I just do not understand the respect that this article gives to a professional expert pollster from ICM. We have after all in our in house sage from the offie, tim. Someone who has found so many errors every day by that fopmeister Cameron, that the Conservative VI will surely be in negative levels. Or at least an *. Hic.
@Plato "All_ we're going to hear about from Lab is the Cost of Living. Which is the right tack to take because for many people it has increased as their Living Standards have decreased. Osborne is a bit late to the game and EdM/Lab are right to attack on this front."
I am not sure that by next April when personal allowance is raised to £10k (now £9,440) how much this increased allowance has mitigated food and energy inflation. Somehow, I think not a lot and the over65 P.A. has been more or less frozen.
Of course GO could cut energy costs by eliminating the "Green Tax" - of course that would wind up Clegg and Co, but I do not see renewables being effective before 2050 and at the moment the energy companies are taking us all for a ride.
The last YouGov poll continued the very gradual trend of people thinking that their household finances will improve in 2014.
However the real problem for EDM to answer is what will he do about the huge baseload of people who are unemployed and unemployable (another inheritance from Labour) due to a huge lack of education and skillsets, and what will he do about those same people who could do the jobs that are being taken up by immigrants. My guess is a lot of waffle, all sorts of training and re-education that should have been done at school and no actual accountable plan.
If Ed is going to make to "the standard of living" a key feature of his policies up to the election, then he is going to have to commit to above-inflation wage increases for the public sector, otherwise it is meaningless.
Please explain why just the public sector?
Because that is the sector which the government has explicit control over.
So how would you fund the increased cost. Would employ fewer people, or reduce pension costs or.....?
Err, I'm not recommending it as a policy, I'm just pointing out the fatuousness of Miliband banging on about "living standards" without such a policy.
The numbers indicate that borrowing rose after the recession.Never mind Brown,he`s been and gone.
...
...
...
As I said,Brown`s been and gone and there`s no value in repeating these arguments to and fro.
But your man`s in charge and not doing too well on borrowing and the deficit and come Autumn 2014,he`ll have failed by a proverbial mile.
Growth and borrowing forecasts come and go, SMukesh.
Just look at this year. In March the OBR forecast GDP growth of 0.6% for the whole of 2013. Yet we have already reached 1% growth in the first half and there is not a single forecaster out there who thinks UK growth will be negative in the second half. Revised forecasts are at least double the OBR March figure.
We shall see revisions of similar scale to the deficit reduction target dates and rates of reduction next month as OBR reforecasts on the basis of the last six months performance of the economy.
So forecasts do go up as well as down and we are going through an up period at present.
What hasn't changed throughout this term of parliament is George Osborne's primary fiscal mandate which is to balance the cyclically adjusted current budget within a five year forward rolling target. If that is the goal then the strategy has been to achieve an average fiscal consolidation of 1% per annum.
Osborne is currently and has been throughout the parliament on target to meet his primary fiscal target. This was confirmed by the OBR in March and will be reaffirmed in September but there will be a faster rate of consolidation forecast and an earlier 'balance' date predicted.
Osborne has also maintained his strategy of a gradual and optimal 1% per annum fiscal consolidation rate both in times of on trend growth and in times of low growth depressed during the Eurozone crisis.
There really is no factual basis on which you can allege that Osborne will have "failed by a proverbial mile" come Autumn 2014.
@JohnLilburne We've seen quite enough military fiascos in recent years caused by the absurdly gung-ho (who curiously enough never seem keen to risk their own necks in the endeavours they jingoistically advocate)...
There really is no factual basis on which you can allege that Osborne will have "failed by a proverbial mile" come Autumn 2014.
Shush, don't let on. Labour have spent a huge amount of effort digging that trap for themselves. It would be churlish to deny them the opportunity of falling into it.
The numbers indicate that borrowing rose after the recession.Never mind Brown,he`s been and gone.
Growth and borrowing forecasts come and go, SMukesh.
Just look at this year. In March the OBR forecast GDP growth of 0.6% for the whole of 2013. Yet we have already reached 1% growth in the first half and there is not a single forecaster out there who thinks UK growth will be negative in the second half. Revised forecasts are at least double the OBR March figure.
We shall see revisions of similar scale to the deficit reduction target dates and rates of reduction next month as OBR reforecasts on the basis of the last six months performance of the economy.
So forecasts do go up as well as down and we are going through an up period at present.
What hasn't changed throughout this term of parliament is George Osborne's primary fiscal mandate which is to balance the cyclically adjusted current budget within a five year forward rolling target. If that is the goal then the strategy has been to achieve an average fiscal consolidation of 1% per annum.
Osborne is currently and has been throughout the parliament on target to meet his primary fiscal target. This was confirmed by the OBR in March and will be reaffirmed in September but there will be a faster rate of consolidation forecast and an earlier 'balance' date predicted.
Osborne has also maintained his strategy of a gradual and optimal 1% per annum fiscal consolidation rate both in times of on trend growth and in times of low growth depressed during the Eurozone crisis.
There really is no factual basis on which you can allege that Osborne will have "failed by a proverbial mile" come Autumn 2014.
We`ll have to wait till Autumn 2014 to see whether he manages to fulfil his pledge of ` eliminating the structural deficit in this Parliament`.As of today,he`s a long way from doing so.
So borrowing rose from 29% to 35 % from the years 2002-2007 when there was huge investment in our schools and hospitals and that`s supposed to show Brown was a disaster.Get a sense of proportion mate!
You forgot the important bit: borrowing rose from 29% to 35 % from the years 2002-2007
No. It. Didn't.
Carl, you are right, but only on a technicality.
My figures were debt (PSND) not borrowing (PSNB) but I mistakenly claimed they were "borrowing" in the text although I labelled the table PSND.
So Brown raised net debt from 29% of GDP to 35% of GDP from the years 2002-7.
If he didn't do that by increasing borrowing, I would like to know how he did manage it.
So borrowing rose from 29% to 35 % from the years 2002-2007 when there was huge investment in our schools and hospitals and that`s supposed to show Brown was a disaster.Get a sense of proportion mate!
You forgot the important bit: borrowing rose from 29% to 35 % from the years 2002-2007
No. It. Didn't.
Carl, you are right, but only on a technicality.
My figures were debt (PSND) not borrowing (PSNB) but I mistakenly claimed they were "borrowing" in the text although I labelled the table PSND.
So Brown raised net debt from 29% of GDP to 35% of GDP from the years 2002-7.
If he didn't do that by increasing borrowing, I would like to know how he did manage it.
Just as a matter of interest, and to prove we are all impartial seekers after truth, can you tell us what levels were inherited from the previous Conservative government?
I don't think it's in the interests of someone who fully swallowed Osbornes boasting about having established growth in 2010 to be pushing the idea that the British economy doesn't operate in isolation All your excuses depend on denying that to apologise for the boasting remember
I know you're fond of rewriting history to fit what you want the narrative to be, tim, but Osborne's two great speeches of 2010 read very well in retrospect. OK, in the spending review speech he boasts that he has ' taken our country back from the brink of bankruptcy', but no-one could seriously quibble with that:
Sorry NickP, but Blair's political posturing and concern about being seen not to be preparing for military for action was a case of putting himself and Government before making sure our troops were properly kitted out for action on the ground in the middle East should they be called upon to mount a ground war! You are rewriting history from the perspective of a Labour MP sat in the Westminster bubble.
Even worse, the last Labour Government along with the American administration failed abysmally when it came to planning for the day after an invasion in Iraq was successfully. You might have seen enough troops put on the ground to win after the air war, but you didn't put enough on the ground immediately to help secure the peace and distribute the desperately needed humanitarian aid. The biggest failures were properly targeting humanitarian aid and disbanding the Iraq army, leaving all those thousands of men to disperse to the four corners of Iraq with a rifle in their hand and no pay packet at the end of the month. This is closely followed by not immediate raising Abu Ghraib prison to the ground the minute it came into US/UK forces hands.
I am sure it would never happen but for the sake of argument, what happens if a PM tries to go to war against the majority view in Parliament and their is then a vote of no confidence. Surely in that situation it is Parliament who has the final say no matter what the prerogative situation might be.
Yes. That was one of the dilemmas over Iraq. Blair didn't want to go to war without a Parliamentary mandate (and would have resigned if it had been rejected - an interesting alternative history) but if he went to Parliament too early he'd have been accused of warmongering before all negotiations had failed. So he waited until there was a huge Allied army on the Iraqi border, at which point telling the British Army to turn around and walk away while Saddam chortled would have been very difficult. There isn't really a good moment to do it, also bearing in mind the need for some tactical surprise if any troops are at risk - probably the best is to ask for authoity to go to war if a specified red line is crossed.
The numbers indicate that borrowing rose after the recession.Never mind Brown,he`s been and gone.
...
There really is no factual basis on which you can allege that Osborne will have "failed by a proverbial mile" come Autumn 2014.
We`ll have to wait till Autumn 2014 to see whether he manages to fulfil his pledge of ` eliminating the structural deficit in this Parliament`.As of today,he`s a long way from doing so.
You have to be very careful to define what you mean by "deficit", SMukesh.
George's definition is very clear and used by the OBR in their six monthly reports. It is not however the measure that the media use which varies according to the time of day and current political agenda.
There are measures of the deficit that Osborne may have eliminated by the end of this parliamentary term, but it is not likely to be the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget as this excludes net investment and interest payments and all non-recurring receipts and expenses.
The core reason is that it is not politically possible to reduce the costs of benefits at the rate necessary to balance the current budget until employment has recovered (the 7% unemployment rate is as good a measure as any here) and until the effect of holding benefit increases to 1% per annum for three years has worked its way through and GDP has recovered to pre-crisis levels.
On other measures of deficit, where, for example, the sale of bank shares at a profit will have an effect (PSNB for example) there is a real chance that these accounts could be in surplus by 2015, at current rates of growth.
The reason you need to be careful is that the measure you choose to knock Osborne on today may just be the wrong measure to have used when it comes to 2015.
Plan forward carefully, SMukesh. Take a leaf out of George's book.
"The 220 registered voters of Warruwi, a small fishing community on South Goulburn Island - an hour and a half from Darwin by plane, cast some of the first votes for this year's federal election on Monday. Over the next two weeks 29 remote polling teams will travel the country to remote communities to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to vote":
So borrowing rose from 29% to 35 % from the years 2002-2007 when there was huge investment in our schools and hospitals and that`s supposed to show Brown was a disaster.Get a sense of proportion mate!
You forgot the important bit: borrowing rose from 29% to 35 % from the years 2002-2007
No. It. Didn't.
Carl, you are right, but only on a technicality.
My figures were debt (PSND) not borrowing (PSNB) but I mistakenly claimed they were "borrowing" in the text although I labelled the table PSND.
So Brown raised net debt from 29% of GDP to 35% of GDP from the years 2002-7.
If he didn't do that by increasing borrowing, I would like to know how he did manage it.
Just as a matter of interest, and to prove we are all impartial seekers after truth, can you tell us what levels were inherited from the previous Conservative government?
The 1992-7 Major Government?
Here is Major and Blair 1. Please note that the true levels of Mrs Rochester's lunacy were not known at this stage as Blair kept her firmly under lock and key in No 10's attic in his first term.
Although the housing bubble started in 1998, government borrowing didn't take off under Brown until the first year of the Blair's second term: a 12.5% real terms increase in 2001-2 alone!
35% is a reasonable target level. Both terms could be described as fiscally sound. Blair and Brown had the benefit of avoiding a cyclical recession in their first term, but they did well to reduce the ratio each year. Blair and Brown also had the benefit of peak North sea oil and gas revenues when the UK was a net energy exporter at high average global price levels.
The US put some kind of proposals to Iran to see if they could hammer something out over Syria. Reportedly Iran rejected it today. This may reflect Kerry's no pulled punches statement tonight
I have no idea whether the US has suggested any such wheeling & dealing plan to Putin but asking the Iranians makes sense. On the ground not only do their their own forces, they have Hezbollah plus locally raised militias that would be considered to hold loyalty to Iran. The Iranians have long been planning in case Assad gets found hanging from a tree or working in Specsavers' Moscow branch and their planning is on the ground, Russia's is not.
In short they could pull a rug Assad better than anyone.
The door is open but as I understand it the US has not gone to the table with anything fresh. They may not do at all.
AndyJS, caution over that report. There are regular stopovers in Akrotiri from 3rd parties and the RAF has a due deployment so it may not, yet, be what it seems. Not least no-one has ID'd who's or what type of tin. Yes the due deployment has usefulness but it might also suggest something more significant in air campaign terms if it was used for supporting offensive operations, significant in terms of tactics, duration and intensity as Akrotiri could well have been seen as a secondary air bridge facility initially.
Is there increased activity out there? Yes in Jordan, Israel and round and about (not least in Syria there has been a lot of scrambling) but on balance I think, if the suggestions of what the retaliatory strikes are going to be in scope are borne out, very little shifting of offensive force is needed.
Does tim have a twin? He can't have time for twittering too surely but this is strangely familiar. and the ID is pretty consistent too....
GOsborneGenius@GOsborneGenius6m @tnewtondunn@DAaronovitch the best Kinnock comparison. Kinnock put 3.6% on the Labour vote in 1992 Cameron put 3.7% on the Tory vote 2010
@Avery. Debt/GDP rose every year of the Major govt didn't it, what did they spend it on besides benefits?
Debt certainly increased as a percentage of GDP each year. Happens during recessions and it started from a remarkably low 27.2%.
As for Public Sector Net Borrowing, Major reduced this year on year to a very reasonable ratio of below 4% of GDP in the handover year of 1997.
See post to DJL for the equivalent debt figures. You will note that net debt can rise when net borrowing is falling as is happening to PSND ex this parliament (but not the aggregate PSND).
Sorry NickP, but Blair's political posturing and concern about being seen not to be preparing for military for action was a case of putting himself and Government before making sure our troops were properly kitted out for action on the ground in the middle East should they be called upon to mount a ground war! You are rewriting history from the perspective of a Labour MP sat in the Westminster bubble.
Even worse, the last Labour Government along with the American administration failed abysmally when it came to planning for the day after an invasion in Iraq was successfully. You might have seen enough troops put on the ground to win after the air war, but you didn't put enough on the ground immediately to help secure the peace and distribute the desperately needed humanitarian aid. The biggest failures were properly targeting humanitarian aid and disbanding the Iraq army, leaving all those thousands of men to disperse to the four corners of Iraq with a rifle in their hand and no pay packet at the end of the month. This is closely followed by not immediate raising Abu Ghraib prison to the ground the minute it came into US/UK forces hands.
Hypocrite.
Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war - Friday, 23 June 2006
Conservative leader David Cameron has said he still believes going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do.
In an interview for BBC's Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, he said the war had been "very unpopular" and some bad decisions had been made since it began.
But Mr Cameron said "those of us who supported" the military action should "see it through"
The borrowing and moving of fiscal goals to achieve this investment was totally unsustainable in the longer term. That it fitted into Gordon Brown's political strategy grid which saw Labour win a third GE, after which he hoped it would become a spring board for him to win the next one after he became Labour Leader and PM goes without saying. But at no time did Brown allow the economic reality or sensible fiscal restraints interfere with his political ambitions in case it burst the illusion of national and personal wealth generated by the growth of the enormous credit bubble he had allowed to grow unchecked.
The numbers indicate that borrowing rose after the recession.Never mind Brown,he`s been and gone.
No they don't. They indicate that borrowing as a % of GDP rose by a fifth between 2002 and 2007 at a time when we should have been seeing improving public finances. Brown was a disaster as a chancellor and no amount of attempted rewriting of history by the Left can change that.
So borrowing rose from 29% to 35 % from the years 2002-2007 when there was huge investment in our schools and hospitals and that`s supposed to show Brown was a disaster.Get a sense of proportion mate!
The borrowing and moving of fiscal goals to achieve this investment was totally unsustainable in the longer term. That it fitted into Gordon Brown's political strategy grid which saw Labour win a third GE, after which he hoped it would become a spring board for him to win the next one after he became Labour Leader and PM goes without saying. But at no time did Brown allow the economic reality or sensible fiscal restraints interfere with his political ambitions in case it burst the illusion of national and personal wealth generated by the growth of the enormous credit bubble he had allowed to grow unchecked.
So borrowing rose from 29% to 35 % from the years 2002-2007 when there was huge investment in our schools and hospitals and that`s supposed to show Brown was a disaster.Get a sense of proportion mate!
You forgot the important bit: borrowing rose from 29% to 35 % from the years 2002-2007
No. It. Didn't.
Carl, you are right, but only on a technicality.
My figures were debt (PSND) not borrowing (PSNB) but I mistakenly claimed they were "borrowing" in the text although I labelled the table PSND.
So Brown raised net debt from 29% of GDP to 35% of GDP from the years 2002-7.
If he didn't do that by increasing borrowing, I would like to know how he did manage it.
Just as a matter of interest, and to prove we are all impartial seekers after truth, can you tell us what levels were inherited from the previous Conservative government?
The 1992-7 Major Government?
Here is Major and Blair 1. Please note that the true levels of Mrs Rochester's lunacy were not known at this stage as Blair kept her firmly under lock and key in No 10's attic in his first term.
Although the housing bubble started in 1998, government borrowing didn't take off under Brown until the first year of the Blair's second term: a 12.5% real terms increase in 2001-2 alone!
35% is a reasonable target level. Both terms could be described as fiscally sound. Blair and Brown had the benefit of avoiding a cyclical recession in their first term, but they did well to reduce the ratio each year. Blair and Brown also had the benefit of peak North sea oil and gas revenues when the UK was a net energy exporter at high average global price levels.
So Brown was paying off Tory debt. Cool. And even at Brown's pre-crash peak, which you apparently find so outrageous, he is still below the level inherited from the Conservatives. Less than Germany too, wasn't it?
@Avery. Debt/GDP rose every year of the Major govt didn't it, what did they spend it on besides benefits?
Debt certainly increased as a percentage of GDP each year. Happens during recessions and it started from a remarkably low 27.2%.
As for Public Sector Net Borrowing, Major reduced this year on year to a very reasonable ratio of below 4% of GDP in the handover year of 1997.
See post to DJL for the equivalent debt figures. You will note that net debt can rise when net borrowing is falling as is happening to PSND ex this parliament (but not the aggregate PSND).
[Edit: Getting late. The "1" of "Q1" got stuck to the front of the percentages. I didn't notice and then saw they were missing from the "Q"s and added them again. No more stats from me tonight!]
Oh, an insult and a post that doesn't address the valid points I raised in relation to Iraq, it must be Pork on one of his little partisan rants. Off you go and look up the meaning of hypocrite, bearing in mind that my criticism is directed at the PM and Government of the day who were in control of these issues. Luckily OGH has on occasion posted a link to an interesting and measured article penned by David Cameron before the Iraq vote in the HoC's where he laid out his concerns about intervention in Iraq and why he was torn about the vote. Don't bother with your usual childish tit for tat copy cat response, it just makes me cringe and then flick past it.
Sorry NickP, but Blair's political posturing and concern about being seen not to be preparing for military for action was a case of putting himself and Government before making sure our troops were properly kitted out for action on the ground in the middle East should they be called upon to mount a ground war! You are rewriting history from the perspective of a Labour MP sat in the Westminster bubble.
Even worse, the last Labour Government along with the American administration failed abysmally when it came to planning for the day after an invasion in Iraq was successfully. You might have seen enough troops put on the ground to win after the air war, but you didn't put enough on the ground immediately to help secure the peace and distribute the desperately needed humanitarian aid. The biggest failures were properly targeting humanitarian aid and disbanding the Iraq army, leaving all those thousands of men to disperse to the four corners of Iraq with a rifle in their hand and no pay packet at the end of the month. This is closely followed by not immediate raising Abu Ghraib prison to the ground the minute it came into US/UK forces hands.
Hypocrite.
Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war - Friday, 23 June 2006
Conservative leader David Cameron has said he still believes going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do.
In an interview for BBC's Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, he said the war had been "very unpopular" and some bad decisions had been made since it began.
But Mr Cameron said "those of us who supported" the military action should "see it through"
This America which so deplores chemical weapons, would it be the same America which bombarded southeast Asia with Agent Orange, leading to thousands of deaths and thousands of birth defects, a crime which America still refuses to acknowledge, let alone redress?
Is it?
American piety makes me puke.
The America which, it has been revealed in the last couple of days, supported Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran.
It certainly might seem that invading Syria might be the morally "right" thing to do, but you have to ask yourself, would I be willing to let my son die on the road to Allepo? Is the life of 20 year old infantryman Smith worth trading for a regime change in Syria, most probably to a regime that still doesn't stack up to our Western ideals? Has infantryman Smith dying in Helmand province made life better for Afghan school girls, once British forces pull out, even though that wasn't the mission apres 9/11? I'd suggest not. I'll be happy about committing UK forces only if Ewan Blair leads the van, carrying the Cameron and Milliband kids in his Bergen.
So Brown was paying off Tory debt. Cool. And even at Brown's pre-crash peak, which you apparently find so outrageous, he is still below the level inherited from the Conservatives. Less than Germany too, wasn't it?
DJL, I have never claimed the symptoms of El Gord's addiction to borrowing and debt were evident in Blair's first term.
It was when Blair stopped acting as his carer that the problems surfaced.
Although Gord was secretly practicing the art in the private sector housing and mortgage markets from 1998 onwards. I imagine him blowing up a balloon with helium in front of a mirror in the attic then inhaling the gas and giggling uncontrollably. Then throwing a dart at a photo of Tony pinned to a dartboard.
It certainly might seem that invading Syria might be the morally "right" thing to do, but you have to ask yourself, would I be willing to let my son die on the road to Allepo? Is the life of 20 year old infantryman Smith worth trading for a regime change in Syria, most probably to a regime that still doesn't stack up to our Western ideals?
One suspects the reason for Obama's caution up to now has been that a choice between Assad, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah is not an attractive one.
Oh, an insult and a post that doesn't address the valid points I raised in relation to Iraq, it must be Pork on one of his little partisan rants. Off you go and look up the meaning of hypocrite, bearing in mind that my criticism is directed at the PM and Government of the day who were in control of these issues. Luckily OGH has on occasion posted a link to an interesting and measured article penned by David Cameron before the Iraq vote in the HoC's where he laid out his concerns about intervention in Iraq and why he was torn about the vote. Don't bother with your usual childish tit for tat copy cat response, it just makes me cringe and then flick past it.
The truth will of course upset an inept and supine Cameroon spinner like yourself but if you think your passive aggressive petulant whining will stop me from pointing out blatant hypocrisy when it is displayed in such a comically clueless manner then you really are delusional.
Cameron and his unquestioning drones like yourself supported Iraq and voted for it despite Robin Cook resigning and pointing out the the excuses were utter bollocks AT THE TIME.
In case the dates were too complicated for a simple spinner like yourself, that article quotes Cameron saying he STILL supported Iraq in 2006, well after the WMD lies were exposed and the shambolic post Iraq 'rebuilding' catastrophe.
The article destroys your 'points' as hypocritical nonsense yet you don't seem bright enough to realise it as usual.
You are doing about as much good ineptly spinning for Cammie as his hero Blair just did by coming out and tub-thumping for military action in Syria.
Hypocrisy is an ugly thing yet still not as ugly as the hysterical reaction it provokes when those practicing it are exposed.
I look forward to another passive aggressive rant from you soon or likely an hour or two after you think everyone is gone.
To critics, it symbolises everything that is wrong about mollycoddled, risk-averse, health-and-safety-obsessed modern Britain.
But enthusiasts point to its success in reducing traffic accidents and making the jobs of thousands of workers much safer.
What is perhaps most significant, however, is the manner in which this mass-produced garment, available from pound shops the length and breadth of the country, has come to lend its wearers the mantle of officialdom, licensed to give orders by virtue of their outerwear."
Syria opposition figure in France with a remit to liaise with Western European nations believes some kind of statement is due from the Friends of Syria countries within 48 hours. After that (or maybe even before), its likely to be the noisy part unless someone blinks. Problem is, how reliable are some of these guys, not yet sure on some of them.
UN inspection team: Story has it the US has told them they had about 48 hours. Its possible initial feedback has come through already.
As I mentioned on the day of the alleged attack both US & Israeli intelligence assets would likely have picked up signs of activity. Whilst there have been leaks that US & Israeli ears did pick up traffic, it will be interesting to see if some of this reported intelligence will be wheeled out for public consumption.
Possibilities singular or combined about why the Assad government chose to launch a chemical weapons attack-
1 . Militarily in diffs/militarily effective tool.Logical
2. Assumed no repercussions and over-reached. Also logical
3. His officers aren't quite all on his side. This may seem odd but there has been finger pointing within the regime apparatus since this alleged attack
4. Global Conspiracy - Never was an attack/done by agents of somebody - See The Internet.
Once again, Mick Pork's partisan and insult flecked rebuttal programme kicks in and disbars him from being able to take part in a grown up cross party debate on the issues of Iraq, the economy or the situation in Syria. Don't know how many times have I started to read the first couple of lines of one of his diatribes and immediately recognised the signature mocking tone and insults, only then to check the author and then skip over the whole post without reading the rest of it.
The repetitive nature of his insults or links often weakens or defeats his attacks, and therefore makes him far easier to ignore. And despite working himself up into a fine old tizzy tonight, he has still failed to address any of the serious points I raised in either of my original posts that so exercised him he felt the need to respond and insult me in the first place. He never has a positive or genuinely original thought to add to the debate here, even his new passive/aggressive smear is copied from others on my bingo card pack on the site.
Mick, robust debate in response to bullying tactics used by some posters here isn't passive aggressive petulant whining. But copying the latest smear flecked attempts to undermine posters with a political position you don't like is lazy and cowardly behaviour that really needs to be called out for what it is. And that makes you the real hypocrite here. This is a great site for genuine debate on some really interesting topics, why not jump in and add a positive contribution through genuine individual opinion to the threads rather than being a drag who seeks to target and stifle debate from those whose politics you disagree with.
I'm self evidently still here and your absurd delusions of grandeur, while unquestionably comical, have no basis in reality. You don't get to disbar anybody from posting or debating.
I opposed Iraq well before it started. You supported it and Cammie and Blair voting for it. That says more than enough about your 'judgement' on such issues.
Your incompetent spin trying to pin everything on Blair while slavishly supporting his war and Cameron simply does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. Your 'points' were destroyed as after the fact hypocrisy. Passive aggressive ranting and whining is all you have to try and deflect from the obvious hypocrisy you display and it's about as convincing as all your other inept spin.
No wonder Carolah was revolted by your absurd victim mentality Fitalass. This is a politicalbetting website. You don't get to criticise other posters and their points without being subject to the same. Again and again you seem to think you cannot possibly be questioned while happily attacking others. It's blatant hypocrisy and everyone can see it is. Simply squawking 'bullying' won't cut it as an excuse. You do so because you are incapable of rebutting points that destroy your wafer thin spin.
Only your hopelessly partisan fellow PB tories pretend to entertain the preposterous notion that a supposedly adult woman is incapable of posting on a political debating forum without claiming to be a helpless victim as she happily deals out the insults in a hilariously oblivious manner.
I oppose this rush to war and military intervention in Syria. The cowardice of waiting to see what Cammie says before deciding what to spin about it would be pitiful indeed
Yokel, I have often wondered about your day job due to the prescient nature of your posts when it comes to both domestic and Foreign security issues. And much as I find that question as intriguing as Jack W's identity, its obvious that both of you like a good punt on political events too or you wouldn't have been drawn to the site. At the end of the day, you both bring a much appreciated extra insight and knowledge into the debates and events unfolding in your particular fields.
When Bloody Sunday happened, the Paras were not the only British regiment stationed in NI at the time. And the next day when the Paras were pulled from duty on the streets, my Dad lead a foot patrol which ended up carrying an extra member who turned up at the last minute and just happened to be an in-bedded journalist back then in the day.
I'm self evidently still here and your absurd delusions of grandeur, while unquestionably comical, have no basis in reality. You don't get to disbar anybody from posting or debating.
I opposed Iraq well before it started. You supported it and Cammie and Blair voting for it. That says more than enough about your 'judgement' on such issues.
Your incompetent spin trying to pin everything on Blair while slavishly supporting his war and Cameron simply does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. Your 'points' were destroyed as after the fact hypocrisy. Passive aggressive ranting and whining is all you have to try and deflect from the obvious hypocrisy you display and it's about as convincing as all your other inept spin.
No wonder Carolah was revolted by your absurd victim mentality Fitalass. This is a politicalbetting website. You don't get to criticise other posters and their points without being subject to the same. Again and again you seem to think you cannot possibly be questioned while happily attacking others. It's blatant hypocrisy and everyone can see it is. Simply squawking 'bullying' won't cut it as an excuse. You do so because you are incapable of rebutting points that destroy your wafer thin spin.
Only your hopelessly partisan fellow PB tories pretend to entertain the preposterous notion that a supposedly adult woman is incapable of posting on a political debating forum without claiming to be a helpless victim as she happily deals out the insults in a hilariously oblivious manner.
I oppose this rush to war and military intervention in Syria. The cowardice of waiting to see what Cammie says before deciding what to spin about it would be pitiful indeed
I'm self evidently still here and your absurd delusions of grandeur, while unquestionably comical, have no basis in reality. You don't get to disbar anybody from posting or debating.
I opposed Iraq well before it started. You supported it and Cammie and Blair voting for it. That says more than enough about your 'judgement' on such issues.
Your incompetent spin trying to pin everything on Blair while slavishly supporting his war and Cameron simply does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. Your 'points' were destroyed as after the fact hypocrisy. Passive aggressive ranting and whining is all you have to try and deflect from the obvious hypocrisy you display and it's about as convincing as all your other inept spin.
No wonder Carolah was revolted by your absurd victim mentality Fitalass. This is a politicalbetting website. You don't get to criticise other posters and their points without being subject to the same. Again and again you seem to think you cannot possibly be questioned while happily attacking others. It's blatant hypocrisy and everyone can see it is. Simply squawking 'bullying' won't cut it as an excuse. You do so because you are incapable of rebutting points that destroy your wafer thin spin.
Only your hopelessly partisan fellow PB tories pretend to entertain the preposterous notion that a supposedly adult woman is incapable of posting on a political debating forum without claiming to be a helpless victim as she happily deals out the insults in a hilariously oblivious manner.
I oppose this rush to war and military intervention in Syria. The cowardice of waiting to see what Cammie says before deciding what to spin about it would be pitiful indeed
Is this the part where I'm supposed to whine about being bullied? Try harder. You're embarrassing yourself yet again.
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
Whats your proof that the insurgency is failing and Assad is winning?
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
The rebels don't have the capability for such a large-scale attack. That's why it must have been Assad's forces, (although I personally would guess that Assad himself didn't authorise it).
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
The rebels don't have the capability for such a large-scale attack. That's why it must have been Assad's forces, (although I personally would guess that Assad himself didn't authorise it).
Sarin was released on the Tokyo Subway by terrorists in 1995.
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
The rebels don't have the capability for such a large-scale attack. That's why it must have been Assad's forces, (although I personally would guess that Assad himself didn't authorise it).
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
Whats your proof that the insurgency is failing and Assad is winning?
The objective is to topple Assad. What prospect of toppling Assad was there before this chemical attack?
The single most likely explanation is that Assad would risk crossing the US's only red line and take on 100s of warplanes and cruise missiles because they were fed up trying to dig out a bunch of militia with AKs - like ****.
It's possible at best.
Given the cui bono the single most likely explanation is it's a Tonkin incident.
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
The rebels don't have the capability for such a large-scale attack. That's why it must have been Assad's forces, (although I personally would guess that Assad himself didn't authorise it).
Sarin was released on the Tokyo Subway by terrorists in 1995.
they killed (I think) about 30 in the confined space of a subway system. If the casualty numbers are correct this is a much larger attack. I don't have any idea whether "rebels" could manage that. but then, Al qaeda maybe could?
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
Whats your proof that the insurgency is failing and Assad is winning?
The objective is to topple Assad. What prospect of toppling Assad was there before this chemical attack?
The single most likely explanation is that Assad would risk crossing the US's only red line and take on 100s of warplanes and cruise missiles because they were fed up trying to dig out a bunch of militia with AKs - like ****.
It's possible at best.
Given the cui bono the single most likely explanation is it's a Tonkin incident.
That fails to answer the question.
Lets just stick to facts, Assad has uncontested control of probably less than 30% of the country, the rest is contested in some shape or form. his forces are in a death match for Syria's largest city, Aleppo. He has failed to quell insurgency on his own capital.
That isn't losing, it isn't Assad winning, and it isn't the other way around either, its a finely balanced conflict right now. To suggest one party is winning and one is losing is....bollox.
Lets just stick to facts, Assad has uncontested control of probably less than 30% of the country, the rest is contested in some shape or form. his forces are in a death match for Syria's largest city, Aleppo. He has failed to quell insurgency on his own capital.
That isn't losing, it isn't Assad winning, and it isn't the other way around either, its a finely balanced conflict right now. To suggest one party is winning and one is losing is....bollox.
Or to put that another way there's a stalemate along a 70:30 ethno-sectarian fault-line.
Lets just stick to facts, Assad has uncontested control of probably less than 30% of the country, the rest is contested in some shape or form. his forces are in a death match for Syria's largest city, Aleppo. He has failed to quell insurgency on his own capital.
That isn't losing, it isn't Assad winning, and it isn't the other way around either, its a finely balanced conflict right now. To suggest one party is winning and one is losing is....bollox.
Or to put that another way there's a stalemate along a 70:30 ethno-sectarian fault-line.
What's the objectives?
Assad: hold on The USUK coalition: topple Assad
So, after 2 1/2 years who's winning?
At this point no one has a decisive breakthrough. You said the insurgents were losing. Incorrect. It is currently in the mixing bowl with no clear indication of who is or will win.
Lets just stick to facts, Assad has uncontested control of probably less than 30% of the country, the rest is contested in some shape or form. his forces are in a death match for Syria's largest city, Aleppo. He has failed to quell insurgency on his own capital.
That isn't losing, it isn't Assad winning, and it isn't the other way around either, its a finely balanced conflict right now. To suggest one party is winning and one is losing is....bollox.
Or to put that another way there's a stalemate along a 70:30 ethno-sectarian fault-line.
What's the objectives?
Assad: hold on The USUK coalition: topple Assad
So, after 2 1/2 years who's winning?
At this point no one has a decisive breakthrough. You said the insurgents were losing. Incorrect. It is currently in the mixing bowl with no clear indication of who is or will win.
'Gwyn Winfield, editorial director at the magazine CBRNe World, which reports on chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosives use, analyzed the videos and wrote on the magazine's site: "Clearly respiratory distress, some nerve spasms and a half-hearted washdown (involving water and bare hands?), but it could equally be a riot control agent as a (chemical warfare agent)." Some analysts speculated that a stockpile of chemical agents may have been hit by shelling, whether controlled by the rebels or the government.'
'A CNN reporter pointed to the fact that government forces did not appear to be in imminent danger of being overrun by rebels in the areas in question, in which a stalemate had set. He questioned why the Army would risk such an action that could cause international intervention. The reporter also questioned if the Army would use sarin gas just a few kilometers from the center of Damascus on what was a windy day.
A reporter for The Daily Telegraph also pointed to the questionable timing given government forces had recently beaten back rebels in some areas around Damascus and recaptured territory. "Using chemical weapons might make sense when he is losing, but why launch gas attacks when he is winning anyway?"'
Lets just stick to facts, Assad has uncontested control of probably less than 30% of the country, the rest is contested in some shape or form. his forces are in a death match for Syria's largest city, Aleppo. He has failed to quell insurgency on his own capital.
That isn't losing, it isn't Assad winning, and it isn't the other way around either, its a finely balanced conflict right now. To suggest one party is winning and one is losing is....bollox.
Or to put that another way there's a stalemate along a 70:30 ethno-sectarian fault-line.
What's the objectives?
Assad: hold on The USUK coalition: topple Assad
So, after 2 1/2 years who's winning?
At this point no one has a decisive breakthrough. You said the insurgents were losing. Incorrect. It is currently in the mixing bowl with no clear indication of who is or will win.
What's the objective?
Patently the overthrow of Assad, Assad's objective is to defeat the insurgency.
Neither has succeeded, neither has had a decisive breakthrough, that isn't failure, its called conflict, it usually lasts a long time. When one stops fighting because of exhaustion or defeat and their objectives are not reached, thats losing.
Neither side is losing, neither side is winning, thats often what happens in conflict for some time.
Now you can play semantics all night because you got caught out by not knowing your subject with a gross over generalisation. Thats ok with me but you'd be as well playing with yourself for as much good as it will do you.
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
The rebels don't have the capability for such a large-scale attack. That's why it must have been Assad's forces, (although I personally would guess that Assad himself didn't authorise it).
Lets just stick to facts, Assad has uncontested control of probably less than 30% of the country, the rest is contested in some shape or form. his forces are in a death match for Syria's largest city, Aleppo. He has failed to quell insurgency on his own capital.
That isn't losing, it isn't Assad winning, and it isn't the other way around either, its a finely balanced conflict right now. To suggest one party is winning and one is losing is....bollox.
Or to put that another way there's a stalemate along a 70:30 ethno-sectarian fault-line.
What's the objectives?
Assad: hold on The USUK coalition: topple Assad
So, after 2 1/2 years who's winning?
At this point no one has a decisive breakthrough. You said the insurgents were losing. Incorrect. It is currently in the mixing bowl with no clear indication of who is or will win.
What's the objective?
Patently the overthrow of Assad, Assad's objective is to defeat the insurgency.
Neither has succeeded, neither has had a decisive breakthrough, that isn't failure, its called conflict, it usually lasts a long time. When one stops fighting because of exhaustion or defeat and their objectives are not reached, thats losing.
Neither side is losing, neither side is winning, thats often what happens in conflict for some time.
Now you can play semantics all night because you got caught out by not knowing your subject with a gross over generalisation. Thats ok with me but you'd be as well playing with yourself for as much good as it will do you.
1) He is (or was) winning. If US arms flows go up then he's winning. 2) Assad doing it isn't even close to being remotely the single most logical explanation as you claim - it's a million miles from being any kind of logical explanation. That doesn't mean it didn't happen as things don't have to be logical but this idea it's the most likely or even remotely likely explanation is total bollox.
Syria: Several days after I posted about what is probably the most logical single reason why the Syrian government would launch such a scale of chemical weapons attack, others suggest similar logic
Absolutely. The single most logical explanation is the Syrian government decides to cross the global superpower's only red line and provoke an attack from 100s of hi-tech planes and missiles because they're bored of slogging out a bogged down assault on a bunch of dug-in militia with AKs.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
The rebels don't have the capability for such a large-scale attack. That's why it must have been Assad's forces, (although I personally would guess that Assad himself didn't authorise it).
bollox
Which part of that were you saying bollox to?
What attack?
Some canisters or shells with Sarin in them detonated and gas came out.
Comments
I just do not understand the respect that this article gives to a professional expert pollster from ICM. We have after all in our in house sage from the offie, tim. Someone who has found so many errors every day by that fopmeister Cameron, that the Conservative VI will surely be in negative levels. Or at least an *.
Hic.
Just look at this year. In March the OBR forecast GDP growth of 0.6% for the whole of 2013. Yet we have already reached 1% growth in the first half and there is not a single forecaster out there who thinks UK growth will be negative in the second half. Revised forecasts are at least double the OBR March figure.
We shall see revisions of similar scale to the deficit reduction target dates and rates of reduction next month as OBR reforecasts on the basis of the last six months performance of the economy.
So forecasts do go up as well as down and we are going through an up period at present.
What hasn't changed throughout this term of parliament is George Osborne's primary fiscal mandate which is to balance the cyclically adjusted current budget within a five year forward rolling target. If that is the goal then the strategy has been to achieve an average fiscal consolidation of 1% per annum.
Osborne is currently and has been throughout the parliament on target to meet his primary fiscal target. This was confirmed by the OBR in March and will be reaffirmed in September but there will be a faster rate of consolidation forecast and an earlier 'balance' date predicted.
Osborne has also maintained his strategy of a gradual and optimal 1% per annum fiscal consolidation rate both in times of on trend growth and in times of low growth depressed during the Eurozone crisis.
There really is no factual basis on which you can allege that Osborne will have "failed by a proverbial mile" come Autumn 2014.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/syria-warplanes-cyprus-tensions-damascus
My figures were debt (PSND) not borrowing (PSNB) but I mistakenly claimed they were "borrowing" in the text although I labelled the table PSND.
So Brown raised net debt from 29% of GDP to 35% of GDP from the years 2002-7.
If he didn't do that by increasing borrowing, I would like to know how he did manage it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/7846849/Budget-2010-Full-text-of-George-Osbornes-statement.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11585941
Even worse, the last Labour Government along with the American administration failed abysmally when it came to planning for the day after an invasion in Iraq was successfully. You might have seen enough troops put on the ground to win after the air war, but you didn't put enough on the ground immediately to help secure the peace and distribute the desperately needed humanitarian aid. The biggest failures were properly targeting humanitarian aid and disbanding the Iraq army, leaving all those thousands of men to disperse to the four corners of Iraq with a rifle in their hand and no pay packet at the end of the month. This is closely followed by not immediate raising Abu Ghraib prison to the ground the minute it came into US/UK forces hands.
George's definition is very clear and used by the OBR in their six monthly reports. It is not however the measure that the media use which varies according to the time of day and current political agenda.
There are measures of the deficit that Osborne may have eliminated by the end of this parliamentary term, but it is not likely to be the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget as this excludes net investment and interest payments and all non-recurring receipts and expenses.
The core reason is that it is not politically possible to reduce the costs of benefits at the rate necessary to balance the current budget until employment has recovered (the 7% unemployment rate is as good a measure as any here) and until the effect of holding benefit increases to 1% per annum for three years has worked its way through and GDP has recovered to pre-crisis levels.
On other measures of deficit, where, for example, the sale of bank shares at a profit will have an effect (PSNB for example) there is a real chance that these accounts could be in surplus by 2015, at current rates of growth.
The reason you need to be careful is that the measure you choose to knock Osborne on today may just be the wrong measure to have used when it comes to 2015.
Plan forward carefully, SMukesh. Take a leaf out of George's book.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/aug/26/remote-election-voting-australia-video
Here is Major and Blair 1. Please note that the true levels of Mrs Rochester's lunacy were not known at this stage as Blair kept her firmly under lock and key in No 10's attic in his first term.
Although the housing bubble started in 1998, government borrowing didn't take off under Brown until the first year of the Blair's second term: a 12.5% real terms increase in 2001-2 alone! 35% is a reasonable target level. Both terms could be described as fiscally sound. Blair and Brown had the benefit of avoiding a cyclical recession in their first term, but they did well to reduce the ratio each year. Blair and Brown also had the benefit of peak North sea oil and gas revenues when the UK was a net energy exporter at high average global price levels.
The US put some kind of proposals to Iran to see if they could hammer something out over Syria. Reportedly Iran rejected it today. This may reflect Kerry's no pulled punches statement tonight
I have no idea whether the US has suggested any such wheeling & dealing plan to Putin but asking the Iranians makes sense. On the ground not only do their their own forces, they have Hezbollah plus locally raised militias that would be considered to hold loyalty to Iran. The Iranians have long been planning in case Assad gets found hanging from a tree or working in Specsavers' Moscow branch and their planning is on the ground, Russia's is not.
In short they could pull a rug Assad better than anyone.
The door is open but as I understand it the US has not gone to the table with anything fresh. They may not do at all.
AndyJS, caution over that report. There are regular stopovers in Akrotiri from 3rd parties and the RAF has a due deployment so it may not, yet, be what it seems. Not least no-one has ID'd who's or what type of tin. Yes the due deployment has usefulness but it might also suggest something more significant in air campaign terms if it was used for supporting offensive operations, significant in terms of tactics, duration and intensity as Akrotiri could well have been seen as a secondary air bridge facility initially.
Is there increased activity out there? Yes in Jordan, Israel and round and about (not least in Syria there has been a lot of scrambling) but on balance I think, if the suggestions of what the retaliatory strikes are going to be in scope are borne out, very little shifting of offensive force is needed.
Its there already.
GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius)
01/04/2013 11:19
@tnewtondunn @jameschappers
Tom.
Fancy a charity bet that Housing Benefit goes up over the next three years due to these "cuts"?
As for Public Sector Net Borrowing, Major reduced this year on year to a very reasonable ratio of below 4% of GDP in the handover year of 1997.
See post to DJL for the equivalent debt figures. You will note that net debt can rise when net borrowing is falling as is happening to PSND ex this parliament (but not the aggregate PSND).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0
I'd suggest not. I'll be happy about committing UK forces only if Ewan Blair leads the van, carrying the Cameron and Milliband kids in his Bergen.
So Brown was paying off Tory debt. Cool. And even at Brown's pre-crash peak, which you apparently find so outrageous, he is still below the level inherited from the Conservatives. Less than Germany too, wasn't it?
DJL, I have never claimed the symptoms of El Gord's addiction to borrowing and debt were evident in Blair's first term.
It was when Blair stopped acting as his carer that the problems surfaced.
Although Gord was secretly practicing the art in the private sector housing and mortgage markets from 1998 onwards. I imagine him blowing up a balloon with helium in front of a mirror in the attic then inhaling the gas and giggling uncontrollably. Then throwing a dart at a photo of Tony pinned to a dartboard.
Cameron and his unquestioning drones like yourself supported Iraq and voted for it despite Robin Cook resigning and pointing out the the excuses were utter bollocks AT THE TIME.
In case the dates were too complicated for a simple spinner like yourself, that article quotes Cameron saying he STILL supported Iraq in 2006, well after the WMD lies were exposed and the shambolic post Iraq 'rebuilding' catastrophe.
The article destroys your 'points' as hypocritical nonsense yet you don't seem bright enough to realise it as usual.
You are doing about as much good ineptly spinning for Cammie as his hero Blair just did by coming out and tub-thumping for military action in Syria.
Hypocrisy is an ugly thing yet still not as ugly as the hysterical reaction it provokes when those practicing it are exposed.
I look forward to another passive aggressive rant from you soon or likely an hour or two after you think everyone is gone.
To critics, it symbolises everything that is wrong about mollycoddled, risk-averse, health-and-safety-obsessed modern Britain.
But enthusiasts point to its success in reducing traffic accidents and making the jobs of thousands of workers much safer.
What is perhaps most significant, however, is the manner in which this mass-produced garment, available from pound shops the length and breadth of the country, has come to lend its wearers the mantle of officialdom, licensed to give orders by virtue of their outerwear."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14720101
Syria opposition figure in France with a remit to liaise with Western European nations believes some kind of statement is due from the Friends of Syria countries within 48 hours. After that (or maybe even before), its likely to be the noisy part unless someone blinks. Problem is, how reliable are some of these guys, not yet sure on some of them.
UN inspection team: Story has it the US has told them they had about 48 hours. Its possible initial feedback has come through already.
As I mentioned on the day of the alleged attack both US & Israeli intelligence assets would likely have picked up signs of activity. Whilst there have been leaks that US & Israeli ears did pick up traffic, it will be interesting to see if some of this reported intelligence will be wheeled out for public consumption.
Possibilities singular or combined about why the Assad government chose to launch a chemical weapons attack-
1 . Militarily in diffs/militarily effective tool.Logical
2. Assumed no repercussions and over-reached. Also logical
3. His officers aren't quite all on his side. This may seem odd but there has been finger pointing within the regime apparatus since this alleged attack
4. Global Conspiracy - Never was an attack/done by agents of somebody - See The Internet.
The repetitive nature of his insults or links often weakens or defeats his attacks, and therefore makes him far easier to ignore. And despite working himself up into a fine old tizzy tonight, he has still failed to address any of the serious points I raised in either of my original posts that so exercised him he felt the need to respond and insult me in the first place. He never has a positive or genuinely original thought to add to the debate here, even his new passive/aggressive smear is copied from others on my bingo card pack on the site.
Mick, robust debate in response to bullying tactics used by some posters here isn't passive aggressive petulant whining. But copying the latest smear flecked attempts to undermine posters with a political position you don't like is lazy and cowardly behaviour that really needs to be called out for what it is. And that makes you the real hypocrite here. This is a great site for genuine debate on some really interesting topics, why not jump in and add a positive contribution through genuine individual opinion to the threads rather than being a drag who seeks to target and stifle debate from those whose politics you disagree with.
Have to be honest, unless someone blinks or Obama does his usual talking round and round this could make a start in hours more than days.
There has been a thread since the weekend that the timing will surprise.
LOL
I'm self evidently still here and your absurd delusions of grandeur, while unquestionably comical, have no basis in reality. You don't get to disbar anybody from posting or debating.
I opposed Iraq well before it started. You supported it and Cammie and Blair voting for it.
That says more than enough about your 'judgement' on such issues.
Your incompetent spin trying to pin everything on Blair while slavishly supporting his war and Cameron simply does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. Your 'points' were destroyed as after the fact hypocrisy. Passive aggressive ranting and whining is all you have to try and deflect from the obvious hypocrisy you display and it's about as convincing as all your other inept spin.
No wonder Carolah was revolted by your absurd victim mentality Fitalass. This is a politicalbetting website. You don't get to criticise other posters and their points without being subject to the same. Again and again you seem to think you cannot possibly be questioned while happily attacking others. It's blatant hypocrisy and everyone can see it is. Simply squawking 'bullying' won't cut it as an excuse. You do so because you are incapable of rebutting points that destroy your wafer thin spin.
Only your hopelessly partisan fellow PB tories pretend to entertain the preposterous notion that a supposedly adult woman is incapable of posting on a political debating forum without claiming to be a helpless victim as she happily deals out the insults in a hilariously oblivious manner.
I oppose this rush to war and military intervention in Syria. The cowardice of waiting to see what Cammie says before deciding what to spin about it would be pitiful indeed
President approves release into public domain of intelligence of alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
When Bloody Sunday happened, the Paras were not the only British regiment stationed in NI at the time. And the next day when the Paras were pulled from duty on the streets, my Dad lead a foot patrol which ended up carrying an extra member who turned up at the last minute and just happened to be an in-bedded journalist back then in the day.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-syria-crisis-damascus-idUSBRE97P0U220130826
Got love that rifle, that guy was obviously last in queue when the kit was handed out.
It makes perfect sense.
Whereas the rebels - who are losing - doing it to get help from the aforesaid superpower's bevy of aircraft carriers is obviously just a silly idea.
The single most likely explanation is that Assad would risk crossing the US's only red line and take on 100s of warplanes and cruise missiles because they were fed up trying to dig out a bunch of militia with AKs - like ****.
It's possible at best.
Given the cui bono the single most likely explanation is it's a Tonkin incident.
Lets just stick to facts, Assad has uncontested control of probably less than 30% of the country, the rest is contested in some shape or form. his forces are in a death match for Syria's largest city, Aleppo. He has failed to quell insurgency on his own capital.
That isn't losing, it isn't Assad winning, and it isn't the other way around either, its a finely balanced conflict right now. To suggest one party is winning and one is losing is....bollox.
What's the objectives?
Assad: hold on
The USUK coalition: topple Assad
So, after 2 1/2 years who's winning?
On the 'gas attack', the jury's still out...
'Gwyn Winfield, editorial director at the magazine CBRNe World, which reports on chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosives use, analyzed the videos and wrote on the magazine's site: "Clearly respiratory distress, some nerve spasms and a half-hearted washdown (involving water and bare hands?), but it could equally be a riot control agent as a (chemical warfare agent)." Some analysts speculated that a stockpile of chemical agents may have been hit by shelling, whether controlled by the rebels or the government.'
'A CNN reporter pointed to the fact that government forces did not appear to be in imminent danger of being overrun by rebels in the areas in question, in which a stalemate had set. He questioned why the Army would risk such an action that could cause international intervention. The reporter also questioned if the Army would use sarin gas just a few kilometers from the center of Damascus on what was a windy day.
A reporter for The Daily Telegraph also pointed to the questionable timing given government forces had recently beaten back rebels in some areas around Damascus and recaptured territory. "Using chemical weapons might make sense when he is losing, but why launch gas attacks when he is winning anyway?"'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ghouta_attacks
Neither has succeeded, neither has had a decisive breakthrough, that isn't failure, its called conflict, it usually lasts a long time. When one stops fighting because of exhaustion or defeat and their objectives are not reached, thats losing.
Neither side is losing, neither side is winning, thats often what happens in conflict for some time.
Now you can play semantics all night because you got caught out by not knowing your subject with a gross over generalisation. Thats ok with me but you'd be as well playing with yourself for as much good as it will do you.
2) Assad doing it isn't even close to being remotely the single most logical explanation as you claim - it's a million miles from being any kind of logical explanation. That doesn't mean it didn't happen as things don't have to be logical but this idea it's the most likely or even remotely likely explanation is total bollox.
Some canisters or shells with Sarin in them detonated and gas came out.
That may well have happened.
What attack?