Word how the so-called 'democrats' of the brexiteer right are scared of the people. Are they afraid of the electorate changing their minds? It would seem so!
We'll have another referendum - so long as it is restricted to those who voted Leave, deciding whether to accept the Leave deal negotiated, or Leave on WTO terms?
Would that do you? Or are you still f*cking trying to get another chance to overturn the earlier vote? I think we can guess which....
Why on earth should it be restricted to those who voted Leave? What an absurd suggestion.
No more absurd than wanting "Best of Three". At least my position has the merit of asking those who voted Leave what type of Leave they want. Those who voted Remain have foregone their opportunity for a voice in that.
What antidemocratic bilge you spout. By that thinking, if I don't vote for the government of the day I concede the right to have any say in how they are running the country? Say I vote Green or Ukip, I have no right to praise or criticise or try to influence how the Tory or Labour administration makes policy? What utter tripe. Go back to bed.
Rattled?
Not at all. I am simply astounded by your simpleton thinking. I'd expect better.
O/t, but a slightly different take on elderly people and conservative voting. It’s from Third Age Matters, the magazine of the U3a. People in affluent areas, or who see themselves as affluent tend to vote Conservative. Women tend, or at least tended, to vote Conservative. People in affluent areas tend to live longer than those in less affluent ones. Women live longer that men. Hence in the the population over 65 there is an inherent skew towards Conservative voting.
Labour won with women in 2017, but particularly with younger women.
63>22 with (18-24 y/o) and 47>31 with (25-34 y/o) - both by the way are bigger margins than they won with young men.
Maybe just a one off - maybe a sign of a longer term shift.
Word how the so-called 'democrats' of the brexiteer right are scared of the people. Are they afraid of the electorate changing their minds? It would seem so!
We'll have another referendum - so long as it is restricted to those who voted Leave, deciding whether to accept the Leave deal negotiated, or Leave on WTO terms?
Would that do you? Or are you still f*cking trying to get another chance to overturn the earlier vote? I think we can guess which....
Why on earth should it be restricted to those who voted Leave? What an absurd suggestion.
No more absurd than wanting "Best of Three". At least my position has the merit of asking those who voted Leave what type of Leave they want. Those who voted Remain have foregone their opportunity for a voice in that.
What antidemocratic bilge you spout. By that thinking, if I don't vote for the government of the day I concede the right to have any say in how they are running the country? Say I vote Green or Ukip, I have no right to praise or criticise or try to influence how the Tory or Labour administration makes policy? What utter tripe. Go back to bed.
Rattled?
Not at all. I am simply astounded by your simpleton thinking. I'd expect better.
Just as well Nigel didn't follow the example that our PB Leavers are setting when it comes to votes and campaigning.
There needs to be a culture change, where a tour in procurement immediately after a command or combat tour is seen as the final leavening before promotion, with an intervening training course in acquisition and programme management skills. Maybe that would help.
The three year tours are one of the biggest issues with procurement and program management. The first year is spent working out what the fuck is going on, the second year is the only productive period and third is spent trying to get posted as the defence attache to Canberra.
The US, who are by no means perfect at procurement but a hell of a lot better than the UK, post officers to procurement efforts on different terms. They stay in position with the project until it complete and own the result. There is much more continuity of management and it's seen as a career maker for aspirant talent rather than a boring detour on the way to something more interesting.
It would be very good, but especially if it means you stay with a project until complete, it really would look like a diversion on the way up. If you're posted in to a project that may take eight years, unless you can get promoted in place, your chances of top rank are gone the moment the Desk Officer tells you of where you're going.
I think it's a problem in the civil service also that you need to move around lots to get promoted. A system where you were rewarded for seeing a project through with in-job promotions/pay rises might be one potential solution.
For those without skin in the game, there is probably not much perceived difference. In neither Syria nor Israel is Corbyn asking for armed intervention. Corbyn asks for an inquiry into the Gaza shootings: Israel has already launched one.
O/t, but a slightly different take on elderly people and conservative voting. It’s from Third Age Matters, the magazine of the U3a. People in affluent areas, or who see themselves as affluent tend to vote Conservative. Women tend, or at least tended, to vote Conservative. People in affluent areas tend to live longer than those in less affluent ones. Women live longer that men. Hence in the the population over 65 there is an inherent skew towards Conservative voting.
Labour won with women in 2017, but particularly with younger women.
63>22 with (18-24 y/o) and 47>31 with (25-34 y/o) - both by the way are bigger margins than they won with young men.
Maybe just a one off - maybe a sign of a longer term shift.
Agree about women voters. I think...... can’t find the figures just now ...... that female voters, particularly younger ones, have been trending towards Labour for some time.
Word how the so-called 'democrats' of the brexiteer right are scared of the people. Are they afraid of the electorate changing their minds? It would seem so!
We'll have another referendum - so long as it is restricted to those who voted Leave, deciding whether to accept the Leave deal negotiated, or Leave on WTO terms?
Would that do you? Or are you still f*cking trying to get another chance to overturn the earlier vote? I think we can guess which....
Why on earth should it be restricted to those who voted Leave? What an absurd suggestion.
No more absurd than wanting "Best of Three". At least my position has the merit of asking those who voted Leave what type of Leave they want. Those who voted Remain have foregone their opportunity for a voice in that.
What antidemocratic bilge you spout. By that thinking, if I don't vote for the government of the day I concede the right to have any say in how they are running the country? Say I vote Green or Ukip, I have no right to praise or criticise or try to influence how the Tory or Labour administration makes policy? What utter tripe. Go back to bed.
Rattled?
Not at all. I am simply astounded by your simpleton thinking. I'd expect better.
Just as well Nigel didn't follow the example that our PB Leavers are setting when it comes to votes and campaigning.
For the avoidance of doubt, can we please call him Farage ?
Word how the so-called 'democrats' of the brexiteer right are scared of the people. Are they afraid of the electorate changing their minds? It would seem so!
We'll have another referendum - so long as it is restricted to those who voted Leave, deciding whether to accept the Leave deal negotiated, or Leave on WTO terms?
Would that do you? Or are you still f*cking trying to get another chance to overturn the earlier vote? I think we can guess which....
Why on earth should it be restricted to those who voted Leave? What an absurd suggestion.
No more absurd than wanting "Best of Three". At least my position has the merit of asking those who voted Leave what type of Leave they want. Those who voted Remain have foregone their opportunity for a voice in that.
What antidemocratic bilge you spout. By that thinking, if I don't vote for the government of the day I concede the right to have any say in how they are running the country? Say I vote Green or Ukip, I have no right to praise or criticise or try to influence how the Tory or Labour administration makes policy? What utter tripe. Go back to bed.
Rattled?
Not at all. I am simply astounded by your simpleton thinking. I'd expect better.
Just as well Nigel didn't follow the example that our PB Leavers are setting when it comes to votes and campaigning.
For the avoidance of doubt, can we please call him Farage ?
Raab was right, immigration with lack of transition controls in 2004 certainly contributed to higher house prices added to by the downward pressure on wages for those on lower wages.
However lack of housebuilding, banks lending too much etc all added to the problem
No-one who lives in Mid and N Essex, I’m sure, thinks there’s a lack of housebuilding. However, as I commented the other day, when new-build one-beds are advetised at £300k+ there’s a lack of affordability. And while land prices unquestionably play a part, there does seem to be a difference in costs and returns somewhere.
I have got a new built 1 bed for under £300k in South Essex so there is still plenty of more affordable housing around but it is getting it built and past LD and Residents Association opposition that is the problem.
The mind boggles at how 1 bed flats around 300k can possibly be called "affordable" but hey ho...
The average flat price in Essex is £219 000 but plenty of commuters who work in the City will pay more than £300 000 for a flat
You can get a luxury 2 bed apartment directly overlooking the sea and coast for about £325,000 here
Mansion here for that. I have a nice modern 4 bedroom detached , 21/2 bath, near countryside, not huge but reasonably good size , and it is probably not much over 210K and has not gone up significantly since I bought 10 years ago.
How do you have 0.5 of a bathroom?
Room with just a washbasin and toilet ?
Ensuite, surely
No - Half bath means toiet and sink - no shower or bath.
O/t, but a slightly different take on elderly people and conservative voting. It’s from Third Age Matters, the magazine of the U3a. People in affluent areas, or who see themselves as affluent tend to vote Conservative. Women tend, or at least tended, to vote Conservative. People in affluent areas tend to live longer than those in less affluent ones. Women live longer that men. Hence in the the population over 65 there is an inherent skew towards Conservative voting.
Yes, that is part of the explanation, though women voting Conservative is perhaps only a historical phenomenon, and the next generation much more Labour inclined.
The Social Class aspect is also significant in that life expectancy in well off demographics is about 10 years longer than the most deprived, with longer good health of 17 years or so. The elderly are both more female and more affluent in origin.
This does have some significance if current trends continue. Social Class patterns of voting have significantly altered recently, as gender patterns have too. If the Tories are reliant on Brexity C2DE white males, while Labour on ABC1 Females, then the age profile of party voters is going to push in one direction.
The Tories highest vote actually comes from AB males while Labour's highest vote comes from DE females
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
O/t, but a slightly different take on elderly people and conservative voting. It’s from Third Age Matters, the magazine of the U3a. People in affluent areas, or who see themselves as affluent tend to vote Conservative. Women tend, or at least tended, to vote Conservative. People in affluent areas tend to live longer than those in less affluent ones. Women live longer that men. Hence in the the population over 65 there is an inherent skew towards Conservative voting.
Labour won with women in 2017, but particularly with younger women.
63>22 with (18-24 y/o) and 47>31 with (25-34 y/o) - both by the way are bigger margins than they won with young men.
Maybe just a one off - maybe a sign of a longer term shift.
Agree about women voters. I think...... can’t find the figures just now ...... that female voters, particularly younger ones, have been trending towards Labour for some time.
The hand that rocks the cradle and all that?
Yes although 2017 looks to have been a big jump forward for Labour.
My guess is that Corbyn was seen as very anti austerity/pro public services, whereas Ed didn't have enough clear water between his plans and the Tories.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is worse than many developing countries in Africa and Asia, it is highly corrupt, and economically dependent on a commodity whose price it does not control. Its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons protects it from a direct attack by NATO, but NATO has no plans to mount such an attack, and the same weapons don’t really help Russia achieve its foreign policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is worse than many developing countries in Africa and Asia, it is highly corrupt, and economically dependent on a commodity whose price it does not control. Its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons protects it from a direct attack by NATO, but NATO has no plans to mount such an attack, and the same weapons don’t really help Russia achieve its foreign policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas
An interesting read,if in parts.I now know why my father spent so long in the RAF,the hours spent discussing the Strategem of The Central Position which,I assume,is the Kama Sutra.He would have liked that.
It’s quite a few years ago now that I sat next to a young woman from an advertising agency who told me about her cocaine use.
Where as all the tech people are drugged up to the eyeballs medicated for ADHD on adderall i.e. speed.
I’ve still not quite worked out how giving speed to hyperactive people is a good thing. It makes normal people hyperactive!
The basis is that there is an optimum level of alertness for social functioning. If overstimulated you get anxiety, panic attacks or aggression, if understimulated, then irritable, short tempered, and unable to concentrate. It is on these understimulated ADHD folk that the drug works. Think of a tired and irritable toddler needing a nap, and imagine it in an older child or adult.
I have a nephew with ADHD, with ASD and Tourettes features. He can be hard work, and his parents try to manage him without pharma as much as possible, but on special occasions it helps.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is worse than many developing countries in Africa and Asia, it is highly corrupt, and economically dependent on a commodity whose price it does not control. Its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons protects it from a direct attack by NATO, but NATO has no plans to mount such an attack, and the same weapons don’t really help Russia achieve its foreign policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas
Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is worse than many developing countries in Africa and Asia, it is highly corrupt, and economically dependent on a commodity whose price it does not control. Its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons protects it from a direct attack by NATO, but NATO has no plans to mount such an attack, and the same weapons don’t really help Russia achieve its foreign policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas
Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.
If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.
5..4..3..2...1....Twitter bots, I mean Maomentumers will be running some conspiracy theory that it was a false flag to enable Israel to target Iranian troops...
British spies 'intercepted a Russian message saying "the package has been delivered" shortly before Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned in Salisbury'
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
To be fair on PC Plod, there have been a lot of arrests of suspect in the recent murders. It is the preventative aspects that seem to be failing, in what appears to be gang related killings, albeit breaking through to involve apparent civilian bystanders recently.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is worse than many developing countries in Africa and Asia, it is highly corrupt, and economically dependent on a commodity whose price it does not control. Its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons protects it from a direct attack by NATO, but NATO has no plans to mount such an attack, and the same weapons don’t really help Russia achieve its foreign policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas
Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.
If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.
Genuine question: when's the last time you visited Russia?
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is worse than many developing countries in Africa and Asia, it is highly corrupt, and economically dependent on a commodity whose price it does not control. Its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons protects it from a direct attack by NATO, but NATO has no plans to mount such an attack, and the same weapons don’t really help Russia achieve its foreign policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas
Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.
If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.
Genuine question: when's the last time you visited Russia?
The Czech Republic is as far as I have been in Eastern Europe but what on earth has that got to do with anything?
Raab was right, immigration with lack of transition controls in 2004 certainly contributed to higher house prices added to by the downward pressure on wages for those on lower wages.
However lack of housebuilding, banks lending too much etc all added to the problem
No-one who lives in Mid and N Essex, I’m sure, thinks there’s a lack of housebuilding. However, as I commented the other day, when new-build one-beds are advetised at £300k+ there’s a lack of affordability. And while land prices unquestionably play a part, there does seem to be a difference in costs and returns somewhere.
I have got a new built 1 bed for under £300k in South Essex so there is still plenty of more affordable housing around but it is getting it built and past LD and Residents Association opposition that is the problem.
The mind boggles at how 1 bed flats around 300k can possibly be called "affordable" but hey ho...
The average flat price in Essex is £219 000 but plenty of commuters who work in the City will pay more than £300 000 for a flat
You can get a luxury 2 bed apartment directly overlooking the sea and coast for about £325,000 here
Mansion here for that. I have a nice modern 4 bedroom detached , 21/2 bath, near countryside, not huge but reasonably good size , and it is probably not much over 210K and has not gone up significantly since I bought 10 years ago.
How do you have 0.5 of a bathroom?
3rd one is a cloakroom , so 1/2 of a full one, simple.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
Mr. Pulpstar, that implies you could have a quarter bathroom. What kind of depraved soul would want a bathroom that consisted of a lavatory without a washbasin.
Raab was right, immigration with lack of transition controls in 2004 certainly contributed to higher house prices added to by the downward pressure on wages for those on lower wages.
However lack of housebuilding, banks lending too much etc all added to the problem
No-one who lives in Mid and N Essex, I’m sure, thinks there’s a lack of housebuilding. However, as I commented the other day, when new-build one-beds are advetised at £300k+ there’s a lack of affordability. And while land prices unquestionably play a part, there does seem to be a difference in costs and returns somewhere.
I have got a new built 1 bed for under £300k in South Essex so there is still plenty of more affordable housing around but it is getting it built and past LD and Residents Association opposition that is the problem.
The mind boggles at how 1 bed flats around 300k can possibly be called "affordable" but hey ho...
The average flat price in Essex is £219 000 but plenty of commuters who work in the City will pay more than £300 000 for a flat
You can get a luxury 2 bed apartment directly overlooking the sea and coast for about £325,000 here
Mansion here for that. I have a nice modern 4 bedroom detached , 21/2 bath, near countryside, not huge but reasonably good size , and it is probably not much over 210K and has not gone up significantly since I bought 10 years ago.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
The Red Arrows are living on borrowed time - the recent decision to extend the airframes to 2030 means that the production line will be closed, and there won't be a suitable UK airframe in production to replace them, except perhaps a son-of-Taranis drone. And for an alternative view, from someone who takes a more holistic view of British power, see https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/redefining-reds.html
It's a lovely idea to pretend that we can just ignore the Middle East, but for as long as the world economy remains vulnerable to oil shocks, and we are part of that world economy, then we have an interest in ensuring free passage through Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb - it's no coincidence that just about every major recession has been preceded by a spike in the oil price. The fact that traffic has flowed through Hormuz for 26 years despite Iran and Saudi being engaged in low-level war is one bit of evidence that what we're doing there is doing some good.
And you could view the initial spread of ISIS as a direct result of Miliband's unwillingness to support limited action in Syria, whereas the retreat of ISIS came from Western intervention and support. There's no good answers, and the history is grim but complete withdrawal is not going to make things suddenly better.
It’s quite a few years ago now that I sat next to a young woman from an advertising agency who told me about her cocaine use.
Where as all the tech people are drugged up to the eyeballs medicated for ADHD on adderall i.e. speed.
I’ve still not quite worked out how giving speed to hyperactive people is a good thing. It makes normal people hyperactive!
The basis is that there is an optimum level of alertness for social functioning. If overstimulated you get anxiety, panic attacks or aggression, if understimulated, then irritable, short tempered, and unable to concentrate. It is on these understimulated ADHD folk that the drug works. Think of a tired and irritable toddler needing a nap, and imagine it in an older child or adult.
I have a nephew with ADHD, with ASD and Tourettes features. He can be hard work, and his parents try to manage him without pharma as much as possible, but on special occasions it helps.
Oh, interesting. I’d assumed that the ADHD kids with the over-stimulated hyperactive ones, as opposed to the under-stimulated
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
We were always sovereign sunshine, it just didn't seem like it to some people. Let's not spend time working out what we should call such people.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is worse than many developing countries in Africa and Asia, it is highly corrupt, and economically dependent on a commodity whose price it does not control. Its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons protects it from a direct attack by NATO, but NATO has no plans to mount such an attack, and the same weapons don’t really help Russia achieve its foreign policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas
Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.
If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.
Genuine question: when's the last time you visited Russia?
The Czech Republic is as far as I have been in Eastern Europe but what on earth has that got to do with anything?
Ah so just your usual waffling on about things you know nothing about and places you've never visited.
Few who have visited Russia in the recent past would describe it as a superpower, it is a mess.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
We were always sovereign sunshine, it just didn't seem like it to some people. Let's not spend time working out what we should call such people.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
We were always sovereign sunshine, it just didn't seem like it to some people. Let's not spend time working out what we should call such people.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
We were always sovereign sunshine, it just didn't seem like it to some people. Let's not spend time working out what we should call such people.
We were only sovereign in the extent that we could choose to regain our sovereignty whenever we wanted, which we have.
To take an extreme and absurd comparison that's like saying an abused person in a couple is free to leave her abuser whenever she wants to. So therefore she shouldn't leave her abuser as she was always free.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas
Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.
If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.
Genuine question: when's the last time you visited Russia?
The Czech Republic is as far as I have been in Eastern Europe but what on earth has that got to do with anything?
Ah so just your usual waffling on about things you know nothing about and places you've never visited.
Few who have visited Russia in the recent past would describe it as a superpower, it is a mess.
It was largely Russian influence which has almost won the Syrian civil war for Assad
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
You consider our time in Basra and Afghan to be victories, do you?
Ah so just your usual waffling on about things you know nothing about and places you've never visited.
Few who have visited Russia in the recent past would describe it as a superpower, it is a mess.
I've not visited Russia and would more call it a power than a superpower. The fact it has enough nuclear armaments to cause armageddon means it is a world power. The fact it is willing to use its forces overseas unilaterally and to meaningful extent in places like Crimea and Syria makes it a world power.
The fact that their citizens are impoverished is tragically not relevant. The Russian leaders are prioritising their powers over their citizens.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
you think afghanistan was a victory then. Also I did not mean by hanging onto US coat-tails as their useful idiot. We could also not mount an assault on anywhere without borrowing kit to get there.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas
Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.
If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.
Genuine question: when's the last time you visited Russia?
The Czech Republic is as far as I have been in Eastern Europe but what on earth has that got to do with anything?
Ah so just your usual waffling on about things you know nothing about and places you've never visited.
Few who have visited Russia in the recent past would describe it as a superpower, it is a mess.
It was largely Russian influence which has almost won the Syrian civil war for Assad
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
You consider our time in Basra and Afghan to be victories, do you?
Well the fact is Saddam is no longer in power in Iraq, the Taliban no longer run the government in Afghanistan and Bin Laden is dead
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas
Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.
If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.
Genuine question: when's the last time you visited Russia?
The Czech Republic is as far as I have been in Eastern Europe but what on earth has that got to do with anything?
Ah so just your usual waffling on about things you know nothing about and places you've never visited.
Few who have visited Russia in the recent past would describe it as a superpower, it is a mess.
It was largely Russian influence which has almost won the Syrian civil war for Assad
I thought Iran was also heavily involved.
Iran also has had some influence yes but Russian airpower was crucial
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
You are such a one-eyed "patriot" at times I imagine the outside of your house is perhaps draped in Thornberryesque flags? (though union jacks not St George's)
You appear never to have heard of Suez and if you mention the American war of independence you ought to include India and perhaps some of the other colonies we were forced to let go of after WW2. We would have lost the Falklands without the American support Thatcher wasn't sure she was going to get. And Iraq, Afghanistan etc haven't exactly been victories even if they can't be describe as defeats. We've played only a peripheral role anyway. Sadly Malcolm's comment is probably right.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
You consider our time in Basra and Afghan to be victories, do you?
Well the fact is Saddam is no longer in power in Iraq, the Taliban no longer run the government in Afghanistan and Bin Laden is dead
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
you think afghanistan was a victory then. Also I did not mean by hanging onto US coat-tails as their useful idiot. We could also not mount an assault on anywhere without borrowing kit to get there.
In the sense of getting rid of Bin Laden yes.
The US is the major western power so of course they will lead any overseas interventions, both Argentina and Spain have weaker militaries than we do
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
You consider our time in Basra and Afghan to be victories, do you?
Well the fact is Saddam is no longer in power in Iraq, the Taliban no longer run the government in Afghanistan and Bin Laden is dead
And who do you think was responsible for that? It wasn't the Argyll & Bolton Wanderers is a clue.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
you think afghanistan was a victory then. Also I did not mean by hanging onto US coat-tails as their useful idiot. We could also not mount an assault on anywhere without borrowing kit to get there.
In the sense of getting rid of Bin Laden yes.
The US is the major western power so of course they will lead any overseas interventions, both Argentina and Spain have weaker militaries than we do
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
We have lost quite a few since then!
Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US left Vietnam. We declared victory, then scarpered, but we also left Aden with our tail between our legs, Suez and Palestine the same way. Others like Northern Ireland, are best considered score draws.
This is not to demean our military, but politicians often over estimate what force can achieve. "Punching above our Weight" is often the phrase used, but often it means "Out of their depth".
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national prierested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
We have lost quite a few since then!
Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US left Vietnam. We declared victory, then scarpered, but we also left Aden with our tail between our legs, Suez and Palestine the same way. Others like Northern Ireland, are best considered score draws.
This is not to demean our military, but politicians often over estimate what force can achieve. "Punching above our Weight" is often the phrase used, but often it means "Out of their depth".
No that is not comparable at all.
In Vietnam the US left with Saigon in the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese. We have left Iraq in the hands of the elected Iraqi government not Saddam and the Baath Party.
She's we beat Nasser it was just US economic policy forced us to withdraw, Palestine and Aden were just products of decolonisatipn not military defeats. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and was a series of terrorist atrocities and not a conventional war.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
I am trying to rationalise why we would actually vote for muddle that wasn't there before and an actual settlement that on any reasonable interpretation will be worse than what we had before. I am embracing the mediocrity, thinking that's maybe what people want. The military stuff fits into that pattern. And actually it's not so bad. We're not a horrible place like Russia. We'll trundle along and no-one will pay us any attention, but we're comfortable with that.
I am struggling a bit to lower my expectations. Help me out. I am more used to places like China and Germany where they have some ambition.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle,
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
you think afghanistan was a victory then. Also I did not mean by hanging onto US coat-tails as their useful idiot. We could also not mount an assault on anywhere without borrowing kit to get there.
In the sense of getting rid of Bin Laden yes.
The US is the major western power so of course they will lead any overseas interventions, both Argentina and Spain have weaker militaries than we do
Erm the Americans killed Bin Laden
After we helped remove the Taliban from power and forced him from the mountains of Afghanistan into urban Pakistan where he could be killed
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence
Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is policy goals.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
Russnipnge US influence overseas
Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.
If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.
Genuine question: when's the last time you visited Russia?
The Czech Republic is as far as I have been in Eastern Europe but what on earth has that got to do with anything?
Ah so just your usual waffling on about things you know nothing about and places you've never visited.
Few who have visited Russia in the recent past would describe it as a superpower, it is a mess.
It was largely Russian influence which has almost won the Syrian civil war for Assad
I thought Iran was also heavily involved.
Iran also has had some influence yes but Russian airpower was crucial
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
You are such a one-eyed "patriot" at times I imagine the outside of your house is perhaps draped in Thornberryesque flags? (though union jacks not St George's)
You appear never to have heard of Suez and if you mention the American war of independence you ought to include India and perhaps some of the other colonies we were forced to let go of after WW2. We would have lost the Falklands without the American support Thatcher wasn't sure she was going to get. And Iraq, Afghanistan etc haven't exactly been victories even if they can't be describe as defeats. We've played only a peripheral role anyway. Sadly Malcolm's comment is probably right.
Decolonisation is not the same as a military defeat, after World War Two it was simply not practical to maintain te Empire nor did the government wish to do so.
We won the Falklands on the ground through the Royal Marines in large part.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.
Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
I am trying to rationalise why we would actually vote for muddle that wasn't there before and an actual settlement that on any reasonable interpretation will be worse than what we had before. I am embracing the mediocrity, thinking that's maybe what people want. The military stuff fits into that pattern. And actually it's not so bad. We're not a horrible place like Russia. We'll trundle along and no-one will pay us any attention, but we're comfortable with that.
I am struggling a bit to lower my expectations. Help me out. I am more used to places like China and Germany where they have some ambition.
The 2 reasons given for Brexit in most polls were to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration (in large part due to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession in 2004).
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national prierested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
We have lost quite a few since then!
Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US left Vietnam. We declared victory, then scarpered, but we also left Aden with our tail between our legs, Suez and Palestine the same way. Others like Northern Ireland, are best considered score draws.
This is not to demean our military, but politicians often over estimate what force can achieve. "Punching above our Weight" is often the phrase used, but often it means "Out of their depth".
No that is not comparable at all.
In Vietnam the US left with Saigon in the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese. We have left Iraq in the hands of the elected Iraqi government not Saddam and the Baath Party.
She's we beat Nasser it was just US economic policy forced us to withdraw, Palestine and Aden were just products of decolonisatipn not military defeats. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and was a series of terrorist atrocities and not a conventional war.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
You are such a one-eyed "patriot" at times I imagine the outside of your house is perhaps draped in Thornberryesque flags? (though union jacks not St George's)
You appear never to have heard of Suez and if you mention the American war of independence you ought to include India and perhaps some of the other colonies we were forced to let go of after WW2. We would have lost the Falklands without the American support Thatcher wasn't sure she was going to get. And Iraq, Afghanistan etc haven't exactly been victories even if they can't be describe as defeats. We've played only a peripheral role anyway. Sadly Malcolm's comment is probably right.
Decolonisation is not the same as a military defeat, after World War Two it was simply not practical to maintain te Empire nor did the government wish to do so.
We won the Falklands on the ground through the Royal Marines in large part.
Yep. Head to the regt. dinners of 2SG, 1/7GR, RE, RHG/D, AAC, etc and tell them that.
The Red Arrows are living on borrowed time - the recent decision to extend the airframes to 2030 means that the production line will be closed, and there won't be a suitable UK airframe in production to replace them, except perhaps a son-of-Taranis drone. And for an alternative view, from someone who takes a more holistic view of British power, see https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/redefining-reds.html
It's a lovely idea to pretend that we can just ignore the Middle East, but for as long as the world economy remains vulnerable to oil shocks, and we are part of that world economy, then we have an interest in ensuring free passage through Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb - it's no coincidence that just about every major recession has been preceded by a spike in the oil price. The fact that traffic has flowed through Hormuz for 26 years despite Iran and Saudi being engaged in low-level war is one bit of evidence that what we're doing there is doing some good.
And you could view the initial spread of ISIS as a direct result of Miliband's unwillingness to support limited action in Syria, whereas the retreat of ISIS came from Western intervention and support. There's no good answers, and the history is grim but complete withdrawal is not going to make things suddenly better.
It’s depressing if the RAF and ministers have decided to extend the airframe life rather than order new aircraft.
It strikes me as penny-wise and pound-foolish, just like the idiotic decision to delete cannon from the Eurofighter to save a trivial sum.
Corbyn/Labour's latest statement doesn't mention Iran specifically, but does condemn atrocities and brutalities committed by the 'international supporters' of the various sides in the conflict.
Which I guess means Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia...
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national prierested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
We have lost quite a few since then!
Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US leut often it means "Out of their depth".
No that is not comparable at all.
In Vietnam the US left with Saigon in the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese. We have left Iraq in the hands of the elected Iraqi government not Saddam and the Baath Party.
She's we beat Nasser it was just US economic policy forced us to withdraw, Palestine and Aden were just products of decolonisatipn not military defeats. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and was a series of terrorist atrocities and not a conventional war.
Iraqi government troops with US support had to retake it from the militias after we left with our tail between our legs.
As that article suggests Basra was initially peaceful with British forces present but as it became more violent Gordon Brown decided to withdraw British troops leaving US troops to replace them.
So the fault for that can be fairly laid at the door of Labour PM Gordon Brown but Basra did not fall back under Baathist control no
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
I am trying to rationalise why we would actually vote for muddle that wasn't there before and an actual settlement that on any reasonable interpretation will be worse than what we had before. I am embracing the mediocrity, thinking that's maybe what people want. The military stuff fits into that pattern. And actually it's not so bad. We're not a horrible place like Russia. We'll trundle along and no-one will pay us any attention, but we're comfortable with that.
I am struggling a bit to lower my expectations. Help me out. I am more used to places like China and Germany where they have some ambition.
The vast majority of your posts consist of confirmation bias masquerading as objective analysis.
The U.K. certainly plays a more active role in global affairs than Germany does, both in terms of its membership of the UN Security Council, and its willingness to invest in and project hard and soft power. It is not true to say that no-one pays us any attention.
Germany is a larger economy, and the biggest player within the EU, but its ambitions - such as they are - are much more limited. It could chose to play a bigger role but, for a variety of reasons, has chosen not to.
I mean they spent over £2.5 million on believing the fantasist Nick.
I could go on.
How much has been spent on the McCann inquiry?
£11 million and counting.
Surely not by the Met though - the McCanns live(d?) in Leicestershire and their daughter went missing in Portugal. Not sure what that has to do with London.
It’s quite a few years ago now that I sat next to a young woman from an advertising agency who told me about her cocaine use.
Where as all the tech people are drugged up to the eyeballs medicated for ADHD on adderall i.e. speed.
I’ve still not quite worked out how giving speed to hyperactive people is a good thing. It makes normal people hyperactive!
The basis is that there is an optimum level of alertness for social functioning. If overstimulated you get anxiety, panic attacks or aggression, if understimulated, then irritable, short tempered, and unable to concentrate. It is on these understimulated ADHD folk that the drug works. Think of a tired and irritable toddler needing a nap, and imagine it in an older child or adult.
I have a nephew with ADHD, with ASD and Tourettes features. He can be hard work, and his parents try to manage him without pharma as much as possible, but on special occasions it helps.
Oh, interesting. I’d assumed that the ADHD kids with the over-stimulated hyperactive ones, as opposed to the under-stimulated
Always good to have a doctor in the house.
If you're interested, here's an article on a genetic marker for ADHD. However, as with most things concerning the brain, it is complicated and we don't fully understand it. Essentially, though, ADHD is probably a syndrome, with multiple possible underlying causes, resulting from lower than normal receptivity to dopamine.
If you want to identify which part of the brain it is referencing (the prefrontal cortex mediates most of our highest order brain functions, including direction of attention), fold your thumb across your palm, then fold your four fingers over the thumb. The PFC is the top knuckles on your two middle fingers.
First, given the amingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
We have lost quite a few since then!
Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US leut often it means "Out of their depth".
No that is not comparable at all.
In Vietnam the US left with Saigon in the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese. We have left Iraq in the hands of the elected Iraqi government not Saddam and the Baath Party.
She's we beat Nasser it was just US economic policy forced us to withdraw, Palestine and Aden were just products of decolonisatipn not military defeats. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and was a series of terrorist atrocities and not a conventional war.
Iraqi government troops with US support had to retake it from the militias after we left with our tail between our legs.
As that article suggests Basra was initially peaceful with British forces present but as it became more violent Gordon Brown decided to withdraw British troops leaving US troops to replace them.
So the fault for that can be fairly laid at the door of Labour PM Gordon Brown but Basra did not fall back under Baathist control no
Let me count the ways you are mistaken.
But better still, listen to The Reunion, recently broadcast. See if your interpretation skills are sufficient to understand what happened in Basra.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only
I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
I am trying to rationalise why we would actually vote for muddle that wasn't there before and an actual settlement that on any reasonable interpretation will be worse than what we had before. I am embracing the mediocrity, thinking that's maybe what people want. The military stuff fits into that pattern. And actually it's not so bad. We're not a horrible place like Russia. We'll trundle along and no-one will pay us any attention, but we're comfortable with that.
I am struggling a bit to lower my expectations. Help me out. I am more used to places like China and Germany where they have some ambition.
The vast majority of your posts consist of confirmation bias masquerading as objective analysis.
The U.K. certainly plays a more active role in global affairs than Germany does, both in terms of its membership of the UN Security Council, and its willingness to invest in and project hard and soft power. It is not true to say that no-one pays us any attention.
Germany is a larger economy, and the biggest player within the EU, but its ambitions - such as they are - are much more limited. It could chose to play a bigger role but, for a variety of reasons, has chosen not to.
I'd be happy enough to go for a german approach to defence, NATO seem happy enough to have them... and free up 0.7% of GDP or so for spending (Or tax cuts) elsewhere.
I mean they spent over £2.5 million on believing the fantasist Nick.
I could go on.
How much has been spent on the McCann inquiry?
£11 million and counting.
Surely not by the Met though - the McCanns live(d?) in Leicestershire and their daughter went missing in Portugal. Not sure what that has to do with London.
I know the Met took charge a while back.
Last week it was revealed that the search for missing Madeleine McCann has cost taxpayers almost £11million - prompting a senior police union leader to call for the case to be closed.
I mean they spent over £2.5 million on believing the fantasist Nick.
I could go on.
How much has been spent on the McCann inquiry?
£11 million and counting.
Surely not by the Met though - the McCanns live(d?) in Leicestershire and their daughter went missing in Portugal. Not sure what that has to do with London.
I thought, maybe wrongly, that Met detectives had been involved.
If it’s what the local police spent it’s surely an even more astonishing amount of money to be spent.
First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
I am trying to rationalise why we would actually vote for muddle that wasn't there before and an actual settlement that on any reasonable interpretation will be worse than what we had before. I am embracing the mediocrity, thinking that's maybe what people want. The military stuff fits into that pattern. And actually it's not so bad. We're not a horrible place like Russia. We'll trundle along and no-one will pay us any attention, but we're comfortable with that.
I am struggling a bit to lower my expectations. Help me out. I am more used to places like China and Germany where they have some ambition.
The vast majority of your posts consist of confirmation bias masquerading as objective analysis.
The U.K. certainly plays a more active role in global affairs than Germany does, both in terms of its membership of the UN Security Council, and its willingness to invest in and project hard and soft power. It is not true to say that no-one pays us any attention.
Germany is a larger economy, and the biggest player within the EU, but its ambitions - such as they are - are much more limited. It could chose to play a bigger role but, for a variety of reasons, has chosen not to.
I'd be happy enough to go for a german approach to defence, NATO seem happy enough to have them... and free up 0.7% of GDP or so for spending (Or tax cuts) elsewhere.
I wouldn’t. I’d prefer to see Germany - and other European countries - raise their defence spending to the NATO 2% of GDP target.
Otherwise, NATO doesn’t have much of a long-term future. Sooner or later the Americans will get fed up, and scale back and pivot elsewhere, leaving Europe vulnerable.
It’s quite a few years ago now that I sat next to a young woman from an advertising agency who told me about her cocaine use.
Where as all the tech people are drugged up to the eyeballs medicated for ADHD on adderall i.e. speed.
I’ve still not quite worked out how giving speed to hyperactive people is a good thing. It makes normal people hyperactive!
The basis is that there is an optimum level of alertness for social functioning. If overstimulated you get anxiety, panic attacks or aggression, if understimulated, then irritable, short tempered, and unable to concentrate. It is on these understimulated ADHD folk that the drug works. Think of a tired and irritable toddler needing a nap, and imagine it in an older child or adult.
I have a nephew with ADHD, with ASD and Tourettes features. He can be hard work, and his parents try to manage him without pharma as much as possible, but on special occasions it helps.
Oh, interesting. I’d assumed that the ADHD kids with the over-stimulated hyperactive ones, as opposed to the under-stimulated
Always good to have a doctor in the house.
If you're interested, here's an article on a genetic marker for ADHD. However, as with most things concerning the brain, it is complicated and we don't fully understand it. Essentially, though, ADHD is probably a syndrome, with multiple possible underlying causes, resulting from lower than normal receptivity to dopamine.
If you want to identify which part of the brain it is referencing (the prefrontal cortex mediates most of our highest order brain functions, including direction of attention), fold your thumb across your palm, then fold your four fingers over the thumb. The PFC is the top knuckles on your two middle fingers.
Interesting, thanks. Bookmarked for when straight headed, rather than after happy hour
First, given the amingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
We have lost quite a few since then!
Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US leut often it means "Out of their depth".
No that is not comparable at all.
In Vietnam the US left with Saigon in the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese. We have left Iraq in the hands of the elected Iraqi government not Saddam and the Baath Party.
She's we beat Nasser it was just US economic policy forced us to withdraw, Palestine and Aden were just products of decolonisatipn not military defeats. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and was a series of terrorist atrocities and not a conventional war.
Iraqi government troops with US support had to retake it from the militias after we left with our tail between our legs.
As that article suggests Basra was initially peaceful with British forces present but as it became more violent Gordon Brown decided to withdraw British troops leaving US troops to replace them.
So the fault for that can be fairly laid at the door of Labour PM Gordon Brown but Basra did not fall back under Baathist control no
Let me count the ways you are mistaken.
But better still, listen to The Reunion, recently broadcast. See if your interpretation skills are sufficient to understand what happened in Basra.
Yes Gordon Brown had no stomach for the fight unlike George W Bush
First, given the amingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
We have lost quite a few since then!
Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US leut often it means "Out of their depth".
No that is not comparable at all.
In Vietnam the US left with Saigon in the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese. We have left Iraq in the hands of the elected Iraqi government not Saddam and the Baath Party.
She's we beat Nasser it was just US economic policy forced us to withdraw, Palestine and Aden were just products of decolonisatipn not military defeats. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and was a series of terrorist atrocities and not a conventional war.
Iraqi government troops with US support had to retake it from the militias after we left with our tail between our legs.
As that article suggests Basra was initially peaceful with British forces present but as it became more violent Gordon Brown decided to withdraw British troops leaving US troops to replace them.
So the fault for that can be fairly laid at the door of Labour PM Gordon Brown but Basra did not fall back under Baathist control no
Let me count the ways you are mistaken.
But better still, listen to The Reunion, recently broadcast. See if your interpretation skills are sufficient to understand what happened in Basra.
Yes Gordon Brown had no stomach for the fight unlike George W Bush
Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just
For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.
Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA
We have lost quite a few since then!
Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US leut often it means "Out of their depth".
No that is not comparable at all.
In Vietnam the US left with Saigon in the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese. We have left Iraq in the hands of the elected Iraqi government not Saddam and the Baath Party.
She's we beat Nasser it was just US economic policy forced us to withdraw, Palestine and Aden were just products of decolonisatipn not military defeats. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and was a series of terrorist atrocities and not a conventional war.
Iraqi government troops with US support had to retake it from the militias after we left with our tail between our legs.
As that article suggests Basra was initially peaceful with British forces present but as it became more violent Gordon Brown decided to withdraw British troops leaving US troops to replace them.
So the fault for that can be fairly laid at the door of Labour PM Gordon Brown but Basra did not fall back under Baathist control no
We have the troops for surgical strikes, quick short-term interventions, stabilisation for development and training/education, but not for sustained heavy counter-insurgencies which tend to run for years and require tens of thousands and the cooperation of friendly local forces.
It was clear that HMG expected neither Iraq or Afghanistan to develop that way but couldn’t really cut and run once it did.
Comments
63>22 with (18-24 y/o) and 47>31 with (25-34 y/o) - both by the way are bigger margins than they won with young men.
Maybe just a one off - maybe a sign of a longer term shift.
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/women-men-and-the-2017-general-election-by-jane-green-and-chris-prosser/#.WstHMS5ubIU
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/08/revealed-drug-loyalty-cards-offered-middle-class-cocaine-users/
I bet many an employee in the media have one.
The hand that rocks the cradle and all that?
drugged up to the eyeballsmedicated for ADHD on adderall i.e. speed.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5593593/Police-cordon-petrol-station-Romford-fatal-shooting-early-hours.html
[2017 vs 2015 election Labour vote share)
(18-24 y/o women) + 28%
(25-34 y/o women) + 11%
(35-44 y/o women) + 13%
My guess is that Corbyn was seen as very anti austerity/pro public services, whereas Ed didn't have enough clear water between his plans and the Tories.
The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.
I have a nephew with ADHD, with ASD and Tourettes features. He can be hard work, and his parents try to manage him without pharma as much as possible, but on special occasions it helps.
By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.
If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697670
5..4..3..2...1....Twitter bots, I mean Maomentumers will be running some conspiracy theory that it was a false flag to enable Israel to target Iranian troops...
Anyway, comrades, I'm off for a bit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5593803/RAF-spooks-intercepted-Russian-message-Skripals-posioned.html
Probably just a Russian Spy telling his wife back home that the new Dualit toaster had arrived from Amazon.
I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.
So much as Dura Ace might like to believe there is a possible alternative, whilst Corbyn is Labour leader there isnt.
Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre
The Red Arrows are living on borrowed time - the recent decision to extend the airframes to 2030 means that the production line will be closed, and there won't be a suitable UK airframe in production to replace them, except perhaps a son-of-Taranis drone. And for an alternative view, from someone who takes a more holistic view of British power, see https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/redefining-reds.html
It's a lovely idea to pretend that we can just ignore the Middle East, but for as long as the world economy remains vulnerable to oil shocks, and we are part of that world economy, then we have an interest in ensuring free passage through Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb - it's no coincidence that just about every major recession has been preceded by a spike in the oil price. The fact that traffic has flowed through Hormuz for 26 years despite Iran and Saudi being engaged in low-level war is one bit of evidence that what we're doing there is doing some good.
And you could view the initial spread of ISIS as a direct result of Miliband's unwillingness to support limited action in Syria, whereas the retreat of ISIS came from Western intervention and support. There's no good answers, and the history is grim but complete withdrawal is not going to make things suddenly better.
Always good to have a doctor in the house.
Few who have visited Russia in the recent past would describe it as a superpower, it is a mess.
To take an extreme and absurd comparison that's like saying an abused person in a couple is free to leave her abuser whenever she wants to. So therefore she shouldn't leave her abuser as she was always free.
The fact that their citizens are impoverished is tragically not relevant. The Russian leaders are prioritising their powers over their citizens.
We could also not mount an assault on anywhere without borrowing kit to get there.
You appear never to have heard of Suez and if you mention the American war of independence you ought to include India and perhaps some of the other colonies we were forced to let go of after WW2. We would have lost the Falklands without the American support Thatcher wasn't sure she was going to get. And Iraq, Afghanistan etc haven't exactly been victories even if they can't be describe as defeats. We've played only a peripheral role anyway. Sadly Malcolm's comment is probably right.
The US is the major western power so of course they will lead any overseas interventions, both Argentina and Spain have weaker militaries than we do
Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US left Vietnam. We declared victory, then scarpered, but we also left Aden with our tail between our legs, Suez and Palestine the same way. Others like Northern Ireland, are best considered score draws.
This is not to demean our military, but politicians often over estimate what force can achieve. "Punching above our Weight" is often the phrase used, but often it means "Out of their depth".
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/983314443340800000
In Vietnam the US left with Saigon in the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese. We have left Iraq in the hands of the elected Iraqi government not Saddam and the Baath Party.
She's we beat Nasser it was just US economic policy forced us to withdraw, Palestine and Aden were just products of decolonisatipn not military defeats. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and was a series of terrorist atrocities and not a conventional war.
I am struggling a bit to lower my expectations. Help me out. I am more used to places like China and Germany where they have some ambition.
Wonder what Corbyn has to say about that???
We won the Falklands on the ground through the Royal Marines in large part.
They were reporting that Russia said ISRAEL was behind chemical attack
They obviously mean the attack on the airbase subsequent to that attack.
At the same time they are reporting the Russians as saying there was no use of chemicals in Syria - even Jezbollah not going that far.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11419878
Iraqi government troops with US support had to retake it from the militias after we left with our tail between our legs.
It strikes me as penny-wise and pound-foolish, just like the idiotic decision to delete cannon from the Eurofighter to save a trivial sum.
Which I guess means Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia...
So the fault for that can be fairly laid at the door of Labour PM Gordon Brown but Basra did not fall back under Baathist control no
The U.K. certainly plays a more active role in global affairs than Germany does, both in terms of its membership of the UN Security Council, and its willingness to invest in and project hard and soft power. It is not true to say that no-one pays us any attention.
Germany is a larger economy, and the biggest player within the EU, but its ambitions - such as they are - are much more limited. It could chose to play a bigger role but, for a variety of reasons, has chosen not to.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/408381/a-neurological-basis-for-adhd/
If you want to identify which part of the brain it is referencing (the prefrontal cortex mediates most of our highest order brain functions, including direction of attention), fold your thumb across your palm, then fold your four fingers over the thumb. The PFC is the top knuckles on your two middle fingers.
But better still, listen to The Reunion, recently broadcast. See if your interpretation skills are sufficient to understand what happened in Basra.
Last week it was revealed that the search for missing Madeleine McCann has cost taxpayers almost £11million - prompting a senior police union leader to call for the case to be closed.
https://closeronline.co.uk/real-life/news/kerry-unfair-much-spent-maddie-missing-children/
If it’s what the local police spent it’s surely an even more astonishing amount of money to be spent.
More than £11m has been spent on the Metropolitan Police inquiry, known as Operation Grange, but funding was due to run out at the end of the month.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-43550383
SpanishPortuguese misper equiry?Otherwise, NATO doesn’t have much of a long-term future. Sooner or later the Americans will get fed up, and scale back and pivot elsewhere, leaving Europe vulnerable.
It was clear that HMG expected neither Iraq or Afghanistan to develop that way but couldn’t really cut and run once it did.
https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/983268192788369408