"The only way to defeat Isis is for Sunni Arabs themselves to reject them ideologically and defeat them militarily,” Rubio said. “They must be defeated on the ground with a ground force that is made up primarily of Arab Sunni fighters from Iraq, from Syria, but also from Jordan, from Egypt, from the Emirates, from Saudi Arabia.”
Is Rubio's plan a sectarian regional war with the US on one side and Russia on the other?
No, because ISIS is Sunni. What he is trying to do is the make it non-Sectarian, by letting the Sunnis sort their own house out.
So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.
To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.
But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."
That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.
It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.
Out of interest the US also has some quite hard-to-defend external borders. Are there any moves to introduce identity controls when you move between states?
So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.
To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.
But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."
That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.
It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.
Out of interest the US also has some quite hard-to-defend external borders. Are there any moves to introduce identity controls when you move between states?
Sad straw man argument... up to your usual standard
The USA has a demos, it believes its one country, the EU except for some of the chattering classes, doesn't. If there is a security problem in say Paris and it doesn't get fixed, the French government loses the election, not the EU Commission. The French government therefore needs to at least look like it is trying to solve the problem to survive, and strangely it doesn't have much say over German or Hungarian border control, so it closes/controls the French borders, its pure political survival.
Hammond's defence cuts are to be partly reversed. Should we sell shares in the Foreign Secretary's leadership project? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34897076
Hammond's defence cuts are to be partly reversed. Should we sell shares in the Foreign Secretary's leadership project? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34897076
So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.
To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.
But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."
That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.
It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.
Out of interest the US also has some quite hard-to-defend external borders. Are there any moves to introduce identity controls when you move between states?
Sad straw man argument... up to your usual standard
The USA has a demos, it believes its one country, the EU except for some of the chattering classes, doesn't. If there is a security problem in say Paris and it doesn't get fixed, the French government loses the election, not the EU Commission. The French government therefore needs to at least look like it is trying to solve the problem to survive, and strangely it doesn't have much say over German or Hungarian border control, so it closes/controls the French borders, its pure political survival.
Not really, all kinds of security-critical things in the US, not least availability of weapons, are controlled by the states.
Hammond's defence cuts are to be partly reversed. Should we sell shares in the Foreign Secretary's leadership project? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34897076
Ha Ha Ha , you could not make it up , and on here yesterday they were trumpeting about us being a world power, now we are down to begging the French to defend us.
Hammond's defence cuts are to be partly reversed. Should we sell shares in the Foreign Secretary's leadership project? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34897076
French patrol planes are scouring the seas off Scotland for a Russian submarine after Britain was forced to call on allies for help because it has scrapped its own sub-hunting aircraft.
Seems fair - one of our Type 45s is escorting the French Aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle....
So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.
To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.
But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."
That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.
It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.
Out of interest the US also has some quite hard-to-defend external borders. Are there any moves to introduce identity controls when you move between states?
Sad straw man argument... up to your usual standard
The USA has a demos, it believes its one country, the EU except for some of the chattering classes, doesn't. If there is a security problem in say Paris and it doesn't get fixed, the French government loses the election, not the EU Commission. The French government therefore needs to at least look like it is trying to solve the problem to survive, and strangely it doesn't have much say over German or Hungarian border control, so it closes/controls the French borders, its pure political survival.
Not really, all kinds of security-critical things in the US, not least availability of weapons, are controlled by the states.
Except that since there are no state borders if you want a firearm your state doesn't allow people to sell, you drive to the next door state that does, and bring one back, no borders = no control. The bit that matters, ownership, is federal.
Hammond's defence cuts are to be partly reversed. Should we sell shares in the Foreign Secretary's leadership project? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34897076
Sub-hunting aircraft that were massively over-budget, years late and not yet in operation.
Yes and our thick politicians rather than buy something that works would rather squander billions and end up with nothing , kind of says it all.
There wasn't much 'that worked' and met our requirements when the MRA4 project was launched back in the 1990s. Even if we'd gone with a new jet-based platform instead of the Nimrod, there'd have been the problems the Yanks have been having with the Boeing P-8 Poseidon.
You could - and some do - argue that our requirements were wrong. But that's a different matter.
So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.
To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.
But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."
That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.
It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.
Out of interest the US also has some quite hard-to-defend external borders. Are there any moves to introduce identity controls when you move between states?
Sad straw man argument... up to your usual standard
The USA has a demos, it believes its one country, the EU except for some of the chattering classes, doesn't. If there is a security problem in say Paris and it doesn't get fixed, the French government loses the election, not the EU Commission. The French government therefore needs to at least look like it is trying to solve the problem to survive, and strangely it doesn't have much say over German or Hungarian border control, so it closes/controls the French borders, its pure political survival.
Not really, all kinds of security-critical things in the US, not least availability of weapons, are controlled by the states.
Except that since there are no state borders if you want a firearm your state doesn't allow people to sell, you drive to the next door state that does, and bring one back, no borders = no control. The bit that matters, ownership, is federal.
No borders equals no control, that's my point. From a security point of view the argument for gun control states to maintain borders to keep out people from sell-weapons-to-nutters states far outweights any theoretical gain you might hope to get by putting borders between Greece amd France.
Out of interest the US also has some quite hard-to-defend external borders. Are there any moves to introduce identity controls when you move between states?
Sad straw man argument... up to your usual standard
The USA has a demos, it believes its one country, the EU except for some of the chattering classes, doesn't. If there is a security problem in say Paris and it doesn't get fixed, the French government loses the election, not the EU Commission. The French government therefore needs to at least look like it is trying to solve the problem to survive, and strangely it doesn't have much say over German or Hungarian border control, so it closes/controls the French borders, its pure political survival.
Not really, all kinds of security-critical things in the US, not least availability of weapons, are controlled by the states.
Except that since there are no state borders if you want a firearm your state doesn't allow people to sell, you drive to the next door state that does, and bring one back, no borders = no control. The bit that matters, ownership, is federal.
No borders equals no control, that's my point. From a security point of view the argument for gun control states to maintain borders to keep out people from sell-weapons-to-nutters states far outweights any theoretical gain you might hope to get by putting borders between Greece amd France.
But if the French government trusts the Greece government to administer their borders properly, and they fail in this regard, and another terrorist incident happens in Paris as a result, it will be the French government that loses its job, not the Greek government. The French government uses the only controls that are available to them, that what even if those controls turn out to be ineffective, at least they have the appearance of having taken action.
The whole idea of "Fortress Europe" is on a hiding to nothing, national governments on the borders will neither be prepared to pay for it, nor take responsibility for it, particularly if idiots like Merkel go around shouting about how all are welcome, or maybe not.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
BBC Director General is bleating today, but the bit I want to highlight is this: "Future licence fee negotiations should, he says, be made with the input of licence fee payers possibly by an online vote."
Yes, because online voting isn't wide open to hacking, is it?
Clown. Not to mention you can't have individuals deciding on a specific tax. Are we to have votes on how much income tax we'd like to pay?
Then there's this bit: "Instead, he is calling for the charter period to be extended to 11 years, which would take it out of the electoral cycle and that any changes to the system should only be changed in Parliament with a two thirds majority and a vote by licence fee payers."
That's demented. That would give it greater protection than, say, NHS funding. Or Trident. The underlying belief seems to be that the BBC is the single most sacred institution in the UK.
It's certainly important, and very popular (although perhaps not amongst some F1 fans), but it's not an idol to be placed on a pedestal and admired without consideration.
BBC Director General is bleating today, but the bit I want to highlight is this: "Future licence fee negotiations should, he says, be made with the input of licence fee payers possibly by an online vote."
Yes, because online voting isn't wide open to hacking, is it?
Clown. Not to mention you can't have individuals deciding on a specific tax. Are we to have votes on how much income tax we'd like to pay?
Then there's this bit: "Instead, he is calling for the charter period to be extended to 11 years, which would take it out of the electoral cycle and that any changes to the system should only be changed in Parliament with a two thirds majority and a vote by licence fee payers."
That's demented. That would give it greater protection than, say, NHS funding. Or Trident. The underlying belief seems to be that the BBC is the single most sacred institution in the UK.
It's certainly important, and very popular (although perhaps not amongst some F1 fans), but it's not an idol to be placed on a pedestal and admired without consideration.
I wonder if he wants changes that advantage the BBC - like the rather worrying idea that viewing delayed programming on the Internet will require a licence fee - to be subject to such rigorous changes?
As you say, the whole thing's demented. The BBC have some very good technical bods who'll be able to tell him that electronic voting is pants. Yet the BBC bosses are not known for listening to their technical bods, and the 'talent' (as Roger would call the presenters and stars) treat them with contempt.
That's demented. That would give it greater protection than, say, NHS funding. Or Trident. The underlying belief seems to be that the BBC is the single most sacred institution in the UK.
The man's a fool
BBC Charter (Removal of idiotic restrictions) (2020) is a one line bill that amends that law to require only an normal majority to change the rules. The rules are then changed in the usual manner by a majority vote in parliament.
Ed Miliband: I’m not going to be a backstreet driver
Jim Naughtie: Having crashed the car?
Miliband: Thanks
#r4today
It's funny but it was wholly gratuitous. It's not as though Ed Miliband is a front rank politician any more. The only reason for making the remark was to show Jim Naughtie is clever. It's disrespectful of a guest to no purpose.
Joan Bakewell and another woman calling for the women's pension age to be increased to match men's more slowly, or compensation for women adversely affected.
I'd like to see these two stupid women wanting compensation for the millions of men who have had to work longer than women for generations.
She's keen to cry 'injustice', when the injustice seems very gender-specific.
I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.
Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.
Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.
Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
all fast food strikes me as unhealthy, I haven't eaten a maacy d or a burger king for years.. I would rather go hungry.
Joan Bakewell and another woman calling for the women's pension age to be increased to match men's more slowly, or compensation for women adversely affected.
I'd like to see these two stupid women wanting compensation for the millions of men who have had to work longer than women for generations.
She's keen to cry 'injustice', when the injustice seems very gender-specific.
I have some sympathy for this cause - past changes weren't exactly trumpeted. However, the name of the action group - Women Against State Pension Inequality - is a calculated insult to the intelligence. They want to extend state pension inequality.
Mr. Jessop, reminds me of the focus of women in the boardroom, but the same people don't care there's such a lack of male primary school teachers (meaning many kids, who don't have fathers living with them, lack make role models almost entirely).
Ed Miliband: I’m not going to be a backstreet driver
Jim Naughtie: Having crashed the car?
Miliband: Thanks
#r4today
It's funny but it was wholly gratuitous. It's not as though Ed Miliband is a front rank politician any more. The only reason for making the remark was to show Jim Naughtie is clever. It's disrespectful of a guest to no purpose.
I disagree. He is still an MP, someone who has a voice and vote on national frontline issues most other people do not. He may not be on the front bench but as part of our collective ruling body he does not deserve or need kid glove handling. The disrespectful point may have some validity, but further context is needed. Was he doing a 'not going to comment, but' type thing, was he avoiding answering a question, and so on. In that scenario a non interjection like that would be quite appropriate.
I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.
Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.
Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.
Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
Ed Miliband: I’m not going to be a backstreet driver
Jim Naughtie: Having crashed the car?
Miliband: Thanks
#r4today
It's funny but it was wholly gratuitous. It's not as though Ed Miliband is a front rank politician any more. The only reason for making the remark was to show Jim Naughtie is clever. It's disrespectful of a guest to no purpose.
Ed Miliband: I’m not going to be a backstreet driver
Jim Naughtie: Having crashed the car?
Miliband: Thanks
#r4today
It's funny but it was wholly gratuitous. It's not as though Ed Miliband is a front rank politician any more. The only reason for making the remark was to show Jim Naughtie is clever. It's disrespectful of a guest to no purpose.
I disagree. He is still an MP, someone who has a voice and vote on national frontline issues most other people do not. He may not be on the front bench but as part of our collective ruling body he does not deserve or need kid glove handling. The disrespectful point may have some validity, but further context is needed. Was he doing a 'not going to comment, but' type thing, was he avoiding answering a question, and so on. In that scenario a non interjection like that would be quite appropriate.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
New!?! The Comet first flew in 1949 and the Comet 4 - upon which Nimrod was based, in 1958......if BAE had to extensively rebuild them it was because no two were the same - when the project was cancelled there were doubts over whether it could ever safely fly.....
After Labour's problems with National Security matters, at least this week attention will focus somewhat on a different area in which it is much stronger.
Ed Miliband: I’m not going to be a backstreet driver
Jim Naughtie: Having crashed the car?
Miliband: Thanks
#r4today
It's funny but it was wholly gratuitous. It's not as though Ed Miliband is a front rank politician any more. The only reason for making the remark was to show Jim Naughtie is clever. It's disrespectful of a guest to no purpose.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
New!?! The Comet first flew in 1949 and the Comet 4 - upon which Nimrod was based, in 1958......if BAE had to extensively rebuild them it was because no two were the same - when the project was cancelled there were doubts over whether it could ever safely fly.....
WE should have bought AWACS?? I think that's what they were called, much cheaper American and worked. They were still using Avro Shackletons IIRC long after they were beyond their sell by date.
So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.
To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.
But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."
That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.
It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.
Schengen just codified what has been the case in Europe for most of the past war period. The Benelux countries abolished border controls in 1953, for example.
Ed Miliband: I’m not going to be a backstreet driver
Jim Naughtie: Having crashed the car?
Miliband: Thanks
#r4today
It's funny but it was wholly gratuitous. It's not as though Ed Miliband is a front rank politician any more. The only reason for making the remark was to show Jim Naughtie is clever. It's disrespectful of a guest to no purpose.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
New!?! The Comet first flew in 1949 and the Comet 4 - upon which Nimrod was based, in 1958......if BAE had to extensively rebuild them it was because no two were the same - when the project was cancelled there were doubts over whether it could ever safely fly.....
Allegedly one of the few aircraft projects where the electronics systems were ready years before the airframe ...
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
Weirdly, I agreed with the Government on this one. The upgraded Nimrods used the same airframes as the original Nimrods, which used the original airframes from the old Comet 4s, and they were way past the point where you could do anything with them. The airframes were built in the 1950s and production techniques weren't as consistent then, so you'd build a part for one airframe then discover that it wouldn't fit another because the measurements differed slightly from one plane to another. Back then you'd make the pieces fit with a big hammer but you can't do that with composite nor small pieces. When you combine that with the s***** way we build defence stuff (see FRES for an example), you ended up with a tin money pit. Although I object to them being cut up (WE HAVE MUSEUMS!), killing the program dead wasn't a bad thing to do.
So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.
To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.
But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."
That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.
It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.
Schengen just codified what has been the case in Europe for most of the past war period. The Benelux countries abolished border controls in 1953, for example.
I travelled by train from Paris to Amsterdam the day after the Paris attacks - I had worried when the night before Mitterrand had declared he would close France's borders.
As it happens I was not checked once, from boarding in Paris Nord to leaving Amsterdam Centraal - no tickets, no passport, nothing.
But then I had bought the ticket online, so its entirely possible those who needed to know knew exactly who was sitting in my seat.....
So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.
To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.
But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."
That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.
It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.
Schengen just codified what has been the case in Europe for most of the past war period. The Benelux countries abolished border controls in 1953, for example.
And see how safe Belgium is as a result... A drop-in centre for Jihadis.
Mr. 63, I agree. Important to separate the feeling towards an individual monarch from the feeling towards the institute as a whole (in the same way, lots of people dislike a certain politician, but abolishing democracy would not be a good thing).
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
New!?! The Comet first flew in 1949 and the Comet 4 - upon which Nimrod was based, in 1958......if BAE had to extensively rebuild them it was because no two were the same - when the project was cancelled there were doubts over whether it could ever safely fly.....
WE should have bought AWACS?? I think that's what they were called, much cheaper American and worked. They were still using Avro Shackletons IIRC long after they were beyond their sell by date.
We did.
AWACS (airborne early warning) and maritime patrol (MP) are very different roles. AWACS are for detecting flying threats, whilst maritime patrol aircraft monitor shipping and submarines (or should do).
Generally, and there is some overlap: AWACS look for aircraft up and along, Maritime patrol look for ships down and along.
In the end we did buy some Boeing Sentry (AWACS) planes, which are still doing good service. But they're not the same as maritime patrol planes.
First thoughts say it makes sense for AWACS and MP to be merged into one platform, especially as modern AWACS have look-down capability to search for low-flying sea-skimming planes and missiles. But MP requires the planes to fly at low altitude for sensors such as MAD. Therefore the MP planes need to have long range, long loiter times, at low altitude. Modern jet airliners give the first two; getting the third is where Boeing have apparently had trouble with developing the P8. I think the Yanks have abandoned MAD sensors for that reason, at least for their versions of the plane.
Mr. 63, I agree. Important to separate the feeling towards an individual monarch from the feeling towards the institute as a whole (in the same way, lots of people dislike a certain politician, but abolishing democracy would not be a good thing).
Well put sir, if this is a taste of what we have ahead I hope the Queen outlives Charles, she is impeccably behaved.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
New!?! The Comet first flew in 1949 and the Comet 4 - upon which Nimrod was based, in 1958......if BAE had to extensively rebuild them it was because no two were the same - when the project was cancelled there were doubts over whether it could ever safely fly.....
WE should have bought AWACS?? I think that's what they were called, much cheaper American and worked. They were still using Avro Shackletons IIRC long after they were beyond their sell by date.
We did.
AWACS (airborne early warning) and maritime patrol (MP) are very different roles. AWACS are for detecting flying threats, whilst maritime patrol aircraft monitor shipping and submarines (or should do).
Generally, and there is some overlap: AWACS look for aircraft up and along, Maritime patrol look for ships down and along.
In the end we did buy some Boeing Sentry (AWACS) planes, which are still doing good service. But they're not the same as maritime patrol planes.
First thoughts say it makes sense for AWACS and MP to be merged into one platform, especially as modern AWACS have look-down capability to search for low-flying sea-skimming planes and missiles. But MP requires the planes to fly at low altitude for sensors such as MAD. Therefore the MP planes need to have long range, long loiter times, at low altitude. Modern jet airliners give the first two; getting the third is where Boeing have apparently had trouble with developing the P8. I think the Yanks have abandoned MAD sensors for that reason, at least for their versions of the plane.
Great insight. pb.com does this background stuff so well...
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
New!?! The Comet first flew in 1949 and the Comet 4 - upon which Nimrod was based, in 1958......if BAE had to extensively rebuild them it was because no two were the same - when the project was cancelled there were doubts over whether it could ever safely fly.....
WE should have bought AWACS?? I think that's what they were called, much cheaper American and worked. They were still using Avro Shackletons IIRC long after they were beyond their sell by date.
We did.
AWACS (airborne early warning) and maritime patrol (MP) are very different roles. AWACS are for detecting flying threats, whilst maritime patrol aircraft monitor shipping and submarines (or should do).
Generally, and there is some overlap: AWACS look for aircraft up and along, Maritime patrol look for ships down and along.
In the end we did buy some Boeing Sentry (AWACS) planes, which are still doing good service. But they're not the same as maritime patrol planes.
First thoughts say it makes sense for AWACS and MP to be merged into one platform, especially as modern AWACS have look-down capability to search for low-flying sea-skimming planes and missiles. But MP requires the planes to fly at low altitude for sensors such as MAD. Therefore the MP planes need to have long range, long loiter times, at low altitude. Modern jet airliners give the first two; getting the third is where Boeing have apparently had trouble with developing the P8. I think the Yanks have abandoned MAD sensors for that reason, at least for their versions of the plane.
WE did ... eventually.. I seem to recall news reports about deliberations on this subject and the requirement to buy British overrode the need..
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
Weirdly, I agreed with the Government on this one. The upgraded Nimrods used the same airframes as the original Nimrods, which used the original airframes from the old Comet 4s, and they were way past the point where you could do anything with them. The airframes were built in the 1950s and production techniques weren't as consistent then, so you'd build a part for one airframe then discover that it wouldn't fit another because the measurements differed slightly from one plane to another. Back then you'd make the pieces fit with a big hammer but you can't do that with composite nor small pieces. When you combine that with the s***** way we build defence stuff (see FRES for an example), you ended up with a tin money pit. Although I object to them being cut up (WE HAVE MUSEUMS!), killing the program dead wasn't a bad thing to do.
To further this:
The new Nimrod MRA4 required longer wings, so the MOD leant BAE an airframe. BAE then designed and built the wing sections that would be added to the wing roots. They made the segments for all the planes so the planes could be converted quickly.
Then the MOD delivered another plane.
The bits did not fit. In fact, they were inches out. Therefore all the extensions made had to be scrapped, and new ones made for each airframe as it came in, which took ages.
As an aside, to show how things have changed: when assembling the Typhoon, accuracy is so important for the airframe that they have to be built on a special concrete pad with no joins, as joins might mean the concrete sections expand at different rates, throwing out measurements by fractions of a milimetre.
Licence fee negotiations are made with the input of licence fee payers. They're called general elections.
hugely skewed interview with BBC guy (correspondent? journalist? schill? PR man?) on Today, saying how cataclysmic govt intervention in the BBC is. No alternative view whatsoever.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
New!?! The Comet first flew in 1949 and the Comet 4 - upon which Nimrod was based, in 1958......if BAE had to extensively rebuild them it was because no two were the same - when the project was cancelled there were doubts over whether it could ever safely fly.....
WE should have bought AWACS?? I think that's what they were called, much cheaper American and worked. They were still using Avro Shackletons IIRC long after they were beyond their sell by date.
We did.
AWACS (airborne early warning) and maritime patrol (MP) are very different roles. AWACS are for detecting flying threats, whilst maritime patrol aircraft monitor shipping and submarines (or should do).
Generally, and there is some overlap: AWACS look for aircraft up and along, Maritime patrol look for ships down and along.
In the end we did buy some Boeing Sentry (AWACS) planes, which are still doing good service. But they're not the same as maritime patrol planes.
First thoughts say it makes sense for AWACS and MP to be merged into one platform, especially as modern AWACS have look-down capability to search for low-flying sea-skimming planes and missiles. But MP requires the planes to fly at low altitude for sensors such as MAD. Therefore the MP planes need to have long range, long loiter times, at low altitude. Modern jet airliners give the first two; getting the third is where Boeing have apparently had trouble with developing the P8. I think the Yanks have abandoned MAD sensors for that reason, at least for their versions of the plane.
Great insight. pb.com does this background stuff so well...
Just a shame it's of no help in figuring out which political punts to go for
You've woken up with a sore head this morning. I thought only Tories kicked people when they're down? He must have had a lousy six months time.
Sure. But there are more important and urgent problems than Ed's feelings. We've had more than five years nursing his ego, bruised or otherwise.
The Labour party is at serious risk today. We are looking down the barrel of long-term Tory governments. That would be a tragedy.
As the previous leader and as someone who managed to keep the party together, Ed is an unique position to fix the problems that he has created. He has rare reach across groups. He needs to wake up and get on with it. Perhaps using the sympathy we all have to positive effect.
The first step is for him to recognise and take responsibility for what he did. He still has something to offer. We don't have time to feel sorry for him.
So we now know that 2 of the Paris attackers landed on the Greek island of Leros and found their way to Paris without being detected.
To any sane person, that should spell the end of Schengen.
But watching Dateline London this morning, (why is Polly Toynbee or some other Grauniad reporter always on it?), three correspondents were discussing the Schengen problem rationally, but the French reporter (usually lucid, fact based and rational) was levitating with anger, almost as if someone were inserting half a raw onion in his rectum, and saying that Schengen's abolition was unthinkable. When asked why, all he could come up with is that "It's part of the European ideal."
That's not even an argument, just an almost blind religious commitment and fervor to the EU 'ideal'. I'd like to stuff an entire raw onion up his rectum. Maybe a couple.
It's nonsense like this that makes me dislike the EU.
Schengen just codified what has been the case in Europe for most of the past war period. The Benelux countries abolished border controls in 1953, for example.
And see how safe Belgium is as a result... A drop-in centre for Jihadis.
It is to all intents and purposes impossible to seal land borders in densely populated areas without significant geographical features.
You think Luxembourg, with 600,000 people, could sensibly guard its borders? Of course not.
You can ski between Switzerland and Italy (and I've done so). Do you think the Italian and Swiss governments are going to spend tens of billions on building walls across the Alps?
We are lucky, we live on an island. We have different choices.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
New!?! The Comet first flew in 1949 and the Comet 4 - upon which Nimrod was based, in 1958......if BAE had to extensively rebuild them it was because no two were the same - when the project was cancelled there were doubts over whether it could ever safely fly.....
WE should have bought AWACS?? I think that's what they were called, much cheaper American and worked. They were still using Avro Shackletons IIRC long after they were beyond their sell by date.
We did.
AWACS (airborne early warning) and maritime patrol (MP) are very different roles. AWACS are for detecting flying threats, whilst maritime patrol aircraft monitor shipping and submarines (or should do).
Generally, and there is some overlap: AWACS look for aircraft up and along, Maritime patrol look for ships down and along.
In the end we did buy some Boeing Sentry (AWACS) planes, which are still doing good service. But they're not the same as maritime patrol planes.
First thoughts say it makes sense for AWACS and MP to be merged into one platform, especially as modern AWACS have look-down capability to search for low-flying sea-skimming planes and missiles. But MP requires the planes to fly at low altitude for sensors such as MAD. Therefore the MP planes need to have long range, long loiter times, at low altitude. Modern jet airliners give the first two; getting the third is where Boeing have apparently had trouble with developing the P8. I think the Yanks have abandoned MAD sensors for that reason, at least for their versions of the plane.
WE did ... eventually.. I seem to recall news reports about deliberations on this subject and the requirement to buy British overrode the need..
I've just looked it up. The first Sentry was delivered to the RAF in 1990. The Nimrod AEW3 project was cancelled in 1986, and the Sentry ordered for the RAF the same year. So it looks as if the delays were delivery delays, rather than delays in making a choice of alternative.
The centre-right candidate Mauricio Macri leads on 54% to the 46% of Kirchner's preferred candidate, Daniel Scioli, with about half of votes counted in the final round of the Argentine presidential election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-34896847
The Kirchner woman is horrid, so it looks like good news
Yes also good news for the Falklands as he wants a more amicable relationship with the UK
Translation - he's not going to get any economic aid or business from the UK if Las Malvinas remains an issue.
"Las Malvinas" derives from the French "Les Malouines", referring to "from St. Malo".
St Malo is a sub-division on McGinnis Ferry Rd in Duluth, GA. I hear rumors of another named after it in France
Oh, I expect it be the St Malo in Britanny
I like the French St Malo. Excellent aquarium there and a walk around the old city wals is excellent too.
Lovely old tea shop with a roaring fire last time I was there.
You've woken up with a sore head this morning. I thought only Tories kicked people when they're down? He must have had a lousy six months.
Why the Today programme (and I am a huge fan, both of Naughtie and Humphreys, and the others) should decide on behalf of the nation that Ed is or was not a decent politician who was trying to do the best for his country I have no idea.
I see Prince Charles is saying climate change is to blame for the refugee crisis. As a monarchist much more of this I'll become a Republican.
It's not as barking as it sounds. Climate change has been fingered for being the root cause of conflict and mass migration throughout history. Eg, the end of the Roman Empire and the Migration Period. But in this case I don't think there is any evidence of that.
Mr. 1000, you also cannot prevent murder by making it illegal.
Policing borders wouldn't stop illegal migration entirely, but it would make it much harder to achieve. Similarly, Merkel's idiotic pronouncement only spurred on the flow of migrants.
Sorry my fault , talking about different things. My memory tells me that the Shackeltons were continued in service long after their sell by date because of problems with NImrod..., there were talks about buying American AWACS, but we persisted against all logic with NImrod... but then eventually bought AWACS.. I am no expert (on anything ) but carrying on with NImrod cost zillions that we need not have spent..
In the end we did buy some Boeing Sentry (AWACS) planes, which are still doing good service. But they're not the same as maritime patrol planes.
First thoughts say it makes sense for AWACS and MP to be merged into one platform, especially as modern AWACS have look-down capability to search for low-flying sea-skimming planes and missiles. But MP requires the planes to fly at low altitude for sensors such as MAD. Therefore the MP planes need to have long range, long loiter times, at low altitude. Modern jet airliners give the first two; getting the third is where Boeing have apparently had trouble with developing the P8. I think the Yanks have abandoned MAD sensors for that reason, at least for their versions of the plane.
WE did ... eventually.. I seem to recall news reports about deliberations on this subject and the requirement to buy British overrode the need..
I've just looked it up. The first Sentry was delivered to the RAF in 1990. The Nimrod AEW3 project was cancelled in 1986, and the Sentry ordered for the RAF the same year. So it looks as if the delays were delivery delays, rather than delays in making a choice of alternative.
Mr. 1000, you also cannot prevent murder by making it illegal.
Policing borders wouldn't stop illegal migration entirely, but it would make it much harder to achieve. Similarly, Merkel's idiotic pronouncement only spurred on the flow of migrants.
Having been an in-waverer I am not a million miles now from being an out-waverer but I totally get why Schengen should stay. It is a principle and part of what makes the EU the EU. If you like that community of nations/ever closer union, even, it makes perfect sense.
And be absolutely clear coming in from Syria via Greece is not the only way for a jihadi to end up on Brussels. Or Paris.
I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.
Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.
Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.
Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
all fast food strikes me as unhealthy, I haven't eaten a maacy d or a burger king for years.. I would rather go hungry.
I dont eat it myself. It is only 'unhealthy' because we live in what is essentially a utopia for food. Whatever we want, we can get it. Ordinarily, at any other point in the history of mankind, a meal consisting of bread, meat, cheese, fatty soaked carbs, a few vegetables and a sweet high energy drink would probably be the nutritious thing you would eat for a month.
It is only considered unhealthy because we gorge on so many other things.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
Weirdly, I agreed with the Government on this one. The upgraded Nimrods used the same airframes as the original Nimrods, which used the original airframes from the old Comet 4s, and they were way past the point where you could do anything with them. The airframes were built in the 1950s and production techniques weren't as consistent then, so you'd build a part for one airframe then discover that it wouldn't fit another because the measurements differed slightly from one plane to another. Back then you'd make the pieces fit with a big hammer but you can't do that with composite nor small pieces. When you combine that with the s***** way we build defence stuff (see FRES for an example), you ended up with a tin money pit. Although I object to them being cut up (WE HAVE MUSEUMS!), killing the program dead wasn't a bad thing to do.
To further this:
The new Nimrod MRA4 required longer wings, so the MOD leant BAE an airframe. BAE then designed and built the wing sections that would be added to the wing roots. They made the segments for all the planes so the planes could be converted quickly.
Then the MOD delivered another plane.
The bits did not fit. In fact, they were inches out. Therefore all the extensions made had to be scrapped, and new ones made for each airframe as it came in, which took ages.
As an aside, to show how things have changed: when assembling the Typhoon, accuracy is so important for the airframe that they have to be built on a special concrete pad with no joins, as joins might mean the concrete sections expand at different rates, throwing out measurements by fractions of a milimetre.
(From memory, might be wrong).
It's not just the military. If you build planes in sections in different factories, and build them out of composite, then when you put part A and part B together, a difference of a few inches is a real problem: you can't just bodge them together, things like carbon fibre aren't malleable, you hit them with a big hammer they don't bend, they crack. They're used to this phenomenon now, but in the late 90's/early noughties there as a lot of headscratching and many rude words were said.
I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.
Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.
Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.
Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
Fat is an elixir of life. It is the perfect medium for storing energy. Just because the land of plenty allows us more than we need.
Mr. Topping, not the only way indeed. But being one in a million (or three, as I believe the number now stands) is much easier when you're getting waved through and buses laid on.
I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.
Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.
I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.
Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.
Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.
Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
Fat is an elixir of life. It is the perfect medium for storing energy. Just because the land of plenty allows us more than we need.
What about popcorn? There seems to be a lot of it being consumed by readers of this website these days.
@DAaronovitch: The @Ed_Miliband interview on @BBCr4today was profoundly depressing. 'I take full responsibility for getting everything right'. Oh Vanity.
@DAaronovitch: The @Ed_Miliband interview on @BBCr4today was profoundly depressing. 'I take full responsibility for getting everything right'. Oh Vanity.
How much is Ed to blame for the current mess Labour find themselves in? A question for history perhaps, but personally I'd say a great deal.
@BBCJamesCook: Five years after smashing up a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft, the UK government is to buy a fleet of new maritime patrol aircraft.
New!?! The Comet first flew in 1949 and the Comet 4 - upon which Nimrod was based, in 1958......if BAE had to extensively rebuild them it was because no two were the same - when the project was cancelled there were doubts over whether it could ever safely fly.....
Nimrods were getting old and dangerous. The RAF lost one in Afghanistan due to a massive fuel leak and subsequent explosion, and there was the increased risk of similar accident with another.
I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.
Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.
No it is a daft position. The Syrian Civil War has been a conflict completely contrived by outside powers. As the wikileaks document from the US Ambassador in 2006 confirms. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html
http://ericmargolis.com/2015/07/destroying-syria-to-make-it-safe-for-american-values/ An estimated 250,000 have died in the Syrian Civil War, 40,000 of those have been foreign Salafists fighting for the rebels. I wish the Syrian people good luck in expelling these foreign invaders who have devastated their country. 100,000 Syrians have died fighting for their country, hopefully now that the SAA and allied government militias are making real progress the slaughter will stop. Their needs to a reckoning for the KSA, Turkey, Qatar, Israel as well as reform of 'our' own government, it is a wicked and terrible thing we have done.
@DAaronovitch: The @Ed_Miliband interview on @BBCr4today was profoundly depressing. 'I take full responsibility for getting everything right'. Oh Vanity.
How much is Ed to blame for the current mess Labour find themselves in? A question for history perhaps, but personally I'd say a great deal.
I blame the EICIPM advocates.
OGH needs to urgently send out search parties for most of these miscreants as many seem to be AWOL from PB since 7th May.
I foresee a lot of attacks on Corbyn and Ukip from pb tories in the next week or so as Osborne's deficit plan unravels.
As one or two of us have been predicting for a while, once the euphoria of a majority dissipates this lot are not very good at governing.
Middling at best, sad to say. Things could have been much worse,but as I came to think around 2013/14, they are a bit crap in plenty of ways. Labour then were not well position to make the most of that though, and they seem less so now, unless the crapness is much worse and the people get angrier.
I'm not sure that the chart shows why the Doctors are striking.
Yeah we spend more than the OECD average, and more the Spain and Italy which as far as I know have decent healthcare. To my eyes the thing that stands out is that our private sector is relatively small, perhaps we need to expand that alongside some rationing of less essential NHS services to encourage people to go private.
Includes countries such as Chile, Mexico, Turkey.
Spain and Italy do do better than us for life expectancy. Both have far more doctors per capita than us.
Despite less state funding as your graph shows. Why is that and what lessons can we learn from them?
Well it's the Economist's graph. The answer is probably in the second sentence. We need more staff and we have to stop people becoming unwell in the first place. Treating easily preventable illness - diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc is expensive.
It's not. It's the treating of it that's expensive.
Advice and education is cheaper but budgets are being cut, and the Tories leap up and down screaming "nanny state" at any meaningful health initiatives re tax on unhealthy food, or unhealthy lifestyle choices.
There are very very few 'unhealthy foods'.
But there are plenty that are high in sodium, in calories, in fat - or all three.
Fat is an elixir of life. It is the perfect medium for storing energy. Just because the land of plenty allows us more than we need.
What about popcorn? There seems to be a lot of it being consumed by readers of this website these days.
Popcorn is a cinematic experience - the calories don't count.
I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.
Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.
No it is a daft position. The Syrian Civil War has been a conflict completely contrived by outside powers. As the wikileaks document from the US Ambassador in 2006 confirms. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html
http://ericmargolis.com/2015/07/destroying-syria-to-make-it-safe-for-american-values/ An estimated 250,000 have died in the Syrian Civil War, 40,000 of those have been foreign Salafists fighting for the rebels. I wish the Syrian people good luck in expelling these foreign invaders who have devastated their country. 100,000 Syrians have died fighting for their country, hopefully now that the SAA and allied government militias are making real progress the slaughter will stop. Their needs to a reckoning for the KSA, Turkey, Qatar, Israel as well as reform of 'our' own government, it is a wicked and terrible thing we have done.
Nuance seemed to have passed you by on the road to Damascus.
I foresee a lot of attacks on Corbyn and Ukip from pb tories in the next week or so as Osborne's deficit plan unravels.
As one or two of us have been predicting for a while, once the euphoria of a majority dissipates this lot are not very good at governing.
Middling at best, sad to say. Things could have been much worse,but as I came to think around 2013/14, they are a bit crap in plenty of ways. Labour then were not well position to make the most of that though, and they seem less so now, unless the crapness is much worse and the people get angrier.
Philip Hammond comes across very well, but the conservatives are automatons, slavishly parroting the latest soundbite.
Mr. Divvie, or, if the UK had gotten involved, Obama may have as well, and the FSA (then still a fighting force) could have benefited.
Our involvement in 2013 could have been disastrous (ISIS could have all Syria by now) or hugely helpful (we could have the FSA in charge, or at least the major rival to ISIS, rather than Assad).
Licence fee negotiations are made with the input of licence fee payers. They're called general elections.
hugely skewed interview with BBC guy (correspondent? journalist? schill? PR man?) on Today, saying how cataclysmic govt intervention in the BBC is. No alternative view whatsoever.
It is the BBC's idea of balance. Truly shocking but which main broadcaster is going to hold the BBC to account?
I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.
Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.
No it is a daft position. The Syrian Civil War has been a conflict completely contrived by outside powers. As the wikileaks document from the US Ambassador in 2006 confirms. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html
http://ericmargolis.com/2015/07/destroying-syria-to-make-it-safe-for-american-values/ An estimated 250,000 have died in the Syrian Civil War, 40,000 of those have been foreign Salafists fighting for the rebels. I wish the Syrian people good luck in expelling these foreign invaders who have devastated their country. 100,000 Syrians have died fighting for their country, hopefully now that the SAA and allied government militias are making real progress the slaughter will stop. Their needs to a reckoning for the KSA, Turkey, Qatar, Israel as well as reform of 'our' own government, it is a wicked and terrible thing we have done.
You have yet to learn that there is a difference between proposed actions and enacted actions.
The Syrian civil war came about because of protests, which can be seen as part of the Arab Spring, for more democracy and the release of political prisoners (*). In an unsurprising move Assad's forces opened fire on protesters.
As the regime's line hardened, so did the protesters, who expanded their aims to the overthrow of Assad.
You might want to take your tinfoil hat off and actually look at what went on instead of blindly supporting mass-murderer, chemical-weapons using, war criminal Assad.
I think the criticism of the Prince of Wales is somewhat misplaced and his position more nuanced.
Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.
Nuanced, now that's a word you don't hear much on PB. I tend to agree that there were a number of factors involved in creating the Syrian situation.
@DAaronovitch: The @Ed_Miliband interview on @BBCr4today was profoundly depressing. 'I take full responsibility for getting everything right'. Oh Vanity.
How much is Ed to blame for the current mess Labour find themselves in? A question for history perhaps, but personally I'd say a great deal.
I blame the EICIPM advocates.
OGH needs to urgently send out search parties for most of these miscreants as many seem to be AWOL from PB since 7th May.
Fair play to BJO, he has never shied away, unlike IOS and several others.
Comments
The USA has a demos, it believes its one country, the EU except for some of the chattering classes, doesn't. If there is a security problem in say Paris and it doesn't get fixed, the French government loses the election, not the EU Commission. The French government therefore needs to at least look like it is trying to solve the problem to survive, and strangely it doesn't have much say over German or Hungarian border control, so it closes/controls the French borders, its pure political survival.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34897076
Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph reports there's a Russian submarine off Scotland: a contingency apparently unforeseen by Hammond, unless of course he'd backed Yes in IndyRef.
French patrol planes are scouring the seas off Scotland for a Russian submarine after Britain was forced to call on allies for help because it has scrapped its own sub-hunting aircraft.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12010438/Britain-calls-in-French-to-hunt-Russian-sub-lurking-off-Scotland.html
You could - and some do - argue that our requirements were wrong. But that's a different matter.
The whole idea of "Fortress Europe" is on a hiding to nothing, national governments on the borders will neither be prepared to pay for it, nor take responsibility for it, particularly if idiots like Merkel go around shouting about how all are welcome, or maybe not.
BBC Director General is bleating today, but the bit I want to highlight is this:
"Future licence fee negotiations should, he says, be made with the input of licence fee payers possibly by an online vote."
Yes, because online voting isn't wide open to hacking, is it?
Clown. Not to mention you can't have individuals deciding on a specific tax. Are we to have votes on how much income tax we'd like to pay?
Then there's this bit:
"Instead, he is calling for the charter period to be extended to 11 years, which would take it out of the electoral cycle and that any changes to the system should only be changed in Parliament with a two thirds majority and a vote by licence fee payers."
That's demented. That would give it greater protection than, say, NHS funding. Or Trident. The underlying belief seems to be that the BBC is the single most sacred institution in the UK.
It's certainly important, and very popular (although perhaps not amongst some F1 fans), but it's not an idol to be placed on a pedestal and admired without consideration.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34894250
As you say, the whole thing's demented. The BBC have some very good technical bods who'll be able to tell him that electronic voting is pants. Yet the BBC bosses are not known for listening to their technical bods, and the 'talent' (as Roger would call the presenters and stars) treat them with contempt.
Please, just shut up. I was feeling a bit of sympathy for him recently - nope, skip him.
Daft cock.
Edited extra bit: to clarify, that refers to Charles, not Miss Plato
BBC Charter (Removal of idiotic restrictions) (2020) is a one line bill that amends that law to require only an normal majority to change the rules. The rules are then changed in the usual manner by a majority vote in parliament.
Jim Naughtie: Having crashed the car?
Miliband: Thanks
#r4today
I'd like to see these two stupid women wanting compensation for the millions of men who have had to work longer than women for generations.
She's keen to cry 'injustice', when the injustice seems very gender-specific.
Nitwit.
Economic management.
oh.
Good monarchs and bad monarchs both come and go. The alternative is a presidency.
Better Charles than a President Blair, Cameron or Corbyn.
That said, Charles is barking mad.
If a system has flaws but the alternative is worse, you go for the former not the latter.
As it happens I was not checked once, from boarding in Paris Nord to leaving Amsterdam Centraal - no tickets, no passport, nothing.
But then I had bought the ticket online, so its entirely possible those who needed to know knew exactly who was sitting in my seat.....
As one or two of us have been predicting for a while, once the euphoria of a majority dissipates this lot are not very good at governing.
"It needed to be said. I am glad he said it."
You've woken up with a sore head this morning. I thought only Tories kicked people when they're down? He must have had a lousy six months.
AWACS (airborne early warning) and maritime patrol (MP) are very different roles. AWACS are for detecting flying threats, whilst maritime patrol aircraft monitor shipping and submarines (or should do).
Generally, and there is some overlap: AWACS look for aircraft up and along, Maritime patrol look for ships down and along.
Historians of this area will know that the Nimrod-based AEW plane (AEW3) was another Nimrod-based project failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3
In the end we did buy some Boeing Sentry (AWACS) planes, which are still doing good service. But they're not the same as maritime patrol planes.
First thoughts say it makes sense for AWACS and MP to be merged into one platform, especially as modern AWACS have look-down capability to search for low-flying sea-skimming planes and missiles. But MP requires the planes to fly at low altitude for sensors such as MAD. Therefore the MP planes need to have long range, long loiter times, at low altitude. Modern jet airliners give the first two; getting the third is where Boeing have apparently had trouble with developing the P8. I think the Yanks have abandoned MAD sensors for that reason, at least for their versions of the plane.
Yet again people shouted down as racist for raising uncomfortable facts.
The new Nimrod MRA4 required longer wings, so the MOD leant BAE an airframe. BAE then designed and built the wing sections that would be added to the wing roots. They made the segments for all the planes so the planes could be converted quickly.
Then the MOD delivered another plane.
The bits did not fit. In fact, they were inches out. Therefore all the extensions made had to be scrapped, and new ones made for each airframe as it came in, which took ages.
As an aside, to show how things have changed: when assembling the Typhoon, accuracy is so important for the airframe that they have to be built on a special concrete pad with no joins, as joins might mean the concrete sections expand at different rates, throwing out measurements by fractions of a milimetre.
(From memory, might be wrong).
The Labour party is at serious risk today. We are looking down the barrel of long-term Tory governments. That would be a tragedy.
As the previous leader and as someone who managed to keep the party together, Ed is an unique position to fix the problems that he has created. He has rare reach across groups. He needs to wake up and get on with it. Perhaps using the sympathy we all have to positive effect.
The first step is for him to recognise and take responsibility for what he did. He still has something to offer. We don't have time to feel sorry for him.
What Osborne has achieved so far has been colossal. The criticism levelled is that he hasnt gone far enough quickly enough.
Odd, because that wasnt the criticism before....
You think Luxembourg, with 600,000 people, could sensibly guard its borders? Of course not.
You can ski between Switzerland and Italy (and I've done so). Do you think the Italian and Swiss governments are going to spend tens of billions on building walls across the Alps?
We are lucky, we live on an island. We have different choices.
Lovely old tea shop with a roaring fire last time I was there.
Policing borders wouldn't stop illegal migration entirely, but it would make it much harder to achieve. Similarly, Merkel's idiotic pronouncement only spurred on the flow of migrants.
Sorry my fault , talking about different things. My memory tells me that the Shackeltons were continued in service long after their sell by date because of problems with NImrod..., there were talks about buying American AWACS, but we persisted against all logic with NImrod... but then eventually bought AWACS.. I am no expert (on anything ) but carrying on with NImrod cost zillions that we need not have spent..
Historians of this area will know that the Nimrod-based AEW plane (AEW3) was another Nimrod-based project failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3
In the end we did buy some Boeing Sentry (AWACS) planes, which are still doing good service. But they're not the same as maritime patrol planes.
First thoughts say it makes sense for AWACS and MP to be merged into one platform, especially as modern AWACS have look-down capability to search for low-flying sea-skimming planes and missiles. But MP requires the planes to fly at low altitude for sensors such as MAD. Therefore the MP planes need to have long range, long loiter times, at low altitude. Modern jet airliners give the first two; getting the third is where Boeing have apparently had trouble with developing the P8. I think the Yanks have abandoned MAD sensors for that reason, at least for their versions of the plane.
WE did ... eventually.. I seem to recall news reports about deliberations on this subject and the requirement to buy British overrode the need..
I've just looked it up. The first Sentry was delivered to the RAF in 1990. The Nimrod AEW3 project was cancelled in 1986, and the Sentry ordered for the RAF the same year. So it looks as if the delays were delivery delays, rather than delays in making a choice of alternative.
And be absolutely clear coming in from Syria via Greece is not the only way for a jihadi to end up on Brussels. Or Paris.
It is only considered unhealthy because we gorge on so many other things.
The front page of I offers an alternative view
Prince Charles stated that the six year drought in Syria forced people off the land and into cities that accentuated the difficulties already present. A breeding ground for discontent was substantially heightened that helped to ferment the rebellion against Assad and the rise of ISIS.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html
http://ericmargolis.com/2015/07/destroying-syria-to-make-it-safe-for-american-values/
An estimated 250,000 have died in the Syrian Civil War, 40,000 of those have been foreign Salafists fighting for the rebels. I wish the Syrian people good luck in expelling these foreign invaders who have devastated their country. 100,000 Syrians have died fighting for their country, hopefully now that the SAA and allied government militias are making real progress the slaughter will stop. Their needs to a reckoning for the KSA, Turkey, Qatar, Israel as well as reform of 'our' own government, it is a wicked and terrible thing we have done.
Not a surprise, but still good news, given the dire financial state of more than half the grid.
OGH needs to urgently send out search parties for most of these miscreants as many seem to be AWOL from PB since 7th May.
Our involvement in 2013 could have been disastrous (ISIS could have all Syria by now) or hugely helpful (we could have the FSA in charge, or at least the major rival to ISIS, rather than Assad).
The Syrian civil war came about because of protests, which can be seen as part of the Arab Spring, for more democracy and the release of political prisoners (*). In an unsurprising move Assad's forces opened fire on protesters.
As the regime's line hardened, so did the protesters, who expanded their aims to the overthrow of Assad.
You might want to take your tinfoil hat off and actually look at what went on instead of blindly supporting mass-murderer, chemical-weapons using, war criminal Assad.
(*) Who are very poorly treated by the regime:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/images-syrian-torture-shock-new-yorkers-united-nations
I tend to agree that there were a number of factors involved in creating the Syrian situation.