these were done without any evidence to support that they were the right thing to do. All have cost money and time and removal of goodwill. Where is the evidence that the public wants a 7 day health service? And yes what if you do get the junior doctors to work until 10pm every day and including Saturdays as "normal" time in order to increase numbers, they will still be twiddling their thumbs if they cannot get diagnostic tests, or results, or drugs. How is Hunt going to coerce these groups of workers given that they have had a 15% real terms pay cut in the last 7 years and the the prospect of 4 more to come. You have no doubt seen the vacancy rates and the amount of money spent on agency staff?
@bbclaurak: Senior Labour MP tells me Corbyn 'heading for a bit of a showdown' at PLP tonight over his comments on Paris attacks in last few days
@DPJHodges: Not actually about Corbyn any more, it's about the shadow cabinet and the PLP. If they continue to tolerate this the blame rests with them.
Hodges is, as usual, right. If there have not been resignations from the Shadow Cabinet by this time tomorrow the next item of business really should be a winding up order.
So Hollande calls the Paris outrage "an act of war", launches airstrikes the next night, and today vows "to destroy IS".
Good on him.
Meantime, Cameron is terrified of "another Iraq", of suffering a defeat in Parliament, and Corbyn continues to mutter "oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck" to himself during every interview whilst trying to work out how on earth he ended up in this mess...
And we call the French the cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
Lets wait and see what Cameron does here. In terms of going for it, in Libya the Cameron government were actually very aggressive (SAS were in weeks before anybody knew setting everything up and the press were claiming they were dithering looked rather foolish when the dust settled). It is the issue of planning for the aftermath, which was totally lacking in Iraq and Libya.
Libya is already Cameron's Iraq, just on a smaller scale at the moment.
I would love to know how Jezza thinks that the unity of The Syrian people will prevail. Given the depth of the religious, secular, & political differences in the country I'm damned if I understand how this bloody mess will be ended by talks. I have my doubts that Cameron has much idea about who could be let alone should be ruling in Damascus. But Corbyn needs to start leaving his comfort zone behind.
I did like the comparison someone made to Neil from The Young Ones. I'm smiling but it ain't really funny is it?
If Corbyn is an absolutely committed pacifist then I'd prefer him to tell the truth about it rather than dissemble in a bid for political popularity.
He's at the barmy end of the pacifist spectrum if he wouldn't even use violence to stop mass murderers killing as many innocents as they can.
Agreed. But I still prefer him to be honest about it.
His die-hard supporters will find a formulation of words showing an RPG-wielding terrorist is a rung higher-up the moral spectrum than a Tory in charge of a spending ministry.
I think Antifrank is being a little disingenuous with his statistics, veering well into 'damned lies' territory.
The question asked is about trust in general, and we all answer in context We trust doctors to tell us the truth when we speak to them, and for most of us, that is when we are seeking their advice on our medical condition. Not when we are asking them if they are working too long or getting paid too little.
I'd like to see a straight question asked: how much do you trust doctors when they speak about their pay vs how much do you trust Jeremy Hunt talking about doctors' pay. I would expect doctors to still win that head to head, but by nowhere near the 90/19 split above.
Ask the question 'does the NHS wage bill need to be brought under control?' and it will be even less favorable to doctors.
Corbyn continues to mutter "oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck" to himself during every interview whilst trying to work out how on earth he ended up in this mess...
He may be trying to engineer an exit.
Say something so repellent, even his "eat their own feet" backbenchers will not stomach it...
A surprisingly simplistic thread. Do we think the public blame politicians for the much poorer health outcomes at weekends? Do we think the public will blame politician for trying to do something to remedy those poor outcomes?
Do we think the public will blame politicians for their top down re-organisation of the NHS that created the CCGs that have got us in this mess?
It is unclear to me how the replacement of PCTs with CCGs has caused the problem of a lack of medical staff at weekends. A problem which from personal experience goes back many years. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
You may not have noticed but since the abolition of the PCTs and the creation of the CCGs NHS units across the country have started going deeply in the red financially. There's no money left for a 7 day NHS.
GPs and Private Finance companies have wrung the NHS dry ! Not to mention the massively overgenerous pension plans and cost creating reorganisations every 5 years...
I think that argument has been wrung dry. I repeat what Brown said in 2010. The NHS now has enough money and can undertake a £20bn efficiency drive. That efficiency drive is continuing adter the 2015 election. The govt has already added another £8bn to its spending plans for the NHS since the election. All health services are facing serious financial deficits. The French NHS has a deficit. There is no evidence that the CCGs are any more responsible for going in the red than any other sort of set up. Treating more people is costly. One of the biggest problems the NHS has is discharging people after treatment, something for which social services deserve criticism.
You have of course hit the nail on the head. Social care budgets are the responsibility of councils who have had their budgets slashed. The number of people medically fit for discharge still occupying an NHS bed is at an all time high, and will go higher. Public Health was also transferred to councils by the mad Lansley so, as their budget is also being slashed, stand by for an epidemic in the years to go of preventable diseases, obesity, STIs, diabetes etc.
Forget the Labour MPs. Today might just be the day when the general public pricks up its ears, pays attention - and finally starts to register "What the hell has Labour done, electing this guy as its Leader?"
Polling in the next couple of weeks could be fascinating.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
I'm all for MPs acting individually according to their consciences, rather than according to party whip. It's up to them to justify their actions to their constituents. In this case, that might prove rather hard.
The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.
Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
After the events of Paris I think Tory opposition to intervention is based on the post-conflict plan. Most of those who do oppose would prefer to do a deal with Assad because the alternative is worse. Cameron's foolish position of removing Assad is holding us back from helping to destroy ISIS, a terrorist organisation who have threatened us and want to carry out attacks in Britain.
Corbyn continues to mutter "oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck" to himself during every interview whilst trying to work out how on earth he ended up in this mess...
He may be trying to engineer an exit.
Say something so repellent, even his "eat their own feet" backbenchers will not stomach it...
The mood of the parliamentary Labour party is key here - if, as seems possible now, they are finally about to decide that compromise is no longer possible with the pacifist terrorist-sympathising nut-job who has been foisted upon them as leader, then the most natural way of demonstrating this would be to support Cameron in intervention in Syria in alliance with our French and American friends.
I think Antifrank is being a little disingenuous with his statistics, veering well into 'damned lies' territory.
The question asked is about trust in general, and we all answer in context We trust doctors to tell us the truth when we speak to them, and for most of us, that is when we are seeking their advice on our medical condition. Not when we are asking them if they are working too long or getting paid too little.
I'd like to see a straight question asked: how much do you trust doctors when they speak about their pay vs how much do you trust Jeremy Hunt talking about doctors' pay. I would expect doctors to still win that head to head, but by nowhere near the 90/19 split above.
Ask the question 'does the NHS wage bill need to be brought under control?' and it will be even less favorable to doctors.
What makes you think it'd out of control? Hunt suppressed NICE's research into nurse numbers. The majority of trusts do not employ enough nurses and are only anywhere near the NICE numbers because of ruinously expensive agency staff. It's difficult to recruit because NHS pay had been falling since 2008 and will continue until the end of this parliament.
In France, there is no God, there is no King, there is only 'Country'.
Which might be why the Frogs have been thumped in every war they have fought for the last two hundred and odd years (and a not a few before that).
I wonder whether they might use the Foreign Legion. Apart from being let down in N Vietnam they’ve a pretty good record!
I’ve also been diretcted to a Septic site called DC Whispers which, a week or so ago, published a long article (http://dcwhispers.com/russias-putin-issues-order-on-isis-annihilate-them/) which suggests that the soon to appear Russian boots-on-the-ground in ISIS areas will be expected to take no prisoners.
"Gas was first pumped into the theater which rendered most inside unconscious. (and is believed to have caused the deaths of some of the hostages) Then Russian special forces entered the theater and proceeded to do what they were trained, and ordered by Putin himself, to do – they killed every one of the Muslim terrorists. No mercy was given to any of them. If a terrorist was found already passed out from the gas, an assault rifle was soon aimed at their heads and their life terminated."
Is that true? I mean I can believe it, given how Putin administration has dealt with descenters both at home and abroad. I mean unlike Corbyn if somebody from Putin's mob invites you to meet for a cup of tea and a chat, you better watch out whats in your tea. And I am not talking about some sort of hipster unpasterized camel's milk.
The Russians don't sod about. Posters richer in years will remember the spate of kidnappings of Westerners in the Lebanon that took place in the 1980s. They were carried out by an organization that was bought and paid for by Iran and caused diverse Western governments a lot of headaches, soul searching and not a little humiliation. One day the kidnappers grabbed a bunch of Russians.
The story goes that the Russian ambassador to Iran obtained an audience with the Great Ayatollah. He walked in, took his watch off, threw it on the ground and stamped on it so that it broke into tiny pieces. He pointed at the remains of his watch and said, "That is the holy city of Qom in 24 hours unless my countrymen in Lebanon are set free".
I don't know whether the story is true, but I do know that unlike the western hostages, some of whom were held for years, all the Russians were released inside 24 hours.
Good question. I am not a scientist, and as far as I can see there is a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) used by both sides of the argument which makes it hard to understand. I think the party's stance should be determined by it's members, and I expect we will attract members who do understand this issue better than I do.
Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
Joshua Landis, an academic expert on Syria and the ME, was interviewed by RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze (granddaughter of former foreign minister of the USSR, Eduard Shevardnadze (of ending- (or, if your a neocon, losing) the-cold-war fame) and made some very clear sighted and candid remarks.
“SS: But also, the rebels inside Syria, they haven’t united against Assad. Do they even want to unify?
JL: They claim to want to unify but have failed to do so because they all want to be the leader or “top dog” in their neighborhood. This is the problem with the larger Middle East – it’s very fragmented. Family, clan, and village still predominate over a sense of the nation. Compromise is a bad word that signifies weakness. It is an important reason for the failure of democracy and secular nationalism, there are no ideological bonds that unite the people or democratic traditions. The socioeconomic and ideological prerequisites for democracy are weak.
SS: Does that mean that if Assad is gone, the power struggle between these factions will continue and there will be no unity – so we’re going to get another Libya on our hands?
JL: I believe so, yes. The West falsely believes that it can separate the regime from the state. It argues that it can pursue regime-change while simultaneously preserving the state and its institutions. Washington believes it can avoid the chaos it sewed in Iraq. I don’t believe it can. In most Middle Eastern countries, the regimes, for better or worse, have transformed the states into reflections of themselves. They have cannibalized the state. They have crammed their loyalists into every nook and cranny of the national institutions. They had to in order to coup-proof their regimes. They justified it in the name of bringing stability. State institutions are not autonomous. Westerners believe that because their own state institutions are run by professional civil servants, Middle Eastern states are too. But they aren’t. Political appointees make up the entire edifice. They cannot simply be swapped out. Regime-change for an Arab country is not like administration change in a Western country. Destroying the regime means destroying the state. The price of regime-change is chaos. That is the situation in Syria today. It is the situation almost everywhere in the Middle East. Think of Saudi Arabia without the Saudi family. What would be left of the state?”
You seem an intelligent chap, and you don't seem to have one of the hidden agendas that drives our policies in the region, yes I am looking at you my Turkish friend JJ. So read and learn.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
I'm all for MPs acting individually according to their consciences, rather than according to party whip. It's up to them to justify their actions to their constituents. In this case, that might prove rather hard.
The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.
Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
After the events of Paris I think Tory opposition to intervention is based on the post-conflict plan. Most of those who do oppose would prefer to do a deal with Assad because the alternative is worse. Cameron's foolish position of removing Assad is holding us back from helping to destroy ISIS, a terrorist organisation who have threatened us and want to carry out attacks in Britain.
Realistically what difference is our puny military going to make given the Americans are already involved?
The Russians don't sod about. Posters richer in years will remember the spate of kidnappings of Westerners in the Lebanon that took place in the 1980s. They were carried out by an organization that was bought and paid for by Iran and caused diverse Western governments a lot of headaches, soul searching and not a little humiliation. One day the kidnappers grabbed a bunch of Russians.
The story goes that the Russian ambassador to Iran obtained an audience with the Great Ayatollah. He walked in, took his watch off, threw it on the ground and stamped on it so that it broke into tiny pieces. He pointed at the remains of his watch and said, "That is the holy city of Qom in 24 hours unless my countrymen in Lebanon are set free".
I don't know whether the story is true, but I do know that unlike the western hostages, some of whom were held for years, all the Russians were released inside 24 hours.
I heard a variant of that. Instead of a watch crushed, it was the male dangly bits of associates of the kidnappers that were tossed to the ground as the ultimatum was made that there'd be many more unless the Russians were released forthwith.
Stories, I am sure. But stories are worth their weight in gold.
C SS: Does that mean that if Assad is gone, the power struggle between these factions will continue and there will be no unity – so we’re going to get another Libya on our hands?
JL: I believe so, yes. The West falsely believes that it can separate the regime from the state. It argues that it can pursue regime-change while simultaneously preserving the state and its institutions. Washington believes it can avoid the chaos it sewed in Iraq. I don’t believe it can. In most Middle Eastern countries, the regimes, for better or worse, have transformed the states into reflections of themselves. They have cannibalized the state. They have crammed their loyalists into every nook and cranny of the national institutions. They had to in order to coup-proof their regimes. They justified it in the name of bringing stability. State institutions are not autonomous. Westerners believe that because their own state institutions are run by professional civil servants, Middle Eastern states are too. But they aren’t. Political appointees make up the entire edifice. They cannot simply be swapped out. Regime-change for an Arab country is not like administration change in a Western country. Destroying the regime means destroying the state. The price of regime-change is chaos. That is the situation in Syria today. It is the situation almost everywhere in the Middle East. Think of Saudi Arabia without the Saudi family. What would be left of the state?”
Rory "the Tory" Stewart certainly subscribes to the notion that it is a crazy idea that the West can go into a lot of these places and impose democracy on them. They are tribal and people are loyal to their tribe and whatever the elders decide.
Joshua Landis, an academic expert on Syria and the ME, was interviewed by RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze (granddaughter of former foreign minister of the USSR, Eduard Shevardnadze (of ending- (or, if your a neocon, losing) the-cold-war fame) and made some very clear sighted and candid remarks.
“SS: But also, the rebels inside Syria, they haven’t united against Assad. Do they even want to unify?
JL: They claim to want to unify but have failed to do so because they all want to be the leader or “top dog” in their neighborhood. This is the problem with the larger Middle East – it’s very fragmented. Family, clan, and village still predominate over a sense of the nation. Compromise is a bad word that signifies weakness. It is an important reason for the failure of democracy and secular nationalism, there are no ideological bonds that unite the people or democratic traditions. The socioeconomic and ideological prerequisites for democracy are weak.
SS: Does that mean that if Assad is gone, the power struggle between these factions will continue and there will be no unity – so we’re going to get another Libya on our hands?
JL: I believe so, yes. The West falsely believes that it can separate the regime from the state. It argues that it can pursue regime-change while simultaneously preserving the state and its institutions. Washington believes it can avoid the chaos it sewed in Iraq. I don’t believe it can. In most Middle Eastern countries, the regimes, for better or worse, have transformed the states into reflections of themselves. They have cannibalized the state. They have crammed their loyalists into every nook and cranny of the national institutions. They had to in order to coup-proof their regimes. They justified it in the name of bringing stability. State institutions are not autonomous. Westerners believe that because their own state institutions are run by professional civil servants, Middle Eastern states are too. But they aren’t. Political appointees make up the entire edifice. They cannot simply be swapped out. Regime-change for an Arab country is not like administration change in a Western country. Destroying the regime means destroying the state. The price of regime-change is chaos. That is the situation in Syria today. It is the situation almost everywhere in the Middle East. Think of Saudi Arabia without the Saudi family. What would be left of the state?”
You seem an intelligent chap, and you don't seem to have one of the hidden agendas that drives our policies in the region, yes I am looking at you my Turkish friend JJ. So read and learn.
Oh I know Syria will turn into a massive basket case if Assad withdraws. I'm pretty much in favour of him staying indefinitely, or replace him with some other military strong man. The solution, however, is going to be a multi-ethnic government with some western backing. A mistake, but that is what is on the table.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
I'm all for MPs acting individually according to their consciences, rather than according to party whip. It's up to them to justify their actions to their constituents. In this case, that might prove rather hard.
The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.
Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
After the events of Paris I think Tory opposition to intervention is based on the post-conflict plan. Most of those who do oppose would prefer to do a deal with Assad because the alternative is worse. Cameron's foolish position of removing Assad is holding us back from helping to destroy ISIS, a terrorist organisation who have threatened us and want to carry out attacks in Britain.
Realistically what difference is our puny military going to make given the Americans are already involved?
I think with this it isn't the might that we bring. The US and Russia have the size to do the serious ball breaking. It is often more technical and intelligence expertise. Also, there has been plenty of evidence from Iraq, that UK troops were fair better at smoothing things over. In Libya, UK had special forces doing a lot of work on the ground to smooth passage of rebels, set up the progression, etc.
C SS: Does that mean that if Assad is gone, the power struggle between these factions will continue and there will be no unity – so we’re going to get another Libya on our hands?
JL: I believe so, yes. The West falsely believes that it can separate the regime from the state. It argues that it can pursue regime-change while simultaneously preserving the state and its institutions. Washington believes it can avoid the chaos it sewed in Iraq. I don’t believe it can. In most Middle Eastern countries, the regimes, for better or worse, have transformed the states into reflections of themselves. They have cannibalized the state. They have crammed their loyalists into every nook and cranny of the national institutions. They had to in order to coup-proof their regimes. They justified it in the name of bringing stability. State institutions are not autonomous. Westerners believe that because their own state institutions are run by professional civil servants, Middle Eastern states are too. But they aren’t. Political appointees make up the entire edifice. They cannot simply be swapped out. Regime-change for an Arab country is not like administration change in a Western country. Destroying the regime means destroying the state. The price of regime-change is chaos. That is the situation in Syria today. It is the situation almost everywhere in the Middle East. Think of Saudi Arabia without the Saudi family. What would be left of the state?”
Rory "the Tory" Stewart certainly subscribes to the notion that it is a crazy idea that the West can go into a lot of these places and impose democracy on them. They are tribal and people are loyal to their tribe and whatever the elders decide.
I don't think the job is anything to do with imposing democracy this time. It's flattening Raqqa, destroying IS and having a 3 way carve up between Assad, the Iraqi Gov't and the Kurds for the remaining territory methinks.
Those dodgy leaflets UKIP produced in Oldham West & Royton can now be replaced by accurate ones with Corbyn's latest statements on dealing with terrorists on the streets of Britain.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
I'm all for MPs acting individually according to their consciences, rather than according to party whip. It's up to them to justify their actions to their constituents. In this case, that might prove rather hard.
The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.
Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
After the events of Paris I think Tory opposition to intervention is based on the post-conflict plan. Most of those who do oppose would prefer to do a deal with Assad because the alternative is worse. Cameron's foolish position of removing Assad is holding us back from helping to destroy ISIS, a terrorist organisation who have threatened us and want to carry out attacks in Britain.
There is nothing foolish about wanting to remove someone from power who uses chemical weapons against his own population.
Some of the pictures are here. Not really safe for work, so I've tried to disable the link so it'll not auto-link: humanpains.com/2015/04/06/syria-assad-regime-gruesome-torture-photos-on-display-at-un/
I wish people would not whitewash what a tyrant Assad is. If you do want to make a deal with him, be very aware that it might not go the way you intend.
' I'm worked for the NHS for just over 20 years and cn remember at least 6 major reorganisations in that time.'
Try working in the private sector where there is not a bottomless pit of taxpayers money or militant unions like the BMA & then complain about reorganizations. .
Age dear boy, age. Anything under 12 years? forget it.
Well, the advert I have found is silent on that point and Herself, not being a whisky drinker, didn't think to look. I suppose I'll just have to buy a bottle to try before I give it to anyone outside the immediate family.
The Russians don't sod about. Posters richer in years will remember the spate of kidnappings of Westerners in the Lebanon that took place in the 1980s. They were carried out by an organization that was bought and paid for by Iran and caused diverse Western governments a lot of headaches, soul searching and not a little humiliation. One day the kidnappers grabbed a bunch of Russians.
The story goes that the Russian ambassador to Iran obtained an audience with the Great Ayatollah. He walked in, took his watch off, threw it on the ground and stamped on it so that it broke into tiny pieces. He pointed at the remains of his watch and said, "That is the holy city of Qom in 24 hours unless my countrymen in Lebanon are set free".
I don't know whether the story is true, but I do know that unlike the western hostages, some of whom were held for years, all the Russians were released inside 24 hours.
I heard a variant of that. Instead of a watch crushed, it was the male dangly bits of associates of the kidnappers that were tossed to the ground as the ultimatum was made that there'd be many more unless the Russians were released forthwith.
Stories, I am sure. But stories are worth their weight in gold.
It is the sort of stories that used to be told after the Iranian embassy siege where hostage takers were allegedly taken back into the building and shot. True or not, these sort of stories can have a prophylactic effect which can save the lives of the citizens of that country. Of course it doesn't seem to have stopped a Russian airliner being downed.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
I'm all for MPs acting individually according to their consciences, rather than according to party whip. It's up to them to justify their actions to their constituents. In this case, that might prove rather hard.
The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.
Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
After the events of Paris I think Tory opposition to intervention is based on the post-conflict plan. Most of those who do oppose would prefer to do a deal with Assad because the alternative is worse. Cameron's foolish position of removing Assad is holding us back from helping to destroy ISIS, a terrorist organisation who have threatened us and want to carry out attacks in Britain.
Realistically what difference is our puny military going to make given the Americans are already involved?
It's not really about what we can contribute. We must help our allies when they are in need, whether with logistics, intelligence or even frontline bombing campaigns. We cannot become an unreliable partner, our allies must be able to rely on us or we will not be able to rely on them.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
I'm all for MPs acting individually according to their consciences, rather than according to party whip. It's up to them to justify their actions to their constituents. In this case, that might prove rather hard.
The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.
Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
After the events of Paris I think Tory opposition to intervention is based on the post-conflict plan. Most of those who do oppose would prefer to do a deal with Assad because the alternative is worse. Cameron's foolish position of removing Assad is holding us back from helping to destroy ISIS, a terrorist organisation who have threatened us and want to carry out attacks in Britain.
There is nothing foolish about wanting to remove someone from power who uses chemical weapons against his own population.
Some of the pictures are here. Not really safe for work, so I've tried to disable the link so it'll not auto-link: humanpains.com/2015/04/06/syria-assad-regime-gruesome-torture-photos-on-display-at-un/
I wish people would not whitewash what a tyrant Assad is. If you do want to make a deal with him, be very aware that it might not go the way you intend.
I'm not going to go round and round in circles with you about this. It is pointless.
' I'm worked for the NHS for just over 20 years and cn remember at least 6 major reorganisations in that time.'
Try working in the private sector where there is not a bottomless pit of taxpayers money or militant unions like the BMA & then complain about reorganizations. .
55% as Presedential candidate is pretty resounding I'd say, leaving as it does 45% to be divided amongst everyone else.
It it's so silly, why be so insistent against Assad standing? Not only has he (according to the US) 'gassed his own people', he's also only the leader of a minority Alawite sect, ruling the dissatisfied majority by fear. So why not see him utterly electorally humiliated? Unless he actually commands a majority amongst Sunnis too. Unless Syrian's support their President, and want to keep Syria, rather than become a Muslim Balkans
Doesn't the Yougov poll have the slight problem of having been undertaken during the civil war? In which case, perhaps you can see some problems with sampling (leaving aside the generic problems with polling we've seen in this country).
The last ones pre-2012 were run in 2007, where about two-thirds of the seats were 'reserved' for Assad's party, and other parties willing to accept Ba'athite rule.
Weak on all fronts. Yougov didn't consider it fundamentally damaging to their polling, nor did the anti-Assad organisation that comisioned the poll, no doubt expecting a different result.
Under new elections, a flood of international inspectors could be deployed ensuring they were free and fair. But other countries like the US, Turkey, KSA, insist he doesn't stand. What business is it of theirs, and what are they afraid of?
' I'm worked for the NHS for just over 20 years and cn remember at least 6 major reorganisations in that time.'
Try working in the private sector where there is not a bottomless pit of taxpayers money or militant unions like the BMA & then complain about reorganizations. .
And which private companies do you know which have had a similar amount of upheaval? As to the BMA being militant, pull the other one.
He would rather have PC Plod or Community Support Officers tackle suicide nutters than security services....I bet they are really pleased to hear that. We aren't talking about your classic old school crims as portrayed in the movies that have a nice code of conduct when it comes to doing crime.
The man sounds like we are still living in a world without the threat of people who are willing to casually gun down 100 people then blow themselves up.
Labour never want to take the hard decisions, e.g. reform of the NHS or tax credits. They always want the "nice" way out - which only makes things worse.
Corbyn is just the extreme form of that, so it is unsurprising how he wants to deal with terrorists.
Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.
I'm all for MPs acting individually according to their consciences, rather than according to party whip. It's up to them to justify their actions to their constituents. In this case, that might prove rather hard.
The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.
Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
After the events of Paris I think Tory opposition to intervention is based on the post-conflict plan. Most of those who do oppose would prefer to do a deal with Assad because the alternative is worse. Cameron's foolish position of removing Assad is holding us back from helping to destroy ISIS, a terrorist organisation who have threatened us and want to carry out attacks in Britain.
Realistically what difference is our puny military going to make given the Americans are already involved?
If our military forces aren't up to suppressing (and killing) a bunch of mad men in open terrain then we may as well not bother. There are hints as to the required stuff - oddly Harry seems to have found himself in amongst the right mix. However British Sailors surrendering to Iranians would have had Nelson turn in his grave.
British Military forces should do jobs they can do outstandingly, and not be asked to jobs that they can't.
Richard Nabavi of course doctors will oppose change for change's sake - they are used to dealing with evidence and acting on it. I'm worked for the NHS for just over 20 years and cn remember at least 6 major reorganisations in that time. All of these were done without any evidence to support that they were the right thing to do. All have cost money and time and removal of goodwill. Where is the evidence that the public wants a 7 day health service? And yes what if you do get the junior doctors to work until 10pm every day and including Saturdays as "normal" time in order to increase numbers, they will still be twiddling their thumbs if they cannot get diagnostic tests, or results, or drugs. How is Hunt going to coerce these groups of workers given that they have had a 15% real terms pay cut in the last 7 years and the the prospect of 4 more to come. You have no doubt seen the vacancy rates and the amount of money spent on agency staff?
If the NHS was a private organisation, most of the prior Directors would be in jail - for killing patients - and a management squad would be brought in to instal the basics of manpower planning and Budgetary control...
Labour's campaign team in Oldham West must have their head in their hands after hearing Corbyn's comments today. The new UKIP leaflets are probably already rolling off the presses.
Who reckons flip flop Burnham will support JC at tonight's PLP?
NPxMP will be along shortly no doubt to repeat his claim that it' s refreshing to have a leader who sticks to his principles and tries to win people round to them...
It is the sort of stories that used to be told after the Iranian embassy siege where hostage takers were allegedly taken back into the building and shot. True or not, these sort of stories can have a prophylactic effect which can save the lives of the citizens of that country.
It's certainly not true. What happens is that the special forces enter extremely rapidly with stun grenades. There's a moment of chaos - the biggest problem they have is knowing who to shoot. They rely on the hostages to point at the bad guys, and top them before they have a chance to react and either shoot back, kill hostages, or set off explosives.
There's absolutely no chance of taking prisoners or negotiating. You shoot first and hope you got the right guys.
It doesn't always work, of course.
[I once had a two-week holiday in the bush in Africa where one of the Bravo Two Zero guys was a fellow guest. It was... interesting!]
' I'm worked for the NHS for just over 20 years and cn remember at least 6 major reorganisations in that time.'
Try working in the private sector where there is not a bottomless pit of taxpayers money or militant unions like the BMA & then complain about reorganizations. .
And which private companies do you know which have had a similar amount of upheaval? As to the BMA being militant, pull the other one.
I would think that there are no shortage of corporations going through major upheavals in response to market forces. Think IBM throughout its history, for one obvious example. The successful ones change whenever they need to. Those that do not change die, and some poor performers change constantly in pursuit of lost success (Yahoo!) Only corporations in mature, static markets do not have upheavals.
@DMcCaffreySKY: Corbyn, Benn and Burnham will all address PLP in Parliament tonight. Told they have reached an agreed position on Syria.
They will agree to supporting intervention in Syria if and only if 5 test can be passed? One of them being that fighter bombers are only allowed to drop leaflets inviting them to a tea party at #10 to discuss a resolution to the conflict.
"@thomasknox: Worth noting Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely NOT a pacifist. He fully supports armed action, as long as it is AGAINST us, e.g. the IRA."
I understand your penchant for copying and pasting anything that chimes with your world view but surely you're not reduced to quoting Sean under a pseudonym? We could have waited half an hour and got it straight from the horses mouth.
If our military forces aren't up to suppressing (and killing) a bunch of mad men in open terrain then we may as well not bother. There are hints as to the required stuff - oddly Harry seems to have found himself in amongst the right mix. However British Sailors surrendering to Iranians would have had Nelson turn in his grave.
British Military forces should do jobs they can do outstandingly, and not be asked to jobs that they can't.
I doubt the issue is whether the troops we have are up to the job. There must be however doubt as to whether we have enough of them to it and whether HMG has the balls to commit to the task wholeheartedly (they didn't in Afghanistan and I don't see what has changed since).
However, before even considering putting troops in HMG should ask and answer the four questions as detailed by TimT on here the other evening (I paraphrase):
1. What is the objective? 2. What will victory look like? 3. Are we prepared to pay the cost? 4. After we have won what happens next?
That requires some clear thinking about details and some real decision making, something Cameron isn't good at. However, unless he can answer those questions to their satisfaction every MP should vote against military action in Syria.
I think Antifrank is being a little disingenuous with his statistics, veering well into 'damned lies' territory.
The question asked is about trust in general, and we all answer in context We trust doctors to tell us the truth when we speak to them, and for most of us, that is when we are seeking their advice on our medical condition. Not when we are asking them if they are working too long or getting paid too little.
I'd like to see a straight question asked: how much do you trust doctors when they speak about their pay vs how much do you trust Jeremy Hunt talking about doctors' pay. I would expect doctors to still win that head to head, but by nowhere near the 90/19 split above.
Ask the question 'does the NHS wage bill need to be brought under control?' and it will be even less favorable to doctors.
What makes you think it'd out of control? Hunt suppressed NICE's research into nurse numbers. The majority of trusts do not employ enough nurses and are only anywhere near the NICE numbers because of ruinously expensive agency staff. It's difficult to recruit because NHS pay had been falling since 2008 and will continue until the end of this parliament.
Chris, I stated no opinion on the issue, and frankly am disinterested as I live in the US and obtain my medical services there.
I was making a point about reading statistics, framing questions and making inferences in response to antifrank's piece. I stand by my prediction that if the question I posed were asked, far fewer than 90% would dispute the need to control the NHS wage bill.
Joshua Landis, an academic expert on Syria and the ME, was interviewed by RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze (granddaughter of former foreign minister of the USSR, Eduard Shevardnadze (of ending- (or, if your a neocon, losing) the-cold-war fame) and made some very clear sighted and candid remarks.
“SS: But also, the rebels inside Syria, they haven’t united against Assad. Do they even want to unify?
JL: They claim to want to unify but have failed to do so because they all want to be the leader or “top dog” in their neighborhood. This is the problem with the larger Middle East – it’s very fragmented. Family, clan, and village still predominate over a sense of the nation. Compromise is a bad word that signifies weakness. It is an important reason for the failure of democracy and secular nationalism, there are no ideological bonds that unite the people or democratic traditions. The socioeconomic and ideological prerequisites for democracy are weak.
SS: Does that mean that if Assad is gone, the power struggle between these factions will continue and there will be no unity – so we’re going to get another Libya on our hands?
JL: I believe so, yes. The West falsely believes that it can separate the regime from the state. It argues that it can pursue regime-change while simultaneously preserving the state and its institutions. Washington believes it can avoid the chaos it sewed in Iraq. I don’t believe it can. In most Middle Eastern countries, the regimes, for better or worse, have transformed the states into reflections of themselves. They have cannibalized the state. They have crammed their loyalists into every nook and cranny of the national institutions. They had to in order to coup-proof their regimes. They justified it in the name of bringing stability. State institutions are not autonomous. Westerners believe that because their own state institutions are run by professional civil servants, Middle Eastern states are too. But they aren’t. Political appointees make up the entire edifice. They cannot simply be swapped out. Regime-change for an Arab country is not like administration change in a Western country. Destroying the regime means destroying the state. The price of regime-change is chaos. That is the situation in Syria today. It is the situation almost everywhere in the Middle East. Think of Saudi Arabia without the Saudi family. What would be left of the state?”
You seem an intelligent chap, and you don't seem to have one of the hidden agendas that drives our policies in the region, yes I am looking at you my Turkish friend JJ. So read and learn.
JJ does not like Assad nor does he like Erdogan. Does he expect everyone will follow orders, like the Libyans did [ sic ] ?
You seem an intelligent chap, and you don't seem to have one of the hidden agendas that drives our policies in the region, yes I am looking at you my Turkish friend JJ. So read and learn.
Firstly, I am not Turkish. I am married to a Turk, which is a very different thing.
Secondly, I agree with much of the above post. Some on here evidently have not noticed, but I've not called for total regime change. I've called for Assad to leave but the Ba'athite establishment to remain. That is difficult to do for a number of reasons, but it may be possible to find a candidate who would be able to run the Ba'athite establishment, come to an agreement with moderate rebels (e.g. the Kurds), and be amenable to pressure from the international community. The replacement (e.g. a general) might be guilty of serious crimes. But at least there'd be a way forward, and the person who is ultimately guilty will have had some form of punishment, even if it is banishment to Russia.
We did not start the civil war in Syria, which grew out of the Arab Spring. We were (and are) faced with a series of choices, none of which is particularly palatable. Supporting the leader of the regime that has caused so much harm is, to my mind, a massive mistake in the medium and long term.
Comments
My wife tells me that Aldi have a Islay Single Malt on sale for £17.99 a bottle. It runs under the name of Glen Marnoch.
Has anyone tried it?
ISIS, be afraid. Be very afraid.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/12/the-government-should-accept-the-snps-demands-for-ffa/
Age dear boy, age. Anything under 12 years? forget it.
More screaming at innocents...
Interestingly, there was a big discussion within Las Alamos and the scientists were polled on whether they wanted to drop the Bomb on a Japanese city first, or give them a demonstration of its destructive capability. 83% of the scientists voted for a demonstration.
That idea soon got chucked in the bin by Truman...
I suspect most voters know he isn't exactly gung-ho anyway..
Jezza has never moved out of the students' union. He harks back fondly to the days spent picketing Barclays before staying up all night putting the world to rights with his Troops Out buddies.
He has simply not moved on from simplistic, idealist rubbish with the closest he gets to addressing the myriad politics being a feeble "I wouldn't have started from here".
ED BALLS WHERE ARE YOU COME BACK AND LEAD THE INSURGENCY.
That, or Stevie Kinnock.
Clear ?
Good on him.
Meantime, Cameron is terrified of "another Iraq", of suffering a defeat in Parliament, and Corbyn continues to mutter "oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck" to himself during every interview whilst trying to work out how on earth he ended up in this mess...
And we call the French the cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
I'm careful not to call us libertarian as I don't think that matches what we're about. Our focus is definitely on providing people with critical thinking skills and access to lifelong learning so that they can flourish in a free society.
The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.
Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
Libya is already Cameron's Iraq, just on a smaller scale at the moment.
It's not tax credits or an EU related vote, this is war and peace !
His die-hard supporters will find a formulation of words showing an RPG-wielding terrorist is a rung higher-up the moral spectrum than a Tory in charge of a spending ministry.
I'm not keen on Jihadi Jezz myself - but given I found Jezzbollah acceptable, I can't complain.
Say something so repellent, even his "eat their own feet" backbenchers will not stomach it...
What is an exception speech... and check how hes got the wrong word on both youtube and the tweet?
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell 3 mins3 minutes ago
Douglas Carswell: Clacton exception speech 10Oct14: http://youtu.be/6MN1qKYjpdg?a via @YouTube
You have of course hit the nail on the head. Social care budgets are the responsibility of councils who have had their budgets slashed. The number of people medically fit for discharge still occupying an NHS bed is at an all time high, and will go higher. Public Health was also transferred to councils by the mad Lansley so, as their budget is also being slashed, stand by for an epidemic in the years to go of preventable diseases, obesity, STIs, diabetes etc.
Polling in the next couple of weeks could be fascinating.
Near to Nil is my prediction.
Correct. Cameron weighed up the Syrian refugee crisis for a while, and got his response right. Hollande is a desperate man.
The story goes that the Russian ambassador to Iran obtained an audience with the Great Ayatollah. He walked in, took his watch off, threw it on the ground and stamped on it so that it broke into tiny pieces. He pointed at the remains of his watch and said, "That is the holy city of Qom in 24 hours unless my countrymen in Lebanon are set free".
I don't know whether the story is true, but I do know that unlike the western hostages, some of whom were held for years, all the Russians were released inside 24 hours.
Our session starts at 10am and can be viewed live, online at: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1eef841e-19e3-4b39-aec2-1dd0e80a5cd8 … #kidscompany
Popcorn?
“SS: But also, the rebels inside Syria, they haven’t united against Assad. Do they even want to unify?
JL: They claim to want to unify but have failed to do so because they all want to be the leader or “top dog” in their neighborhood. This is the problem with the larger Middle East – it’s very fragmented. Family, clan, and village still predominate over a sense of the nation. Compromise is a bad word that signifies weakness. It is an important reason for the failure of democracy and secular nationalism, there are no ideological bonds that unite the people or democratic traditions. The socioeconomic and ideological prerequisites for democracy are weak.
SS: Does that mean that if Assad is gone, the power struggle between these factions will continue and there will be no unity – so we’re going to get another Libya on our hands?
JL: I believe so, yes. The West falsely believes that it can separate the regime from the state. It argues that it can pursue regime-change while simultaneously preserving the state and its institutions. Washington believes it can avoid the chaos it sewed in Iraq. I don’t believe it can. In most Middle Eastern countries, the regimes, for better or worse, have transformed the states into reflections of themselves. They have cannibalized the state. They have crammed their loyalists into every nook and cranny of the national institutions. They had to in order to coup-proof their regimes. They justified it in the name of bringing stability. State institutions are not autonomous. Westerners believe that because their own state institutions are run by professional civil servants, Middle Eastern states are too. But they aren’t. Political appointees make up the entire edifice. They cannot simply be swapped out. Regime-change for an Arab country is not like administration change in a Western country. Destroying the regime means destroying the state. The price of regime-change is chaos. That is the situation in Syria today. It is the situation almost everywhere in the Middle East. Think of Saudi Arabia without the Saudi family. What would be left of the state?”
You seem an intelligent chap, and you don't seem to have one of the hidden agendas that drives our policies in the region, yes I am looking at you my Turkish friend JJ. So read and learn.
Stories, I am sure. But stories are worth their weight in gold.
.....unless they're english.
"Even the other one wasn't as stupid as him."
Then there's this:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/images-syrian-torture-shock-new-yorkers-united-nations
http://www.ibtimes.com/un-syria-exhibition-graphic-torture-images-display-new-york-1844024
Some of the pictures are here. Not really safe for work, so I've tried to disable the link so it'll not auto-link:
humanpains.com/2015/04/06/syria-assad-regime-gruesome-torture-photos-on-display-at-un/
I wish people would not whitewash what a tyrant Assad is. If you do want to make a deal with him, be very aware that it might not go the way you intend.
' I'm worked for the NHS for just over 20 years and cn remember at least 6 major reorganisations in that time.'
Try working in the private sector where there is not a bottomless pit of taxpayers money or militant unions like the BMA & then complain about reorganizations.
.
Under new elections, a flood of international inspectors could be deployed ensuring they were free and fair. But other countries like the US, Turkey, KSA, insist he doesn't stand. What business is it of theirs, and what are they afraid of?
"Nicola Sturgeon stressed that any hate crime in the wake of the tragedy was "totally unacceptable".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3316442/SNP-forced-apologise-race-hate-row.html
He would rather have PC Plod or Community Support Officers tackle suicide nutters than security services....I bet they are really pleased to hear that. We aren't talking about your classic old school crims as portrayed in the movies that have a nice code of conduct when it comes to doing crime.
The man sounds like we are still living in a world without the threat of people who are willing to casually gun down 100 people then blow themselves up.
@thomasknox: Worth noting Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely NOT a pacifist. He fully supports armed action, as long as it is AGAINST us, e.g. the IRA.
Labour never want to take the hard decisions, e.g. reform of the NHS or tax credits. They always want the "nice" way out - which only makes things worse.
Corbyn is just the extreme form of that, so it is unsurprising how he wants to deal with terrorists.
British Military forces should do jobs they can do outstandingly, and not be asked to jobs that they can't.
NPxMP will be along shortly no doubt to repeat his claim that it' s refreshing to have a leader who sticks to his principles and tries to win people round to them...
There's absolutely no chance of taking prisoners or negotiating. You shoot first and hope you got the right guys.
It doesn't always work, of course.
[I once had a two-week holiday in the bush in Africa where one of the Bravo Two Zero guys was a fellow guest. It was... interesting!]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3302972/Fantasist-lorry-driver-lied-family-15-YEARS-SAS-hero-wife-died-cancer-believing-him.html
There was one amusing question from Lord Matthews: "Is the clue not in the name? CANDIDate?"
Slightly worrying for the defence I would have thought.
"@thomasknox: Worth noting Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely NOT a pacifist. He fully supports armed action, as long as it is AGAINST us, e.g. the IRA."
I understand your penchant for copying and pasting anything that chimes with your world view but surely you're not reduced to quoting Sean under a pseudonym? We could have waited half an hour and got it straight from the horses mouth.
However, before even considering putting troops in HMG should ask and answer the four questions as detailed by TimT on here the other evening (I paraphrase):
1. What is the objective?
2. What will victory look like?
3. Are we prepared to pay the cost?
4. After we have won what happens next?
That requires some clear thinking about details and some real decision making, something Cameron isn't good at. However, unless he can answer those questions to their satisfaction every MP should vote against military action in Syria.
I was making a point about reading statistics, framing questions and making inferences in response to antifrank's piece. I stand by my prediction that if the question I posed were asked, far fewer than 90% would dispute the need to control the NHS wage bill.
Secondly, I agree with much of the above post. Some on here evidently have not noticed, but I've not called for total regime change. I've called for Assad to leave but the Ba'athite establishment to remain. That is difficult to do for a number of reasons, but it may be possible to find a candidate who would be able to run the Ba'athite establishment, come to an agreement with moderate rebels (e.g. the Kurds), and be amenable to pressure from the international community. The replacement (e.g. a general) might be guilty of serious crimes. But at least there'd be a way forward, and the person who is ultimately guilty will have had some form of punishment, even if it is banishment to Russia.
We did not start the civil war in Syria, which grew out of the Arab Spring. We were (and are) faced with a series of choices, none of which is particularly palatable. Supporting the leader of the regime that has caused so much harm is, to my mind, a massive mistake in the medium and long term.
And it won't even defeat ISIS.