England survive wobble and sudden wicked spin to win cricket with Butler even getting some runs, New Order tickets in pocket, ready to head off in to the gales to see them with a smile on my face.....
So as I'm heading for the door, the dog has just thrown up all over the lounge, triggering Mrs Scrap to as well - got to clean that all up before I'm allowed out!
the only one who would be guaranteed to better Cameron
Roger delivers MiliD the kiss of death...
Cooper all the way for me. I know politics is a matter of opinion but I think Cooper is the blindingly obvious choice. She's female, the Tories are weak on women voters. She's safe; she's clever; she's reasonable-sounding; she's experienced, and she's not tainted by being part of Corbyn's, erm, unusual (destined for utter destruction) leadership.
I think if Labour made her leader next week and she contested the 2020 GE, she'd make Labour at least the biggest party and would likely win a majority.
And I base that on no science whatsoever.
All fine save for the fact that whenever she opened her mouth during the Labour election campaign she sounded utterly vacuous. She has nothing to say.
It's all noise issuing from a face looking alternately "fake-concerned" or vinegary.
We have heard nothing in regards to who the security guard was at the Stade de France at ultimately saved 100s if not 1000s of lives. I fear that it might not be a happy ending.
As far as I know the whole zouheir thing was he was a security guard elsewhere in the stadium that spoke to the media about what he heard over the radio.
The "fake" part of the story stems from people's inability to read. I didn't think the claim that the suicide bomber was turned away was in doubt.
@MattChorley: Jeremy Corbyn is going to Wembley tonight. Maybe Joe Hart could explain to him how to avoid embarrassing own goals https://t.co/DJjC7YX5tZ
No word yet on whether the suspicious suitcase at football stadium in Hannover, Germany is false alarm, at least per @AP reporting — Tom McKay (@thetomzone) November 17, 2015
If Benn wants to be leader, he ought to resign and challenge Corbyn in about 9 minutes, just in time for the 6pm news.
Even IDS lasted two years there will be no move pre 2017
Labour will be finished by then. The heartland Labour vote is already deserting.
Labour is on 33% with ICM today, that is hardly finished even with the Tories also up. Labour is basically treading water but one or two dismal by elections and the knives will start to sharpen
Indeed. And if their vote holds up, confirming the current rating is not ephemereal or illuionary, then either Corbyn and co have calld it right or the floor of Labour support was already reached with Ed M, and it is high.
The Tories are on 39% though so their lead is exactly the same as May. Comres has had Labour down to 29% so still nothing for Corbyn to crow about. IDS actually averaged about 33 to 34% when he was ousted his poll ratings were not completely dire but it was coming third in the Brent East by election and the loss of support from Tory donors which did for him. The loss of union backing and a bad by election could be equally fatal for Corbyn
So the long and the short of it is that we need to look to the leftier parts of the party for the next leader. There are so many candidates from the centre and the right who are way too short we can find value all over the place.
Logic which leads inexorably to ... Diane Abbott!
[For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a betting tip!]
Presumably if McDonnell had tried again to get nominations he would not have got the sympathy ones that Corbyn did as he was too reviled even for the PLP. Corbyn was even then regarded as too stupid to be taken seriously. Big mistake by the PLP, they underestimated the £3 entryists and their well crafted campaign.
England survive wobble and sudden wicked spin to win cricket with Butler even getting some runs, New Order tickets in pocket, ready to head off in to the gales to see them with a smile on my face.....
So as I'm heading for the door, the dog has just thrown up all over the lounge, triggering Mrs Scrap to as well - got to clean that all up before I'm allowed out!
the only one who would be guaranteed to better Cameron
Roger delivers MiliD the kiss of death...
Cooper all the way for me. I know politics is a matter of opinion but I think Cooper is the blindingly obvious choice. She's female, the Tories are weak on women voters. She's safe; she's clever; she's reasonable-sounding; she's experienced, and she's not tainted by being part of Corbyn's, erm, unusual (destined for utter destruction) leadership.
I think if Labour made her leader next week and she contested the 2020 GE, she'd make Labour at least the biggest party and would likely win a majority.
And I base that on no science whatsoever.
All fine save for the fact that whenever she opened her mouth during the Labour election campaign she sounded utterly vacuous. She has nothing to say.
It's all noise issuing from a face looking alternately "fake-concerned" or vinegary.
I have never been a fan, but in the closing weeks she put in a better performance. Too little too late.
I think the fatal thing for the anti-Corbyn 3 was not voting against the welfare cuts. That played so badly to the selectorate, no matter how justified.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
I won't be backing David Miliband. That banana boat has sailed.
Much depends on the circumstances of the change of leader.
If Jeremy Corbyn steps down of his own accord, we can take it that he is content that he will be succeeded by someone sufficiently ideologically sound. So we need to look among the candidates of the firm left.
If Jeremy Corbyn steps down after being forced out, there is in all probability no practical way to force a coronation. Any candidate who can muster 35 MPs will force a vote and it is highly unlikely that a second candidate can be completely excluded*. There is no evidence that the electorate has moved to the right since Jeremy Corbyn got elected so we should look to the most left wing candidate who can muster 35 MPs. Views will vary on who that may be.
So the long and the short of it is that we need to look to the leftier parts of the party for the next leader. There are so many candidates from the centre and the right who are way too short we can find value all over the place.
*unless a leftish candidate acceptable to the firm left is chosen for the coronation and acceded to by the right of the party. This seems improbable.
The only plausible coronation candidate is Hilary Benn, his surname alone makes him leftwing royalty
the only one who would be guaranteed to better Cameron
Roger delivers MiliD the kiss of death...
Cooper all the way for me. I know politics is a matter of opinion but I think Cooper is the blindingly obvious choice. She's female, the Tories are weak on women voters. She's safe; she's clever; she's reasonable-sounding; she's experienced, and she's not tainted by being part of Corbyn's, erm, unusual (destined for utter destruction) leadership.
I think if Labour made her leader next week and she contested the 2020 GE, she'd make Labour at least the biggest party and would likely win a majority.
And I base that on no science whatsoever.
All fine save for the fact that whenever she opened her mouth during the Labour election campaign she sounded utterly vacuous. She has nothing to say.
It's all noise issuing from a face looking alternately "fake-concerned" or vinegary.
Yes, but utterly vacuous is still way better than Jeremy Corbyn.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
Do they have the ability to think this through? Lefty labour and the Anti War Coalition say we and France deserve what they get but Russia had a plane blown up and they'd opposed all the previous interventions. I'm not sure they are capable of working out anything sensible.
the only one who would be guaranteed to better Cameron
Roger delivers MiliD the kiss of death...
Cooper all the way for me. I know politics is a matter of opinion but I think Cooper is the blindingly obvious choice. She's female, the Tories are weak on women voters. She's safe; she's clever; she's reasonable-sounding; she's experienced, and she's not tainted by being part of Corbyn's, erm, unusual (destined for utter destruction) leadership.
I think if Labour made her leader next week and she contested the 2020 GE, she'd make Labour at least the biggest party and would likely win a majority.
And I base that on no science whatsoever.
Err... we are talking about Yvette Cooper here, aren't we? That ghastly, shouty woman, who tried to ram through the House Seller's Pack legislation? A serial trougher who ripped off the taxpayer for every penny she could get. Experienced in government she maybe but that only exposed her complete absence of empathy with ordinary voters and her total unsuitedness for high office. For goodness sake is she couldn't even persuade members of her own party what chance would she have with the voters who Labour needs to win over?
Yep, same Cooper - along with all the baggage above. I think she'd give Labour a far more pronounced chance of winning.
....
Having my cat as leader would give Labour a better chance of winning than Corbyn.
The free owl policy would have to go. Too much competition on the mousing front!
No word yet on whether the suspicious suitcase at football stadium in Hannover, Germany is false alarm, at least per @AP reporting — Tom McKay (@thetomzone) November 17, 2015
the only one who would be guaranteed to better Cameron
Roger delivers MiliD the kiss of death...
Cooper all the way for me. I know politics is a matter of opinion but I think Cooper is the blindingly obvious choice. She's female, the Tories are weak on women voters. She's safe; she's clever; she's reasonable-sounding; she's experienced, and she's not tainted by being part of Corbyn's, erm, unusual (destined for utter destruction) leadership.
I think if Labour made her leader next week and she contested the 2020 GE, she'd make Labour at least the biggest party and would likely win a majority.
And I base that on no science whatsoever.
All fine save for the fact that whenever she opened her mouth during the Labour election campaign she sounded utterly vacuous. She has nothing to say.
It's all noise issuing from a face looking alternately "fake-concerned" or vinegary.
Yes, but utterly vacuous is still way better than Jeremy Corbyn.
Labour members disagreed. Have they changed their minds?
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
If Benn wants to be leader, he ought to resign and challenge Corbyn in about 9 minutes, just in time for the 6pm news.
Even IDS lasted two years there will be no move pre 2017
Labour will be finished by then. The heartland Labour vote is already deserting.
Labour is on 33% with ICM today, that is hardly finished even with the Tories also up. Labour is basically treading water but one or two dismal by elections and the knives will start to sharpen
The chance of a by-election in a non-Labour safe seat is very low though, most Labour MP's came from the 1983-97 generation so they are the oldest group in parliament, that is why in the last parliament there were only by-elections in safe Labour seats with the occasional Tory or LD one, and those due to resignations not death.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Not sure if already posted but MPs today overturned the Lords amendment giving votes at 16 for local elections.
Easy Government win with large number of MPs absent - Govt won by 283 to 188.
Vote in the Lords tomorrow on votes at 16 for the EU referendum. Obviously Govt can overturn that in the Commons as well if they lose - but will be interesting to see if the whips have produced a very big turnout of Con Peers to try and kill the issue off straight away.
We'll have to see what the Lords now do about local elections - will they now accept no votes at 16 or will they challenge the Commons again?
the only one who would be guaranteed to better Cameron
Roger delivers MiliD the kiss of death...
Cooper all the way for me. I know politics is a matter of opinion but I think Cooper is the blindingly obvious choice. She's female, the Tories are weak on women voters. She's safe; she's clever; she's reasonable-sounding; she's experienced, and she's not tainted by being part of Corbyn's, erm, unusual (destined for utter destruction) leadership.
I think if Labour made her leader next week and she contested the 2020 GE, she'd make Labour at least the biggest party and would likely win a majority.
And I base that on no science whatsoever.
All fine save for the fact that whenever she opened her mouth during the Labour election campaign she sounded utterly vacuous. She has nothing to say.
It's all noise issuing from a face looking alternately "fake-concerned" or vinegary.
Yes, but utterly vacuous is still way better than Jeremy Corbyn.
Labour members disagreed. Have they changed their minds?
No.
There is the pressure from events, but I'm pleased that Corbyn is changing that absurd position of refusing self-defence that he initially stuck, at least he listens to people when necessary.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
I won't be backing David Miliband. That banana boat has sailed.
Much depends on the circumstances of the change of leader.
If Jeremy Corbyn steps down of his own accord, we can take it that he is content that he will be succeeded by someone sufficiently ideologically sound. So we need to look among the candidates of the firm left.
If Jeremy Corbyn steps down after being forced out, there is in all probability no practical way to force a coronation. Any candidate who can muster 35 MPs will force a vote and it is highly unlikely that a second candidate can be completely excluded*. There is no evidence that the electorate has moved to the right since Jeremy Corbyn got elected so we should look to the most left wing candidate who can muster 35 MPs. Views will vary on who that may be.
So the long and the short of it is that we need to look to the leftier parts of the party for the next leader. There are so many candidates from the centre and the right who are way too short we can find value all over the place.
*unless a leftish candidate acceptable to the firm left is chosen for the coronation and acceded to by the right of the party. This seems improbable.
The only plausible coronation candidate is Hilary Benn, his surname alone makes him leftwing royalty
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle. A West vs ISIS battle is what ISIS needs politically to excuse their existence among muslims.
If Benn wants to be leader, he ought to resign and challenge Corbyn in about 9 minutes, just in time for the 6pm news.
Even IDS lasted two years there will be no move pre 2017
Labour will be finished by then. The heartland Labour vote is already deserting.
Labour is on 33% with ICM today, that is hardly finished even with the Tories also up. Labour is basically treading water but one or two dismal by elections and the knives will start to sharpen
The chance of a by-election in a non-Labour safe seat is very low though, most Labour MP's came from the 1983-97 generation so they are the oldest group in parliament, that is why in the last parliament there were only by-elections in safe Labour seats with the occasional Tory or LD one, and those due to resignations not death.
Those seats are even more dangerous for Corbyn, if a Labour 'safe' seat falls to UKIP in a by election he is toast
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
If Benn wants to be leader, he ought to resign and challenge Corbyn in about 9 minutes, just in time for the 6pm news.
Even IDS lasted two years there will be no move pre 2017
Labour will be finished by then. The heartland Labour vote is already deserting.
Labour is on 33% with ICM today, that is hardly finished even with the Tories also up. Labour is basically treading water but one or two dismal by elections and the knives will start to sharpen
The chance of a by-election in a non-Labour safe seat is very low though, most Labour MP's came from the 1983-97 generation so they are the oldest group in parliament, that is why in the last parliament there were only by-elections in safe Labour seats with the occasional Tory or LD one, and those due to resignations not death.
Those seats are even more dangerous for Corbyn, if a Labour 'safe' seat falls to UKIP in a by election he is toast
But the chances of Labour losing a safe seat are very small. And this is not the 2013-2014 period where no one knew how UKIP would perform in individual seats.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
Obama really has been a waste of space. Even his speech after the Paris bombings came across as a rote repetition by a somewhat disengaged Professor having to repeat something that should be obvious. Was there no-one in the White House who could have taught him to say "Liberte Egalite Fraternite" properly?
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
Obama really has been a waste of space. Even his speech after the Paris bombings came across as a rote repetition by a somewhat disengaged Professor having to repeat something that should be obvious. Was there no-one in the White House who could have taught him to say "Liberte Egalite Fraternite" properly?
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
It's all political, what does ISIS need to excuse itself among muslims? To make this a battle vs the west and christians. How do you avoid that? Use the UN as cover.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
Obama really has been a waste of space. Even his speech after the Paris bombings came across as a rote repetition by a somewhat disengaged Professor having to repeat something that should be obvious. Was there no-one in the White House who could have taught him to say "Liberte Egalite Fraternite" properly?
His 'Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite' quote was excruciating. He is a lame duck President now
A second venue in Hanover - a music arena - has now been evacuated by police. The 14,000 TUI Arena was due to host a concert by the band The Söhne Mannheims.
Hanover police now say they received a "concrete threat" about a bomb, German news agency DPA reports, citing police chief Volker Kluwe.
There is remarkable little change with this pollster going back 4 polls to Oct.25th., only Trump goes up and down but the rest remain absolutely the same.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
It's all political, what does ISIS need to excuse itself among muslims? To make this a battle vs the west and christians. How do you avoid that? Use the UN as cover.
Russia is the big player now and do you really think that ISIS even thinks about excusing itself among Muslims. If the UN agree fine but for labour to try to hide behind that will be electoral folly in the extreme
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air c wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
It's all political, what does ISIS need to excuse itself among muslims? To make this a battle vs the west and christians. How do you avoid that? Use the UN as cover.
Russia is the big player now and do you really think that ISIS even thinks about excusing itself among Muslims. If the UN agree fine but for labour to try to hide behind that will be electoral folly in the extreme
Did you read the Christians vs ISIS bit? Extremist Islam politically feeds on everything that is a religious war vs christians or the west, and ISIS falls in that category.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
I certainly agree that President Obama has very limited respect for Britain: as the handing over of the serial numbers to Moscow shows.
The whole point of an independent deterrent was that an enemy of the U.K. might calculate that a direct attack on the UK, or its interests, wouldn't necessarily trigger a proportionate response from the USA in our defence, who might fear escalation and decline to retaliate on the basis that one of their own cities might then be targeted.
I don't know how fully independent Trident is - I know the warheads are, but the missiles probably aren't - but it's still the best option we have under the circumstances.
ICM poll: Page 3 Labour leads in the weighted figures. Page 4. Tories lead by 6%.
Yes. The 6% Tory lead is probably closer to the mark, since we can now see that there are many Labour-inclined voters who simply won't vote on the day no matter what. However, it's still inaccurate for David Herdson et al to be comparing polls now with same-stage polls from 2010, because on the 2010 methodology Labour would be tied with the Tories.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air c wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
It's all political, what does ISIS need to excuse itself among muslims? To make this a battle vs the west and christians. How do you avoid that? Use the UN as cover.
Russia is the big player now and do you really think that ISIS even thinks about excusing itself among Muslims. If the UN agree fine but for labour to try to hide behind that will be electoral folly in the extreme
Did you read the Christians vs ISIS bit?
Yes but most Countries are secular especially in Europe
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
Every PM writes a letter to a submarine commander of last resort giving authorisation or not for a nuclear strike, any failsafe mechanism would be unlikely as it would probably apply to US missiles too and even then it could fail
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
It's all political, what does ISIS need to excuse itself among muslims? To make this a battle vs the west and christians. How do you avoid that? Use the UN as cover.
Russia is the big player now and do you really think that ISIS even thinks about excusing itself among Muslims. If the UN agree fine but for labour to try to hide behind that will be electoral folly in the extreme
The hiding behind the need for a Security Council resolution has always been a massive copout by opponents of military action (the same was true with Iraq btw). For the simple reason that it ignores the fact that the UK is part of the Security Council and has a veto itself. If you're against the war, say so, and say that you would use the UK's veto. Security council members don't have the option of sitting on the fence, it goes with the territory.
Russia and France have agreed joint military action in Syria. France has asked all EU members for support and we simply have to join the air campaign. Russia, France, UK, and USA are 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN, only China remains, and this must give UN legitimacy. Furthermore we need to have an influence in the settlement and our absence would negate that legitimacy. Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems need to be very careful how they try to obstruct this as they could pay a big price if they get it wrong.
If there is a UN authorization then that crosses the major demand from Labour for it's support.
Do you count 4 of the 5 members of the permanent security council as authorisation and if not, and they are involved together, the rest is surely semantics isn't it
I count a UN resolution as authorization. With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under
Since when has the UN been relevant. They are useless and labour trying to hide behind the UN is unlikely to wash with the man/woman on the Clapham bus
The UN in this case is politically absolutely relevant, Tony Blair realized it in 2002 during the push to invade Iraq though he was too bending to american demands to stick to it.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east. Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
How can it be the West vs ISIS when Russia is now the major player. Indeed Obama has failed to lead the West on this and it is Putin and Russia who are going to be the King makers. Rather be with Russia and France than sitting scared on the sidelines.
Obama really has been a waste of space. Even his speech after the Paris bombings came across as a rote repetition by a somewhat disengaged Professor having to repeat something that should be obvious. Was there no-one in the White House who could have taught him to say "Liberte Egalite Fraternite" properly?
Although, to be honest, I haven't been bowled over by Cameron or May either. I had a Bernard Jenkin reaction: "is that it?"
Hollande's firmnesss and leadership has surprised me. Good.
If Benn wants to be leader, he ought to resign and challenge Corbyn in about 9 minutes, just in time for the 6pm news.
Even IDS lasted two years there will be no move pre 2017
Labour will be finished by then. The heartland Labour vote is already deserting.
Labour is on 33% with ICM today, that is hardly finished even with the Tories also up. Labour is basically treading water but one or two dismal by elections and the knives will start to sharpen
The chance of a by-election in a non-Labour safe seat is very low though, most Labour MP's came from the 1983-97 generation so they are the oldest group in parliament, that is why in the last parliament there were only by-elections in safe Labour seats with the occasional Tory or LD one, and those due to resignations not death.
Those seats are even more dangerous for Corbyn, if a Labour 'safe' seat falls to UKIP in a by election he is toast
But the chances of Labour losing a safe seat are very small. And this is not the 2013-2014 period where no one knew how UKIP would perform in individual seats.
UKIP slashed a Labour majority of almost 6,000 in Heywood and Middleton to 600 in a 2014 by-election, anything is possible, especially in the run-up to EU ref
ICM poll: Page 3 Labour leads in the weighted figures. Page 4. Tories lead by 6%.
Yes. The 6% Tory lead is probably closer to the mark, since we can now see that there are many Labour-inclined voters who simply won't vote on the day no matter what. However, it's still inaccurate for David Herdson et al to be comparing polls now with same-stage polls from 2010, because on the 2010 methodology Labour would be tied with the Tories.
Not one poll has Labour ahead, the range varies from a 13% Tory lead with Comres for the Independent downwards but the trend is clear, unweighted, unturnout adjusted polls pre May proved very wrong
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
I certainly agree that President Obama has very limited respect for Britain: as the handing over of the serial numbers to Moscow shows.
The whole point of an independent deterrent was that an enemy of the U.K. might calculate that a direct attack on the UK, or its interests, wouldn't necessarily trigger a proportionate response from the USA in our defence, who might fear escalation and decline to retaliate on the basis that one of their own cities might then be targeted.
I don't know how fully independent Trident is - I know the warheads are, but the missiles probably aren't - but it's still the best option we have under the circumstances.
But yet we're always being told that countries like Iran are on the point of threatening the world with their nuclear efforts, or countries like North Korea etc. These countries didn't have £45 billion to splash out at Lockheed Martin, but the world is still scared sh*tless of their nukes (or the prospect of them having them). Probably even MORE scared because they're an unknown quantity.
So can't we just keep nuclear warheads, and go cheap cheerful and home-made (relatively speaking)? Remember the USA spending millions on developing a space-pen, and the USSR cosmonauts using a pencil? Not even sure if that's an urban myth, but I don't think we can play that game any more.
Yes, hopeless - almost Carter-esque - in foreign policy, exactly as many of us feared he would be.
What does that make PB's Favourite Prime Minister Ever, then? He didn't even get air strikes past parliament.
That's going to change in the next few weeks
Of course it will, then he will begin to (at best) catch up to Obama's commitment, which is apparently wasteful and hopeless, so what does that make Cameron? Utterly abysmal? A terrified vacuum?
Yes, hopeless - almost Carter-esque - in foreign policy, exactly as many of us feared he would be.
What does that make PB's Favourite Prime Minister Ever, then? He didn't even get air strikes past parliament.
That's going to change in the next few weeks
Of course it will, then he will begin to (at best) catch up to Obama's commitment, which is apparently wasteful and hopeless, so what does that make Cameron? Utterly abysmal? A terrified vacuum?
Yes, hopeless - almost Carter-esque - in foreign policy, exactly as many of us feared he would be.
The problem in many cases is not the Presidents or the PMs but those who give advise to the Presidents or the PMs, especially when they are not confident in their abilities or cautious in judgement. Obama falls in that category of letting mid-level bureaucrats in the State Department to direct foreign policy, especially on the details so it usually gets messed up, example how mid level State Department people sabotaged willingly or unwillingly the US reset with Russia in 2012:
Here someone in the State Department convinced his superiors to appoint a well known democracy activist, whom the Russians suspected as a CIA agent that fomented the fall of the USSR by staging democratic revolutions in the late 80's, as US ambassador to Russia, at a time when there were protests against Putin in Moscow. Furthermore on his first schedule they stuffed it with meeting pro-democracy activists in order to give further credence to the Russians the idea that the US was planning a colour revolution against them in 2012.
The result was the US-Russian relations were trashed immediately and the democratic opposition was discredited as traitors for meeting with the US ambassador.
Was listening to some national anthems of defunct regimes, Youtube threw this one into the mix. "Partant pour la Syrie", it dates from the Second Empire, which probably prohibited La Marseillaise.
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
I certainly agree that President Obama has very limited respect for Britain: as the handing over of the serial numbers to Moscow shows.
The whole point of an independent deterrent was that an enemy of the U.K. might calculate that a direct attack on the UK, or its interests, wouldn't necessarily trigger a proportionate response from the USA in our defence, who might fear escalation and decline to retaliate on the basis that one of their own cities might then be targeted.
I don't know how fully independent Trident is - I know the warheads are, but the missiles probably aren't - but it's still the best option we have under the circumstances.
But yet we're always being told that countries like Iran are on the point of threatening the world with their nuclear efforts, or countries like North Korea etc. These countries didn't have £45 billion to splash out at Lockheed Martin, but the world is still scared sh*tless of their nukes (or the prospect of them having them). Probably even MORE scared because they're an unknown quantity.
So can't we just keep nuclear warheads, and go cheap cheerful and home-made (relatively speaking)? Remember the USA spending millions on developing a space-pen, and the USSR cosmonauts using a pencil? Not even sure if that's an urban myth, but I don't think we can play that game any more.
£45 billion if that's the correct amount is an awful lot of money for a seat on the security council.
ICM poll: Page 3 Labour leads in the weighted figures. Page 4. Tories lead by 6%.
Unless the weighted sample incorporates voters in the exact proportion in which they voted in May ie 36% Tory and 30% Labour and includes their likelihood to vote it is worthless, unscientific and utterly irrelevant
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
Every PM writes a letter to a submarine commander of last resort giving authorisation or not for a nuclear strike, any failsafe mechanism would be unlikely as it would probably apply to US missiles too and even then it could fail
I suppose there's a possibility it could fail. But then there could be more than one. More than likely to be on the US missiles too, but it would be the US with the kill-switch anyway.
Yes, hopeless - almost Carter-esque - in foreign policy, exactly as many of us feared he would be.
The problem in many cases is not the Presidents or the PMs but those who give advise to the Presidents or the PMs, especially when they are not confident in their abilities or cautious in judgement. Obama falls in that category of letting mid-level bureaucrats in the State Department to direct foreign policy, especially on the details so it usually gets messed up, example how mid level State Department people sabotaged willingly or unwillingly the US reset with Russia in 2012:
Here someone in the State Department convinced his superiors to appoint a well known democracy activist, whom the Russians suspected as a CIA agent that fomented the fall of the USSR by staging democratic revolutions in the late 80's, as US ambassador to Russia, at a time when there were protests against Putin in Moscow. Furthermore on his first schedule they stuffed it with meeting pro-democracy activists in order to give further credence to the Russians the idea that the US was planning a colour revolution against them in 2012.
The result was the US-Russian relations were trashed immediately and the democratic opposition was discredited as traitors for meeting with the US ambassador.
Or the fact that they appointed to their foreign office the son of the man who dreamed up the policy of encircling and breaking up Russia.
No word yet on whether the suspicious suitcase at football stadium in Hannover, Germany is false alarm, at least per @AP reporting — Tom McKay (@thetomzone) November 17, 2015
In the aftermath of 9/11 and the London bombings there were tons of false alarms, people panicking in the sights of wrapped ham sandwiches.
The weekend after 7/7, I was doing a walk in Kent (part of the North Downs Way). I was slightly bearded, scruffy, and was carrying a rucksack. I got on the train in a fairly empty carriage on the way to Ashford, and a French family - I kid ye not with a son dressed in black-and-white stripes (*) - saw me and moved into the next carriage.
Although I am often slightly malodorous after a day's walk, but it's the only time it's caused that sort of reaction.
(*) I was rather expecting to see them pick up a string of onions.
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
Every PM writes a letter to a submarine commander of last resort giving authorisation or not for a nuclear strike, any failsafe mechanism would be unlikely as it would probably apply to US missiles too and even then it could fail
I suppose there's a possibility it could fail. But then there could be more than one. More than likely to be on the US missiles too, but it would be the US with the kill-switch anyway.
It sounds extremely complicated and rather pointless for a US president to authorise a nuclear missile strike and then have it stopped by a kill-switch, it could lose precious time and in any case he would just deactivate it anyway
Yes, hopeless - almost Carter-esque - in foreign policy, exactly as many of us feared he would be.
What does that make PB's Favourite Prime Minister Ever, then? He didn't even get air strikes past parliament.
That's going to change in the next few weeks
Of course it will, then he will begin to (at best) catch up to Obama's commitment, which is apparently wasteful and hopeless, so what does that make Cameron? Utterly abysmal? A terrified vacuum?
Take it your not a fan of the Prime Minister.
Well, I don't agree with the starting hypothesis that Obama is terrible and a waste of space and hopeless. I am merely saying that, if it were true that he were bad, Cameron would necessarily be much more so.
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
Every PM writes a letter to a submarine commander of last resort giving authorisation or not for a nuclear strike, any failsafe mechanism would be unlikely as it would probably apply to US missiles too and even then it could fail
I suppose there's a possibility it could fail. But then there could be more than one. More than likely to be on the US missiles too, but it would be the US with the kill-switch anyway.
It sounds extremely complicated and rather pointless for a US president to authorise a nuclear missile strike and then have it stopped by a kill-switch, it could lose precious time and in any case he would just deactivate it anyway
The complicated and pointless have never before been barriers to Luckyguy's tin-foil hattedness
Yes, hopeless - almost Carter-esque - in foreign policy, exactly as many of us feared he would be.
The problem in many cases is not the Presidents or the PMs but those who give advise to the Presidents or the PMs, especially when they are not confident in their abilities or cautious in judgement. Obama falls in that category of letting mid-level bureaucrats in the State Department to direct foreign policy, especially on the details so it usually gets messed up, example how mid level State Department people sabotaged willingly or unwillingly the US reset with Russia in 2012:
Here someone in the State Department convinced his superiors to appoint a well known democracy activist, whom the Russians suspected as a CIA agent that fomented the fall of the USSR by staging democratic revolutions in the late 80's, as US ambassador to Russia, at a time when there were protests against Putin in Moscow. Furthermore on his first schedule they stuffed it with meeting pro-democracy activists in order to give further credence to the Russians the idea that the US was planning a colour revolution against them in 2012.
The result was the US-Russian relations were trashed immediately and the democratic opposition was discredited as traitors for meeting with the US ambassador.
Advisors advise: politicians decide. The buck rests with Obama.
Yes, hopeless - almost Carter-esque - in foreign policy, exactly as many of us feared he would be.
What does that make PB's Favourite Prime Minister Ever, then? He didn't even get air strikes past parliament.
That's going to change in the next few weeks
Of course it will, then he will begin to (at best) catch up to Obama's commitment, which is apparently wasteful and hopeless, so what does that make Cameron? Utterly abysmal? A terrified vacuum?
Take it your not a fan of the Prime Minister.
Well, I don't agree with the starting hypothesis that Obama is terrible and a waste of space and hopeless. I am merely saying that, if it were true that he were bad, Cameron would necessarily be much more so.
Obama has allowed Russia to become the King maker rather than leading and negotiating with Putin to resolve the Assad problem. Events have overtaken Obama with the downing of the Russian jet and the Paris outrage and David Cameron is at least attempting to mend fences with Putin and clearly wants to support Hollande with joint air strikes. The other benefit is that the UK will have an input in the outcome.
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
Every PM writes a letter to a submarine commander of last resort giving authorisation or not for a nuclear strike, any failsafe mechanism would be unlikely as it would probably apply to US missiles too and even then it could fail
I suppose there's a possibility it could fail. But then there could be more than one. More than likely to be on the US missiles too, but it would be the US with the kill-switch anyway.
It sounds extremely complicated and rather pointless for a US president to authorise a nuclear missile strike and then have it stopped by a kill-switch, it could lose precious time and in any case he would just deactivate it anyway
I think our paths have diverged. I'm not suggesting that were the US to get to the point of firing its nukes, a kill switch would kick in. I'm suggesting that the technology is probably there.
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
Every PM writes a letter to a submarine commander of last resort giving authorisation or not for a nuclear strike, any failsafe mechanism would be unlikely as it would probably apply to US missiles too and even then it could fail
I suppose there's a possibility it could fail. But then there could be more than one. More than likely to be on the US missiles too, but it would be the US with the kill-switch anyway.
It sounds extremely complicated and rather pointless for a US president to authorise a nuclear missile strike and then have it stopped by a kill-switch, it could lose precious time and in any case he would just deactivate it anyway
The complicated and pointless have never before been barriers to Luckyguy's tin-foil hattedness
While briefly de-lurking I'd like to ask Lucky Guy where he thinks that the back doors in the Trident system are.
Hello and welcome - I hope your de-lurk is more than brief.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
Every PM writes a letter to a submarine commander of last resort giving authorisation or not for a nuclear strike, any failsafe mechanism would be unlikely as it would probably apply to US missiles too and even then it could fail
I suppose there's a possibility it could fail. But then there could be more than one. More than likely to be on the US missiles too, but it would be the US with the kill-switch anyway.
It sounds extremely complicated and rather pointless for a US president to authorise a nuclear missile strike and then have it stopped by a kill-switch, it could lose precious time and in any case he would just deactivate it anyway
I think our paths have diverged. I'm not suggesting that were the US to get to the point of firing its nukes, a kill switch would kick in. I'm suggesting that the technology is probably there.
BREAKING: Police in Hanover have closed a section of the city's central train station as another object has been discovered." #GERNED
The whole of the EU - the western part at least - is now in a panic. If there had been a follow up attack planned it would have happened in hours rather than days. If there is a second group with orders to attack a western city they will now wait until the immediate bruhaha has died down.
ISIS should have been smashed as soon as their first attacks in Iraq started.
No word yet on whether the suspicious suitcase at football stadium in Hannover, Germany is false alarm, at least per @AP reporting — Tom McKay (@thetomzone) November 17, 2015
In the aftermath of 9/11 and the London bombings there were tons of false alarms, people panicking in the sights of wrapped ham sandwiches.
The weekend after 7/7, I was doing a walk in Kent (part of the North Downs Way). I was slightly bearded, scruffy, and was carrying a rucksack. I got on the train in a fairly empty carriage on the way to Ashford, and a French family - I kid ye not with a son dressed in black-and-white stripes (*) - saw me and moved into the next carriage.
Although I am often slightly malodorous after a day's walk, but it's the only time it's caused that sort of reaction.
(*) I was rather expecting to see them pick up a string of onions.
A few days after 7/7 we had to go to the US Embassy in London so my wife could pick up her green card. We arrived at the top of the Bakerloo line and inside the station was a cop toting a sub-machine gun.
Then we got onto the tube. It seemed like almost everyone had a back pack. It was an uncomfortable ride.
The security around the US Embassy was incredible. Sub machine gun toting cops check your name on a list. Only after they OK you do you get to go through embassy security. The whole day was quite an experience. That's the last time I was in London.
Comments
Nov 10 ICM EICIPM!!
So as I'm heading for the door, the dog has just thrown up all over the lounge, triggering Mrs Scrap to as well - got to clean that all up before I'm allowed out!
Hope it's not an omen....
It's all noise issuing from a face looking alternately "fake-concerned" or vinegary.
The "fake" part of the story stems from people's inability to read. I didn't think the claim that the suicide bomber was turned away was in doubt.
— Tom McKay (@thetomzone) November 17, 2015
Anyway, what is English society for, if not polite fictions!
Corbyn was even then regarded as too stupid to be taken seriously. Big mistake by the PLP, they underestimated the £3 entryists and their well crafted campaign.
I think the fatal thing for the anti-Corbyn 3 was not voting against the welfare cuts. That played so badly to the selectorate, no matter how justified.
Nah! No chance.
Think before you sing the French national anthem at Wembley tonight - it's a song about bloodshed and violence http://buff.ly/1LjOT94
Unless they are only familiar with the words about the misadventures of a Frenchman at a lavatory. What a bunch of precious...
Lefty labour and the Anti War Coalition say we and France deserve what they get but Russia had a plane blown up and they'd opposed all the previous interventions. I'm not sure they are capable of working out anything sensible.
This is an interesting article POV: http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/11/mohammed-amin-it-is-not-enough-for-muslim-organisations-simply-to-condemn-terrorism.html
Also, the Red Flag is even equally - if not more so - glorifying of bloodshed and violence.
With only the chinese position unknown due to their tradition of non-involvement in most foreign affairs (only commercial ones), it won't be difficult for a UN resolution to pass with everyone else in favour.
As I said during the weekend if there is a need for military intervention (and in this case there is probable need) it's better to be done under the UN banner than the western one for political reasons (international and domestic, since this is the middle east).
Easy Government win with large number of MPs absent - Govt won by 283 to 188.
Vote in the Lords tomorrow on votes at 16 for the EU referendum. Obviously Govt can overturn that in the Commons as well if they lose - but will be interesting to see if the whips have produced a very big turnout of Con Peers to try and kill the issue off straight away.
We'll have to see what the Lords now do about local elections - will they now accept no votes at 16 or will they challenge the Commons again?
There is the pressure from events, but I'm pleased that Corbyn is changing that absurd position of refusing self-defence that he initially stuck, at least he listens to people when necessary.
It's better to have all this under the UN flag rather that national flags of mostly western countries, especially in the middle east.
Better to make this a Planet Earth vs ISIS rather that West vs ISIS battle.
A West vs ISIS battle is what ISIS needs politically to excuse their existence among muslims.
I do not have the technical knowledge to even start to describe the specification of what the 'kill switch' might be. However, I think we would all agree that such a failsafe mechanism is technically possible. If it's in iPhones, it will be an option in military technology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-kill-switches-in-military-weaponry/
The debate then becomes not whether it could be done, but whether it would be done. I go with the opinion expressed here:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence
'Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation. If David Cameron ever had to press the button a light might flash on President Obama's bedside Teasmade but that would be all.'
And this is not the 2013-2014 period where no one knew how UKIP would perform in individual seats.
To make this a battle vs the west and christians.
How do you avoid that?
Use the UN as cover.
Edit: Ian Wright also.
Hanover police now say they received a "concrete threat" about a bomb, German news agency DPA reports, citing police chief Volker Kluwe.
http://morningconsult.com/polls/new-poll-american-voters-security-concerns-grow-following-terror-attacks-in-paris/
Trump 38 (+4)
Carson 19 (0)
Cruz 7 (0)
Rubio 7 (0)
Bush 6 (-2)
Fiorina 3 (+1)
Huckabee 3 (0)
Christie 2 (0)
Paul 2 (0)
There is remarkable little change with this pollster going back 4 polls to Oct.25th., only Trump goes up and down but the rest remain absolutely the same.
Extremist Islam politically feeds on everything that is a religious war vs christians or the west, and ISIS falls in that category.
The whole point of an independent deterrent was that an enemy of the U.K. might calculate that a direct attack on the UK, or its interests, wouldn't necessarily trigger a proportionate response from the USA in our defence, who might fear escalation and decline to retaliate on the basis that one of their own cities might then be targeted.
I don't know how fully independent Trident is - I know the warheads are, but the missiles probably aren't - but it's still the best option we have under the circumstances.
Yes, hopeless - almost Carter-esque - in foreign policy, exactly as many of us feared he would be.
I think he's left-wing and Guardianista from a *British* perspective.
God knows what the Americans make of him.
half hate him, 10% love him, 40% are terrified of whoever might replace him
Hollande's firmnesss and leadership has surprised me. Good.
So can't we just keep nuclear warheads, and go cheap cheerful and home-made (relatively speaking)? Remember the USA spending millions on developing a space-pen, and the USSR cosmonauts using a pencil? Not even sure if that's an urban myth, but I don't think we can play that game any more.
To see the players coming out holding a kid by the hand is simply creepy.
http://news.sky.com/story/1589396/germany-match-cancelled-over-concrete-threat
Obama falls in that category of letting mid-level bureaucrats in the State Department to direct foreign policy, especially on the details so it usually gets messed up, example how mid level State Department people sabotaged willingly or unwillingly the US reset with Russia in 2012:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/11/watching-eclipse
Here someone in the State Department convinced his superiors to appoint a well known democracy activist, whom the Russians suspected as a CIA agent that fomented the fall of the USSR by staging democratic revolutions in the late 80's, as US ambassador to Russia, at a time when there were protests against Putin in Moscow.
Furthermore on his first schedule they stuffed it with meeting pro-democracy activists in order to give further credence to the Russians the idea that the US was planning a colour revolution against them in 2012.
The result was the US-Russian relations were trashed immediately and the democratic opposition was discredited as traitors for meeting with the US ambassador.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7pX4iMp7ZQ
I very much liked the intermingling of the two teams for the applause and then the silence.
My dislike of the NHL is second only to my dislike of soccer. I only watched the pre-game for the obvious reason. Not watching the game though.
your comment about the intermingling - that isn't normal?
Although I am often slightly malodorous after a day's walk, but it's the only time it's caused that sort of reaction.
(*) I was rather expecting to see them pick up a string of onions.
no it's not normal normally the teams stay in team formation opposite each other.
Apologies for being sharp if the custom is new to you.
ISIS should have been smashed as soon as their first attacks in Iraq started.
Then we got onto the tube. It seemed like almost everyone had a back pack. It was an uncomfortable ride.
The security around the US Embassy was incredible. Sub machine gun toting cops check your name on a list. Only after they OK you do you get to go through embassy security. The whole day was quite an experience. That's the last time I was in London.