Mr. Pulpstar, does make one wonder where the money's going. Admittedly, a fair slice will be going on Brown's deranged carrier contracts, but even so...
SkyNet is unique....
Do you think that the authors of the Terminator franchise were aware of the UK military programme when they made the films?
No they don't. It's probably less than one chance in ten that the voters in California will have a meaningful choice by the time they get to vote. Almost certainly by then, every candidate bar one will either have withdrawn or will be an irrelevance.
I think that may not be the case this time. If Trump is in the lead, there will be a very strong push to keep at least one of the sane candidates in the race.
Trump is the man to beat. He has been out front for long enough to have been tested and has not faltered much in the polls despite that. He may still self-destruct but there's only two and a half months now to Iowa, including December which doesn't really count for campaigning purposes, one debate notwithstanding.
I was wondering the other day whether the much more high profile televised Republican candidates events had made voters' intentions more settled earlier this time around. Many would have known Trump, but the exposure of the other contenders might mean they are now being observed - and dismissed - by the public much earlier in the cycle?
'That's the problem that the Muslim community in the West faces: how to ensure that they aren't tarred as collaborators or worse'
Exactly right. But our leaders pretending that Islamic terrorism has 'nothing to do with Islam' or is supported by a miniscule minority of muslims won't help - it just helps to support the current inertia and denial we are seeing.
The manner in which Trump is being dismissed is vaguely reminiscent to me of the way Reagan was dismissed in the late 70s.
Reagan was sneered at by pundits on this side of the Atlantic; the key difference between Reagan and Trump is that Reagan had decades of political experience as a union leader and then as state governor.
No they don't. It's probably less than one chance in ten that the voters in California will have a meaningful choice by the time they get to vote. Almost certainly by then, every candidate bar one will either have withdrawn or will be an irrelevance.
I think that may not be the case this time. If Trump is in the lead, there will be a very strong push to keep at least one of the sane candidates in the race.
That may be true but even if they do, you can only keep coming second so many times. Also, who counts as sane. I'm not convinced that Cruz does, yet he could end up the best performing politico in early February.
And on the other hand we have May saying this latest attack by Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam....
I guess all the nutters that blew themselves up, did so in the name of Comic Relief or something*. May needs to listen to Sajid Javid or Maajid Nawaz.
* Although one of the mothers actually said this (and again it feeds into Farage's comments) that her son didn't mean to blow himself up, he must have got a bit stressed. Which bit of walking around shooting 100's of innocent people, while wearing a suicide vest, does she think might be a bit of a clue to his intentions?
I would never say that the PIRA was anything to do with Catholicism. They used Catholicism, and took advantage of the unjust treatment of Catholics by Ulster Protestants. But what they did didn't further any of the aims of Catholicism.
Similarly, Daesh represents a warped interpretation of Islam: it is drawn from it's own tradition and not from the Islamic mainstream (or even mainstream Sunnism). *If* you accept this, then it is reasonable to argue that it is not Islam that is the problem, but militant Wahhabism
It's a good parallel, and the feelings of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland at the time are relevant too - it seems likely that the overwhelming majority didn't actually favour killing anyone, but actively helping the Protestant and British leadership combat the IRA was a step that many found difficult. To avoid this becoming a bigger issue, it was always important not to suggest that the IRA and the Catholic community were somehow synonymous. Suggestions such as SeanT's to close all mosques should be seen in that light - would it have been useful to close all Catholic churches during the height of the IRA attacks?
You can't exonerate the Catholic community - too many turned their heads away and saw no evil*. It provided a backdrop into which the terrorists could melt away and hide. That's the problem that the Muslim community in the West faces: how to ensure that they aren't tarred as collaborators or worse. But they need to be proactive and upfront and come out and combat the evil that lurks within.
To be silent is not enough.
Do you not think we are in a far better place with the Muslim community than we ever were with the IRA? IRA had the numbers to hold a lot of sway and enforce 'whatever you say, say nothing' with criminal activities, intimidation and threats within their community. Whatever problems there are within some Western Muslim communities, and there are problems, outright Islamist militants operate very much on the margins now, and anecdote suggests that reporting of suspicions from the community is a very substantial contribution to M15s successes to date.
"I understand that those involved in the campaign are worried the party is already in trouble, anyway. They believe that Corbyn is going down very badly with the large numbers of white working class voters in the seat, and that even though the South Asian population are largely turning to Labour, this will not create enough of a lead for the party to be able to sustain big white working class losses to Ukip. The Tory vote in the seat is also turning to Nigel Farage’s party, which has led sources to conclude that if Ukip does campaign hard and well, it could win."
"I understand that those involved in the campaign are worried the party is already in trouble, anyway. They believe that Corbyn is going down very badly with the large numbers of white working class voters in the seat, and that even though the South Asian population are largely turning to Labour, this will not create enough of a lead for the party to be able to sustain big white working class losses to Ukip. The Tory vote in the seat is also turning to Nigel Farage’s party, which has led sources to conclude that if Ukip does campaign hard and well, it could win."
I pointed out a few weeks ago that 6 of the 9 wards are classic white working-class territory which probably had a strong personal allegiance to Michael Meacher and therefore things could be closer than suggested by the general election result.
I think it's worth remembering that our experience with borders is very different to most Europeans. Even before Schengen, back in the early 1980s, when my parents would take us to Italy or wherever you could drive from the UK to Rome or Berlin, and the only passport check would be at Calais. (And sometimes there wasn't even one there.)
And I this was been the case for most of the post World War 2 period. This wasn't a push by Eurocrats: this was a recognition that many European countries are small and securing long borders without significant geographical obstacles is extremely expensive. (Essentially, it is always possible for a determined person to cross the border by digging a tunnel in a field. Border crossings, then, inconvenience the innocent, while doing little to prevent the criminal.)
And because there were no real restrictions on the flow of people between the various European states, was that the economies around the borders of Luxebourg, Belgium, France, Italy etc. are very integrated. You local supermarket could be supplied by a warehouse across the border.
For this reason, I would be extremely surprised if there was a wholesale reintroduction of border controls. It would be economically expensive, with little practical benefit.
Most British people don't appreciate how convenient border-free travel is when you are surrounded by land borders. I expect that what will eventually shake out of the current crisis is a careful manning of specific external borders to the EU/Schengen zone on a shared basis - the opposite of what many Leavers expect/hope for.
External borders? The Paris attackers came from Belgium.
How many Parisien style massacres do you think mainland Europeans will tolerate in exchange for a continued open border policy within the Schengen area?
Let's just imagine that France spent tens of billions of Euros on building a fence between it and Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, Switzerland, Monaco and Belgium. Then imagine manning that fence, with the required guard towers.
A few border checkpoints infuriate the innocent but do nothing to prevent the criminal, because there are always buildings and fields that abut the border.
Western Europe, outside the UK, has never made serious attempts to enforce border controls in the last 50 years because the costs would be absolutely enormous, and would do little prevent the criminal or the evil from evading them.
Let's not forget: during the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, with a much smaller border, we never successfully sealed off the border with the Republic. IRA terrorists could pretty much move at will between the countries.
Land borders - unless you want to clear a 200 meter area either side of a fence - are inherently porous.
Anyone particularly interested in who I am can find out after approximately 30 seconds of internet research if you're quick or 3 minutes if you're slow.
I shall probably shrug off my soubriquet in the near future and just use my real name.
End of an era. IDK, antifrank's opinions speak to me as an anonymous commenter, but joe bloggs?
And on the other hand we have May saying this latest attack by Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam....
I guess all the nutters that blew themselves up, did so in the name of Comic Relief or something*. May needs to listen to Sajid Javid or Maajid Nawaz.
* Although one of the mothers actually said this (and again it feeds into Farage's comments) that her son didn't mean to blow himself up, he must have got a bit stressed. Which bit of walking around shooting 100's of innocent people, while wearing a suicide vest, does she think might be a bit of a clue to his intentions?
I would never say that the PIRA was anything to do with Catholicism. They used Catholicism, and took advantage of the unjust treatment of Catholics by Ulster Protestants. But what they did didn't further any of the aims of Catholicism.
Similarly, Daesh represents a warped interpretation of Islam: it is drawn from it's own tradition and not from the Islamic mainstream (or even mainstream Sunnism). *If* you accept this, then it is reasonable to argue that it is not Islam that is the problem, but militant Wahhabism
....
You can't exonerate the Catholic community - too many turned their heads away and saw no evil*. It provided a backdrop into which the terrorists could melt away and hide. That's the problem that the Muslim community in the West faces: how to ensure that they aren't tarred as collaborators or worse. But they need to be proactive and upfront and come out and combat the evil that lurks within.
To be silent is not enough.
Do you not think we are in a far better place with the Muslim community than we ever were with the IRA? IRA had the numbers to hold a lot of sway and enforce 'whatever you say, say nothing' with criminal activities, intimidation and threats within their community. Whatever problems there are within some Western Muslim communities, and there are problems, outright Islamist militants operate very much on the margins now, and anecdote suggests that reporting of suspicions from the community is a very substantial contribution to M15s successes to date.
The IRA and UDA were in cahoots carving out their criminal empires, drugs protection and petrol smuggling. They were more like mafias.
Time to move on this one? Or usual journalism tricks of drumming up something out of very little? My feeling is that Corbyn has gone too far this time. I'm on UKIP at 5.5
I was asking yesterday which states go in for winner-takes-all, and this gives a more than full answer. Clicking on "Next state" gives you a strong feeling for how the race will unfold. As they say, the most significant facts are:
* South Carolina, the third to vote, will be very important * Most of the early primaries are in the south, but NOT winner takes all * Most of the later primaries are in the north, and ARE winner takes all.
The implication is that we will see the most conservative candidates making the early running and potentially knocking out the moderates, but if a moderate survives they could achieve a striking late push.
Yes, this is absolutely key. The national opinion polls are measuring the wrong thing - the GOP contest won't be decided by a national plebiscite, either of voters as a whole or registered GOP supporters. Instead we need to try to estimate where and when delegates will be pledged to particular candidates, which is a complex question.
I'm writing a thread on that. Even more key is that the system as a whole is not proportional to the strength of the Republican Party. Moderate Republicans (in places like California & New York) have disproportionate voting power.
No they don't. It's probably less than one chance in ten that the voters in California will have a meaningful choice by the time they get to vote. Almost certainly by then, every candidate bar one will either have withdrawn or will be an irrelevance.
As ever, it's Republicans in the little state of New Hampshire who have the disproportionate power, no matter how few delegates they directly pick.
Oh, that too, of course. Which is by design. But amongst the Super Tuesday and other March states the blue states wield disproportionate influence.
And California stills wields that influence: like you say it might only be 1 in 10 that it is meaningful, but if it is meaningful then it has maybe 20x the power.
Three people have been arrested near Aachen in Germany in connection with the Paris terror attacks, according to German news agency dpa, according to Press Association.
How many Parisien style massacres do you think mainland Europeans will tolerate in exchange for a continued open border policy within the Schengen area? Let's just imagine that France spent tens of billions of Euros on building a fence between it and Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, Switzerland, Monaco and Belgium. Then imagine manning that fence, with the required guard towers.
A few border checkpoints infuriate the innocent but do nothing to prevent the criminal, because there are always buildings and fields that abut the border.
Western Europe, outside the UK, has never made serious attempts to enforce border controls in the last 50 years because the costs would be absolutely enormous, and would do little prevent the criminal or the evil from evading them.
Let's not forget: during the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, with a much smaller border, we never successfully sealed off the border with the Republic. IRA terrorists could pretty much move at will between the countries.
Land borders - unless you want to clear a 200 meter area either side of a fence - are inherently porous.
I know perfectly well that borders are porous and physically unsecurable, but checks at crossing points would have an effect at containing some criminal activities.
How many Paris style attacks do you think would be accepted before mainland Europeans expect more controls?
“there is a problem with some of the Muslim community in this country… We have a fifth column that we have welcomed in…”
I'm not a particularly avid Farage follower, but that strikes me as a rather significant hardening of the UKIP line.
And on the other hand we have May saying this latest attack by Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam....
I guess all the nutters that blew themselves up, did so in the name of Comic Relief or something*. May needs to listen to Sajid Javid or Maajid Nawaz.
* Although one of the mothers actually said this (and again it feeds into Farage's comments) that her son didn't mean to blow himself up, he must have got a bit stressed. Which bit of walking around shooting 100's of innocent people, while wearing a suicide vest, does she think might be a bit of a clue to his intentions?
I would never say that the PIRA was anything to do with Catholicism. They used Catholicism, and took advantage of the unjust treatment of Catholics by Ulster Protestants. But what they did didn't further any of the aims of Catholicism.
Similarly, Daesh represents a warped interpretation of Islam: it is drawn from it's own tradition and not from the Islamic mainstream (or even mainstream Sunnism). *If* you accept this, then it is reasonable to argue that it is not Islam that is the problem, but militant Wahhabism
I don't see the need for the distinction. Most people are happy to admit it is not mainstream islamic opinion that is being used as a basis for these nutjobs, that is distinction enough, as millions of people do think they are properly in accordance with the tenets of Islam. Saying it is 'nothing to do' with Islam makes the point about it not being mainstream or reflective of the wider religion to too high a degree, ignoringthe accepted, if warped, thinking of millions of people, and so pretending the issue is something other than it is. If, instead, people make the point about Wahhabism specifically, rather than stock comments about 'nothing to do' with Islam, that strikes a more reasonable balance, making clear the specific thinking that is the problem, while not blaming the mainstream religion, but neither denying that the adherents and their many supporters are, in their own view, a part of that religion.
What I believe to be important now is for the world to act as one - we already have three of the five permanent members of the Security Council involved militarily in Syria - Britain has now to be part of that UN/global effort and I would welcome Chinese involvement as well though I appreciate the logistical issues.
A UN resolution authorising military action against IS would seem to be in order but backed up by a concerted effort to achieve a political settlement in Syria (as well as Libya) as well as creating a better government in Iraq. That such a settlement process has to involve Russia, Iran and Turkey cannot be denied but a stable Syria helps them as much if not more than it helps us.
snip
It really isn't what the world needs. Syria has a foreign backed insurgency. We're saying the only solution is for those same foreign powers to march in with their size 12 boots and defeat their own insurgency. Surely a more basic solution would be to withdraw support for that insurgency. I also reiterate my previous old chestnuts: -Where are ISIS being funded from? How is this being allowed? -Who are they selling their oil to? -Who is treating their injured? -Where are they training? -How are they getting fresh recruits? -Where are they getting their arms and equipment from? These questions aren't being asked, because the answers are things we don't want to hear.
1. Funded by $400m from the Bank of Mosul, slavery, the sale of oil on the black market and the sale of cultural artifacts
2. Sale of oil to the black market. Unfortunately there are very evil people in the world and they don't all wave black flags
3. Injured being treated in the field / in their camps
4. In their camps
5. Press gangs, Arab militants, naive idiots from the West
6. A lot of it is captured
But I guess, if you want, you can answer "the CIA" to all of the questions instead
I doubt it is that high. They will have very limited pipeline export. And here on in, their trucking operations are going to be a prime target for getting blasted off the roads.
They are a defacto country they sell oil internally and levy taxes internally. The fighting power is low intensity so whilst bombing their infrastructure will degrade them I'm not sure how it will affect the front line. Targeting police stations and their govt buildings and frankly killing their supporters as well as leaders might in the end ferment a revolution within the ISIS 'country' itself. I am afraid these is how wars end. Bloody attrition.
Benn looks well placed, but surely he can't wield the knife and then win. Anyone resigning from Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet will be persona non grata with the membership/registered supporters.
No they don't. It's probably less than one chance in ten that the voters in California will have a meaningful choice by the time they get to vote. Almost certainly by then, every candidate bar one will either have withdrawn or will be an irrelevance.
I think that may not be the case this time. If Trump is in the lead, there will be a very strong push to keep at least one of the sane candidates in the race.
That may be true but even if they do, you can only keep coming second so many times. Also, who counts as sane. I'm not convinced that Cruz does, yet he could end up the best performing politico in early February.
Presumably it is whoever Mr Nabavi decides is. Personally I think a good starting point would be whomever is not standing on a platform of starting WW3, so Donald Trump and Rand Paul seem to be the only two, on either side. That and his position on immigration is what all the frothing at the mouth is about. Wishful thinking never makes for good analysis.
Another point to consider is how well Trump's policies on immigration and trade play in the rust belt, where Romney lost it last time. Those polls showing Trump beating Hilary in Pennsylvania are significant. I really can't see any other winner than Trump, especially if the US economy continues to slow.
The manner in which Trump is being dismissed is vaguely reminiscent to me of the way Reagan was dismissed in the late 70s.
Reagan was sneered at by pundits on this side of the Atlantic; the key difference between Reagan and Trump is that Reagan had decades of political experience as a union leader and then as state governor.
Yes, you make the important point. Ronnie was not anywhere near as crass as Trump indeed he was not crass at all. Trump is just promoting himself in this campaign, raising his profile to his own profit. He makes money and lots of it by selling his name. The networks are giving him free publicity. If he were nominated I doubt he would be able to raise anything like enough money to effectively campaign.
F1: interesting that Rosberg's had five consecutive poles and two consecutive wins. Theories for this form vary. Some reckon the slight increase in tyre pressure has harmed Hamilton. Others that Rosberg and Hamilton have both relaxed, which helps the former and hinders the latter. There's also the suggestion Rosberg's angry and fired up after the 'gust of wind' in the US (not sure I buy that, as he'd had a pole or two before it, I think).
Ladbrokes does have a 2016 title market up. At the moment, the most tempting is Kvyat at 101, though I'd probably want confirmation of the engine beforehand. Not a tip, I hasten to add, just something I have in mind [for now, at least].
Reasoning is thus: He's beating Ricciardo by 10 points, 94 to 84. No Mercedes-powered car is likely to beat Mercedes. Honda is unlikely to close the gap in a single season. Hamilton and Vettel are the two likeliest adversaries for the 2016 title. But if a challenge came from elsewhere, Red Bull is the likeliest alternative.
Ricciardo is 51. There's no justification that I can see for him being shorter odds than Kvyat. The numbers are based on name recognition, not ability.
It would be better if we all call them Daesh and drop the ISIS ISIL names. Let us all use the name that moderate muslims prefer to call them which is Daesh.
An early vote on Syria, with multitudes of Labour MPs defying the leader to support the Government, leading to direct UK military intervention may just give Corbyn a platform for a principled resignation (as opposed to an inevitable "not good enough booting out"), becoming in effect a martyr for the extreme principled hard left in the Party and revered by hardcore lefties for decades to come - the question for him may be whether he has been able to do enough in 3 months as leader to ensure the Labour Party as a whole has become irrevocably left-wing and dominated by lefties to ensure that a very much left wing successor takes over and maintains Labour on a not dissimilar course to what he has put it on.
On the other hand, he looks a hard-nosed bugger and detached from reality in every respect.
I don't in any event see why Corbyn should have any influence on whether the UK acts in its national interest and intervenes in the war on IS. Cameron leads a majority government. He needs to look at his own troops if he doesn't think he can secure what he believes is the right thing to do.
To comprehend how bad Corbyn has been as leader is to picture the Hindenburg meets Chernobyl meets England's rugby team at the World Cup meets the Battle of Zama meets Tron 2.
Mr. Pulpstar, does make one wonder where the money's going. Admittedly, a fair slice will be going on Brown's deranged carrier contracts, but even so...
SkyNet is unique....
Do you think that the authors of the Terminator franchise were aware of the UK military programme when they made the films?
Other way round.
That's what I thought, but wiki reliably informs me that the first Skynet satellite was launched in the 1960s
An early vote on Syria, with multitudes of Labour MPs defying the leader to support the Government, leading to direct UK military intervention may just give Corbyn a platform for a principled resignation (as opposed to an inevitable "not good enough booting out"), becoming in effect a martyr for the extreme principled hard left in the Party and revered by hardcore lefties for decades to come - the question for him may be whether he has been able to do enough in 3 months as leader to ensure the Labour Party as a whole has become irrevocably left-wing and dominated by lefties to ensure that a very much left wing successor takes over and maintains Labour on a not dissimilar course to what he has put it on.
On the other hand, he looks a hard-nosed bugger and detached from reality in every respect.
I don't in any event see why Corbyn should have any influence on whether the UK acts in its national interest and intervenes in the war on IS. Cameron leads a majority government. He needs to look at his own troops if he doesn't think he can secure what he believes is the right thing to do.
To comprehend how bad Corbyn has been as leader is to picture the Hindenburg meets Chernobyl meets England's rugby team at the World Cup meets the Battle of Zama meets Tron 2.
No they don't. It's probably less than one chance in ten that the voters in California will have a meaningful choice by the time they get to vote. Almost certainly by then, every candidate bar one will either have withdrawn or will be an irrelevance.
I think that may not be the case this time. If Trump is in the lead, there will be a very strong push to keep at least one of the sane candidates in the race.
That may be true but even if they do, you can only keep coming second so many times. Also, who counts as sane. I'm not convinced that Cruz does, yet he could end up the best performing politico in early February.
Presumably it is whoever Mr Nabavi decides is.
I'm flattered that you think I'm so influential, but I have to admit that my influence on the GOP is precisely zero.
I don't in any event see why Corbyn should have any influence on whether the UK acts in its national interest and intervenes in the war on IS. Cameron leads a majority government. He needs to look at his own troops if he doesn't think he can secure what he believes is the right thing to do.
If the country is going to go to war (as in, boots on the ground) then it would be helpful (and indeed usual) to have majority support for that from across the political spectrum. Obviously not as far across as Corbyn.
“there is a problem with some of the Muslim community in this country… We have a fifth column that we have welcomed in…”
I'm not a particularly avid Farage follower, but that strikes me as a rather significant hardening of the UKIP line.
And on the other hand we have May saying this latest attack by Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam....
blockquote>
I would never say that the PIRA was anything to do with Catholicism. They used Catholicism, and took advantage of the unjust treatment of Catholics by Ulster Protestants. But what they did didn't further any of the aims of Catholicism.
Similarly, Daesh represents a warped interpretation of Islam: it is drawn from it's own tradition and not from the Islamic mainstream (or even mainstream Sunnism). *If* you accept this, then it is reasonable to argue that it is not Islam that is the problem, but militant Wahhabism
I don't see the need for the distinction. Most people are happy to admit it is not mainstream islamic opinion that is being used as a basis for these nutjobs, that is distinction enough, as millions of people do think they are properly in accordance with the tenets of Islam. Saying it is 'nothing to do' with Islam makes the point about it not being mainstream or reflective of the wider religion to too high a degree, ignoringthe accepted, if warped, thinking of millions of people, and so pretending the issue is something other than it is. If, instead, people make the point about Wahhabism specifically, rather than stock comments about 'nothing to do' with Islam, that strikes a more reasonable balance, making clear the specific thinking that is the problem, while not blaming the mainstream religion, but neither denying that the adherents and their many supporters are, in their own view, a part of that religion.
I don't think comparisons between PIRA and IS are helpful.
The aims of PIRA were political, to force the inhabitants of Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic. We can infer that the position of Protestants in a PIRA-led Irish Republic would have been pretty unpleasant, but PIRA weren't interested in forcing them to convert to Catholicism.
IS has political aims, but those political aims are to created a purely Muslim State, eventually encompassing all of the world that was part of the Caliphate.
An early vote on Syria, with multitudes of Labour MPs defying the leader to support the Government, leading to direct UK military intervention may just give Corbyn a platform for a principled resignation (as opposed to an inevitable "not good enough booting out"), becoming in effect a martyr for the extreme principled hard left in the Party and revered by hardcore lefties for decades to come - the question for him may be whether he has been able to do enough in 3 months as leader to ensure the Labour Party as a whole has become irrevocably left-wing and dominated by lefties to ensure that a very much left wing successor takes over and maintains Labour on a not dissimilar course to what he has put it on.
On the other hand, he looks a hard-nosed bugger and detached from reality in every respect.
I don't in any event see why Corbyn should have any influence on whether the UK acts in its national interest and intervenes in the war on IS. Cameron leads a majority government. He needs to look at his own troops if he doesn't think he can secure what he believes is the right thing to do.
Which way are DUP on this? Do we know?
Would probably vote for it if enough pork is barreled out...
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 2m2 minutes ago Events of last couple of days aren't the end of Corbyn. But I think they mark the end of the "we need to try and make this work" dillusion.
To comprehend how bad Corbyn has been as leader is to picture the Hindenburg meets Chernobyl meets England's rugby team at the World Cup meets the Battle of Zama meets Tron 2.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 2m2 minutes ago Events of last couple of days aren't the end of Corbyn. But I think they mark the end of the "we need to try and make this work" dillusion.
Waiting for a leadership challenge will be like Waiting for Godot. Shall we go then?
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 2m2 minutes ago Big move for UKIP to win Oldham West byelection. Odds halved from 8/1 to 4/1 in last 24 hrs
Corbyn's remarks are probably the main factor in the change.
Well, people are going to lose money on that one I suspect. Lots of things people think should impact an election rarely seem to.
It's what Corbyn's remarks betray which is important. Namely, incompetence. That has a long term effect. I'm doubting he will have much direct influence, but the split, divided nature of labour might.
If UKIP win in Oldham West it will get them back on the agenda, something they have singularly failed to do since the election and Nigel's "resignation" farce.
Good luck to them I say, and if I lived up there as a Tory voter, I would definitely be looking to vote UKIP to keep Labour out. Even if that meant Labour dumping Corbyn sooner rather than later. He is an extravagance that the nation cannot afford. A pacifist leader at a time of war. Any other Labour leader would be asking about defence tomorrow and why the government have cut defence spending so much in the last 6 years when the threat of terrorism and radical Islam has only increased in that time. Corbyn can't and the government get away with slashing our defence budget at the worst possible time.
Defence is the one area where we do need to say "fuck the deficit".
I honestly believed that Jezza would eventually row back on his barmy no definite shoot to kill if as Laura said the "the worst comes to the worst".
Jezza is mad, he's bad at politics but when you get dangerous to know, something has to give. Can you imagine him, being asked the question "If IS were beheading UK citizens on the street, would you just send in a PCSO with an ASBO?"
But, as has been said earlier, the damage is done. Even Tottenham supporter, in their hearts of hearts, realise that their team is shite.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 2m2 minutes ago Events of last couple of days aren't the end of Corbyn. But I think they mark the end of the "we need to try and make this work" dillusion.
Waiting for a leadership challenge will be like Waiting for Godot. Shall we go then?
“I can't go on like this." "That's what you think.”
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 2m2 minutes ago Events of last couple of days aren't the end of Corbyn. But I think they mark the end of the "we need to try and make this work" dillusion.
'Saying it is 'nothing to do' with Islam makes the point about it not being mainstream...'
But what is 'mainstream' Islam? surely such a thing does not really exist.
Is the Iranian variant 'mainstream'? Pretty keen on violence. Or the Saudi version? Or the Egyptian?
Unfortunately 'Islam' has a history of being taken over by factions arguing for a more fundamentalist, aggressive and expansionist approach (eg Almohads vs. Almoravids). We are in just such a period again now.
An early vote on Syria, with multitudes of Labour MPs defying the leader to support the Government, leading to direct UK military intervention may just give Corbyn a platform for a principled resignation (as opposed to an inevitable "not good enough booting out"), becoming in effect a martyr for the extreme principled hard left in the Party and revered by hardcore lefties for decades to come - the question for him may be whether he has been able to do enough in 3 months as leader to ensure the Labour Party as a whole has become irrevocably left-wing and dominated by lefties to ensure that a very much left wing successor takes over and maintains Labour on a not dissimilar course to what he has put it on.
On the other hand, he looks a hard-nosed bugger and detached from reality in every respect.
I don't in any event see why Corbyn should have any influence on whether the UK acts in its national interest and intervenes in the war on IS. Cameron leads a majority government. He needs to look at his own troops if he doesn't think he can secure what he believes is the right thing to do.
An interesting scenario, Bob - but I don't see Corbyn going at least until he has rigged the deck against the Parliamentary Labour Party.
You are forgetting the boundary changes and your numbers are still short and the fact that in no circumstances will the PLP attempt to form a government reliant on the SNP, they loathe them even more than the Tories at the moment.' I am not forgetting the boundary changes - it's just far from clear that they will go through. Re- the SNP Labour would certainly not enter a deal with them but dare them to bring down a minority Labour Govt
I know perfectly well that borders are porous and physically unsecurable, but checks at crossing points would have an effect at containing some criminal activities.
How many Paris style attacks do you think would be accepted before mainland Europeans expect more controls?
Are we talking about effectiveness or perception here? Nobody really seems to be making a plausible effectiveness argument despite lots of people trying. On perception, governments will certainly want to appear to be doing something decisive, but most people don't live on borders so you'd think you could make more impressive security theatre by paying large, armed, uniformed men to stand on boxes in railways stations and things like that.
Oh, that is ludicrous. Only hours ago he was plainly and clearly against force. Now he's suddenly for it. This just gets better and better.
This is not quite it is it. A few hours ago he could not bring himself to be unequivocal in public. To the NEC he possibly will be, no doubt reading from the piece of paper put in front of him. Politically Corbyn is a pigmy. A dimwitted pigmy. His leanings towards appeasement are clear and were exposed in his interviews. This I think is the point. His lack of understanding when asked the questions simply exposes his blinkered outlook
Comments
Exactly right. But our leaders pretending that Islamic terrorism has 'nothing to do with Islam' or is supported by a miniscule minority of muslims won't help - it just helps to support the current inertia and denial we are seeing.
Big move for UKIP to win Oldham West byelection. Odds halved from 8/1 to 4/1 in last 24 hrs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(satellite)
Maybe niether of you should not visit the south of France again...?
:clowns-to-the-left-of-me-jokers-to-the-right:
EDITOR NOTE: The above comment was in sympathy of LG83 and his point-of-view. Please do not take offence..., yet...!
http://frontloading.blogspot.co.uk/
A few border checkpoints infuriate the innocent but do nothing to prevent the criminal, because there are always buildings and fields that abut the border.
Western Europe, outside the UK, has never made serious attempts to enforce border controls in the last 50 years because the costs would be absolutely enormous, and would do little prevent the criminal or the evil from evading them.
Let's not forget: during the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, with a much smaller border, we never successfully sealed off the border with the Republic. IRA terrorists could pretty much move at will between the countries.
Land borders - unless you want to clear a 200 meter area either side of a fence - are inherently porous.
Lab 1/7
UKIP 4/1
Con 66/1
LD 150/1
Greens 150/1
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/8378499/Oldham-West-and-Royton-By-Election.html
@BBCNormanS: "We do not prpotect the British people by sitting back and wishing things were different" - PM
And California stills wields that influence: like you say it might only be 1 in 10 that it is meaningful, but if it is meaningful then it has maybe 20x the power.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/666353867718836228
Could get very bitter. Tory tactics may be to make Labour wear Corbyn before its too late.
That implies UKIP ~3.75
How many Paris style attacks do you think would be accepted before mainland Europeans expect more controls?
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/8168349/Next-Labour-Leader-After-Jeremy-Corbyn.html
@bbclaurak: I understand there's meeting at MOD to go through the potential numbers for a vote on airstrikes - briefings planned for 1st week December
I would be careful with RCP they seem to miss out polls, like the NC one showing Trump in the mid 30s and trouncing Hilary in the nationals, Huffington Post's poll average should be far more accurate.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary
Another point to consider is how well Trump's policies on immigration and trade play in the rust belt, where Romney lost it last time. Those polls showing Trump beating Hilary in Pennsylvania are significant. I really can't see any other winner than Trump, especially if the US economy continues to slow.
Trump is just promoting himself in this campaign, raising his profile to his own profit. He makes money and lots of it by selling his name. The networks are giving him free publicity. If he were nominated I doubt he would be able to raise anything like enough money to effectively campaign.
@paulwaugh: .@HuffPostUK EXCLUSIVE: Jeremy Corbyn WILL authorise lethal force in Paris style terror incidents, if he becomes PM: http://huff.to/1Mz6uvo
Ladbrokes does have a 2016 title market up. At the moment, the most tempting is Kvyat at 101, though I'd probably want confirmation of the engine beforehand. Not a tip, I hasten to add, just something I have in mind [for now, at least].
Reasoning is thus:
He's beating Ricciardo by 10 points, 94 to 84.
No Mercedes-powered car is likely to beat Mercedes.
Honda is unlikely to close the gap in a single season.
Hamilton and Vettel are the two likeliest adversaries for the 2016 title.
But if a challenge came from elsewhere, Red Bull is the likeliest alternative.
Ricciardo is 51. There's no justification that I can see for him being shorter odds than Kvyat. The numbers are based on name recognition, not ability.
Allowed !
I am sure my twitter feed will now be filled with his apostles stating how this U-turn is the correct decision.
Groucho Marx
Wait a minute...
Arj Singh @singharj 49s50 seconds ago
MPs just started chatting rather than listen to the last couple of mins of Corbyn
On the other hand, he looks a hard-nosed bugger and detached from reality in every respect.
I don't in any event see why Corbyn should have any influence on whether the UK acts in its national interest and intervenes in the war on IS. Cameron leads a majority government. He needs to look at his own troops if he doesn't think he can secure what he believes is the right thing to do.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/uk-politics/Oldham-West-&-Royton-By-election-9685543.html?dclid=CP3qq_TBl8kCFWt-2wodhx8Nkg&leg=stamp~|bet_origin~CUSTOM_SPORTSBOOK_1|selections~0|stake~0.00&button=loginandplacebet&bs_add_leg_to_slip=1&AFF_ID=20760&area=widget
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 2m2 minutes ago
Events of last couple of days aren't the end of Corbyn. But I think they mark the end of the "we need to try and make this work" dillusion.
Good luck to them I say, and if I lived up there as a Tory voter, I would definitely be looking to vote UKIP to keep Labour out. Even if that meant Labour dumping Corbyn sooner rather than later. He is an extravagance that the nation cannot afford. A pacifist leader at a time of war. Any other Labour leader would be asking about defence tomorrow and why the government have cut defence spending so much in the last 6 years when the threat of terrorism and radical Islam has only increased in that time. Corbyn can't and the government get away with slashing our defence budget at the worst possible time.
Defence is the one area where we do need to say "fuck the deficit".
Labour in chaos last night as Corbyn questions 'shoot to kill' policy. 30 year old poster but still up to date. https://t.co/0IrPL9wlJV
Jezza is mad, he's bad at politics but when you get dangerous to know, something has to give. Can you imagine him, being asked the question "If IS were beheading UK citizens on the street, would you just send in a PCSO with an ASBO?"
But, as has been said earlier, the damage is done. Even Tottenham supporter, in their hearts of hearts, realise that their team is shite.
From 132/2 to 138/5
"That's what you think.”
But what is 'mainstream' Islam? surely such a thing does not really exist.
Is the Iranian variant 'mainstream'? Pretty keen on violence. Or the Saudi version? Or the Egyptian?
Unfortunately 'Islam' has a history of being taken over by factions arguing for a more fundamentalist, aggressive and expansionist approach (eg Almohads vs. Almoravids). We are in just such a period again now.
You are forgetting the boundary changes and your numbers are still short and the fact that in no circumstances will the PLP attempt to form a government reliant on the SNP, they loathe them even more than the Tories at the moment.'
I am not forgetting the boundary changes - it's just far from clear that they will go through. Re- the SNP Labour would certainly not enter a deal with them but dare them to bring down a minority Labour Govt
A few hours ago he could not bring himself to be unequivocal in public. To the NEC he possibly will be, no doubt reading from the piece of paper put in front of him. Politically Corbyn is a pigmy. A dimwitted pigmy. His leanings towards appeasement are clear and were exposed in his interviews. This I think is the point. His lack of understanding when asked the questions simply exposes his blinkered outlook
We come in peace. Shoot to kill.
We come in peace. Shoot to kill.
We come in peace. Shoot to kill.