Actually some major bits of British kit are absolutely exemplary and battlefield dominating (Challenger - see battle of 73 Easting, or Longbow Apache - even the yanks are jealous). What we seem to suck at harder than the vacuum of deep space is providing clarity of politico/military objectives and strategy. We perform brilliantly at the tactical level. Only to see local gains dissolve to nothing in a broader morass of woolly targets. We can splat the shit out of anyone in Afghanistan we damn well please - but to what end? For how long?
Historically of course we cannot “splat the shit” out of anyone in Afghanistan. Probably more British disasters there than anywhere else in the world, Flanders included.
Not only Britain. The Afghans have a good home record against all-comers.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Any amount of pretending about UN this and UN that or "bad man" does not cut the mustard, it was totally wrong , totally unnecessary and has led to the ME being a disaster area and all the migration etc. A clusterfcuk of immense proportions and down to one man and a set of Westminster patsies.
Pretty much sums it up Malcolm. It is alarming that more than a decade on from our worst foreign adventure since Suez we seem incapable of holding a liar and a fantasist to account for undermining our system of government and costing many better men than him their lives. Personally I would lock him up.
David, is Ruthie out of the country, not seen or heard of her since Brexit, not like her not to be in the papers
Needs time to try to figure out a new strategy! She's good, but she's not superhuman.
Should May give Leadsome a big job if she wins? Rude not to I suppose. But what?
No.
She comes with baggage (Cash, Redwood, other assorted nutters). Giving her a post would be inviting this strand of Conservatism, call it "nasty", back into the mainstream party.
Is my opinion.
I have no idea if Leadsom does represent that brand of Conservatism, and if it is widespread and so whether it should be represented in a May cabinet, but although I like people working together and there's no reason leadership rivals could not come together afterward, there are some who seem to think the defeated should automatically be offered a place under the winner, which I think would go too far.
Gove, Leadsome, Fox and Crabb might well be good additions to a May Cabinet, but if she decided to include none of them that would surely be ok.
It wouldn't be ok; it'd be building a government which has several big and difficult jobs to do on a very narrow base. Fox can be left out - he's yesterday's man and demonstrated no support. But Leadsom needs to be brought into the cabinet and Gove kept there (in his current job preferably, which he's set about in the right manner).
The simple political fact is that any Conservative leader is vulnerable in the House to a rebellion of less than a dozen MPs: he or she simply cannot afford to make too many enemies.
I meant OK in theory - in this instance the majority is very slim and the gov is vulnerable and needs to work it's backside off keeping various factions on side. But tha's a party management issue, a choice, and there surely is no intrinsic unfairness if, were the situation less precarious, the party factions less fractious and able to cause difficulty, to not rewarding leadership rivals with cabinet posts.
More than 50 luxury flats on sale at London’s iconic Battersea Power Station have had their prices slashed since January, with some seeing discounts as large as 38 per cent in a sign that wealthy foreign investors are scrambling to desert the scheme.
I'm sorry but as someone who lives in London I only see this as a good thing.
We have to remember why Labour do so well in London compared with the 80's is because housing costs have gone through the roof and home ownership is through the floor and lower than the reforms of right to buy.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Sadly, this is par for the course. WWI, Crimea for example.
Mr. Borough, I'd prefer to leave WWI on one side because the situation was a lot more nuanced than most popular histories and, hence common understanding would have us believe. If we get into that we could be here for ever.
However, the Crimea is a much better example. The failure of generalship and army administration in that campaign led to two parliamentary enquiries and a wholesale reorganisation and reform of the army. I am struggling to see any such reform following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the lesson I draw from the Libya campaign was that the politicians and the MoD had learned nothing from the earlier failures.
Good points.
Although the army now have vehicles that are a bit more IED resistant. Terrier I think its called from memory.
I remember at the time army chiefs were keen for the soldiers deployed in the ME in readiness for the operation to "get on with the job". I wondered why we weren't better equipped to deploy in a holding position for longer, which seemed appropriate for the circumstances. It drove the timetable almost as much as George Bush did in my memory of events. Chilcott seems to back up that impression.
From the executive summary report:
830. A military timetable should not be allowed to dictate a diplomatic timetable. If a strategy of coercive diplomacy is being pursued, forces should be deployed in such a way that the threat of action can be increased or decreased according to the diplomatic situation and the policy can be sustained fo
As to Libya, I still think the lesson of 'don't commit ground troops' was learned, in that we just did a 'let the Libyans live to fight another day' operation and the failure of Libya afterwards does not reflect back on DC in the public's mind in anything like the same way as Iraq does on Blair. That said at-distance stabilisation efforts were woeful and the possibility of Libya becoming an IS bolt hole could yet bring that failure to the fore.
I think you make a good point about Libya. There are risks to doing something and risks to doing nothing, and they went with a halfway house there which has indeed not worked out, but we don't 'own' it as much because of the level of commitment made.
Actually some major bits of British kit are absolutely exemplary and battlefield dominating (Challenger - see battle of 73 Easting, or Longbow Apache - even the yanks are jealous). What we seem to suck at harder than the vacuum of deep space is providing clarity of politico/military objectives and strategy. We perform brilliantly at the tactical level. Only to see local gains dissolve to nothing in a broader morass of woolly targets. We can splat the shit out of anyone in Afghanistan we damn well please - but to what end? For how long?
Historically of course we cannot “splat the shit” out of anyone in Afghanistan. Probably more British disasters there than anywhere else in the world, Flanders included.
You make my point. Tactically, locally we win (at least in today's technologically unequal world). But, like shell splashes in a sea that just rushes back in to fill a void, the 'Afghanistan wins' reality swamps all. In some ways Afghanistan was an even more egregious waste of British lives than Iraq in my view. WTF were we there to achieve? Putting radical Islam back in its box? Good luck with that.
Agreed. So many years, so much death, so much money, and how much was really achieved. Some good things, yes, but when the Taliban still exist in quite a powerful way in much of the country, the problem that a lot of people supported them and still do makes it such an utter waste.
Afghanistan was about teaching a lesson. It has taken 15 years and counting to do that.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Sadly, this is par for the course. WWI, Crimea for example.
Mr. Borough, I'd prefer to leave WWI on one side because the situation was a lot more nuanced than most popular histories and, hence common understanding would have us believe. If we get into that we could be here for ever.
However, the Crimea is a much better example. The failure of generalship and army administration in that campaign led to two parliamentary enquiries and a wholesale reorganisation and reform of the army. I am struggling to see any such reform following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the lesson I draw from the Libya campaign was that the politicians and the MoD had learned nothing from the earlier failures.
Good points.
Although the army now have vehicles that are a bit more IED resistant. Terrier I think its called from memory.
I should bloody well hope we do have better kit now, Mr. Borough. The problems is that we didn't have the kit at the time. Chilcot noted it took three years from the time the need was recognised (which was at least five years after the need was known) until they could start to source something approximating satisfying the need).
Then there was the politically inspired bullshit. For example Gordon Brown, for no reason other than money and, probably, his hatred of the armed forces, slashed the Helicopter budget. That meant that were not enough helicopters in Afghanistan for all the jobs they were needed for - especially casualty evacuation. Stories started to appear in the press about the result of this and a fuss was building. The most senior army doctor, whose name escapes me now, but you'll find it if your google-foo is strong enough, put out a press release saying that he didn't want, or need, specialist casualty evacuation helicopters. That was clearly bollocks as was demonstrated later in the campaign when that is what the troops eventually got*.
*As an aside the very robust attitude to "first-aid" developed in Afghanistan not only saved many lives but has now, I am told, largely been taken up by the NHS to the benefit of all.
Compare and contrast military spending under Labour, coalition and Conservative governments before concluding everything is Gordon Brown's fault. It may be instructive especially as former Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has been suggested as Chancellor.
John Lewis is complaining that the lower pound will mean their prices of imported goods will rise.
John Lewis forget import substitution. They could buy British made substitutes for imported goods.
Any suggestions?
Discuss. Use your imagination. Do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
The problem is that British manufacturing - over the last 35 years - has been hollowed out.
We produce cars (although quite a lot fewer than, for example, Spain). We produce high value add products like Rolls Royce engines. We produce bits of Airbus planes.
We produce lots of 'software': whether it's music or movies or microcode or microprocessor designs.
But we don't produce a lot of consumer goods, and I can't see that changing. When I was involved with my solar battery company, we had design, marketing, and finance in the UK; and we had manufacturing in France. Sad to say, the banks understood manufacturing businesses there. There was existing infrastructure. And there were employees who knew about making things. Getting a factory manager for EUR60,000/year was dead simple.
Our economy has become hollowed out. We teach our children about marketing and finance, not about making things. East Germany in 1990 was a disaster area. It's now one of the most productive manufacturing centres in the world.
This isn't an EU point. This is a point that the political class has failed us for the last 30 years. We've been content to settle into a niche as the marketing centre of the world.
Attempting to suddenly shock ourselves into being a manufacturing economy is likely to be extremely painful.
What problem is de-specializing back into manufacturing supposed to solve? As more people join the world economy you'd expect the niches filled by each location to get smaller. And when this happens it makes everyone better off.
John Lewis is complaining that the lower pound will mean their prices of imported goods will rise.
John Lewis forget import substitution. They could buy British made substitutes for imported goods.
Any suggestions?
Discuss. Use your imagination. Do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
The problem is that British manufacturing - over the last 35 years - has been hollowed out.
We produce cars (although quite a lot fewer than, for example, Spain). We produce high value add products like Rolls Royce engines. We produce bits of Airbus planes.
We produce lots of 'software': whether it's music or movies or microcode or microprocessor designs.
But we don't produce a lot of consumer goods, and I can't see that changing. When I was involved with my solar battery company, we had design, marketing, and finance in the UK; and we had manufacturing in France. Sad to say, the banks understood manufacturing businesses there. There was existing infrastructure. And there were employees who knew about making things. Getting a factory manager for EUR60,000/year was dead simple.
Our economy has become hollowed out. We teach our children about marketing and finance, not about making things. East Germany in 1990 was a disaster area. It's now one of the most productive manufacturing centres in the world.
This isn't an EU point. This is a point that the political class has failed us for the last 30 years. We've been content to settle into a niche as the marketing centre of the world.
Attempting to suddenly shock ourselves into being a manufacturing economy is likely to be extremely painful.
I don't see any other way of making it happening though. The shock of prolonged weak Sterling is the only medicine for our atrocious goods deficit.
People forget that the reason for not buying British made consumer good was that they frequently were, when compared to the foreign competition, shit.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Any amount of pretending about UN this and UN that or "bad man" does not cut the mustard, it was totally wrong , totally unnecessary and has led to the ME being a disaster area and all the migration etc. A clusterfcuk of immense proportions and down to one man and a set of Westminster patsies.
Pretty much sums it up Malcolm. It is alarming that more than a decade on from our worst foreign adventure since Suez we seem incapable of holding a liar and a fantasist to account for undermining our system of government and costing many better men than him their lives. Personally I would lock him up.
David, is Ruthie out of the country, not seen or heard of her since Brexit, not like her not to be in the papers
Needs time to try to figure out a new strategy! She's good, but she's not superhuman.
Silence is much better than the mess Dugdale is getting into as she goes in circles. How can Labour find these donkeys so regularly.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Any amount of pretending about UN this and UN that or "bad man" does not cut the mustard, it was totally wrong , totally unnecessary and has led to the ME being a disaster area and all the migration etc. A clusterfcuk of immense proportions and down to one man and a set of Westminster patsies.
Pretty much sums it up Malcolm. It is alarming that more than a decade on from our worst foreign adventure since Suez we seem incapable of holding a liar and a fantasist to account for undermining our system of government and costing many better men than him their lives. Personally I would lock him up.
David, is Ruthie out of the country, not seen or heard of her since Brexit, not like her not to be in the papers
Needs time to try to figure out a new strategy! She's good, but she's not superhuman.
She will be one day
She will die a death unless she has a real Scottish party or defects to the trough in Westminster.
Comments
We have to remember why Labour do so well in London compared with the 80's is because housing costs have gone through the roof and home ownership is through the floor and lower than the reforms of right to buy.
Very good @ByronYork look at how Trump's rambling rhetoric works, and why political professionals don't get it. https://t.co/KlQZbIE1jX
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-donald-trump-speaks/article/2595934
Mr. Eek, sorry, it was Mr. Taffys.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/watch-andrea-leadsoms-march-zombies/
I'm sure you'll feel welcomed.
NEW THREAD, MERCIFULLY