"Assad, as I have said time and time again, is the least worst solution to the problems in Syria."
Assad was the cause of the problems. His regime have murdered more people than ISIS. His use of chemical weapons should put him well beyond the pail of civilisation.
Putting him back in the medium- and long-term would be a disaster for Syria and region.
That a smart guy like you can't deal with that is puzzling, but it does put your hatred of Erdogan into context.
Please propose a realistic solution then? Removal of Assad and a Sunni-backed overseer from Saudi Arabia? How would Syria's minority Shia and Alawites (let alone Christians who have a history of facing persecution in Sunni countries) react to that?
The cause of the problems was us filling the heads of naive ME/Arab students that they could achieve a lasting democratic settlement after the Arab Spring uprising in Syria. We encouraged that folly. Obviously since then things have moved on.
So you are saying that Assad is worse than ISIS? I'll let other people draw their own conclusions on that.
Your dissection of the causes of the civil war are laughably one-sided and excuses the Assad regime of all responsibility. You are essentially blaming us for his atrocities. You are, in fact, Corbyn.
I have provided a way forward on here many times in the past. I'm surprised you haven't read it. It's not perfect (then again, no solution is), but it might be the best solution of a bad lot.
It's obvious that the various groupings cannot get along, which is why some people are in favour of strongmen who keep the peace for one side by subduing the other. That is obviously not a long-term solution, as we have often seen. If they cannot live together, then they have to live apart.
I don't like this solution. The consequences will be severe, and it might not work. There will be large population movements, although that risk is somewhat redundant given the massive refugee problem and population movements that have already occurred. Oil is another big issue.
As for your last sentence, I'm saying that Assad and ISIS are two cancerous warts on the same bloated cheek. I'll let other people draw their own conclusions on your blind spot for Assad's crimes:
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
'The Darien Scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" on the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién in the late 1690s.'
If you look at the territorial map of Syria now, it seems obvious that the Kurds will establish at least an autonomous region in the North of Syria - a full state would seem to be the simplest solution. I don't think Assad likes the idea, but he has little choice, and at least it will mean a buffer state between Syria and Turkey.
Glad to see you've come to my way of thinking (though I think a state might not be necessary), especially after you've dissed the idea in the past. Have you got new orders through?
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
The Darien Scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" on the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién in the late 1690s.
James Bloodworth 'Iranophobia': the fear of being hung from a crane for being gay or of being killed by IRG for being Syrian https://t.co/4PaWkTWoTG
President Hassan Rouhani:
“All are happy except Zionists, warmongers, sowers of discord among Islamic nations and extremists in the U.S. The rest are happy.”
Which one are you and which one is this James Bloodsworth fellow, whom I have never heard of? I assume his qualifications are a exemplary as his comments.
British business and British people will benefit greatly from the lifting of sanctions.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
Ahh so it was all someone else's fault.
How typically Scottish.
( I am an exiled Scot. It appears to me all the Scots with getupandgo have gone leaving behind a bunch of whingers. If Malcolm and you changed your posting style, I might be convinced I amwrong but I am not holding my breath)
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
'The Darien Scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" on the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién in the late 1690s.'
It's a matter of definition. I take a colony to mean the establishment of a community outside the core state to exploit the resources and/or people of the area where it is established. This was not the point of Darien, there was nothing there to exploit. The plan was to provide a shortened trade route bypassing Cape Horn.
I don't see the point of creating a pedantic argument about this. It's pretty clear what I meant.
James Bloodworth 'Iranophobia': the fear of being hung from a crane for being gay or of being killed by IRG for being Syrian https://t.co/4PaWkTWoTG
President Hassan Rouhani:
“All are happy except Zionists, warmongers, sowers of discord among Islamic nations and extremists in the U.S. The rest are happy.”
Which one are you and which one is this James Bloodsworth fellow, whom I have never heard of? I assume his qualifications are a exemplary as his comments.
British business and British people will benefit greatly from the lifting of sanctions.
I think the time has come for sanctions to be lifted - Iran is changing in its external outlook, even if internally it's anathema to us. Offer a hand of friendship and hope it is grasped.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
'The Darien Scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" on the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién in the late 1690s.'
It's a matter of definition. I take a colony to mean the establishment of a community outside the core state to exploit the resources and/or people of the area where it is established. This was not the point of Darien, there was nothing there to exploit. The plan was to provide a shortened trade route bypassing Cape Horn.
I don't see the point of creating a pedantic argument about this. It's pretty clear what I meant.
Surely the whole point was to exploit its position?
It appears to me all the Scots with getupandgo have gone leaving behind a bunch of whingers.
There does seem to be a high level of correlation between ex-pat Scots who are proud of their heritage and making their way in the World, and incessant whingers who seem stuck, in every sense
With oil prices so low the price of peace in Syria has never been this cheap. It will just take courage from our leaders to make the tough decisions. I don't envy the first western leader who proposes we make nice with the Russian/Iranian coalition, it is not an easy suggestion to make, I'm reminded of the story of the Scorpion and the Frog, but I just don't see any other solution. The alternative of a Saudi-backed Sunni overseer gives me both heebies and jeebies. I can't think of a single worse idea for the ME than more Saudi influence and power.
The rebels are in the early stage of disintegration, the peace talks are merely symbolic. Why I else do you think the progress of the SAA has been studiously ignored by the media?
One concern is what happens to the jihadi salafists when they flee, Erdogan will want to pass them on to elsewhere and our Greek friends seem more than happy to let them all in.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
'The Darien Scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" on the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién in the late 1690s.'
It's a matter of definition. I take a colony to mean the establishment of a community outside the core state to exploit the resources and/or people of the area where it is established. This was not the point of Darien, there was nothing there to exploit. The plan was to provide a shortened trade route bypassing Cape Horn.
I don't see the point of creating a pedantic argument about this. It's pretty clear what I meant.
Surely the whole point was to exploit its position?
You don't think that is an extremely pedantic claim?
With oil prices so low the price of peace in Syria has never been this cheap. It will just take courage from our leaders to make the tough decisions. I don't envy the first western leader who proposes we make nice with the Russian/Iranian coalition, it is not an easy suggestion to make, I'm reminded of the story of the Scorpion and the Frog, but I just don't see any other solution. The alternative of a Saudi-backed Sunni overseer gives me both heebies and jeebies. I can't think of a single worse idea for the ME than more Saudi influence and power.
The rebels are in the early stage of disintegration, the peace talks are merely symbolic. Why I else do you think the progress of the SAA has been studiously ignored by the media?
One concern is what happens to the jihadi salafists when they flee, Erdogan will want to pass them on to elsewhere and our Greek friends seem more than happy to let them all in.
But it's not the SAA making progress, is it? It's the Iranian and Hezbollah units.
Your dissection of the causes of the civil war are laughably one-sided and excuses the Assad regime of all responsibility. You are essentially blaming us for his atrocities. You are, in fact, Corbyn.
I have provided a way forward on here many times in the past. I'm surprised you haven't read it. It's not perfect (then again, no solution is), but it might be the best solution of a bad lot.
It's obvious that the various groupings cannot get along, which is why some people are in favour of strongmen who keep the peace for one side by subduing the other. That is obviously not a long-term solution, as we have often seen. If they cannot live together, then they have to live apart.
I don't like this solution. The consequences will be severe, and it might not work. There will be large population movements, although that risk is somewhat redundant given the massive refugee problem and population movements that have already occurred. Oil is another big issue.
As for your last sentence, I'm saying that Assad and ISIS are two cancerous warts on the same bloated cheek. I'll let other people draw their own conclusions on your blind spot for Assad's crimes:
In what way am I absolving Assad? I have made clear time and again that the response was heavy handed and that he should have stepped down early on and put one of his placemen forwards in a free-ish election. The time for that is well gone. My point is that we tried to push our values system in a country in which they are not compatible, it has led to poor consequences and it was a poor idea. Sean Fear said it at the time, why are we toppling friendly strong-men in favour of volatile Islamist "democracies". While Assad was never friendly, he at least ensured there was never a power vacuum in which the likes of ISIS could thrive
You are proposing a multi-state solution. Turkey won't like a new Kurdish state, Saudi Arabia wouldn't countenance a new Shia/Alawite state and Iran wouldn't countenance another Sunni state in the region. The multi state solution is, and has always been a non-starter. An autonomous Kurdish region is a good idea and might happen anyway.
No, that is the cowards way out. One side is worse than the other. ISIS is a depraved and murderous death cult, the likes of which there is no equal. We have survivor accounts of their depravity, killing women too old to be sold into sex slavery. Raping boys as young as 13 then hanging them for committing "homosexual acts". No one is saying Assad or his forces are all misunderstood angels, but the comparison with ISIS is gross.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
'The Darien Scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" on the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién in the late 1690s.'
It's a matter of definition. I take a colony to mean the establishment of a community outside the core state to exploit the resources and/or people of the area where it is established. This was not the point of Darien, there was nothing there to exploit. The plan was to provide a shortened trade route bypassing Cape Horn.
I don't see the point of creating a pedantic argument about this. It's pretty clear what I meant.
Surely the whole point was to exploit its position?
"Caledonia" alone was worthless - it needed a sister settlement on the otherside of the isthmus to land goods from Asia plus a wagon route hacked through the jungle to be worthwhile.
I completely disagree with Dair in that it was a grossly stupid scheme given the limitations of technology and the European political situation that played to the Scottish aristocracies vainglorious sense of self.
It was infinitely foolish once England announced trade sanctions.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
'The Darien Scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" on the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién in the late 1690s.'
It's a matter of definition. I take a colony to mean the establishment of a community outside the core state to exploit the resources and/or people of the area where it is established. This was not the point of Darien, there was nothing there to exploit. The plan was to provide a shortened trade route bypassing Cape Horn.
I don't see the point of creating a pedantic argument about this. It's pretty clear what I meant.
Surely the whole point was to exploit its position?
"Caledonia" alone was worthless - it needed a sister settlement on the otherside of the isthmus to land goods from Asia plus a wagon route hacked through the jungle to be worthwhile.
I completely disagree with Dair in that it was a grossly stupid scheme given the limitations of technology and the European political situation that played to the Scottish aristocracies vainglorious sense of self.
It was infinitely foolish once England announced trade sanctions.
I'm not saying there was anything in the implementation that was not idiotic, it was an entirely embarrassing effort, badly run and doomed to fail.
All I was saying was that the principle was sound, it clearly was, it's in use today.
Arsenal do look good value at 7/4 for the title; I have a model showing them as very marginal favourites over Man City; from looking into it I suspect this is a remaining-schedule effect - Arsenal have 9 home games and 7 away ones whereas City have the opposite.
Arsenal's 9 home games and 7 away games is what I'm clinging on to. I fully expected us to lose both games at Liverpool and Stoke so it feels like two bonus points. But if they are going to win the title they have to win 8 of the home games in my opinion.
City's away form has not been good but they've done it before. Perhaps that means they don't quite have the hunger that they've had in previous seasons but having players who have gone down the stretch is really important.
I think Leicester will fall off, but maybe still finish in the top 4. They looked leggy in the second half at Villa and I think they might draw too many games to win the title. Spurs, on the other hand, can win it.
It appears to me all the Scots with getupandgo have gone leaving behind a bunch of whingers.
There does seem to be a high level of correlation between ex-pat Scots who are proud of their heritage and making their way in the World, and incessant whingers who seem stuck, in every sense
What Dair seems to forget - or rather ignore as it is inconvenient - is that after Darien Scotland was flat broke. There was no way a Scotland on its own was going to recoup its Darien losses form its own trade - which was miniscule compare to England.
" As part of the deal, England paid off Scotland's debts with the 'Equivalent', a sum of £398,000, most of which went to cover the Company of Scotland's losses. The institution established to administer this money eventually became the Royal Bank of Scotland." http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/scotland_darien_01.shtml
With oil prices so low the price of peace in Syria has never been this cheap. It will just take courage from our leaders to make the tough decisions. I don't envy the first western leader who proposes we make nice with the Russian/Iranian coalition, it is not an easy suggestion to make, I'm reminded of the story of the Scorpion and the Frog, but I just don't see any other solution. The alternative of a Saudi-backed Sunni overseer gives me both heebies and jeebies. I can't think of a single worse idea for the ME than more Saudi influence and power.
The rebels are in the early stage of disintegration, the peace talks are merely symbolic. Why I else do you think the progress of the SAA has been studiously ignored by the media?
One concern is what happens to the jihadi salafists when they flee, Erdogan will want to pass them on to elsewhere and our Greek friends seem more than happy to let them all in.
Yes, well so do our German friends. I think many of them will seek safe harbour in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, then have another go at Syria once Russian and Iranian forces have gone home or left only a token presence.
Max is right. Modern turkey is hastening down the road to Islamism. I've been there and seen it. Erdogan is a son of a bitch. Next.
But what is to be done? A military coup? I don't know if that's possible but even if it is, it's just sitting on the lid. Erdogan is riding the tiger as much as steering it.
In what way am I absolving Assad? I have made clear time and again that the response was heavy handed and that he should have stepped down early on and put one of his placemen forwards in a free-ish election. The time for that is well gone. My point is that we tried to push our values system in a country in which they are not compatible, it has led to poor consequences and it was a poor idea. Sean Fear said it at the time, why are we toppling friendly strong-men in favour of volatile Islamist "democracies". While Assad was never friendly, he at least ensured there was never a power vacuum in which the likes of ISIS could thrive
You are proposing a multi-state solution. Turkey won't like a new Kurdish state, Saudi Arabia wouldn't countenance a new Shia/Alawite state and Iran wouldn't countenance another Sunni state in the region. The multi state solution is, and has always been a non-starter. An autonomous Kurdish region is a good idea and might happen anyway.
No, that is the cowards way out. One side is worse than the other. ISIS is a depraved and murderous death cult, the likes of which there is no equal. We have survivor accounts of their depravity, killing women too old to be sold into sex slavery. Raping boys as young as 13 then hanging them for committing "homosexual acts". No one is saying Assad or his forces are all misunderstood angels, but the comparison with ISIS is gross.
Using the phrase "the response was heavy handed" is rather absolving him, isn't it? 'Heavy handed' doesn't even start to describe his regime's crimes. It's like saying Fred West was a poor father ...
Your arguments against a multi-state solution have some validity. The surrounding states would want a say, but they're also suffering. Peace is in everyone's interests, particularly if it protects people of their beliefs.
But there are many similar arguments against your solution of giving in to Assad, one of which is that it obviously does not work, which is why we got into this mess in the first place.
I expect that a large amount of Scottish antipathy to the legacy of the British Empire is because a not insubstantial minority believe themselves to still be part of it.
With oil prices so low the price of peace in Syria has never been this cheap. It will just take courage from our leaders to make the tough decisions. I don't envy the first western leader who proposes we make nice with the Russian/Iranian coalition, it is not an easy suggestion to make, I'm reminded of the story of the Scorpion and the Frog, but I just don't see any other solution. The alternative of a Saudi-backed Sunni overseer gives me both heebies and jeebies. I can't think of a single worse idea for the ME than more Saudi influence and power.
The rebels are in the early stage of disintegration, the peace talks are merely symbolic. Why I else do you think the progress of the SAA has been studiously ignored by the media?
One concern is what happens to the jihadi salafists when they flee, Erdogan will want to pass them on to elsewhere and our Greek friends seem more than happy to let them all in.
Yes, well so do our German friends. I think many of them will seek safe harbour in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, then have another go at Syria once Russian and Iranian forces have gone home or left only a token presence.
Fair point but I'm not sure how well it works in a multi-party system.
It's been said that there's no magic bullet to the industry's problem and I'd agree with that. There needs to be a range of data used and I'd agree with Mike that approval / likability ratings have a strong predictive element but are still something of a blunt tool.
Lebo & Norpoth discovered that if the PM approval rating was >50% of the two-party vote, the PM's party (almost) invariably won the election, in terms of the popular vote. It's a little more complicated, since there is also an autoregressive component, meaning the more a party keeps winning, the higher the PM approval required to win again.
Seats are a bit more problematic, although their model was pretty good, until they panicked a bit in 2015, and made ad-hoc adjustments.
That makes intuitive sense. Did they find that the same also applied to LOTOs?
They found that LOTO ratings didn't significantly improve the model, and weren't worth the added complexity.
On the face of it that could be taken to mean that Labour don't need to worry about Corbyn. It's only Cameron's replacement's approval rating that will matter.
However there may be some connection between the two ratings - ie, when asked if they approve of the PM people may compare him/her to the LOTO.
IIRC, another reason they ignored LOTO was because they didn't have a complete dataset, unlike PM approval which went all the way back to 1945.
Yes, they are probably negatively correlated, in any case. It would be quite bizarre, wouldn't it, to find both PM and LOTO top of the hit parade with the public, or simultaneously the pits?
The historical record suggests changing PM provides a makeover for the incumbent party, and a boost in popularity.
Eden, snap election leading to landslide Macmillan, landslide, after the humiliation of Suez Douglas-Home, almost won, after the Tories were written off. Callaghan, could have won in 1978. Major, won, after the Tories were written off. Brown, dithered in 2007, to his doom...
Eden hardly won a landslide in 1955 - a majority of 59 at a time when the 12 Ulster Unionists took the Tory whip!. Without the Unionists his majority would have been just 35 and the GB Tory lead in popular vote was circa 2.5%.
Only then can these folk be told once and for all to STFU.
The day Ken Livingstone falls silent should be a National Public Holiday
I seem to recall him saying when he lost to Boris the last time that that was the end of him in politics. Was I dreaming? Or could it be that Ken is not always truthful? Or maybe he changed his mind?
Apart from the rubbish he talks - and there was a 2-page spread with him in the Times this weekend - is his utterly disingenuous claim that somehow he is not really involved, just having the occasional chat because he's basically retired and a house husband.
Getting sense and truth out of him is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
It appears to me all the Scots with getupandgo have gone leaving behind a bunch of whingers.
There does seem to be a high level of correlation between ex-pat Scots who are proud of their heritage and making their way in the World, and incessant whingers who seem stuck, in every sense
Those who are too slow or intelligent to make their way in the wider world, do enjoy playing the poor, wee victim don't they.
It appears to me all the Scots with getupandgo have gone leaving behind a bunch of whingers.
There does seem to be a high level of correlation between ex-pat Scots who are proud of their heritage and making their way in the World, and incessant whingers who seem stuck, in every sense
What Dair seems to forget - or rather ignore as it is inconvenient - is that after Darien Scotland was flat broke. There was no way a Scotland on its own was going to recoup its Darien losses form its own trade - which was miniscule compare to England.
" As part of the deal, England paid off Scotland's debts with the 'Equivalent', a sum of £398,000, most of which went to cover the Company of Scotland's losses. The institution established to administer this money eventually became the Royal Bank of Scotland." http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/scotland_darien_01.shtml
The aristocracy was broke. The country was as it was. It had no National Debt (as it wouldn't be invented for a century).
Only then can these folk be told once and for all to STFU.
The day Ken Livingstone falls silent should be a National Public Holiday
I seem to recall him saying when he lost to Boris the last time that that was the end of him in politics. Was I dreaming? Or could it be that Ken is not always truthful? Or maybe he changed his mind?
Apart from the rubbish he talks - and there was a 2-page spread with him in the Times this weekend - is his utterly disingenuous claim that somehow he is not really involved, just having the occasional chat because he's basically retired and a house husband.
Getting sense and truth out of him is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
It's in his blood - he was never going to give it up. That said, he wouldn't be the first person to declare that sort of thing in the aftermath a bruising campaign when emotion is high and energy low, only to fall back later.
Using the phrase "the response was heavy handed" is rather absolving him, isn't it? 'Heavy handed' doesn't even start to describe his regime's crimes. It's like saying Fred West was a poor father ...
Your arguments against a multi-state solution have some validity. The surrounding states would want a say, but they're also suffering. Peace is in everyone's interests, particularly if it protects people of their beliefs.
But there are many similar arguments against your solution of giving in to Assad, one of which is that it obviously does not work, which is why we got into this mess in the first place.
OK, his response was stupid, instead of engaging with the protestors he reacted violently (as we expected him to) and lashed out which created the conditions for a full scale rebellion in which he and his forces have acted despicably, possibly using chemical weapons (though as you know I remain sceptical over who used them), using shock tactics against civilians and torturing prisoners of war.
Peace is not in everyone's interests, that's the problem. For despots like Erdogan, Putin and the Saudi regime it gives them something to cover their own domestic shortcomings. Yes there are 2.5m refugees in Turkey, but Erdogan just got a €3bn bung from Germany for it and the Germans are talking about giving them more. Saudi Arabia see a way to achieve the removal of a secular dictator in favour of a Sunni overseer. We all know what Putin gets out of this and Iran fear further loss of influence in the region to Saudi Arabia.
You can replace Assad in your final statement with inevitability. It is inevitable that Assad will win on the ground. The Iranian and Russian ground troops are pushing back the rebels and ISIS wherever they are encountered, ISIS are looking at a man power shortage all of a sudden now that western jihadists are deserting them and many have stopped coming now that they face real consequences of death by a Russian missile. The question is whether we will continue to back Turkey and Saudi Arabia who will draw out the conflict and continue to back the non-ISIS Sunni rebels with weapons and money. As I see it, anything that shortens the conflict is a good thing, even if it means backing Assad.
You continue to say it "won't work" in reference to backing Assad, but I haven't seen you lay out any arguments against it. You just keep saying it won't work, as if you saying that is enough to stop it working.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
I recall that Jack Straw (our then Foreign Secretary) told interested MPs that early Erdogan post-army was a distinct improvement - his briefing was that the army front-men had been incapable of making a decision or having a productive discussion, since they would say nothing of substance and simply carry messages back to the army, to return with flat statements of existing policy. The early AKP Minisrers, by contrast, were "on paper more ideological, but recognisably politicians - you could talk to them about what voters wanted, what trade-offs might be acceptable". That possibly fits with Josias's impression that Erdogan started OK but got worse.
One of the charms of being an MP, incidentally, was that it was really easy to get this sort of discussion - Ministers were nearly all open to having a talk about the situation on an informal basis and would get frustrated that few MPs actually seemed to want to talk. The weekly PLP briefings were often poorly-attended, as MP judged their casework or other commitments were more important than discussing current policy on one or another subject. Most MPs specialise on a couple of subjects and ignore the rest as far as they can, to avoid being overwhelmed.
Forbes' '30 under 30 in technology' reveals the British stars that are leading the way in Europe
Young British entrepreneurs are storming ahead of their European rivals, according to a new index of the most successful young people in technology, compiled by Forbes.
The 30-strong list of technology champions aged 30 or under features 19 entrepreneurs from the UK, hailing from a variety of different sectors, from apps to data science to online retail.
Max is right. Modern turkey is hastening down the road to Islamism. I've been there and seen it. Erdogan is a son of a bitch. Next.
But what is to be done? A military coup? I don't know if that's possible but even if it is, it's just sitting on the lid. Erdogan is riding the tiger as much as steering it.
Oh of course. Nothing is to be done. We've learned that. If turkey wishes to go Islamist then it's their choice (and they are a Democracy of sorts).
But it means we should keep them at arm's length. Build a bloody big wall around Southern Europe. And use the stick as much as the carrot. If erdogan won't sort out the refugee problem then a few sanctions might make him wise up.
Europe has enormous power as a trading bloc - the biggest in the world. We should use it. We have the power to bankrupt nations if they displease.
Erdogan and Turkey have been housing well over a million, and soon to be up towards two million, refugees for nearly five years. That is 'doing something' in anybody's language.
The question is how much they can be expected to do. It's hurting them economically and socially.
Given the talk on here, I sometimes wonder if Britain would be as generous.
Max is right. Modern turkey is hastening down the road to Islamism. I've been there and seen it. Erdogan is a son of a bitch. Next.
But what is to be done? A military coup? I don't know if that's possible but even if it is, it's just sitting on the lid. Erdogan is riding the tiger as much as steering it.
Oh of course. Nothing is to be done. We've learned that. If turkey wishes to go Islamist then it's their choice (and they are a Democracy of sorts).
But it means we should keep them at arm's length. Build a bloody big wall around Southern Europe. And use the stick as much as the carrot. If erdogan won't sort out the refugee problem then a few sanctions might make him wise up.
Europe has enormous power as a trading bloc - the biggest in the world. We should use it. We have the power to bankrupt nations if they displease.
I'd agree with all that. It does of course imply us being in the trading bloc though! It was interesting that Max said "Close our borders to Turkey", not "close Turkey's borders to Europe". In whatever instinctive sense, there was a recognition that 'our' border lies on the Adriatic.
'And use the stick as much as the carrot. If erdogan won't sort out the refugee problem then a few sanctions might make him wise up. .
Can't understand why that wasn't the initial approach,instead the EU gave him € 3 billion & a visa waiver program and the flow of migrants continues as before.
Max is right. Modern turkey is hastening down the road to Islamism. I've been there and seen it. Erdogan is a son of a bitch. Next.
But what is to be done? A military coup? I don't know if that's possible but even if it is, it's just sitting on the lid. Erdogan is riding the tiger as much as steering it.
The same thing we did to the Soviets. Starve him out. Sanctions, halting tourism directly from the UK, freezing Turkish assets in the UK etc...
He is an Islamist and we treat with him as if he weren't. Giving him a €3bn bung isn't my idea of a good plan to halt his agenda.
Time for lots of sombre reflection in the industry, and maybe a bit of recrimination? My fine colleague Dan Hodges is robustly critical of the industry, suggesting that there is something more to the failure than error, and asking if pollsters didn’t collude to play safe, herding to offer similar results...
I am one of a lot of journalists who put too much faith in the polls, and consequently didn’t expect that Tory majority. (For what it’s worth, I expected the Tories to finish just short of 300 seats and form a minority government.) I am far from alone in that. I don’t really go in for journalism about journalism, but I think my trade as a whole should ponder whether we put too much faith in the polls and those who dissected them
...As I wrote immediately after the election, there were times when political conversation during the campaign felt more like a physics seminar on the movement of atoms than a debate about millions of individual, complex and probably always slightly unpredictable human beings.
At the very least, more of us should have done what Dan, Janet and Asa did and applied some intellectual scepticism to the polls. Asking questions and challenging consensus is, after all, what we’re supposed to do.
Max is right. Modern turkey is hastening down the road to Islamism. I've been there and seen it. Erdogan is a son of a bitch. Next.
But what is to be done? A military coup? I don't know if that's possible but even if it is, it's just sitting on the lid. Erdogan is riding the tiger as much as steering it.
Oh of course. Nothing is to be done. We've learned that. If turkey wishes to go Islamist then it's their choice (and they are a Democracy of sorts).
But it means we should keep them at arm's length. Build a bloody big wall around Southern Europe. And use the stick as much as the carrot. If erdogan won't sort out the refugee problem then a few sanctions might make him wise up.
Europe has enormous power as a trading bloc - the biggest in the world. We should use it. We have the power to bankrupt nations if they displease.
I'd agree with all that. It does of course imply us being in the trading bloc though! It was interesting that Max said "Close our borders to Turkey", not "close Turkey's borders to Europe". In whatever instinctive sense, there was a recognition that 'our' border lies on the Adriatic.
I feel a bit sorry for her. Her report will be largely unread by those now in charge because they probably think that they have learnt the lesson and they now have a leader who will make a refreshing change to all the failures of the past.
OK, his response was stupid, instead of engaging with the protestors he reacted violently (as we expected him to) and lashed out which created the conditions for a full scale rebellion in which he and his forces have acted despicably, possibly using chemical weapons (though as you know I remain sceptical over who used them), using shock tactics against civilians and torturing prisoners of war.
Peace is not in everyone's interests, that's the problem. For despots like Erdogan, Putin and the Saudi regime it gives them something to cover their own domestic shortcomings. Yes there are 2.5m refugees in Turkey, but Erdogan just got a €3bn bung from Germany for it and the Germans are talking about giving them more. Saudi Arabia see a way to achieve the removal of a secular dictator in favour of a Sunni overseer. We all know what Putin gets out of this and Iran fear further loss of influence in the region to Saudi Arabia.
You can replace Assad in your final statement with inevitability. It is inevitable that Assad will win on the ground. The Iranian and Russian ground troops are pushing back the rebels and ISIS wherever they are encountered, ISIS are looking at a man power shortage all of a sudden now that western jihadists are deserting them and many have stopped coming now that they face real consequences of death by a Russian missile. The question is whether we will continue to back Turkey and Saudi Arabia who will draw out the conflict and continue to back the non-ISIS Sunni rebels with weapons and money. As I see it, anything that shortens the conflict is a good thing, even if it means backing Assad.
You continue to say it "won't work" in reference to backing Assad, but I haven't seen you lay out any arguments against it. You just keep saying it won't work, as if you saying that is enough to stop it working.
I've laid out arguments many times. Both morally and politically, any 'peace' of that sort will be destabilising to the region, because there will be large states seen to be winning and losing. Assad's regime will just kill more people and other countries will just get drawn back in. Lebanon's a good, although not perfect, example.
We need a peace where everybody thinks they've won something. And most importantly, where the civilians are not under threat. A multi-state solution might just be that. It's good to see people moving towards hat wrt the Kurds.
One thing to remember is that Turkey's frightened. It has enormous pressures inflicted upon it by the refugee crisis, political crises, and terrorism. Its actions need to be considered with that in mind.
And Turkey were looking after the refugees for years before Germany agreed to give them a 'bung' (which is a really cr@p term to use for it).
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
I recall that Jack Straw (our then Foreign Secretary) told interested MPs that early Erdogan post-army was a distinct improvement - his briefing was that the army front-men had been incapable of making a decision or having a productive discussion, since they would say nothing of substance and simply carry messages back to the army, to return with flat statements of existing policy. The early AKP Minisrers, by contrast, were "on paper more ideological, but recognisably politicians - you could talk to them about what voters wanted, what trade-offs might be acceptable". That possibly fits with Josias's impression that Erdogan started OK but got worse.
One of the charms of being an MP, incidentally, was that it was really easy to get this sort of discussion - Ministers were nearly all open to having a talk about the situation on an informal basis and would get frustrated that few MPs actually seemed to want to talk. The weekly PLP briefings were often poorly-attended, as MP judged their casework or other commitments were more important than discussing current policy on one or another subject. Most MPs specialise on a couple of subjects and ignore the rest as far as they can, to avoid being overwhelmed.
Thanks for the reply, with which I agree. The worst of the system working like that (and it does work), is that it looks bad to the public when hardly anyone's there. But that's the price of specialisation.
The rewriting of Scottish and British Empire history is an absolute hoot - more please!
There's no reinvention needed, clearly both Scotland and rUk benefited in some ways from the Empire.
But the rub for rUK is that there was nothing stopping Scotland from developing WITHOUT the Empire, yet there is absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education.
Next you'll be telling us that Scotland invented the telephone.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
Oh! Here we go again, Dair singing from the Yesnp hymnal.
So let's go again, the Darien Scheme was a good idea but for several problems,
1: the trade goods taken the isthmus was fine for trading round Europe at the time of a mini ice age, but totally useless for an equatorial climate.
2:the financial bubble caused by virtually literally every one in Scotland believing that not only was it a patriotic duty to support the scheme, but by buying shares and portions of shares, they were guaranteed a good profit.
3: the fact that the Scottish Government had forgotten to notify the European authority of the area, Spain, of the plans, possibly intentionally as they knew that the Spanish would be unhappy with the idea.
4: the trading company did not return to the isthmus until 2 years had passed, and found nothing.
What Dair forgot is it was the Bubble that broke Scotland and bankrupted every one. Where did the money go though, that is a good question? Well, a modern analogy could be that it went down south, much like Salmond with his many pensions, his wages from both Westminster and Holyrood, the money from his writing, TV and radio appearances and what ever else he can get after he failed to persuade Scotland to be Independent.
The official figures from the Health and Social Care Information Centre show that after the payments stopped, the rate of increase slowed dramatically.
I feel a bit sorry for her. Her report will be largely unread by those now in charge because they probably think that they have learnt the lesson and they now have a leader who will make a refreshing change to all the failures of the past.
Having done a quick skim through I wonder about this report. It seems to come from a position that Labour had all the right policies but did not communicate these very well or get its message across to voters because of very unfair (i.e. effective) campaigns by its opponents.
So basically no lessons learnt: we were right but our opponents didn't allow us to say this at all or uninterrupted and if we build on what we did pre-2015 we'll be OK in 2020. Or something. I particularly enjoyed the Dame's reference to re-establishing their claim to "economic competence".
@jimwaterson: This official, sanitised Labour report into whether the party can win in 2020 still reads like a howl of despair. https://t.co/HhVIjEgICA
''At the very least, more of us should have done what Dan, Janet and Asa did and applied some intellectual scepticism to the polls. Asking questions and challenging consensus is, after all, what we’re supposed to do.''
That article from Kirkup shows the appalling laziness and cynicism of the modern political journalist. Contrast with the superb analysis of the polling performed on here by posters such as Chestnut.
Let's face it labour's electoral turnouts never lived up to its poll score, and therefore the polls must be off course.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
2:the financial bubble caused by virtually literally every one in Scotland believing that not only was it a patriotic duty to support the scheme, but by buying shares and portions of shares, they were guaranteed a good profit.
Sounds like an allegory for the SNP - wealth will flow if we all vote "Yes".
I feel a bit sorry for her. Her report will be largely unread by those now in charge because they probably think that they have learnt the lesson and they now have a leader who will make a refreshing change to all the failures of the past.
Economic incontinence, poor leader, hammered in Scotland, unable to win over marginals, poor organisation, narrow appeal. Themes within the report, but hidden amongst the rhetoric, but damning indictments, if Labour cannot respond to these points, then they really are in trouble. The weaknesses in digital campaigning doesn't offset any strength in the membership surge. Having a membership which is more Royalist than the King, may not win over swing voters.
A great deal of special pleading, and blame shifting, fixed term parliament, coalition, myth of blame for collapse - stab in the back stuff. Ed comes out of it without too much damage, but his rash decision to go has lumbered Labour with Corbyn (thanks to Beckett & others).
Imagine a campaign where all parties presented their manifestos, did a few broadcasts and hustings and stood by their principles. It would avoid the policy changes, focus groups and u-turns and revive the credibility in politics. I appreciate that a few anoraks on here would have to find something worthwhile with their time but it would massively improve the way we're governed if there were no polls.
Max is right. Modern turkey is hastening down the road to Islamism. I've been there and seen it. Erdogan is a son of a bitch. Next.
But what is to be done? A military coup? I don't know if that's possible but even if it is, it's just sitting on the lid. Erdogan is riding the tiger as much as steering it.
The same thing we did to the Soviets. Starve him out. Sanctions, halting tourism directly from the UK, freezing Turkish assets in the UK etc...
He is an Islamist and we treat with him as if he weren't. Giving him a €3bn bung isn't my idea of a good plan to halt his agenda.
The Caliphate was actually based in Turkey until 1924...
" ...absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education."
One gets used to reading some nonsense on here and indeed of writing some from time to time, but in terms of ahistorical, drivel in fact complete and utter bollocks that contribution takes the biscuit.
It may well be that the Scots were over represented in terms of their numbers relative to population in the ranks of empire administrators, explorers and soldiers. However they were still a minority and a small minority at that.
The idea that the Empire could not have existed except for Scotland's unique system of education, is just complete drivel. The English education system was geared to producing chaps to take up the "white man's burden" and when universal education was introduced it was skewed to aping the what had gone on before (as was noted by the Royal Commission in the 1870s), a curse that still afflicts us today.
This is surely the worst case of inferiority complex - in this case, vis a vis the English - ever seen on PB. A kind of psychological elephantiasis.
I suggest we start a Fund for the Preservation of Dair's Cerebellum, such that, should he ever die from the burden of carrying the World's Largest Sporran, his tartan-coloured brain can be preserved for the benefit of future brilliant Scottish neurologists and their frankly useless English equivalents.
A worthy project, were it not for the fact that Dair is surely going to be exposed as an elaborate hoax, any day now...
The rewriting of Scottish and British Empire history is an absolute hoot - more please!
There's no reinvention needed, clearly both Scotland and rUk benefited in some ways from the Empire.
But the rub for rUK is that there was nothing stopping Scotland from developing WITHOUT the Empire, yet there is absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education.
This is surely the worst case of inferiority complex - in this case, vis a vis the English - ever seen on PB. A kind of psychological elephantiasis.
I suggest we start a Fund for the Preservation of Dair's Cerebellum, such that, should he ever die from the burden of carrying the World's Largest Sporran, his tartan-coloured brain can be preserved for the benefit of future brilliant Scottish neurologists and their frankly useless English equivalents.
Should his brain be preserved in Bucky or the Scottish equivalent of pure water, Irn Bru?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Scotland could not have developed a successful trading economy much in the way that the Netherlands or Denmark did.
Without being in the Empire, Scotland would still have gotten rich but have actually, you know, kept the money,
Oh FFS, you do know the Union came about as a result of Scotland completely fcking up mercantile trade?
Please go back to telling us how "Scotland can't flood"...
Your arse again numpty. It was a handful of rich people who had done bad deals that sold the country for gold, the people had nothing to do with it. You posting from Surrey.
A lengthy inquiry into why pollsters got it so terribly wrong in the general election has revealed that the problem was they asked too many Labour voters and not enough Tory voters. A lengthy inquiry into why pollsters got it so terribly wrong in the general election has revealed that the problem was they asked too many Labour voters and not enough Tory voters.
Or, to put it another way, the reason the polls were bad is that they weren't very good polls. Which is a rubbish excuse. So if you’re a pollster looking for something to blame it on, we’re here to help.
Click the button below to find out YOUR handy excuse for fucking it all up.
The rewriting of Scottish and British Empire history is an absolute hoot - more please!
There's no reinvention needed, clearly both Scotland and rUk benefited in some ways from the Empire.
But the rub for rUK is that there was nothing stopping Scotland from developing WITHOUT the Empire, yet there is absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education.
This is surely the worst case of inferiority complex - in this case, vis a vis the English - ever seen on PB. A kind of psychological elephantiasis.
I suggest we start a Fund for the Preservation of Dair's Cerebellum, such that, should he ever die from the burden of carrying the World's Largest Sporran, his tartan-coloured brain can be preserved for the benefit of future brilliant Scottish neurologists and their frankly useless English equivalents.
Dair's case seem to be that Scotland was so educationally advanced that it failed utterly to establish itself as a trading nation in the 16th and 17th centuries, before handing over its sovereignty to an illiterate rabble incapable of any kind of meaningful achievement.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Scotland could not have developed a successful trading economy much in the way that the Netherlands or Denmark did.
Without being in the Empire, Scotland would still have gotten rich but have actually, you know, kept the money,
Oh FFS, you do know the Union came about as a result of Scotland completely fcking up mercantile trade?
Please go back to telling us how "Scotland can't flood"...
Your arse again numpty. It was a handful of rich people who had done bad deals that sold the country for gold, the people had nothing to do with it. You posting from Surrey.
Execept everyone in Scotland had piled in, a whole country of foolish investors flinging every last groat at the 'sure fire' investment that was going to make them all rich.
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing Scotland as a downtrodden outpost of it. Easily disproved historically, but we're dealing with emotions not fact.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Again you conflate Scotland with a handful of rich people. Scotland was sold down teh river by rich wan***s
The rewriting of Scottish and British Empire history is an absolute hoot - more please!
There's no reinvention needed, clearly both Scotland and rUk benefited in some ways from the Empire.
But the rub for rUK is that there was nothing stopping Scotland from developing WITHOUT the Empire, yet there is absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education.
This is surely the worst case of inferiority complex - in this case, vis a vis the English - ever seen on PB. A kind of psychological elephantiasis.
I suggest we start a Fund for the Preservation of Dair's Cerebellum, such that, should he ever die from the burden of carrying the World's Largest Sporran, his tartan-coloured brain can be preserved for the benefit of future brilliant Scottish neurologists and their frankly useless English equivalents.
I shall contribute £5-00 to the Fund for the Preservation of Dair's Cerebellum.. provided I can have clear evidence that my money will be used to purchase alcohol as a preservative and not some gnat's piss like I Brew.
Imagine a campaign where all parties presented their manifestos, did a few broadcasts and hustings and stood by their principles. It would avoid the policy changes, focus groups and u-turns and revive the credibility in politics. I appreciate that a few anoraks on here would have to find something worthwhile with their time but it would massively improve the way we're governed if there were no polls.
You'd never get rid of private polling and focus groups but on the whole I agree. The polls have moved on from reporting public feeling to shaping it and as we have seen the polling companies are not entirely to be trusted - they work to their own, hidden, agendas. Other countries have banned the publication of polls near an election, perhaps the UK should do the same.
I would put that all of that was entirely the result of the education system, it was the heart of everything which gave Scotland the advantage. Anyone can build a boat but an educated man builds a better boat, a lieutenant who's sergeant is literate and can do the paperwork free's the lieutenants time for lieutenanting, a doctor is only effective as an educated man from a fine university, otherwise, he's just a quack.
The education system was part of it, certainly, and Soctland has a glorious history in terms of its universities and medical schools. But I expect that the old Scottish Protestant virtues of hard work, thrift, and self-reliance were also key.
Virtues which alas seem to have been somewhat mislaid in modern Scotland, which seems to have retreated into portraying itself as a helpless victim.
What planet are you on , do you even know where Scotland is never mind anything about what is happening there.
Mr. Llama, indeed, I said much the same all the way back in 2010 (I think that was the first YouGov tracker in a General Election, which meant that pollster got disproportionate weight with broadcasters due to the excessive volume of polls produced).
I'd strictly limit polling during the election campaign, and probably ban it in the final week.
Mr. Patrick, if people keep being annoyed we may reach Peak Pique.
Comments
I have provided a way forward on here many times in the past. I'm surprised you haven't read it. It's not perfect (then again, no solution is), but it might be the best solution of a bad lot.
It's obvious that the various groupings cannot get along, which is why some people are in favour of strongmen who keep the peace for one side by subduing the other. That is obviously not a long-term solution, as we have often seen. If they cannot live together, then they have to live apart.
I don't like this solution. The consequences will be severe, and it might not work. There will be large population movements, although that risk is somewhat redundant given the massive refugee problem and population movements that have already occurred. Oil is another big issue.
As for your last sentence, I'm saying that Assad and ISIS are two cancerous warts on the same bloated cheek. I'll let other people draw their own conclusions on your blind spot for Assad's crimes:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/images-syrian-torture-shock-new-yorkers-united-nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
Stick to telling us jokes about floods.
I have trade routes.
“All are happy except Zionists, warmongers, sowers of discord among Islamic nations and extremists in the U.S. The rest are happy.”
Which one are you and which one is this James Bloodsworth fellow, whom I have never heard of? I assume his qualifications are a exemplary as his comments.
British business and British people will benefit greatly from the lifting of sanctions.
I have water in excess of the capacity of my water management scheme
Ahh so it was all someone else's fault.
How typically Scottish.
( I am an exiled Scot. It appears to me all the Scots with getupandgo have gone leaving behind a bunch of whingers. If Malcolm and you changed your posting style, I might be convinced I amwrong but I am not holding my breath)
I don't see the point of creating a pedantic argument about this. It's pretty clear what I meant.
One concern is what happens to the jihadi salafists when they flee, Erdogan will want to pass them on to elsewhere and our Greek friends seem more than happy to let them all in.
You are proposing a multi-state solution. Turkey won't like a new Kurdish state, Saudi Arabia wouldn't countenance a new Shia/Alawite state and Iran wouldn't countenance another Sunni state in the region. The multi state solution is, and has always been a non-starter. An autonomous Kurdish region is a good idea and might happen anyway.
No, that is the cowards way out. One side is worse than the other. ISIS is a depraved and murderous death cult, the likes of which there is no equal. We have survivor accounts of their depravity, killing women too old to be sold into sex slavery. Raping boys as young as 13 then hanging them for committing "homosexual acts". No one is saying Assad or his forces are all misunderstood angels, but the comparison with ISIS is gross.
I completely disagree with Dair in that it was a grossly stupid scheme given the limitations of technology and the European political situation that played to the Scottish aristocracies vainglorious sense of self.
It was infinitely foolish once England announced trade sanctions.
Pleasing to see.
All I was saying was that the principle was sound, it clearly was, it's in use today.
City's away form has not been good but they've done it before. Perhaps that means they don't quite have the hunger that they've had in previous seasons but having players who have gone down the stretch is really important.
I think Leicester will fall off, but maybe still finish in the top 4. They looked leggy in the second half at Villa and I think they might draw too many games to win the title. Spurs, on the other hand, can win it.
" As part of the deal, England paid off Scotland's debts with the 'Equivalent', a sum of £398,000, most of which went to cover the Company of Scotland's losses. The institution established to administer this money eventually became the Royal Bank of Scotland."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/scotland_darien_01.shtml
Your arguments against a multi-state solution have some validity. The surrounding states would want a say, but they're also suffering. Peace is in everyone's interests, particularly if it protects people of their beliefs.
But there are many similar arguments against your solution of giving in to Assad, one of which is that it obviously does not work, which is why we got into this mess in the first place.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/137620361394/learningthelessons
Beckett's report on why they lost.
A friend, a Tory peer, is £2500!! Had a good lunch' from him... https://t.co/hsXOeMKjda
Corbyn will never be PM because he is a complete joke of a leader... end of story
Apart from the rubbish he talks - and there was a 2-page spread with him in the Times this weekend - is his utterly disingenuous claim that somehow he is not really involved, just having the occasional chat because he's basically retired and a house husband.
Getting sense and truth out of him is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
It is why she nominated good old Al Jezza.
Peace is not in everyone's interests, that's the problem. For despots like Erdogan, Putin and the Saudi regime it gives them something to cover their own domestic shortcomings. Yes there are 2.5m refugees in Turkey, but Erdogan just got a €3bn bung from Germany for it and the Germans are talking about giving them more. Saudi Arabia see a way to achieve the removal of a secular dictator in favour of a Sunni overseer. We all know what Putin gets out of this and Iran fear further loss of influence in the region to Saudi Arabia.
You can replace Assad in your final statement with inevitability. It is inevitable that Assad will win on the ground. The Iranian and Russian ground troops are pushing back the rebels and ISIS wherever they are encountered, ISIS are looking at a man power shortage all of a sudden now that western jihadists are deserting them and many have stopped coming now that they face real consequences of death by a Russian missile. The question is whether we will continue to back Turkey and Saudi Arabia who will draw out the conflict and continue to back the non-ISIS Sunni rebels with weapons and money. As I see it, anything that shortens the conflict is a good thing, even if it means backing Assad.
You continue to say it "won't work" in reference to backing Assad, but I haven't seen you lay out any arguments against it. You just keep saying it won't work, as if you saying that is enough to stop it working.
http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/polling/documents/19Jan_slides_final.pdf
One of the charms of being an MP, incidentally, was that it was really easy to get this sort of discussion - Ministers were nearly all open to having a talk about the situation on an informal basis and would get frustrated that few MPs actually seemed to want to talk. The weekly PLP briefings were often poorly-attended, as MP judged their casework or other commitments were more important than discussing current policy on one or another subject. Most MPs specialise on a couple of subjects and ignore the rest as far as they can, to avoid being overwhelmed.
The question is how much they can be expected to do. It's hurting them economically and socially.
Given the talk on here, I sometimes wonder if Britain would be as generous.
'And use the stick as much as the carrot. If erdogan won't sort out the refugee problem then a few sanctions might make him wise up. .
Can't understand why that wasn't the initial approach,instead the EU gave him € 3 billion & a visa waiver program and the flow of migrants continues as before.
He is an Islamist and we treat with him as if he weren't. Giving him a €3bn bung isn't my idea of a good plan to halt his agenda.
https://twitter.com/timesredbox/status/689457865866674176
We need a peace where everybody thinks they've won something. And most importantly, where the civilians are not under threat. A multi-state solution might just be that. It's good to see people moving towards hat wrt the Kurds.
One thing to remember is that Turkey's frightened. It has enormous pressures inflicted upon it by the refugee crisis, political crises, and terrorism. Its actions need to be considered with that in mind.
And Turkey were looking after the refugees for years before Germany agreed to give them a 'bung' (which is a really cr@p term to use for it).
The little 'uns awake now, and I'm going to take him out for a while. Sorry if I was short with you earlier.
Listening to Jo Johnson in the HoC - he's a much more fluent speaker than brother Boris!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZF00fKWwAAcOke.jpg
So let's go again, the Darien Scheme was a good idea but for several problems,
1: the trade goods taken the isthmus was fine for trading round Europe at the time of a mini ice age, but totally useless for an equatorial climate.
2:the financial bubble caused by virtually literally every one in Scotland believing that not only was it a patriotic duty to support the scheme, but by buying shares and portions of shares, they were guaranteed a good profit.
3: the fact that the Scottish Government had forgotten to notify the European authority of the area, Spain, of the plans, possibly intentionally as they knew that the Spanish would be unhappy with the idea.
4: the trading company did not return to the isthmus until 2 years had passed, and found nothing.
What Dair forgot is it was the Bubble that broke Scotland and bankrupted every one. Where did the money go though, that is a good question? Well, a modern analogy could be that it went down south, much like Salmond with his many pensions, his wages from both Westminster and Holyrood, the money from his writing, TV and radio appearances and what ever else he can get after he failed to persuade Scotland to be Independent.
If it's leader not party that matters most, we're still in the phony war stage. Corbyn may get replaced, and Cameron will be.
So basically no lessons learnt: we were right but our opponents didn't allow us to say this at all or uninterrupted and if we build on what we did pre-2015 we'll be OK in 2020. Or something. I particularly enjoyed the Dame's reference to re-establishing their claim to "economic competence".
But, but, ground game...
Reading the Beckett report makes you realise that Labour haven't come to terms with losing in 2010 yet, let alone 2015.
That article from Kirkup shows the appalling laziness and cynicism of the modern political journalist. Contrast with the superb analysis of the polling performed on here by posters such as Chestnut.
Let's face it labour's electoral turnouts never lived up to its poll score, and therefore the polls must be off course.
Word counts:
Cameron = 6
Miliband = 9
Media = 12
Economy = 15
Scotland = 20
A great deal of special pleading, and blame shifting, fixed term parliament, coalition, myth of blame for collapse - stab in the back stuff. Ed comes out of it without too much damage, but his rash decision to go has lumbered Labour with Corbyn (thanks to Beckett & others).
Five million lost voters! https://t.co/sw5BwQRyGF
Only on the Guardian could you read a review of tinned tomatoes where the No 1 recommendation costs £4.95 https://t.co/ICqztryucH
One gets used to reading some nonsense on here and indeed of writing some from time to time, but in terms of ahistorical, drivel in fact complete and utter bollocks that contribution takes the biscuit.
It may well be that the Scots were over represented in terms of their numbers relative to population in the ranks of empire administrators, explorers and soldiers. However they were still a minority and a small minority at that.
The idea that the Empire could not have existed except for Scotland's unique system of education, is just complete drivel. The English education system was geared to producing chaps to take up the "white man's burden" and when universal education was introduced it was skewed to aping the what had gone on before (as was noted by the Royal Commission in the 1870s), a curse that still afflicts us today.
John Curtice says (from the floor) inquiry leaves him with little confidence polling miss will be fixed due to lack of focus on Lib Dems
I think we reached Peak Dair this afternoon.
I'd strictly limit polling during the election campaign, and probably ban it in the final week.
Mr. Patrick, if people keep being annoyed we may reach Peak Pique.