Dave must believe he has the FULL support of his party on the Syria vote.
I think now that he has dropped the idea to remove Assad from power as one of the stated aims of the intervention there will be a lot less internal opposition within the government.
Yes supporting a tyrant and war criminal who is willing to gas his own people is a really good idea.
Dave must believe he has the FULL support of his party on the Syria vote.
I think now that he has dropped the idea to remove Assad from power as one of the stated aims of the intervention there will be a lot less internal opposition within the government.
Yes supporting a tyrant and war criminal who is willing to gas his own people is a really good idea.
Again, we are well into the stage now where it's time to choose which evil is less despicable (which is clearly Assad in this case). There is no saintly option on offer.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
Type 45s and 23s do not have much of a record outside delivering tactical missiles which could have been delivered by an effective strategic missile system at the time they were used**. They certainly have no MILITARY role in any conceivable application to which the UK would require them.
But none of these are effective at defending the maritime border of the UK - the only proven effective method of providing this function is Offshore Patrol Vessels.
As I said previously, the Scottish Government expectation was to run 8 such ships to adequately defend Scottish waters. The Royal Navy currently runs THREE in British waters. Three. That is not adequate and not effective and why there is a wide open door to the UK.
**And yes, a strategic delivery vehicle is much more expensive but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a tactical vehicle and a Type 45 Destroyer.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
There will always be holes but having at least a reasonable *deterrent* would make some sort of difference as to the current situation where there is no deterrence at all. To be effective, you have to combine OPVs with maritime patrol aircraft of which the Royal Navy has none (the Scottish Government has two, although quite small and limited). This makes a big difference in knowing where to place your ships and what you want to intercept.
BTW, OPVs, by their nature, tend to function on a 2 out of 3 operational rather than the big ships 1 out of 2 operational.
Mr. Jessop, Assad's regime has done monstrous things, but, sadly, there doesn't seem to be a good guy to root for. The FSA, if it still exists, is not in with a shot of winning.
Co-operating with Russia and Assad to take down ISIS appears the least worst credible option.
Russia says it has carried out a powerful assault on Islamic State positions in Syria, in an escalation of its air campaign.
Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu confirmed French and American reports that Moscow had used long-range bombers and cruise missiles. He said the aircraft had fired missiles at militant positions in Raqqa, the Islamic State group's stronghold, and Deir al-Zour in eastern Syria, while bombers had targeted the north.
Earlier, President Putin warned of "imminent vengeance" against IS, following confirmation that the Russian airline crash in Egypt last month was caused by a bomb.
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
Type 45s and 23s do not have much of a record outside delivering tactical missiles which could have been delivered by an effective strategic missile system at the time they were used**. They certainly have no MILITARY role in any conceivable application to which the UK would require them.
But none of these are effective at defending the maritime border of the UK - the only proven effective method of providing this function is Offshore Patrol Vessels.
As I said previously, the Scottish Government expectation was to run 8 such ships to adequately defend Scottish waters. The Royal Navy currently runs THREE in British waters. Three. That is not adequate and not effective and why there is a wide open door to the UK.
**And yes, a strategic delivery vehicle is much more expensive but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a tactical vehicle and a Type 45 Destroyer.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
Maybe not all our waters, but a fleet of littoral gunboats deployed between Norfolk and Portsmouth would do wonders. Both in actual interceptions, and as a deterrent.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
We've never been able to police all of our waters. It's an impossible task. Local eyes and ears, noticing strangers onshore and at sea was a traditional method.
At least having some capability (compared to the current situation of virtually none) would provide some element of risk and chance of getting caught to the smugglers.
At the moment, our maritime border is a wide open door with an "everybody welcome" sign above the frame.
Mr. Jessop, Assad's regime has done monstrous things, but, sadly, there doesn't seem to be a good guy to root for. The FSA, if it still exists, is not in with a shot of winning.
Co-operating with Russia and Assad to take down ISIS appears the least worst credible option.
It's akin to sorting out your own life jacket before putting on someone elses.
ISIS is the immediate threat to us. Assad can be dealt with later.
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
Type 45s and 23s do not have much of a record outside delivering tactical missiles which could have been delivered by an effective strategic missile system at the time they were used**. They certainly have no MILITARY role in any conceivable application to which the UK would require them.
But none of these are effective at defending the maritime border of the UK - the only proven effective method of providing this function is Offshore Patrol Vessels.
As I said previously, the Scottish Government expectation was to run 8 such ships to adequately defend Scottish waters. The Royal Navy currently runs THREE in British waters. Three. That is not adequate and not effective and why there is a wide open door to the UK.
**And yes, a strategic delivery vehicle is much more expensive but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a tactical vehicle and a Type 45 Destroyer.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
We've never been able to police all of our waters. It's an impossible task. Local eyes and ears, noticing strangers onshore and at sea was a traditional method.
Correct. Dair's notions about 'protecting our waters' is laughable. Our national defence is through NATO anyway and our principle need would be anti submarine ships. Out threats are from terrorists not formed armies. Our greater and wider strategic aim should be the sustaining and spreading of democracy - the training of overseas armies. And with that the creation of wealth and education.
I wonder if ISIS are going to regret poking Putin. Until they blew up the Russian holiday makers, Putin seemed more interested in lighting up the other rambles that are fighting Assad.
For some reason, something went wrong and the site won't stay open for me. Works via Vanilla, though [hence this post], in case anyone has something similar.
I wonder if ISIS are going to regret poking Putin. Until they blew up the Russian holiday makers, Putin seemed more interested in lighting up the other rambles that are fighting Assad.
They sure know how to lose friends and alienate people. The attack in Beirut will ensure Iranian/Lebanese eyes are on IS, not Israel or the west for the moment.
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
Type 45s and 23s do not have much of a record outside delivering tactical missiles which could have been delivered by an effective strategic missile system at the time they were used**. They certainly have no MILITARY role in any conceivable application to which the UK would require them.
But none of these are effective at defending the maritime border of the UK - the only proven effective method of providing this function is Offshore Patrol Vessels.
As I said previously, the Scottish Government expectation was to run 8 such ships to adequately defend Scottish waters. The Royal Navy currently runs THREE in British waters. Three. That is not adequate and not effective and why there is a wide open door to the UK.
**And yes, a strategic delivery vehicle is much more expensive but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a tactical vehicle and a Type 45 Destroyer.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
Maybe not all our waters, but a fleet of littoral gunboats deployed between Norfolk and Portsmouth would do wonders. Both in actual interceptions, and as a deterrent.
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
Type 45s and 23s do not have much of a record outside delivering tactical missiles which could have been delivered by an effective strategic missile system at the time they were used**. They certainly have no MILITARY role in any conceivable application to which the UK would require them.
But none of these are effective at defending the maritime border of the UK - the only proven effective method of providing this function is Offshore Patrol Vessels.
As I said previously, the Scottish Government expectation was to run 8 such ships to adequately defend Scottish waters. The Royal Navy currently runs THREE in British waters. Three. That is not adequate and not effective and why there is a wide open door to the UK.
**And yes, a strategic delivery vehicle is much more expensive but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a tactical vehicle and a Type 45 Destroyer.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
Maybe not all our waters, but a fleet of littoral gunboats deployed between Norfolk and Portsmouth would do wonders. Both in actual interceptions, and as a deterrent.
Cheap as chips, too. Well, relatively.
Deterring what?
Is the idea to stop and search every single ship, yacht, cabin cruiser, dinghy and pedalo off the South Coast? Or just troll about looking handy, without really achieving much.
I wonder if ISIS are going to regret poking Putin. Until they blew up the Russian holiday makers, Putin seemed more interested in lighting up the other rambles that are fighting Assad.
They sure know how to lose friends and alienate people. The attack in Beirut will ensure Iranian/Lebanese eyes are on IS, not Israel or the west for the moment.
All they need to do now is attack China and they will have the full set of Top Trumps on their backs. And one thing is for certain the Russian and Chinese don't worry about anybodies 'uman rights and making sure they get a fair trial ala Hug a Jahadi Jez.
It is quite an achievement to make Iran/Lebanon so pissed that the Isareali's aren't enemy number 1.
Dave must believe he has the FULL support of his party on the Syria vote.
I think now that he has dropped the idea to remove Assad from power as one of the stated aims of the intervention there will be a lot less internal opposition within the government.
Yes supporting a tyrant and war criminal who is willing to gas his own people is a really good idea.
I sympathise with what you say, I really do. But the political calculation is that it's better that Russia keeps Assad in his box, torturing his own people, if that removes or severely diminishes the physical and economic threat posed by IS. If Russia gives assurances about controlling troublesome elements along Syria's border with Israel, I can see the US getting more enthusiastic, too.
Correct. Dair's notions about 'protecting our waters' is laughable. Our national defence is through NATO anyway and our principle need would be anti submarine ships. Out threats are from terrorists not formed armies. Our greater and wider strategic aim should be the sustaining and spreading of democracy - the training of overseas armies. And with that the creation of wealth and education.
That "spreading democracy" lark, how's that been going then?
David Miliband will not be Labour leader. Firstly he isn't in parliament, and that's quite a step to overcome. Secondly, he is associated with his failed brother. Thirdly, he is known within Labour and outside as a bottler - not what Labour need at the moment. Fourthly, he has been outside parliament for too long. He will not have been meeting and greeting potential supporters.
I fail to see a problem to which the answer is 'David Milliband'
Correct. Dair's notions about 'protecting our waters' is laughable. Our national defence is through NATO anyway and our principle need would be anti submarine ships. Out threats are from terrorists not formed armies. Our greater and wider strategic aim should be the sustaining and spreading of democracy - the training of overseas armies. And with that the creation of wealth and education.
That "spreading democracy" lark, how's that been going then?
Ask the people of Myanmar - they seem to be enjoying the move towards a more democratic way of life.
Might have nothing to do with any Navy - but it is possible to find examples of positive developments in parts of the world where many may have thought there was no hope.
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
Maybe not all our waters, but a fleet of littoral gunboats deployed between Norfolk and Portsmouth would do wonders. Both in actual interceptions, and as a deterrent.
Cheap as chips, too. Well, relatively.
Deterring what?
Is the idea to stop and search every single ship, yacht, cabin cruiser, dinghy and pedalo off the South Coast? Or just troll about looking handy, without really achieving much.
It's not tricky to envisage some sort of 'white list' of craft that don't get stopped. Effectively it's London's 'stop and search' but on the water.
I'd imagine the sort of boat used to transport refugees or import other contraband is a subset of total traffic too. Dinghies and pedalos are not much use in channel crossings, for example...
David Miliband will not be Labour leader. Firstly he isn't in parliament, and that's quite a step to overcome. Secondly, he is associated with his failed brother. Thirdly, he is known within Labour and outside as a bottler - not what Labour need at the moment. Fourthly, he has been outside parliament for too long. He will not have been meeting and greeting potential supporters.
I fail to see a problem to which the answer is 'David Milliband'
I fail to see a problem to which the answer is 'David Milliband'
O/T possibly the best legal story of the day, just look at the official documents!
Two dogs called Goldie and Diamond have had a claim made on their behalf struck out by the High Court in a legal battle between their owner, banking giant HSBC and national law firm Shoosmiths.
Sabrina Moosun, who had her home in South Bucks possessed by HSBC in 2011, named her dogs as parties to a claim that was filed on 21 September 2015.
In litigation stretching back to 2009, she alleges that HSBC and its solicitors, Shoosmiths, had breached the right to respect for private and family life enjoyed by her, her two young children and her, er, dogs.
Correct. Dair's notions about 'protecting our waters' is laughable. Our national defence is through NATO anyway and our principle need would be anti submarine ships. Out threats are from terrorists not formed armies. Our greater and wider strategic aim should be the sustaining and spreading of democracy - the training of overseas armies. And with that the creation of wealth and education.
That "spreading democracy" lark, how's that been going then?
Ask the people of Myanmar - they seem to be enjoying the move towards a more democratic way of life.
Might have nothing to do with any Navy - but it is possible to find examples of positive developments in parts of the world where many may have thought there was no hope.
That;s the Myanmar with a Rwanda style genocide brewing up?
Or is there another Myanmar where a Nobel peace prize winner isn't about to oversee a genocide she has tacitly supported?
Dave must believe he has the FULL support of his party on the Syria vote.
I think now that he has dropped the idea to remove Assad from power as one of the stated aims of the intervention there will be a lot less internal opposition within the government.
Yes supporting a tyrant and war criminal who is willing to gas his own people is a really good idea.
Around the time of the GE, I commented on PB.com about rumours then circulating that Barry Sheerman, MP for Huddersfield since 1979 and now aged 75, was prepared to stand down prior to the next general Election so as to be able to hand over the reins of his safe Labour West Yorkshire seat to David Miliband. It was pointed out at the time that Sheerman's daughter, Madlin Sadler, ran DM's leadership campaign in 2010, ultimately won by his brother, and that she subsequently worked as a senior member of his team in New York at the International Rescue Committee. Barry Sheerman has subsequently denied such rumours as being "silly rumours" and there has to be considerable doubt under the Corbyn regime, whether he would have the required clout, even after so many years as an MP in the same seat, effectively to select his successor. One thing's for sure, in the "Next Labour Leader" betting market, Ladbrokes are offering stand-out odds of 16/1. The nearest to these odds are Hills' 10/1, whilst a number of others including Paddy Power, Stan James, etc are offering only 7/1, i.e. less than half Laddies' price. For my money, this has to be worth a crisp fiver to pay £80 should DM take over from Corbyn. His two principal problems appear to be firstly that he is Ed Miliband's brother and secondly that currently he looks way too far to the right of the party for its members to make such an enormous leap of faith from from the path currently being pursued. DYOR.
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
Type 45s and 23s do not have much of a record outside delivering tactical missiles which could have been delivered by an effective strategic missile system at the time they were used**. They certainly have no MILITARY role in any conceivable application to which the UK would require them.
But none of these are effective at defending the maritime border of the UK - the only proven effective method of providing this function is Offshore Patrol Vessels.
As I said previously, the Scottish Government expectation was to run 8 such ships to adequately defend Scottish waters. The Royal Navy currently runs THREE in British waters. Three. That is not adequate and not effective and why there is a wide open door to the UK.
**And yes, a strategic delivery vehicle is much more expensive but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a tactical vehicle and a Type 45 Destroyer.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
We've never been able to police all of our waters. It's an impossible task. Local eyes and ears, noticing strangers onshore and at sea was a traditional method.
Correct. Dair's notions about 'protecting our waters' is laughable. Our national defence is through NATO anyway and our principle need would be anti submarine ships. Out threats are from terrorists not formed armies. Our greater and wider strategic aim should be the sustaining and spreading of democracy - the training of overseas armies. And with that the creation of wealth and education.
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
Maybe not all our waters, but a fleet of littoral gunboats deployed between Norfolk and Portsmouth would do wonders. Both in actual interceptions, and as a deterrent.
Cheap as chips, too. Well, relatively.
Deterring what?
Is the idea to stop and search every single ship, yacht, cabin cruiser, dinghy and pedalo off the South Coast? Or just troll about looking handy, without really achieving much.
It's not tricky to envisage some sort of 'white list' of craft that don't get stopped. Effectively it's London's 'stop and search' but on the water.
I'd imagine the sort of boat used to transport refugees or import other contraband is a subset of total traffic too. Dinghies and pedalos are not much use in channel crossings, for example...
There's plenty of ways to detect the potential transgressors, probably the easiest one is seeing boats with a particularly low draft. Motor cruisers don't tend to sit low in the water unless heavily laden which they would probably never be.
And arrays may not be quite of the level you see on the telly (X-ray heat signatures don't exist) but they are certainly quite advanced these days. I'm sure the experts have plenty of ways of spotting them.
ISIS certainly know how to lose friends and create enemies.
Then you have to remember the people in that list and their predictive powers for example
Matthew Goodwin, in March: Ukip already has four seats 'in the bag', says leading expert Matthew Goodwin http://bit.ly/1H6zmOY
I'd like to say that the comments below the article look to another time but the mix of pro-Russian astroturfers and UKIP enthusaists is strangely familiar.
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
Maybe not all our waters, but a fleet of littoral gunboats deployed between Norfolk and Portsmouth would do wonders. Both in actual interceptions, and as a deterrent.
Cheap as chips, too. Well, relatively.
Deterring what?
Is the idea to stop and search every single ship, yacht, cabin cruiser, dinghy and pedalo off the South Coast? Or just troll about looking handy, without really achieving much.
It's not tricky to envisage some sort of 'white list' of craft that don't get stopped. Effectively it's London's 'stop and search' but on the water.
I'd imagine the sort of boat used to transport refugees or import other contraband is a subset of total traffic too. Dinghies and pedalos are not much use in channel crossings, for example...
There's plenty of ways to detect the potential transgressors, probably the easiest one is seeing boats with a particularly low draft. Motor cruisers don't tend to sit low in the water unless heavily laden which they would probably never be.
And arrays may not be quite of the level you see on the telly (X-ray heat signatures don't exist) but they are certainly quite advanced these days. I'm sure the experts have plenty of ways of spotting them.
Well, exactly. Wailing "it's too haaaard" it pathetically defeatist.
Dave must believe he has the FULL support of his party on the Syria vote.
I think now that he has dropped the idea to remove Assad from power as one of the stated aims of the intervention there will be a lot less internal opposition within the government.
Yes supporting a tyrant and war criminal who is willing to gas his own people is a really good idea.
I sympathise with what you say, I really do. But the political calculation is that it's better that Russia keeps Assad in his box, torturing his own people, if that removes or severely diminishes the physical and economic threat posed by IS. If Russia gives assurances about controlling troublesome elements along Syria's border with Israel, I can see the US getting more enthusiastic, too.
I'd agree, except:
ISIS is multinational - there's Iraq, Yemen and other places as well. The answer to ISIS only lies partly in Syria. 'Defeating' ISIS in Syria is only a small part of the problem, not the solution some on here seem to think.
There is also the concept that we should not allow leaders to use chemical weapons, especially against their own populations. One thing the left got right in the 1980s was that the west were wrong for turning a blind eye to Saddam's use of such weapons against his own populations, and during the Iran-Iraq war. Looking back, our support for him was a hideous mistake that has partly led to this mess. Leaving aside any other issues, Assad should go for that alone. It'd make us all safer in the long term - after all, what's to stop countries developing more chemical weapons now? The conventions are becoming toothless.
Can we trust Assad? Can we trust Russia? Can we trust the two of them together? What is our end-game? How do we stop the conflict spreading if we do take part? What about the Kurds?
How do you expect Assad to defeat ISIS? As Yokel says, Assad does not have enough troops to do it, just as the US and coalition didn't have enough in Iraq, where ISIS formed. Who will Assad turn to, and what will those partners want?
If you're willing to accept all of the above, then fair enough. If the country is willing to accept it, fair enough. But we should only accept it knowing the massive risks and moral problems of allying ourselves to someone who, in my mind, isn't much better than al Nusra or ISIS.
It's short-term minor gain for severe medium- and long-term risk.
There's plenty of ways to detect the potential transgressors, probably the easiest one is seeing boats with a particularly low draft. Motor cruisers don't tend to sit low in the water unless heavily laden which they would probably never be.
And arrays may not be quite of the level you see on the telly (X-ray heat signatures don't exist) but they are certainly quite advanced these days. I'm sure the experts have plenty of ways of spotting them.
Well, exactly. Wailing "it's too haaaard" it pathetically defeatist.
It's not tricky to envisage some sort of 'white list' of craft that don't get stopped. Effectively it's London's 'stop and search' but on the water.
I'd imagine the sort of boat used to transport refugees or import other contraband is a subset of total traffic too. Dinghies and pedalos are not much use in channel crossings, for example...
Dinghies and pedalos may not be much use in crossing the channel, but do you have any idea of the number of vessels in South Coast Marinas that are capable of making the trip? There are thousands of them.
In any case before taking this argument any further, is there any evidence that Dair has actually identified a real problem? He may be flogging a Scots Nat version of maritime defence, which is fair enough, but is there actually any evidence that people smuggling into the UK is being carried out in any significant scale by owners of small craft?
I have to say I also laughed out loud at Dair's declaration that the T26 is an unproven concept. That he could suggest that the idea that frigates are unproven (and the T26 will only be the latest, incremental improvement in a long, long history of the ship type) suggests that he is talking out of his bottom. As does his claim about the role of the T45 destroyer.
Dave must believe he has the FULL support of his party on the Syria vote.
I think now that he has dropped the idea to remove Assad from power as one of the stated aims of the intervention there will be a lot less internal opposition within the government.
Yes supporting a tyrant and war criminal who is willing to gas his own people is a really good idea.
It is just the same policy we have always followed.
Indeed. We turned a blind eye to Saddam's evil in the mid-80s because he was fighting our new enemy, Iran. It's fairly easy to make a connection between the Iran - Iraq war and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the first gulf war. That led to the second gulf war.
If we hadn't supported Saddam in the mid-80s, much of this mess might have been avoided.
Now, I'm not saying that Iran is ISIS - they're in no way comparable, even back then. But supporting someone we know is doing evil because he is fighting our enemy is a dangerous and rocky road to travel down.
Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian naval and other military assets in Syria to ally with French navy ships deployed to the eastern mediterranean.
During a live broadcast of a meeting with top military chiefs in a command centre at the ministry of defence in Moscow, Mr Putin ordered generals to "treat the French as allies."
Possibly relevant anecdote: I contacted David (who I know slightly - I was in his 2010 leadership campaign) in an unrelated connection (refugees) in June, and suggested meeting for a drink next time he was in London to talk about that and Labour issues after the election. He responded amiably and promptly but said he wasn't planning to be in Britain for ages. That may have been just a polite phrasing for "Why would I want to spend time with an ex-backbencher?", but he sounded genuinely uninterested in discussing UK politics: the rest of his email was about a refugee crisis in Africa. I think he's got stuck into his new job and isn't looking back.
By Elections have always been special cases. The big thing is to convince the electorate that you are the only realistic challenger AND could beat the incumbent. If UKIP can do that they may pull off a win. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records
Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian naval and other military assets in Syria to ally with French navy ships deployed to the eastern mediterranean.
During a live broadcast of a meeting with top military chiefs in a command centre at the ministry of defence in Moscow, Mr Putin ordered generals to "treat the French as allies."
They currently have an untold number of Islamist fighters within their borders. Of course they Germans are going to walk on eggshells. They need time to take down all those "REFUGEES ARE WELCOME" signs.
Around 100 refugees have arrived in Glasgow after a six-hour flight from Beirut with the Polish charter airline Enter Air, writes Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent.
They arrived in torrential rain at around 3.31pm and will be met by a "welcome team" from five Scottish councils that will provide homes for them, including Edinburgh, Glasgow and North Ayrshire, but their arrival was deliberately low key.
ISIS is multinational - there's Iraq, Yemen and other places as well. The answer to ISIS only lies partly in Syria. 'Defeating' ISIS in Syria is only a small part of the problem, not the solution some on here seem to think.
There is also the concept that we should not allow leaders to use chemical weapons, especially against their own populations. One thing the left got right in the 1980s was that the west were wrong for turning a blind eye to Saddam's use of such weapons against his own populations, and during the Iran-Iraq war. Looking back, our support for him was a hideous mistake that has partly led to this mess. Leaving aside any other issues, Assad should go for that alone. It'd make us all safer in the long term - after all, what's to stop countries developing more chemical weapons now? The conventions are becoming toothless.
Can we trust Assad? Can we trust Russia? Can we trust the two of them together? What is our end-game? How do we stop the conflict spreading if we do take part? What about the Kurds?
How do you expect Assad to defeat ISIS? As Yokel says, Assad does not have enough troops to do it, just as the US and coalition didn't have enough in Iraq, where ISIS formed. Who will Assad turn to, and what will those partners want?
If you're willing to accept all of the above, then fair enough. If the country is willing to accept it, fair enough. But we should only accept it knowing the massive risks and moral problems of allying ourselves to someone who, in my mind, isn't much better than al Nusra or ISIS.
It's short-term minor gain for severe medium- and long-term risk.
Thanks for the thought-provoking response. Obviously I don't have easy answers to all the questions you pose. If there was an easy answer, it would probably already be being implemented.
My responses to some of the points: - I don't expect Assad to defeat ISIS. I do expect a measure of control to reasserted by Assad regaining some power and Russia providing a clunking fist. France would now happily bomb the shit out of IS controlled Syria too. - With Syria back in the tent, it becomes tenable to push IS back through it's whole territory. Iraq would be delighted, and Russia's influence over Iran would allow operations there too. - Trusting Russia: I think Russia are rather keen to be seen as a responsible member of the global community, especially after their behaviour in Ukraine. France would exert a lot of pressure to remove EU sanctions if Putin helps deal with IS. - Isn't much better than IS? Come off it. Damascus was one of the most liberal cities in the Middle East. He's still a bastard of the first order, but your comparison seems a little ridiculous to me. - Yemen is a whole other problem. But they don't have much oil, so choking the money flow should be easier.
The word "Miliband" will forever conjure up images of geekiness, giant headstones and grimacing bacon butty eating. Any good reputation of the family brand was sunk forever by the era of Ed.
The time has passed, and David of course had his chance and blew it - indeed, twice.
For some reason, something went wrong and the site won't stay open for me. Works via Vanilla, though [hence this post], in case anyone has something similar.
Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian naval and other military assets in Syria to ally with French navy ships deployed to the eastern mediterranean.
During a live broadcast of a meeting with top military chiefs in a command centre at the ministry of defence in Moscow, Mr Putin ordered generals to "treat the French as allies."
Mr. Felix, no, it's working again now. The message did indicate it was some sort of memory issue, so perhaps it was something wrong at my end, or an especially obnoxious advert.
For my money, this has to be worth a crisp fiver to pay £80 should DM take over from Corbyn.
His two principal problems appear to be firstly that he is Ed Miliband's brother and secondly that currently he looks way too far to the right of the party for its members to make such an enormous leap of faith from from the path currently being pursued. DYOR.
His other principal problem was that he was peculiarly bad as Foreign Secretary, his stint at real power in Govt. And the term "extraordinary rendition" sticks around like a fart in a space-suit...
It should be noted, however, that the raw data shows substantive change which our newly strengthened adjustment process disguises. Based on (pre-adjusted) turnout weighted data, the parties are neck and neck, which the manual adjustment converts into a 6-point Conservative lead.
This is due to unusual combination of three factors. Firstly, the sample recalls voting in a Labour government for the fourth time out of six occasions since the last election (which is frustrating, but not the unusual part) but secondly, the level of partial refusal (respondents who told us what they did in 2015 but don’t know/refuse to tell us what they would do next time) this month has cut into the Conservative share significantly. In previous polls subsequent to the General Election, partial refusers have been fairly evenly balanced between the two parties.
Thirdly, the Conservatives are rounded up from 38.5% to 39%, and Labour rounded down from 34.4% to 34%.
In short, the adjustment has offset potential sampling imbalance and has worked to correct data outcomes in exactly the way we intended them to in light of the General Election polling miss.
This is due to unusual combination of three factors. Firstly, the sample recalls voting in a Labour government for the fourth time out of six occasions since the last election (which is frustrating, but not the unusual part) but secondly, the level of partial refusal (respondents who told us what they did in 2015 but don’t know/refuse to tell us what they would do next time) this month has cut into the Conservative share significantly.
Interesting.... seems some fundamental issues with polling may still remain.
Thanks for the thought-provoking response. Obviously I don't have easy answers to all the questions you pose. If there was an easy answer, it would probably already be being implemented.
My responses to some of the points: - I don't expect Assad to defeat ISIS. I do expect a measure of control to reasserted by Assad regaining some power and Russia providing a clunking fist. France would now happily bomb the shit out of IS controlled Syria too. - With Syria back in the tent, it becomes tenable to push IS back through it's whole territory. Iraq would be delighted, and Russia's influence over Iran would allow operations there too. - Trusting Russia: I think Russia are rather keen to be seen as a responsible member of the global community, especially after their behaviour in Ukraine. France would exert a lot of pressure to remove EU sanctions if Putin helps deal with IS. - Isn't much better than IS? Come off it. Damascus was one of the most liberal cities in the Middle East. He's still a bastard of the first order, but your comparison seems a little ridiculous to me. - Yemen is a whole other problem. But they don't have much oil, so choking the money flow should be easier.
Thanks for your reply. I don't agree with some of it, but it's probably best to let the disagreements pass.
One comment: Russia don't have the expeditionary manpower to defeat ISIS either. It'd have to involve Iran and other countries as well, probably including us.
And another: whatever happens, it would not be 'all of' Syria. It's very unlikely that the Kurds will accept going back to the status quo as it was pre-2011. You'll be looking at the very least at an Iraq-style semi-autonomous region in the north, and probably a separate state. The oil issue will be a big one, as will Turkish acceptance of that.
And a question: how do you see us supporting Assad leading to ISIS's defeat? I'm on record as saying that ISIS will be very hard to defeat because of their very nature. What are our aims, and how do 'we' go about achieving them (and who is 'we') ?
This is due to unusual combination of three factors. Firstly, the sample recalls voting in a Labour government for the fourth time out of six occasions since the last election (which is frustrating, but not the unusual part) but secondly, the level of partial refusal (respondents who told us what they did in 2015 but don’t know/refuse to tell us what they would do next time) this month has cut into the Conservative share significantly.
Interesting.... seems some fundamental issues with polling may still remain.
Is that polite speak for polling companies are still making it up as, it would seem, they did before the last GE?
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
Type 45s and 23s do not have much of a record outside delivering tactical missiles which could have been delivered by an effective strategic missile system at the time they were used**. They certainly have no MILITARY role in any conceivable application to which the UK would require them.
But none of these are effective at defending the maritime border of the UK - the only proven effective method of providing this function is Offshore Patrol Vessels.
As I said previously, the Scottish Government expectation was to run 8 such ships to adequately defend Scottish waters. The Royal Navy currently runs THREE in British waters. Three. That is not adequate and not effective and why there is a wide open door to the UK.
**And yes, a strategic delivery vehicle is much more expensive but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a tactical vehicle and a Type 45 Destroyer.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
We've never been able to police all of our waters. It's an impossible task. Local eyes and ears, noticing strangers onshore and at sea was a traditional method.
As a kid, I loved all the smugglers stories about Cornwall or the Cinque Ports
This is due to unusual combination of three factors. Firstly, the sample recalls voting in a Labour government for the fourth time out of six occasions since the last election (which is frustrating, but not the unusual part) but secondly, the level of partial refusal (respondents who told us what they did in 2015 but don’t know/refuse to tell us what they would do next time) this month has cut into the Conservative share significantly.
Interesting.... seems some fundamental issues with polling may still remain.
Is that polite speak for polling companies are still making it up as, it would seem, they did before the last GE?
I think it's possible there are some limitations which the polling companies are unable to work around.
A any poll is not the same as a general election which relies on people actively voting as opposed to being prompted. You can model for that all you like, but I think it's always going to be flawed to a certain degree.
Around 100 refugees have arrived in Glasgow after a six-hour flight from Beirut with the Polish charter airline Enter Air, writes Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent.
They arrived in torrential rain at around 3.31pm and will be met by a "welcome team" from five Scottish councils that will provide homes for them, including Edinburgh, Glasgow and North Ayrshire, but their arrival was deliberately low key.
Around 100 refugees have arrived in Glasgow after a six-hour flight from Beirut with the Polish charter airline Enter Air, writes Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent.
They arrived in torrential rain at around 3.31pm and will be met by a "welcome team" from five Scottish councils that will provide homes for them, including Edinburgh, Glasgow and North Ayrshire, but their arrival was deliberately low key.
Around 100 refugees have arrived in Glasgow after a six-hour flight from Beirut with the Polish charter airline Enter Air, writes Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent.
They arrived in torrential rain at around 3.31pm and will be met by a "welcome team" from five Scottish councils that will provide homes for them, including Edinburgh, Glasgow and North Ayrshire, but their arrival was deliberately low key.
Firstly, try having a sufficient and appropriate Navy to defend the United Kingdom instead of one designed to sail off half way round the globe to inflict terror attacks on the local population.
So get rid of all the big, effective stuff and have a fleet of 300 patrol vessels? What could possibly go wrong.
In any Global role in which the UK has been involved in the last 30 years, the most effective ships we have are HMS Bulwark and Albion.
Type 45s and 23s do not have much of a record outside delivering tactical missiles which could have been delivered by an effective strategic missile system at the time they were used**. They certainly have no MILITARY role in any conceivable application to which the UK would require them.
But none of these are effective at defending the maritime border of the UK - the only proven effective method of providing this function is Offshore Patrol Vessels.
As I said previously, the Scottish Government expectation was to run 8 such ships to adequately defend Scottish waters. The Royal Navy currently runs THREE in British waters. Three. That is not adequate and not effective and why there is a wide open door to the UK.
**And yes, a strategic delivery vehicle is much more expensive but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a tactical vehicle and a Type 45 Destroyer.
8 Offshore Patrol Vessels to defend Scottish Waters... umm.. that is, at most 4 operating in the waters at any one time. Protecting the coastline of Scotland - and all the waters around the Islands...
Quite frankly that is going to achieve nothing in terms of effective protection.
I agree than 3 such vessels for all British waters is even less effective - but I can't see any such plan really working unless we are talking about 100 OPVs - and even then, it would still be very easy to evade their attentions.
We are an island nation - we cannot police all of our waters. We have to look at other solutions.
We've never been able to police all of our waters. It's an impossible task. Local eyes and ears, noticing strangers onshore and at sea was a traditional method.
As a kid, I loved all the smugglers stories about Cornwall or the Cinque Ports
Thanks to them, we have the South West Coast Path. Many (most?) off the paths it runs along were made so that the coastguard could walk the cliffs and look down into the various coves and inlets.
I don't know if the same's true for the superlative Pembrokeshire Path though.
Labour are already a laughing-stock, although the joke is looking rather sick. How desperate would they look if they attempt bring back another Miliband?
History repeats itself. First as tragedy then as farce.
May the Farce be with you!
(Anecdata - amongst my birthday prezzies at the weekend, I got not one but TWO tickets to see Star Wars over Christmas! Consecutive screenings!)
I have a 12 year old desperate to go - any idea of the certificate it will be given?
One of my older son's tells me it could be 15???
I doubt it will be a 15 - Revenge of the Sith (2005) was a 12A.
Amusing Anecdata: My mum took me to see the original Star Wars when I was only two!!! Naturally, we had to leave the cinema when I got scared shitless
Around 100 refugees have arrived in Glasgow after a six-hour flight from Beirut with the Polish charter airline Enter Air, writes Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent.
They arrived in torrential rain at around 3.31pm and will be met by a "welcome team" from five Scottish councils that will provide homes for them, including Edinburgh, Glasgow and North Ayrshire, but their arrival was deliberately low key.
Latest ICM phone poll for Guardian has CON 39 LAB 33 LD 7 UKIP 12
But basically ICM are admitting they have not got a clue
No, all ICM are showing is nothing much has changed since May. We are barely six months into a sixty month electoral cycle - for all that everyone on here follows every twitch of the political thread, the truth is the opinion-shifting events have yet to happen.
They may not but there's plenty of time for "something".
Although the feminists might be rejoicing that decision, was just inevitable when everybody has the internet everywhere they go and we all know what the #1 thing on the internet is.
Labour are already a laughing-stock, although the joke is looking rather sick. How desperate would they look if they attempt bring back another Miliband?
History repeats itself. First as tragedy then as farce.
May the Farce be with you!
(Anecdata - amongst my birthday prezzies at the weekend, I got not one but TWO tickets to see Star Wars over Christmas! Consecutive screenings!)
I have a 12 year old desperate to go - any idea of the certificate it will be given?
One of my older son's tells me it could be 15???
I doubt it will be a 15 - Revenge of the Sith (2005) was a 12A.
Amusing Anecdata: My mum took me to see the original Star Wars when I was only two!!! Naturally, we had to leave the cinema when I got scared shitless
Given the caveats that ICM themselves have put on the compilation of that poll, I'm not going to be paying much attention to it.
No, they put caveats on the raw data (which showed the two parties neck-and-neck). They finish their article by claiming that the new turnout adjustments they made to the raw data has given an accurate picture (though whether they're right on that is another matter).
Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian naval and other military assets in Syria to ally with French navy ships deployed to the eastern mediterranean.
During a live broadcast of a meeting with top military chiefs in a command centre at the ministry of defence in Moscow, Mr Putin ordered generals to "treat the French as allies."
They currently have an untold number of Islamist fighters within their borders. Of course they Germans are going to walk on eggshells. They need time to take down all those "REFUGEES ARE WELCOME" signs.
France have one or two within their borders and they are not dicking around.
Comments
It won't come back and bite us, no sirree.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/assad-s-atrocities-laid-bare-at-the-un
BTW, OPVs, by their nature, tend to function on a 2 out of 3 operational rather than the big ships 1 out of 2 operational.
Co-operating with Russia and Assad to take down ISIS appears the least worst credible option.
Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu confirmed French and American reports that Moscow had used long-range bombers and cruise missiles. He said the aircraft had fired missiles at militant positions in Raqqa, the Islamic State group's stronghold, and Deir al-Zour in eastern Syria, while bombers had targeted the north.
Earlier, President Putin warned of "imminent vengeance" against IS, following confirmation that the Russian airline crash in Egypt last month was caused by a bomb.
Cheap as chips, too. Well, relatively.
At the moment, our maritime border is a wide open door with an "everybody welcome" sign above the frame.
ISIS is the immediate threat to us. Assad can be dealt with later.
Out threats are from terrorists not formed armies. Our greater and wider strategic aim should be the sustaining and spreading of democracy - the training of overseas armies. And with that the creation of wealth and education.
@IanDunt: You can actually feel yourself losing brain cells when arguing with Kippers.
Matthew Goodwin, in March: Ukip already has four seats 'in the bag', says leading expert Matthew Goodwin http://bit.ly/1H6zmOY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard-class_fast_attack_craft
6 boats defending an absolutely tiny coast and EEZ compared to the UK.
The would be quite suitable for patrolling the English Channel. However, the RN has absolutely nothing even close to this type of ship.
Is the idea to stop and search every single ship, yacht, cabin cruiser, dinghy and pedalo off the South Coast? Or just troll about looking handy, without really achieving much.
It is quite an achievement to make Iran/Lebanon so pissed that the Isareali's aren't enemy number 1.
I suggest David Miliband comes back to Blighty, lives in Tooting and campaigns strongly for Sadiq Khan.
David Miliband will not be Labour leader. Firstly he isn't in parliament, and that's quite a step to overcome. Secondly, he is associated with his failed brother. Thirdly, he is known within Labour and outside as a bottler - not what Labour need at the moment. Fourthly, he has been outside parliament for too long. He will not have been meeting and greeting potential supporters.
I fail to see a problem to which the answer is 'David Milliband'
Might have nothing to do with any Navy - but it is possible to find examples of positive developments in parts of the world where many may have thought there was no hope.
I'd imagine the sort of boat used to transport refugees or import other contraband is a subset of total traffic too. Dinghies and pedalos are not much use in channel crossings, for example...
Would you like a banana?
Two dogs called Goldie and Diamond have had a claim made on their behalf struck out by the High Court in a legal battle between their owner, banking giant HSBC and national law firm Shoosmiths.
Sabrina Moosun, who had her home in South Bucks possessed by HSBC in 2011, named her dogs as parties to a claim that was filed on 21 September 2015.
In litigation stretching back to 2009, she alleges that HSBC and its solicitors, Shoosmiths, had breached the right to respect for private and family life enjoyed by her, her two young children and her, er, dogs.
http://bit.ly/1YePmCB
Or is there another Myanmar where a Nobel peace prize winner isn't about to oversee a genocide she has tacitly supported?
Barry Sheerman has subsequently denied such rumours as being "silly rumours" and there has to be considerable doubt under the Corbyn regime, whether he would have the required clout, even after so many years as an MP in the same seat, effectively to select his successor.
One thing's for sure, in the "Next Labour Leader" betting market, Ladbrokes are offering stand-out odds of 16/1. The nearest to these odds are Hills' 10/1, whilst a number of others including Paddy Power, Stan James, etc are offering only 7/1, i.e. less than half Laddies' price.
For my money, this has to be worth a crisp fiver to pay £80 should DM take over from Corbyn.
His two principal problems appear to be firstly that he is Ed Miliband's brother and secondly that currently he looks way too far to the right of the party for its members to make such an enormous leap of faith from from the path currently being pursued.
DYOR.
And arrays may not be quite of the level you see on the telly (X-ray heat signatures don't exist) but they are certainly quite advanced these days. I'm sure the experts have plenty of ways of spotting them.
http://labourlist.org/2014/09/the-top-100-ukip-leaning-labour-seats/
ISIS is multinational - there's Iraq, Yemen and other places as well. The answer to ISIS only lies partly in Syria. 'Defeating' ISIS in Syria is only a small part of the problem, not the solution some on here seem to think.
There is also the concept that we should not allow leaders to use chemical weapons, especially against their own populations. One thing the left got right in the 1980s was that the west were wrong for turning a blind eye to Saddam's use of such weapons against his own populations, and during the Iran-Iraq war. Looking back, our support for him was a hideous mistake that has partly led to this mess. Leaving aside any other issues, Assad should go for that alone. It'd make us all safer in the long term - after all, what's to stop countries developing more chemical weapons now? The conventions are becoming toothless.
Can we trust Assad? Can we trust Russia? Can we trust the two of them together? What is our end-game? How do we stop the conflict spreading if we do take part? What about the Kurds?
How do you expect Assad to defeat ISIS? As Yokel says, Assad does not have enough troops to do it, just as the US and coalition didn't have enough in Iraq, where ISIS formed. Who will Assad turn to, and what will those partners want?
If you're willing to accept all of the above, then fair enough. If the country is willing to accept it, fair enough. But we should only accept it knowing the massive risks and moral problems of allying ourselves to someone who, in my mind, isn't much better than al Nusra or ISIS.
It's short-term minor gain for severe medium- and long-term risk.
In any case before taking this argument any further, is there any evidence that Dair has actually identified a real problem? He may be flogging a Scots Nat version of maritime defence, which is fair enough, but is there actually any evidence that people smuggling into the UK is being carried out in any significant scale by owners of small craft?
I have to say I also laughed out loud at Dair's declaration that the T26 is an unproven concept. That he could suggest that the idea that frigates are unproven (and the T26 will only be the latest, incremental improvement in a long, long history of the ship type) suggests that he is talking out of his bottom. As does his claim about the role of the T45 destroyer.
If we hadn't supported Saddam in the mid-80s, much of this mess might have been avoided.
Now, I'm not saying that Iran is ISIS - they're in no way comparable, even back then. But supporting someone we know is doing evil because he is fighting our enemy is a dangerous and rocky road to travel down.
Hartlepool - No. 27 on the list
Heywood - No. 148
Dagenham - not on the list
Mansfield - No. 38
Grimsby - No. 13
In the top seat on the list (Rhondda), UKIP got 13% and 3rd place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records
They currently have an untold number of Islamist fighters within their borders. Of course they Germans are going to walk on eggshells. They need time to take down all those "REFUGEES ARE WELCOME" signs.
My responses to some of the points:
- I don't expect Assad to defeat ISIS. I do expect a measure of control to reasserted by Assad regaining some power and Russia providing a clunking fist. France would now happily bomb the shit out of IS controlled Syria too.
- With Syria back in the tent, it becomes tenable to push IS back through it's whole territory. Iraq would be delighted, and Russia's influence over Iran would allow operations there too.
- Trusting Russia: I think Russia are rather keen to be seen as a responsible member of the global community, especially after their behaviour in Ukraine. France would exert a lot of pressure to remove EU sanctions if Putin helps deal with IS.
- Isn't much better than IS? Come off it. Damascus was one of the most liberal cities in the Middle East. He's still a bastard of the first order, but your comparison seems a little ridiculous to me.
- Yemen is a whole other problem. But they don't have much oil, so choking the money flow should be easier.
The word "Miliband" will forever conjure up images of geekiness, giant headstones and grimacing bacon butty eating. Any good reputation of the family brand was sunk forever by the era of Ed.
The time has passed, and David of course had his chance and blew it - indeed, twice.
Turning nasty in Oldham
This is all getting a bit triple entente.
Latest ICM phone poll for Guardian has CON 39 LAB 33 LD 7 UKIP 12
Where have I heard that before?
Con 39 (+1) Lab 33 (-1) UKIP 12 (+1) LD 7 (nc) Greens 3 (nc) SNP 5 (nc) Others 1 (-2)
It should be noted, however, that the raw data shows substantive change which our newly strengthened adjustment process disguises. Based on (pre-adjusted) turnout weighted data, the parties are neck and neck, which the manual adjustment converts into a 6-point Conservative lead.
This is due to unusual combination of three factors. Firstly, the sample recalls voting in a Labour government for the fourth time out of six occasions since the last election (which is frustrating, but not the unusual part) but secondly, the level of partial refusal (respondents who told us what they did in 2015 but don’t know/refuse to tell us what they would do next time) this month has cut into the Conservative share significantly. In previous polls subsequent to the General Election, partial refusers have been fairly evenly balanced between the two parties.
Thirdly, the Conservatives are rounded up from 38.5% to 39%, and Labour rounded down from 34.4% to 34%.
In short, the adjustment has offset potential sampling imbalance and has worked to correct data outcomes in exactly the way we intended them to in light of the General Election polling miss.
https://t.co/YyOuAqCywe
One comment: Russia don't have the expeditionary manpower to defeat ISIS either. It'd have to involve Iran and other countries as well, probably including us.
And another: whatever happens, it would not be 'all of' Syria. It's very unlikely that the Kurds will accept going back to the status quo as it was pre-2011. You'll be looking at the very least at an Iraq-style semi-autonomous region in the north, and probably a separate state. The oil issue will be a big one, as will Turkish acceptance of that.
And a question: how do you see us supporting Assad leading to ISIS's defeat? I'm on record as saying that ISIS will be very hard to defeat because of their very nature. What are our aims, and how do 'we' go about achieving them (and who is 'we') ?
A any poll is not the same as a general election which relies on people actively voting as opposed to being prompted. You can model for that all you like, but I think it's always going to be flawed to a certain degree.
Given how underpopulated Scotland is its probably the best destination for all our Syrian refugees.
Wonder how long they'll stay there for?
Jeez. Imagine the worst that Syria has to offer, bred with MalcolmG.
I don't know if the same's true for the superlative Pembrokeshire Path though.
Tony Blair??
FHM has become the latest lads mag to cease publication after thirty years of circulation.
The closure of the print and digital platforms also coincides with fellow Bauer Media title ZOO.
http://bit.ly/1SW44vh
Amusing Anecdata: My mum took me to see the original Star Wars when I was only two!!! Naturally, we had to leave the cinema when I got scared shitless
Till the rain stops? ie ages and ages and.....
They may not but there's plenty of time for "something".
France have one or two within their borders and they are not dicking around.
If that's true then 3 and a half to one on UKIP in Oldham is pants.