@georgeeaton: Andy Burnham has not offered to swap jobs with Hilary Benn, source says in response to Times story. "No conversations/offers at all."
The scared ones are pushing out stories to keep their jobs. Burnham does not need to do it because his job is safe.
Why would they be scared? These are unpaid jobs on a sinking ship we're talking about.
Privilege. It comes with media interviews, party policy influence, seniority in the command chain, staff and other small perks.
To put it simply will anyone care what Benn had to say if he was not shadow foreign secretary? The conspirators of course want to use their positions to fight Corbyn, not to fight the Tories.
I have never understood these claims that banning EU migrants from claiming from the British welfare system would be "discriminatory". As far as I'm concerned, Poland would have equal right to block British migrants from claiming from their welfare system if they wished.
There's a core principle in the EU, you cannot treat citizens from another member state worse than you treat your own.
If jimbo from Basingstoke is entitled to £10k of tax credits when working here, then Patryk from Slupsk must also be entitled to £10k of tax credits (assuming they have the same family and earnings etc).
The rule is a bit fuzzier around a qualifying period. Are you entitled from the moment you get off the plane? From the moment you get a national insurance number etc?
If you want to limit tax credits and out of work benefits by creating a qualifying period, its perfectly acceptable, you just have to do it for your own citizens as well.
Interestingly, the rule about treating member states no worse than your own citizens. This was to stop countries from disadvantaging other citizens. The European Union never dreamt that a member state however would wish to discriminate against its own citizens.
This has created the most bizarre situation in Scotland in which Scottish residents get their fees paid for by the Scottish government, Welsh students get 2/3 of their fees paid for by the Welsh assembly, English students get no assistance other than a student loan, citizens from any other EU, EEA, Switzerland, or a child of a Turkish worker in the UK (I'm not making this up) you will get your tuition fees paid for in full.
The only people in the entire of the European Union, European Economic Area and Switzerland who pay full tuition in Scotland are those from England.
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
I think everyone in the party has actually been quite restrained about Danczuk up to now (you'll recall that he was just as nasty about Ed as he is about Jeremy, for years, in a weekly column in the Mail FFS) - there was a decent reason for the restraint which I won't discuss here, but everything has its limits, and I don't think he should be a Labour MP.
I agree that there are people among Corbyn's allies who are less amiable and tolerant, but in politics you do need some tough-minded allies, as you'll certainly have some tough-minded opponents.
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
"Bombers like him"
Do you honestly and seriously think of Benn as some kind of wild-eyed warmonger?
Of course, I do. Anyone who voted for this was simply showing off his willy. As if our 6 Typhoon's are going to make any difference.
Benn has always been very ordinary. Intellectually and politically. He is only there because of his father.
If the aircraft aren't going to make any difference what's the big deal? Why do say that people who supported the action have no place in your party?
Because they are warmongers ! And, he is bloody ORDINARY.
You want to expel ordinary people from the Labour Party? OK.
Useless fact: I visited Southend for the first time today, on what is probably their least busy day of the year. Had a go on the pier railway.
Are you completing a Sunil-style mini-tour of England?
I suspect I've lived, worked in, or stayed with my excessively scattered family in more corners of England than most people (except travelling contractors etc): Yorkshire, East Anglia, the SE, the SW, and London. But it's amazing how many holes that still leaves, as a glance at a National Trust atlas or AA Guide will immediately attest. Before ill health/disability curtailed me, I used to spend a lot of my weekends going on round-Britain mini-breaks of a night or two, trying to fill some of the blanks. We live in a beautiful, varied and surprising big country - I'd recommend it highly to anyone with sufficient mobility and freedom from weekend-dominating responsibilities, and particularly if you can't afford jet-setting holidays to exotic destinations or simply want to spread your breaks across the year.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
"Bombers like him"
Do you honestly and seriously think of Benn as some kind of wild-eyed warmonger?
Of course, I do. Anyone who voted for this was simply showing off his willy. As if our 6 Typhoon's are going to make any difference.
Benn has always been very ordinary. Intellectually and politically. He is only there because of his father.
If the aircraft aren't going to make any difference what's the big deal? Why do say that people who supported the action have no place in your party?
Because they are warmongers ! And, he is bloody ORDINARY.
You do sound slightly unhinged. Why are you banging on about him being 'ordinary'?
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
Of course, no room for a conscience in the new kinder Labour Party. Unlike Corbyn who hawked his conscience round Parliament year after year with no regard whatever for what the party wanted.
I think people like Benn and that Dugher chappie [ hadn't heard of him until this evening ] are now shitting yellow stuff. And, the right wing media are helping create stories which are simply not true.
Jeremy, whilst I did not vote for you. this is your chance. Sack all the 11 warmongers.
@georgeeaton: Andy Burnham has not offered to swap jobs with Hilary Benn, source says in response to Times story. "No conversations/offers at all."
The scared ones are pushing out stories to keep their jobs. Burnham does not need to do it because his job is safe.
Why would they be scared? These are unpaid jobs on a sinking ship we're talking about.
Privilege. It comes with media interviews, party policy influence, seniority on the command chain, staff and other small perks.
To put it simply will anyone care what Benn had to say if he was not shadow foreign secretary? The conspirators of course want to use their positions to fight Corbyn, not to fight the Tories.
Yes, he will still get attention on the back benches. Most of Labour's talent is there after all.
Aren't front benchers also allowed a free vote (genuine question)?
Yes, and Surbiton and I cross over on this - he didn't support Corbyn but wants Benn sacked, I'm the other way round: Benn was told he could express his opinion, so he did, nothing wrong with that. But I do see it's awkward to have Leader and Shadow FS disgree on the issue. If Benn were to get the Home Office or similar that'd seem a reasonable outcome to me.
I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.
They have to be ten yards from the ball on a free kick. In the past they all snuck forward when the ref turned round. The line disappears after a minute or two.
Jeremy Corbyn sacked one of his ministers. But can he be sure which one? Three months after he sacks the treacherous Angela, a Commons vote is due on Trident. But when his surviving minister, Maria, claims they have mistaken her identity - that she, in fact, is Angela - Jeremy's world comes crashing down once again. What really happened on that fateful day when he reshuffled his Shadow Cabinet?
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
Of course, no room for a conscience in the new kinder Labour Party. Unlike Corbyn who hawked his conscience round Parliament year after year with no regard whatever for what the party wanted.
Did they ever appoint Corbyn to the shadow cabinet? No, because Corbyn disagreed with the party leadership on policy matters. Ergo, Corbyn has the right to do the same, especially since some not only disagree with him but actively plotting against the Labour party.
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
I think everyone in the party has actually been quite restrained about Danczuk up to now (you'll recall that he was just as nasty about Ed as he is about Jeremy, for years, in a weekly column in the Mail FFS) - there was a decent reason for the restraint which I won't discuss here, but everything has its limits, and I don't think he should be a Labour MP.
I agree that there are people among Corbyn's allies who are less amiable and tolerant, but in politics you do need some tough-minded allies, as you'll certainly have some tough-minded opponents.
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
Nick: I will give you a quick answer as it's late -
(1) Character i.e. a moral compass - what their default instinct is, what someone does when no-one is looking. (2) Courage (3) Judgment (4) The ability to communicate and inspire others.
To be fair, anyone in the Cabinet against air strikes would have been sacked, yes? Especially say Michael Fallon. So the error is not in Corbyn's behaviour but in the behaviour of the Labour Party which chose him as leader. It is hard to see what Corbyn could do better in this situation.
To be fair, anyone in the Cabinet against air strikes would have been sacked, yes? Especially say Michael Fallon. So the error is not in Corbyn's behaviour but in the behaviour of the Labour Party which chose him as leader. It is hard to see what Corbyn could do better in this situation.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
Useless fact: I visited Southend for the first time today, on what is probably their least busy day of the year. Had a go on the pier railway.
Are you completing a Sunil-style mini-tour of England?
I suspect I've lived, worked in, or stayed with my excessively scattered family in more corners of England than most people (except travelling contractors etc): Yorkshire, East Anglia, the SE, the SW, and London. But it's amazing how many holes that still leaves, as a glance at a National Trust atlas or AA Guide will immediately attest. Before ill health/disability curtailed me, I used to spend a lot of my weekends going on round-Britain mini-breaks of a night or two, trying to fill some of the blanks. We live in a beautiful, varied and surprising big country - I'd recommend it highly to anyone with sufficient mobility and freedom from weekend-dominating responsibilities, and particularly if you can't afford jet-setting holidays to exotic destinations or simply want to spread your breaks across the year.
UK is a top holiday country England for me particularly in the NW and the central bits around the Bristol-Oxford-Norwich axis (no offence to any others) Oh and Scotland and Wales and NI
@georgeeaton: Andy Burnham has not offered to swap jobs with Hilary Benn, source says in response to Times story. "No conversations/offers at all."
The scared ones are pushing out stories to keep their jobs. Burnham does not need to do it because his job is safe.
Why would they be scared? These are unpaid jobs on a sinking ship we're talking about.
Privilege. It comes with media interviews, party policy influence, seniority on the command chain, staff and other small perks.
To put it simply will anyone care what Benn had to say if he was not shadow foreign secretary? The conspirators of course want to use their positions to fight Corbyn, not to fight the Tories.
Yes, he will still get attention on the back benches. Most of Labour's talent is there after all.
Really? Have you ever heard of Liz Kendall, or Chuka Ummuna, or even Yvette Cooper since Corbyn got elected? No one bothers with them anymore, like they don't even exist.
The only backbencher widely heard was Danzcuk, and he was eaten alive by the same Tory press that gave him his regular columns.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
Of course, no room for a conscience in the new kinder Labour Party. Unlike Corbyn who hawked his conscience round Parliament year after year with no regard whatever for what the party wanted.
Did they ever appoint Corbyn to the shadow cabinet? No, because Corbyn disagreed with the party leadership on policy matters. Ergo, Corbyn has the right to do the same, especially since some not only disagree with him but actively plotting against the Labour party.
Someone who shows no loyalty to the party has no right to demand it of others by claiming that the party demands it. Corbyn appointed Benn. He gave him a free vote. But his definition of freedom seems a very Stalinist one: you are free to vote how you want but if you don't vote how I say, you're out.
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
I think everyone in the party has actually been quite restrained about Danczuk up to now (you'll recall that he was just as nasty about Ed as he is about Jeremy, for years, in a weekly column in the Mail FFS) - there was a decent reason for the restraint which I won't discuss here, but everything has its limits, and I don't think he should be a Labour MP.
I agree that there are people among Corbyn's allies who are less amiable and tolerant, but in politics you do need some tough-minded allies, as you'll certainly have some tough-minded opponents.
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
I don't like Danczuk either but there has been briefing over the last couple of days from the leaders office that he will be expelled, which to me is against natural justice before considering the case. Ken has opined as well. Again this is sanctioned stuff and is wrong.
The first quality of a leader is to be able to lead - the have a clear idea of what they want to do and how they get the party/army/organisation/sports team to get there. In the case of labour that includes an ability to unite the PLP and the membership and work out how to do that.
I would also like to see a senior politician with experience of some kind of leadership and/or administration outside politics.
And as a politician it is absolutely essential that you can engage with and attract the public outside of your own narrow support. Politics is a competitive sport I'm afraid.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign. Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
Surbitons posts tonight sums up the problem the Labour Party have .....its tribal. No other opinion is allowed, even from their own ministers .If other supporters are just like this then civil war has now broken out. There really is no way back for them thank god. Labour are finished put out the carcass for garbage collection and move on.
Its just as well because if Labour and these people with such attitudes ever got into power then we the general public, "The ordinary people" as it was nastily put up thread would be next in line for this precise attitude.
Do as your told, don't argue or else. Government by threats and intimidation its what's on offer from the left as can be seen from their repose to their own. Nasty indeed.
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
I think everyone in the party has actually been quite restrained about Danczuk up to now (you'll recall that he was just as nasty about Ed as he is about Jeremy, for years, in a weekly column in the Mail FFS) - there was a decent reason for the restraint which I won't discuss here, but everything has its limits, and I don't think he should be a Labour MP.
I agree that there are people among Corbyn's allies who are less amiable and tolerant, but in politics you do need some tough-minded allies, as you'll certainly have some tough-minded opponents.
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
Nick: I will give you a quick answer as it's late -
(1) Character i.e. a moral compass - what their default instinct is, what someone does when no-one is looking. (2) Courage (3) Judgment (4) The ability to communicate and inspire others.
Good points, Mrs Free, but I think you are missing the most important one - knowing where he/she wants to take his/her team. You can't lead if you don't know here you are going.
When I was training "strategic" leaders, the first question on day one was, "Why should your people follow you?" It never ceased to amaze me how few people had ever considered the question.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
Of course, no room for a conscience in the new kinder Labour Party. Unlike Corbyn who hawked his conscience round Parliament year after year with no regard whatever for what the party wanted.
Did they ever appoint Corbyn to the shadow cabinet? No, because Corbyn disagreed with the party leadership on policy matters. Ergo, Corbyn has the right to do the same, especially since some not only disagree with him but actively plotting against the Labour party.
Someone who shows no loyalty to the party has no right to demand it of others by claiming that the party demands it. Corbyn appointed Benn. He gave him a free vote. But his definition of freedom seems a very Stalinist one: you are free to vote how you want but if you don't vote how I say, you're out.
Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest.
Especially at charged moments that smell of gunpowder, Benn was seen flagging the knife on Corbyn's face at a time when everyone inside Labour knows that they are plotting and conspiring.
Corbyn was never in the shadow cabinet because of his disagreements with past leaders, so why should Benn?
@georgeeaton: Andy Burnham has not offered to swap jobs with Hilary Benn, source says in response to Times story. "No conversations/offers at all."
The scared ones are pushing out stories to keep their jobs. Burnham does not need to do it because his job is safe.
Why would they be scared? These are unpaid jobs on a sinking ship we're talking about.
Privilege. It comes with media interviews, party policy influence, seniority on the command chain, staff and other small perks.
To put it simply will anyone care what Benn had to say if he was not shadow foreign secretary? The conspirators of course want to use their positions to fight Corbyn, not to fight the Tories.
Yes, he will still get attention on the back benches. Most of Labour's talent is there after all.
Really? Have you ever heard of Liz Kendall, or Chuka Ummuna, or even Yvette Cooper since Corbyn got elected? No one bothers with them anymore, like they don't even exist.
The only backbencher widely heard was Danzcuk, and he was eaten alive by the same Tory press that gave him his regular columns.
I've heard as much from Cooper as from most of the shadow cabinet. All we've had is:
Some clowning from McDonnell Eloquent speech from Benn (you want him sacked for it) Er, that's it
Oh, and Maria Eagle was upset about Ken. So there's that.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.
I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.
Btw, what happened in your college football friendly fire match up?
The nightmare is complete. It's Clemson v Alabama.
Worst of all the game is on my birthday.
Well, you're guaranteed a win.
Alabama are 7 point favorites. We'll probably take them.
It's one of the reasons I don't play fantasy football.
I support my team, and don't want to watch and support other teams who happen to have players on my fantasy team.
Although DirecTV, as part of my NFL Sunday Ticket package, in addition to the truly awesome Red Zone Channel, now have a Fantasy Zone Channel which is interesting to watch, even though I don't really get the concept of 'fantasy points'. They will say stuff like "Ferd Berfle ran for 125 yards and two TDs and got 17.6 fantasy points".
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
When faced with the choice between two unpleasant options:
* the weak man will choose both * the stupid man will choose the worst * the good man will choose the best * the great man will choose the third
It's all about choosing (which in turn speaks to character). Corbyn has made some poor choices: voting against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, backing the IRA and Hamas, pursuing a nuclear-free Middle-East policy and unilateral nuclear disarmament, allowing the Labour Party to turn into a civil war. You have listed some attributes he has which are admirable. Fair enough. But I think, given his choices, he simply should not be Prime Minister.
UK is a top holiday country England for me particularly in the NW and the central bits around the Bristol-Oxford-Norwich axis (no offence to any others) Oh and Scotland and Wales and NI
Dutch tourists seem to love the UK even more than Brits do, and find their way to bits of the country where the Chinese/Japanese/Indian tourist market hasn't really taken off.
Incidentally, for a rural/urban split, here are the 30 largest (ceremonial) counties by area, and the biggest 30 cities (ok, technically Primary Urban Areas).
1 North Yorkshire / London 2 Lincolnshire / Birmingham 3 Cumbria / Manchester 4 Devon / Liverpool 5 Norfolk / Leeds 6 Northumberland / Sheffield 7 Somerset / Teesside 8 Suffolk / Bristol 9 Hampshire / Bournemouth and Poole 10 Kent / Stoke-on-Trent 11 Essex / Leicester 12 Cornwall / Wirral 13 Shropshire / Coventry 14 Wiltshire / Nottingham 15 Cambridgeshire / Bradford 16 Gloucestershire / Newcastle 17 Lancashire / Bolton 18 Durham / Brighton and Hove 19 Staffordshire / Plymouth 20 Dorset / Hull 21 Derbyshire / Preston 22 Oxfordshire / Derby 23 East Riding of Yorkshire / Aldershot and Farnborough 24 Northamptonshire / Southampton 25 Cheshire / Wigan 26 Herefordshire / Barnsley 27 Nottinghamshire / Portsmouth 28 Leicestershire / Luton 29 West Yorkshire / York 30 West Sussex / Northampton
I think it must be very rare to have explored, say, 20 of the top 30 from both lists.
PUAs 31-50 include places around the size of Milton Keynes, Southend, Ipswich, Reading, Oxford, Blackpool or Norwich, some of which are more worth a visit than places that made it into the top 30.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign. Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass. But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland? Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.
In the event of war with Poland, would all those plumbers be deported or interned?
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
Of course we would honour it, by sending large amounts of slingshots, matchsticks and tweets to aid them. By the way, what Wehrmacht? That was dismantled in 1945.
Realistically though I think the russians will not invade a NATO country, they will simply invade countries that want to join NATO to cause a nasty security situation, in which NATO could never accept said country in it.
The baltic states though are a curious case, with very large ethnic russian populations that are segregated, those are easy tools to destabilize those states that are too small to ever be able to defend themselves from any of their neighbours. Every russian government would have destabilizing plans high up their list, the baltic states are NATO's testicles which Russia can squeeze.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.
Btw, what happened in your college football friendly fire match up?
The nightmare is complete. It's Clemson v Alabama.
Worst of all the game is on my birthday.
Well, you're guaranteed a win.
Alabama are 7 point favorites. We'll probably take them.
It's one of the reasons I don't play fantasy football.
I support my team, and don't want to watch and support other teams who happen to have players on my fantasy team.
Although DirecTV, as part of my NFL Sunday Ticket package, in addition to the truly awesome Red Zone Channel, now have a Fantasy Zone Channel which is interesting to watch, even though I don't really get the concept of 'fantasy points'. They will say stuff like "Ferd Berfle ran for 125 yards and two TDs and got 17.6 fantasy points".
Yes, I find that quite annoying - how fantasy invades discussion of the real game.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign. Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass. But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland? Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
I think people like Benn and that Dugher chappie [ hadn't heard of him until this evening ] are now shitting yellow stuff. And, the right wing media are helping create stories which are simply not true.
Jeremy, whilst I did not vote for you. this is your chance. Sack all the 11 warmongers.
ha ha ha. Priceless, oh my goodness gracious me. Labour are really stuffed aren't they. What an fool you are.
And how on earth did NPXXMP ever persuade the people of Broxtowe that he had the brains and judgement to be their representative.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
Of course we would honour it, by sending large amounts of slingshots, matchsticks and tweets to aid them. By the way, what Wehrmacht? That was dismantled in 1945.
Realistically though I think the russians will not invade a NATO country, they will simply invade countries that want to join NATO to cause a nasty security situation, in which NATO could never accept said country in it.
The baltic states though are a curious case, with very large ethnic russian populations that are segregated, those are easy tools to destabilize those states that are too small to ever be able to defend themselves from any of their neighbours. Every russian government would have destabilizing plans high up their list, the baltic states are NATO's testicles which Russia can squeeze.
But enough with that, goodnight.
"Kaliningrad is the testicle of Russia. When I want to make the Russians scream, I squeeze on Kaliningrad!"
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign. Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass. But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland? Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.
No I did not miss that. NATO troops are regular visitors to Poland as it is. As for defending Poland - well the Poles can make a pretty good start on that for themselves. And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia. So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse. Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
Trident? Horrifying thought!!!!
The last resort is the first response? Step forward James Hacker and the Chief Scientific advisor who won a DSO at Arnhem but spoke with an Austrian accent so was distrusted by the Civil Service.
But no, Mr. Cole I don't think so. Trident is there to do a job and that is not to protect Poland or anywhere other than the UK.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign. Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass. But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland? Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.
No I did not miss that. NATO troops are regular visitors to Poland as it is. As for defending Poland - well the Poles can make a pretty good start on that for themselves. And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia. So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse. Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign. Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass. But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland? Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.
No I did not miss that. NATO troops are regular visitors to Poland as it is. As for defending Poland - well the Poles can make a pretty good start on that for themselves. And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia. So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse. Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?
Kaliningrad Oblast has land borders with both Poland and Lithuania.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign. Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass. But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland? Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.
No I did not miss that. NATO troops are regular visitors to Poland as it is. As for defending Poland - well the Poles can make a pretty good start on that for themselves. And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia. So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse. Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?
Kaliningrad Oblast has land borders with both Poland and Lithuania.
How many soldiers do Russia keep in Kaliningrad? I assume that the border is well defended at that point.
UK is a top holiday country England for me particularly in the NW and the central bits around the Bristol-Oxford-Norwich axis (no offence to any others) Oh and Scotland and Wales and NI
Dutch tourists seem to love the UK even more than Brits do, and find their way to bits of the country where the Chinese/Japanese/Indian tourist market hasn't really taken off.
Incidentally, for a rural/urban split, here are the 30 largest (ceremonial) counties by area, and the biggest 30 cities (ok, technically Primary Urban Areas).
1 North Yorkshire / London 2 Lincolnshire / Birmingham 3 Cumbria / Manchester 4 Devon / Liverpool 5 Norfolk / Leeds 6 Northumberland / Sheffield 7 Somerset / Teesside 8 Suffolk / Bristol 9 Hampshire / Bournemouth and Poole 10 Kent / Stoke-on-Trent 11 Essex / Leicester 12 Cornwall / Wirral 13 Shropshire / Coventry 14 Wiltshire / Nottingham 15 Cambridgeshire / Bradford 16 Gloucestershire / Newcastle 17 Lancashire / Bolton 18 Durham / Brighton and Hove 19 Staffordshire / Plymouth 20 Dorset / Hull 21 Derbyshire / Preston 22 Oxfordshire / Derby 23 East Riding of Yorkshire / Aldershot and Farnborough 24 Northamptonshire / Southampton 25 Cheshire / Wigan 26 Herefordshire / Barnsley 27 Nottinghamshire / Portsmouth 28 Leicestershire / Luton 29 West Yorkshire / York 30 West Sussex / Northampton
I think it must be very rare to have explored, say, 20 of the top 30 from both lists.
PUAs 31-50 include places around the size of Milton Keynes, Southend, Ipswich, Reading, Oxford, Blackpool or Norwich, some of which are more worth a visit than places that made it into the top 30.
I was going to say.. The largest city in the UK is the City of Carlisle.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
Trident? Horrifying thought!!!!
The last resort is the first response? Step forward James Hacker and the Chief Scientific advisor who won a DSO at Arnhem but spoke with an Austrian accent so was distrusted by the Civil Service.
But no, Mr. Cole I don't think so. Trident is there to do a job and that is not to protect Poland or anywhere other than the UK.
I hardly think so, either Mr L but given that, as you rightly say we really haven't the manpower or hardware to fight a prolonged ground war. I suppose it is arguable that Poland is "a long way from Russie" given the existence of Belarus etc but I can't see that country as much more of a "problem" for them than say Luxemburg was in WW2.
why would Russia want to invade Poland?...And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia...So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse...Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?
Well, it invaded the Ukraine for no particularly good reason except for Putin's idea of what Russia's reach and influence should be.
The logistics of invading a country are well known. They involve armed forces with the range to invade and a supply train to supply them when they do. Russia has them.
Incidentally, Poland and Kaliningrad (a Russian exclave) border each other. So the distance between Poland and Russia is exactly zero. Conversely of course, the Russian troops could just go straight thru the Ukraine.
Denver Broncos are playing the San Diego Chargers on the final day of the season. At stake is winning their division, number 1 seed, first round bye, and home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
After half time, Denver are behind and QB Brock Osweiler has thrown a total of 5 turnovers.
At the half the coach asks the backup QB if he can go if needed and is told Yes.
A few minutes into the 3rd quarter coach pulls the Brockweiler and the backup QB, who has been injured and hasn't played for 6 weeks, takes over. When they see him walk onto the field, the crowd goes wild and gives him a standing ovation.
He leads the team driving down the field and for 3 scores. The team wins, crowd goes wild and stands again.
So the backup QB, who everyone thought had reached the end of his career, leads his team into the playoffs looking good.
The last resort is the first response? Step forward James Hacker and the Chief Scientific advisor who won a DSO at Arnhem but spoke with an Austrian accent so was distrusted by the Civil Service.
It is amazing how much "Yes, Minister" continues to inform our thinking, even after 30 years. Yes, I thought of that scene as well, even down to the "Piccadilly Circus" punchline.
Was actually looking for a number, rather than a smart arse reply
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.
Was actually looking for a number, rather than a smart arse reply
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.
For source, see www.forces.tv/52514218
Given the price of oil - Brent Crude closed below West Texas Intermediate one day last week - and the state of the Russian economy, how long can they keep this up at $37 a barrel?
As an aside, what does $37 a barrel oil do for the Scottish economy?
Given the price of oil - Brent Crude closed below West Texas Intermediate one day last week - and the state of the Russian economy, how long can they keep this up at $37 a barrel?
They can do this indefinitely. Guns, tanks, bullets, troops are cheap and already paid for. Ship and aircraft are expensive, but once they're built it's sunk costs. Russia could put its entire armed forces in Kaliningrad for no cost other than the petrol it would take to drive them there.
Given the price of oil - Brent Crude closed below West Texas Intermediate one day last week - and the state of the Russian economy, how long can they keep this up at $37 a barrel?
They can do this indefinitely. Guns, tanks, bullets, troops are cheap and already paid for. Ship and aircraft are expensive, but once they're built it's sunk costs. Russia could put its entire armed forces in Kaliningrad for no cost other than the petrol it would take to drive them there.
But housing the troops and impedimenta, paying them, fuel and replenishment are not cheap. Admittedly the replenishment would be after the fact.
Was actually looking for a number, rather than a smart arse reply
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.
Was actually looking for a number, rather than a smart arse reply
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.
For source, see www.forces.tv/52514218
Isn't that more than we've got overall?
You can't get to Kaliningrad (except by sea) without crossing EU territory.
Was actually looking for a number, rather than a smart arse reply
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.
For source, see www.forces.tv/52514218
Isn't that more than we've got overall?
You can't get to Kaliningrad (except by sea) without crossing EU territory.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Oh FFS will they ever grow up ?
Alan, surprised you are down with the frothers and fruitcakes, both the author and Scott are not the full shilling
I mean teacakes malc ? It's hardly founding a nation is it
The Nats should trying a bit of bridgebuilding for a change.
Start at the Firth of Forth.
Alan , it is choc a block with bridges, these east coasters are just too used to getting it easy. We hav eto swim the crossings on the west coast. The teacakes are crap anyway, and old Tunnock is half daft by the sounds of it.
Funny how Eck always managed to get him self photoed with rich men of dubious sanity.
How is the Donald these days ?
He seems to be doing very well at present , and spending lots of cash in Scotland.
Mostly with lawyers.
He is employing plenty for sure
Which presumably means the FM is having to do the same. Real value for the taxpayer.
It is in the supreme court so you are paying for it
Well that's cheered me up no end, paying for yet another of Ecks screw ups.
Sdaly I must depart the , scallopine di pollo con erbe is nearly ready and wine needs to be poured.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Oh FFS will they ever grow up ?
Alan, surprised you are down with the frothers and fruitcakes, both the author and Scott are not the full shilling
I mean teacakes malc ? It's hardly founding a nation is it
The Nats should trying a bit of bridgebuilding for a change.
Start at the Firth of Forth.
Alan , it is choc a block with bridges, these east coasters are just too used to getting it easy. We hav eto swim the crossings on the west coast. The teacakes are crap anyway, and old Tunnock is half daft by the sounds of it.
Funny how Eck always managed to get him self photoed with rich men of dubious sanity.
How is the Donald these days ?
He seems to be doing very well at present , and spending lots of cash in Scotland.
Mostly with lawyers.
He is employing plenty for sure
Which presumably means the FM is having to do the same. Real value for the taxpayer.
It is in the supreme court so you are paying for it
Well that's cheered me up no end, paying for yet another of Ecks screw ups.
Sdaly I must depart the , scallopine di pollo con erbe is nearly ready and wine needs to be poured.
Scallopina
Afraid not pretendy Italian, it is Scallopine
scallopine - sauteed cutlets (usually veal or poultry) that have been pounded thin and coated with flour
Comments
It comes with media interviews, party policy influence, seniority in the command chain, staff and other small perks.
To put it simply will anyone care what Benn had to say if he was not shadow foreign secretary?
The conspirators of course want to use their positions to fight Corbyn, not to fight the Tories.
If jimbo from Basingstoke is entitled to £10k of tax credits when working here, then Patryk from Slupsk must also be entitled to £10k of tax credits (assuming they have the same family and earnings etc).
The rule is a bit fuzzier around a qualifying period. Are you entitled from the moment you get off the plane? From the moment you get a national insurance number etc?
If you want to limit tax credits and out of work benefits by creating a qualifying period, its perfectly acceptable, you just have to do it for your own citizens as well.
Interestingly, the rule about treating member states no worse than your own citizens. This was to stop countries from disadvantaging other citizens. The European Union never dreamt that a member state however would wish to discriminate against its own citizens.
This has created the most bizarre situation in Scotland in which Scottish residents get their fees paid for by the Scottish government, Welsh students get 2/3 of their fees paid for by the Welsh assembly, English students get no assistance other than a student loan, citizens from any other EU, EEA, Switzerland, or a child of a Turkish worker in the UK (I'm not making this up) you will get your tuition fees paid for in full.
The only people in the entire of the European Union, European Economic Area and Switzerland who pay full tuition in Scotland are those from England.
I agree that there are people among Corbyn's allies who are less amiable and tolerant, but in politics you do need some tough-minded allies, as you'll certainly have some tough-minded opponents.
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
I suspect I've lived, worked in, or stayed with my excessively scattered family in more corners of England than most people (except travelling contractors etc): Yorkshire, East Anglia, the SE, the SW, and London. But it's amazing how many holes that still leaves, as a glance at a National Trust atlas or AA Guide will immediately attest. Before ill health/disability curtailed me, I used to spend a lot of my weekends going on round-Britain mini-breaks of a night or two, trying to fill some of the blanks. We live in a beautiful, varied and surprising big country - I'd recommend it highly to anyone with sufficient mobility and freedom from weekend-dominating responsibilities, and particularly if you can't afford jet-setting holidays to exotic destinations or simply want to spread your breaks across the year.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.
Jeremy, whilst I did not vote for you. this is your chance. Sack all the 11 warmongers.
No, because Corbyn disagreed with the party leadership on policy matters.
Ergo, Corbyn has the right to do the same, especially since some not only disagree with him but actively plotting against the Labour party.
(1) Character i.e. a moral compass - what their default instinct is, what someone does when no-one is looking.
(2) Courage
(3) Judgment
(4) The ability to communicate and inspire others.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
England for me particularly in the NW and the central bits around the Bristol-Oxford-Norwich axis (no offence to any others)
Oh and Scotland and Wales and NI
Worst of all the game is on my birthday.
Have you ever heard of Liz Kendall, or Chuka Ummuna, or even Yvette Cooper since Corbyn got elected?
No one bothers with them anymore, like they don't even exist.
The only backbencher widely heard was Danzcuk, and he was eaten alive by the same Tory press that gave him his regular columns.
The first quality of a leader is to be able to lead - the have a clear idea of what they want to do and how they get the party/army/organisation/sports team to get there. In the case of labour that includes an ability to unite the PLP and the membership and work out how to do that.
I would also like to see a senior politician with experience of some kind of leadership and/or administration outside politics.
And as a politician it is absolutely essential that you can engage with and attract the public outside of your own narrow support. Politics is a competitive sport I'm afraid.
Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
Surbitons posts tonight sums up the problem the Labour Party have .....its tribal. No other opinion is allowed, even from their own ministers .If other supporters are just like this then civil war has now broken out. There really is no way back for them thank god. Labour are finished put out the carcass for garbage collection and move on.
Its just as well because if Labour and these people with such attitudes ever got into power then we the general public, "The ordinary people" as it was nastily put up thread would be next in line for this precise attitude.
Do as your told, don't argue or else. Government by threats and intimidation its what's on offer from the left as can be seen from their repose to their own. Nasty indeed.
When I was training "strategic" leaders, the first question on day one was, "Why should your people follow you?" It never ceased to amaze me how few people had ever considered the question.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
Especially at charged moments that smell of gunpowder, Benn was seen flagging the knife on Corbyn's face at a time when everyone inside Labour knows that they are plotting and conspiring.
Corbyn was never in the shadow cabinet because of his disagreements with past leaders, so why should Benn?
Some clowning from McDonnell
Eloquent speech from Benn (you want him sacked for it)
Er, that's it
Oh, and Maria Eagle was upset about Ken. So there's that.
It's one of the reasons I don't play fantasy football.
I support my team, and don't want to watch and support other teams who happen to have players on my fantasy team.
Although DirecTV, as part of my NFL Sunday Ticket package, in addition to the truly awesome Red Zone Channel, now have a Fantasy Zone Channel which is interesting to watch, even though I don't really get the concept of 'fantasy points'. They will say stuff like "Ferd Berfle ran for 125 yards and two TDs and got 17.6 fantasy points".
* the weak man will choose both
* the stupid man will choose the worst
* the good man will choose the best
* the great man will choose the third
It's all about choosing (which in turn speaks to character). Corbyn has made some poor choices: voting against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, backing the IRA and Hamas, pursuing a nuclear-free Middle-East policy and unilateral nuclear disarmament, allowing the Labour Party to turn into a civil war. You have listed some attributes he has which are admirable. Fair enough. But I think, given his choices, he simply should not be Prime Minister.
Incidentally, for a rural/urban split, here are the 30 largest (ceremonial) counties by area, and the biggest 30 cities (ok, technically Primary Urban Areas).
1 North Yorkshire / London
2 Lincolnshire / Birmingham
3 Cumbria / Manchester
4 Devon / Liverpool
5 Norfolk / Leeds
6 Northumberland / Sheffield
7 Somerset / Teesside
8 Suffolk / Bristol
9 Hampshire / Bournemouth and Poole
10 Kent / Stoke-on-Trent
11 Essex / Leicester
12 Cornwall / Wirral
13 Shropshire / Coventry
14 Wiltshire / Nottingham
15 Cambridgeshire / Bradford
16 Gloucestershire / Newcastle
17 Lancashire / Bolton
18 Durham / Brighton and Hove
19 Staffordshire / Plymouth
20 Dorset / Hull
21 Derbyshire / Preston
22 Oxfordshire / Derby
23 East Riding of Yorkshire / Aldershot and Farnborough
24 Northamptonshire / Southampton
25 Cheshire / Wigan
26 Herefordshire / Barnsley
27 Nottinghamshire / Portsmouth
28 Leicestershire / Luton
29 West Yorkshire / York
30 West Sussex / Northampton
I think it must be very rare to have explored, say, 20 of the top 30 from both lists.
PUAs 31-50 include places around the size of Milton Keynes, Southend, Ipswich, Reading, Oxford, Blackpool or Norwich, some of which are more worth a visit than places that made it into the top 30.
But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland?
Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
From where would we source Kielbasa?
By the way, what Wehrmacht? That was dismantled in 1945.
Realistically though I think the russians will not invade a NATO country, they will simply invade countries that want to join NATO to cause a nasty security situation, in which NATO could never accept said country in it.
The baltic states though are a curious case, with very large ethnic russian populations that are segregated, those are easy tools to destabilize those states that are too small to ever be able to defend themselves from any of their neighbours.
Every russian government would have destabilizing plans high up their list, the baltic states are NATO's testicles which Russia can squeeze.
But enough with that, goodnight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_by-elections,_1986
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
What an fool you are.
And how on earth did NPXXMP ever persuade the people of Broxtowe that he had the brains and judgement to be their representative.
Horrifying thought!!!!
As for defending Poland - well the Poles can make a pretty good start on that for themselves. And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia. So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse. Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?
But no, Mr. Cole I don't think so. Trident is there to do a job and that is not to protect Poland or anywhere other than the UK.
The logistics of invading a country are well known. They involve armed forces with the range to invade and a supply train to supply them when they do. Russia has them.
Incidentally, Poland and Kaliningrad (a Russian exclave) border each other. So the distance between Poland and Russia is exactly zero. Conversely of course, the Russian troops could just go straight thru the Ukraine.
Denver Broncos are playing the San Diego Chargers on the final day of the season. At stake is winning their division, number 1 seed, first round bye, and home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
After half time, Denver are behind and QB Brock Osweiler has thrown a total of 5 turnovers.
At the half the coach asks the backup QB if he can go if needed and is told Yes.
A few minutes into the 3rd quarter coach pulls the Brockweiler and the backup QB, who has been injured and hasn't played for 6 weeks, takes over. When they see him walk onto the field, the crowd goes wild and gives him a standing ovation.
He leads the team driving down the field and for 3 scores. The team wins, crowd goes wild and stands again.
So the backup QB, who everyone thought had reached the end of his career, leads his team into the playoffs looking good.
The backup QB is of course Peyton Manning.
It was emotional stuff.
Or will there continue to be various proxy wars (e.g. Yemen)?
For source, see www.forces.tv/52514218
As an aside, what does $37 a barrel oil do for the Scottish economy?
In theory you could blockade it.
scallopine - sauteed cutlets (usually veal or poultry) that have been pounded thin and coated with flour