Points of note from the Israeli airstrike last night on Tiyas
The Russians & Syrians lit themselves up like a Christmas tree .
Not too long after a specialist US RADINT aircraft (one that gathers radar signatures) that had made a very long journey from the US was in the area.
1. Was it coincidence? Probably. I have no idea how close one of these aircraft needs to be to be doing its work but it was decent timing all the same.
2. The fact that the aircraft was in the region at all is signal that the US is indicating it means business and its rattling the sabre to show it or signal that it will be doing business.
On the issue of a centrist party: I don’t know why people believe that just because it’s a Corbynista dismissing/criticising it, it must be out of fear. Even those such as Jane Merrick (who is pretty much a liberal centrist from what I’ve seen of her views on twitter) don’t buy into this idea that we need a new centrist party. There are two good pieces of analysis here which explain the issues with a new centrist party:
... Wells notes here the problem of how the commentariat appear to define centrism versus how the public might define it. .
With regard to the centrist party:
1. It is very unlikely to go anywhere because of the limitations of FPTP, but it could be very damaging to Labour. I find it very odd the way that people like Paul Mason and Owen Jones have this 'bring it on' attitude. Splitting the labour party is essentially embarking on a path of mutually assured destruction, where a centrist party make inroads it would split the vote, thereby leading to the conservatives winning in unlikely constituencies, on a low share of the vote. It strikes me that they would be better advised to try to take a concillitary approach towards the moderates in the party, but hey what do I know.
2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
Big g , what a great memory .Two of the all time greats.Did you ever see George Best play ?
Yes - throughout all his career. Was a season ticket holder for many years but surrendered it a few years ago but still had the pleasure of several meetings with Fergie and two with my hero, Sir Bobby Charlton.
Shame in the World Cup tie Portugal took out Pele fairly early. He was the most famous footballer in the World at the time
I saw Best play for Hibernian against Dundee United. He was overweight and unfit but still produced some dazzling skill which everyone watching from both sets of supporters enjoyed and applauded. It was being in the presence of a legend, even one that was a shadow of his former self.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
Big g , what a great memory .Two of the all time greats.Did you ever see George Best play ?
Yes - throughout all his career. Was a season ticket holder for many years but surrendered it a few years ago but still had the pleasure of several meetings with Fergie and two with my hero, Sir Bobby Charlton.
Shame in the World Cup tie Portugal took out Pele fairly early. He was the most famous footballer in the World at the time
It was , seen the film of 66 many times. England v Brazil 1970 was the first world cup , I really remember .Our next door neighbour was a TV engineer .So I saw it all in colour magical.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
That picture reminds me that I could never be a radio/TV newscaster, or member of a royal family indeed, 'cause one would have to treat diplomatically with stuff and nonsense.
Really just an idiot. We are way, way past the time of asking for cease fires. Assad has won. It is over. The longer the opposition have any delusions about the west actually helping them the more people will die. Corbyn is completely wrong to say that this will be resolved by everyone getting around the table. It will be resolved by boots, bayonets and bombs on the ground and fairly soon at that. Ultimately, humiliating though it is for the west, any kind of result is probably better than prolonged warfare.
This has been inevitable since the west backed out of backing the opposition and the Russians and Iranians tipped the scales so heavily in Assad's favour. Whether the opposition were people we would really want to win is another very complicated question but it is academic. We made our choice years ago and we have to live with it. Having someone guilty of war crimes win is just salt in the wounds.
I think that's right. What is possibly alarming though is Trump's response. He has vacillated from wanting to withdraw, to threatening to do something BIG. It doesn't make sense.
Really just an idiot. We are way, way past the time of asking for cease fires. Assad has won. It is over. The longer the opposition have any delusions about the west actually helping them the more people will die. Corbyn is completely wrong to say that this will be resolved by everyone getting around the table. It will be resolved by boots, bayonets and bombs on the ground and fairly soon at that. Ultimately, humiliating though it is for the west, any kind of result is probably better than prolonged warfare.
This has been inevitable since the west backed out of backing the opposition and the Russians and Iranians tipped the scales so heavily in Assad's favour. Whether the opposition were people we would really want to win is another very complicated question but it is academic. We made our choice years ago and we have to live with it. Having someone guilty of war crimes win is just salt in the wounds.
I think that's right. What is possibly alarming though is Trump's response. He has vacillated from wanting to withdraw, to threatening to do something BIG. It doesn't make sense.
Big is just lobbing in some Cruise missiles against military targets. No way he is going to put US lives at risk.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
Big g , what a great memory .Two of the all time greats.Did you ever see George Best play ?
Yes - throughout all his career. Was a season ticket holder for many years but surrendered it a few years ago but still had the pleasure of several meetings with Fergie and two with my hero, Sir Bobby Charlton.
Shame in the World Cup tie Portugal took out Pele fairly early. He was the most famous footballer in the World at the time
I saw Best play for Hibernian against Dundee United. He was overweight and unfit but still produced some dazzling skill which everyone watching from both sets of supporters enjoyed and applauded. It was being in the presence of a legend, even one that was a shadow of his former self.
Believe it or not I was a season ticket holder for Hibs in the early sixties when we lived in Edinburgh
1. It is very unlikely to go anywhere because of the limitations of FPTP, but it could be very damaging to Labour. I find it very odd the way that people like Paul Mason and Owen Jones have this 'bring it on' attitude. Splitting the labour party is essentially embarking on a path of mutually assured destruction, where a centrist party make inroads it would split the vote, thereby leading to the conservatives winning in unlikely constituencies, on a low share of the vote. It strikes me that they would be better advised to try to take a concillitary approach towards the moderates in the party, but hey what do I know.
2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
I don’t know about May’s government being that centrist - I think it rhetorically tries to strike a tone which addresses what you state in your second point, but it’s still pursuing things, like say the marketisation of public services. I actually don’t think a centrist party would really damage Labour, in part because of reasons Stephen Bush has said today: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/983382369074900993
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
Chuka Umunna has accepted Amber Rudd's invitation to join her task force on knife crime.
Good move by Amber and maybe Chuka is signalling a move away from Corbyn
A new centre party anyone
No Tory MP would jump to a "New Labour" party. Not even the likes of Soubry or Grieve. Other than the issue of the EU, both hold economic and social views that would be considered fairly right wing.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
Really just an idiot. We are way, way past the time of asking for cease fires. Assad has won. It is over. The longer the opposition have any delusions about the west actually helping them the more people will die. Corbyn is completely wrong to say that this will be resolved by everyone getting around the table. It will be resolved by boots, bayonets and bombs on the ground and fairly soon at that. Ultimately, humiliating though it is for the west, any kind of result is probably better than prolonged warfare.
This has been inevitable since the west backed out of backing the opposition and the Russians and Iranians tipped the scales so heavily in Assad's favour. Whether the opposition were people we would really want to win is another very complicated question but it is academic. We made our choice years ago and we have to live with it. Having someone guilty of war crimes win is just salt in the wounds.
I think that correct. The remaining rebels need to flee or strike surrender terms. They have lost.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
Chuka Umunna has accepted Amber Rudd's invitation to join her task force on knife crime.
Good move by Amber and maybe Chuka is signalling a move away from Corbyn
A new centre party anyone
No Tory MP would jump to a "New Labour" party. Not even the likes of Soubry or Grieve. Other than the issue of the EU, both hold economic and social views that would be considered fairly right wing.
I agree - it would not include any present conservative mp's
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
It may become impossible for teams to attend - this is a very dangerous moment and, while you may be right, every day of Russia v the US, Western allies and Nato brings us closer to a boycott
My thanks to Dura Ace for an interesting read this morning.
I'm curious about this sentance though:
' Since the end of World War 2 every Conservative government, with the notable exception of Sir Edward Richard George Heath KG, MBE, has left office with lower defence spending as a proportion of GDP than it inherited. '
Haven't there been the grand total of 3 Conservative governments since 1945 not including the present one which, of course, has not yet ended.
So disregarding Heath's government there was the 1951-1964 government and the 1979-1997 government.
Now in 1951 the Korean War was raging, national service was in place and large parts of world map were still covered pink. By 1964 these had changed so is it surprising that defence spending had proportionally declined ?
Likewise in 1979 the Cold War was at its height and Northern Ireland was in low level civil war. By 1997 both of these situations had ended so again is it surprising that defence spending had proportionally declined ?
2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
I don’t know about May’s government being that centrist - I think it rhetorically tries to strike a tone which addresses what you state in your second point, but it’s still pursuing things, like say the marketisation of public services. I actually don’t think a centrist party would really damage Labour, in part because of reasons Stephen Bush has said today: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/983382369074900993
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
I disagree with the second paragraphs conclusion. The points raised were all in the Labour manifesto last year, not the Tory one. Indeed part of the reason Jezza did so well last year was because he ran on a fairly moderate populist manifesto, and was actually much more Centrist than the caricature that we see in the media.
We already have a Centrist party, in the LDs, what we need is for Uncle Vince to pass the baton to someone awake!
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
IIRC, from the last time the idea of a sporting boycott was floated, there's no way for the government to insist that our people don't take part.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
IIRC, from the last time the idea of a sporting boycott was floated, there's no way for the government to insist that our people don't take part.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
Big g , what a great memory .Two of the all time greats.Did you ever see George Best play ?
Yes - throughout all his career. Was a season ticket holder for many years but surrendered it a few years ago but still had the pleasure of several meetings with Fergie and two with my hero, Sir Bobby Charlton.
Shame in the World Cup tie Portugal took out Pele fairly early. He was the most famous footballer in the World at the time
I saw Best play for Hibernian against Dundee United. He was overweight and unfit but still produced some dazzling skill which everyone watching from both sets of supporters enjoyed and applauded. It was being in the presence of a legend, even one that was a shadow of his former self.
He was an amazing footballer.Hard to believe he retired at the age of 26 from Man u..However from the age of 15 16 , what a talent .He came to the the attention of the public in a European semi final in 66.It is a real shame many of his matches were not televised in those days..
2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
I don’t know about May’s government being that centrist - I think it rhetorically tries to strike a tone which addresses what you state in your second point, but it’s still pursuing things, like say the marketisation of public services. I actually don’t think a centrist party would really damage Labour, in part because of reasons Stephen Bush has said today: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/983382369074900993
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
I disagree with the second paragraphs conclusion. The points raised were all in the Labour manifesto last year, not the Tory one. Indeed part of the reason Jezza did so well last year was because he ran on a fairly moderate populist manifesto, and was actually much more Centrist than the caricature that we see in the media.
We already have a Centrist party, in the LDs, what we need is for Uncle Vince to pass the baton to someone awake!
I would be quite happy to see the rebirth of the lib dems but it is difficult to see how
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
IIRC, from the last time the idea of a sporting boycott was floated, there's no way for the government to insist that our people don't take part.
I think it quite possible that Russia 18 will be the last ever World Cup. Qatar will be a farce, and the mooted expansion to 48 teams makes it too unweidy for more than a handfull of countries.
On the issue of a centrist party: I don’t know why people believe that just because it’s a Corbynista dismissing/criticising it, it must be out of fear. Even those such as Jane Merrick (who is pretty much a liberal centrist from what I’ve seen of her views on twitter) don’t buy into this idea that we need a new centrist party. There are two good pieces of analysis here which explain the issues with a new centrist party:
... Wells notes here the problem of how the commentariat appear to define centrism versus how the public might define it. .
With regard to the centrist party:
1. It is very unlikely to go anywhere because of the limitations of FPTP, but it could be very damaging to Labour. I find it very odd the way that people like Paul Mason and Owen Jones have this 'bring it on' attitude. Splitting the labour party is essentially embarking on a path of mutually assured destruction, where a centrist party make inroads it would split the vote, thereby leading to the conservatives winning in unlikely constituencies, on a low share of the vote. It strikes me that they would be better advised to try to take a concillitary approach towards the moderates in the party, but hey what do I know.
2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
The problem with your analysis is that "espoused" only goes so far as being willing, occasionally, to talk about the problems, without the slightest idea nor political ability to enact anything by way of solutions.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
I don’t know about May’s government being that centrist - I think it rhetorically tries to strike a tone which addresses what you state in your second point, but it’s still pursuing things, like say the marketisation of public services. I actually don’t think a centrist party would really damage Labour, in part because of reasons Stephen Bush has said today: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/983382369074900993
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
I disagree with the second paragraphs conclusion. The points raised were all in the Labour manifesto last year, not the Tory one. Indeed part of the reason Jezza did so well last year was because he ran on a fairly moderate populist manifesto, and was actually much more Centrist than the caricature that we see in the media.
We already have a Centrist party, in the LDs, what we need is for Uncle Vince to pass the baton to someone awake!
Maybe the media doesn’t realised the centre has shifted in a way that nielh articulated so well. I agree that Corbyn’s manifesto wasn’t anywhere near as radically left wing as some people thought it was. I also agree that Corbyn addressed the economic concerns people have but I think the Conservatives probably appealed to people more on the immigration issue. That said, I think Labour is never going to be very right wing on immigration, I don’t think they’ll ever attract the votes of people who immigration is *the* issue. Not that I’m complaining about that, mind. That’s one area in which I’m board with Labour.
I actually think one of the LDs biggest issues, aside from the legacy of the coalition still tainting them, is that they appear to offer a very kind of bland centrism - one which presents Brexit as the worst thing to happen since the Black Plague/Death. Brexit is pretty awful IMHO, but most voters are just not interested in it at the moment.
1. It is very unlikely to go anywhere because of the limitations of FPTP, but it could be very damaging to Labour. I find it very odd the way that people like Paul Mason and Owen Jones have this 'bring it on' attitude. Splitting the labour party is essentially embarking on a path of mutually assured destruction, where a centrist party make inroads it would split the vote, thereby leading to the conservatives winning in unlikely constituencies, on a low share of the vote. It strikes me that they would be better advised to try to take a concillitary approach towards the moderates in the party, but hey what do I know.
snip.
I don’t know about May’s government being that centrist - I think it rhetorically tries to strike a tone which addresses what you state in your second point, but it’s still pursuing things, like say the marketisation of public services. I actually don’t think a centrist party would really damage Labour, in part because of reasons Stephen Bush has said today:
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
I've thought through the centrist party idea quite a bit. I think you have to start from the point of view of what constituencies would it target. To my mind, if as everyone assumes it is an anti brexit party, they would probably be looking at high remain voting areas, so university towns. London. Places like Brighton. Etc.
How many conservative constituencies, outside of those areas, have a high remain vote? Very few. There are a handful of places in the wider London Commuter Belt. The whole of Kent voted to leave, with the exception of Tunbridge Wells, which should be overwhelmingly in the bag for remain, but where the margin was only 54/46.
The problem is that the remain vote was stacked up overwhelmingly in a few constituencies, which are mostly labour voting areas anyway.
If you then go on to look at the actual dymanics of how the party would form, it would in all probability be based on a split within the labour party, as this is where most of the current disagreements seems to be. But this is where the problem lies. If a load of Labour MP's quit the party, as they are threatening to do so, it will lead to a mutually destructive battle between the new centrist party and Corbynite labour, most likely to take place in those previously labour held constituencies.
Really just an idiot. We are way, way past the time of asking for cease fires. Assad has won. It is over. The longer the opposition have any delusions about the west actually helping them the more people will die. Corbyn is completely wrong to say that this will be resolved by everyone getting around the table. It will be resolved by boots, bayonets and bombs on the ground and fairly soon at that. Ultimately, humiliating though it is for the west, any kind of result is probably better than prolonged warfare.
This has been inevitable since the west backed out of backing the opposition and the Russians and Iranians tipped the scales so heavily in Assad's favour. Whether the opposition were people we would really want to win is another very complicated question but it is academic. We made our choice years ago and we have to live with it. Having someone guilty of war crimes win is just salt in the wounds.
I think that correct. The remaining rebels need to flee or strike surrender terms. They have lost.
But possibly only for this round.
Being about two thirds Sunni an Alawite controlled Syria is always going to have fundamental difficulties.
If other Sunni Arab states want to cause trouble there they'll always be able to find locals to support.
2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
I don’t know about May’s government being that centrist - I think it rhetorically tries to strike a tone which addresses what you state in your second point, but it’s still pursuing things, like say the marketisation of public services. I actually don’t think a centrist party would really damage Labour, in part because of reasons Stephen Bush has said today: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/983382369074900993
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
I disagree with the second paragraphs conclusion. The points raised were all in the Labour manifesto last year, not the Tory one. Indeed part of the reason Jezza did so well last year was because he ran on a fairly moderate populist manifesto, and was actually much more Centrist than the caricature that we see in the media.
We already have a Centrist party, in the LDs, what we need is for Uncle Vince to pass the baton to someone awake!
Thats a good point. Both the parties were, possibly unintentionally, pitching to the new 'centre' that I have tried to describe. But I wouldn't underestimate the problem that Corbyn and labour have with immigration, which is a major concern for people.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
It's brutal; it's horrible; it shouldn't happen.
But people are weary of the Middle East with its interminable wars and brutality and incomprehensible feuds between groups going back centuries and its cruelty and mess. They don't see what good it does Britain to intervene and they think Britain has spent quite enough treasure and spilt quite enough blood.
That is why Corbyn's approach - for all its inconsistency with how he treats other countries (notably Israel), with his own previous statements, with his principles - and however immoral it may be is unlikely to harm him that much. People want the Middle East to just go away and stop bothering them. Anything we do is either ineffective or leads to us being blamed by some group or other and may end up with people here being bombed and killed because someone somewhere has found a grievance and thinks more blood being spilt is the answer.
So however immoral or short-sighted or uncaring you think this attitude is I suspect it is shared by quite a lot of people and why people really couldn't care that much that Corbyn is a buddy of a man who gasses children in a far away country of which we know little. They ought to care - because it shows up Corbyn's appalling judgment - and that is something which will affect us here should he ever become PM. But they don't - the majority of them - care that much.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
I don’t know about May’s government being that centrist - I think it rhetorically tries to strike a tone which addresses what you state in your second point, but it’s still pursuing things, like say the marketisation of public services. I actually don’t think a centrist party would really damage Labour, in part because of reasons Stephen Bush has said today: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/983382369074900993
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
I disagree with the second paragraphs conclusion. The points raised were all in the Labour manifesto last year, not the Tory one. Indeed part of the reason Jezza did so well last year was because he ran on a fairly moderate populist manifesto, and was actually much more Centrist than the caricature that we see in the media.
We already have a Centrist party, in the LDs, what we need is for Uncle Vince to pass the baton to someone awake!
Maybe the media doesn’t realised the centre has shifted in a way that nielh articulated so well. I agree that Corbyn’s manifesto wasn’t anywhere near as radically left wing as some people thought it was. I also agree that Corbyn addressed the economic concerns people have but I think the Conservatives probably appealed to people more on the immigration issue. That said, I think Labour is never going to be very right wing on immigration, I don’t think they’ll ever attract the votes of people who immigration is *the* issue. Not that I’m complaining about that, mind. That’s one area in which I’m board with Labour.
I actually think one of the LDs biggest issues, aside from the legacy of the coalition still tainting them, is that they appear to offer a very kind of bland centrism - one which presents Brexit as the worst thing to happen since the Black Plague/Death. Brexit is pretty awful IMHO, but most voters are just not interested in it at the moment.
Thanks!
I think you are right, Brexit just isn't a big issue for people.
I don't think many people read the Labour manifesto, or indeed any manifesto. I think that the labour vote is a mixture of people habitually voting for labour, and younger people being energised by Corbyn, which worked well in the circumstances of GE2017.
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
I've thought through the centrist party idea quite a bit. I think you have to start from the point of view of what constituencies would it target. To my mind, if as everyone assumes it is an anti brexit party, they would probably be looking at high remain voting areas, so university towns. London. Places like Brighton. Etc.
How many conservative constituencies, outside of those areas, have a high remain vote? Very few. There are a handful of places in the wider London Commuter Belt. The whole of Kent voted to leave, with the exception of Tunbridge Wells, which should be overwhelmingly in the bag for remain, but where the margin was only 54/46.
The problem is that the remain vote was stacked up overwhelmingly in a few constituencies, which are mostly labour voting areas anyway.
If you then go on to look at the actual dymanics of how the party would form, it would in all probability be based on a split within the labour party, as this is where most of the current disagreements seems to be. But this is where the problem lies. If a load of Labour MP's quit the party, as they are threatening to do so, it will lead to a mutually destructive battle between the new centrist party and Corbynite labour, most likely to take place in those previously labour held constituencies.
Tbh I don’t think Labour MPs will quit - even Mr Stop Brexit himself Andrew Adonis doesn’t agree with a centrist party. I haven’t seen anything which has reported that a ‘load of Labour MPs’ threatening to quit - only stories about John Woodcock. I think moderates are haunted by the history of the SDP, especially looking at the LDs now. They know that the Labour Party is a much more viable route to power than any new centrist party; that’s why Corbyn’s control of the party hurts them so much.
I think the fact that the demographics that the centrists would want to appeal to all mostly vote Labour is, if anything part of the issue for a new centre party. One of the reasons why left wingers across the spectrum voted Labour last time was because of the prospect of a Tory government with a massive majority; it was a big anti-Tory vote. If you desperately want to keep out the Tories - and putting aside all the issues you may have with Corbyn and voting Labour suggests a pretty big anti-Tory feeling - why are you going to ‘waste’ your vote on a centrist party, that quite frankly in other areas is likely to pursue neo-liberal polices that many Labour voters quite frankly don’t have much time for. Both Labour members and voters appear to me to be quite economically left wing.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
I can say it because I think its true.
I've not heard anyone mention Syria but I hear people talk about football all the time.
And people will watch the WC in millions in this country and billions across the world.
BTW little children have died in conflicts during previous WCs, Olympic Games and other sporting tournaments.
I find it difficult that anyone could be so dismissive of the gassing in Syria but listening to the Russian Ambassador tonight this is going to get ugly.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
It's brutal; it's horrible; it shouldn't happen.
But people are weary of the Middle East with its interminable wars and brutality and incomprehensible feuds between groups going back centuries and its cruelty and mess. They don't see what good it does Britain to intervene and they think Britain has spent quite enough treasure and spilt quite enough blood.
That is why Corbyn's approach - for all its inconsistency with how he treats other countries (notably Israel), with his own previous statements, with his principles - and however immoral it may be is unlikely to harm him that much. People want the Middle East to just go away and stop bothering them. Anything we do is either ineffective or leads to us being blamed by some group or other and may end up with people here being bombed and killed because someone somewhere has found a grievance and thinks more blood being spilt is the answer.
So however immoral or short-sighted or uncaring you think this attitude is I suspect it is shared by quite a lot of people and why people really couldn't care that much that Corbyn is a buddy of a man who gasses children in a far away country of which we know little. They ought to care - because it shows up Corbyn's appalling judgment - and that is something which will affect us here should he ever become PM. But they don't - the majority of them - care that much.
A huge amount of hand-wringing. Suggesting we should do "something" while confessing we'll probably do nothing,
A couple of points - back in 2013, the alternative to Assad was most likely to be Islamist - indeed many argued we should join forces with Assad to break ISIL. Assad was bad but the alternative looked worse, the debacle of Iraq was fresh in the memory.
Five years on, and what realistically can we do ? Occasional air strikes perhaps but little or nothing that will stop Assad and his punishment offensives against those who dared to stand up to him. What of the Kurds far from Damascus ? Will they be next ?
Perhaps we should be trying to split Assad from Putin but that won't happen if our sole objective is to chase the Russians out of Tartus and their other bases. For Moscow a continuing Russian presence in the eastern Med is what it's all about and they'll back anyone who will guarantee that.
That's why they have yoked themselves to Assad who I suspect will one day be quietly removed by Moscow in favour of someone more useful and even more pliant. I'll shed no tears for Bashir Assad who had the opportunity to enrich the lives of millions and instead threw it all away by trying to be his father's son.
For now selective strikes to degrade Assad's ability to inflict suffering on his own people is the best we can hope. Perhaps we can also remind Iran and Hezbollah of their role in all this as well. As for the Russians, their complicity is evident but I suspect no one wants a shooting war with Russia in Syria or anywhere else.
A huge amount of hand-wringing. Suggesting we should do "something" while confessing we'll probably do nothing,
A couple of points - back in 2013, the alternative to Assad was most likely to be Islamist - indeed many argued we should join forces with Assad to break ISIL. Assad was bad but the alternative looked worse, the debacle of Iraq was fresh in the memory.
Five years on, and what realistically can we do ? Occasional air strikes perhaps but little or nothing that will stop Assad and his punishment offensives against those who dared to stand up to him. What of the Kurds far from Damascus ? Will they be next ?
Perhaps we should be trying to split Assad from Putin but that won't happen if our sole objective is to chase the Russians out of Tartus and their other bases. For Moscow a continuing Russian presence in the eastern Med is what it's all about and they'll back anyone who will guarantee that.
That's why they have yoked themselves to Assad who I suspect will one day be quietly removed by Moscow in favour of someone more useful and even more pliant. I'll shed no tears for Bashir Assad who had the opportunity to enrich the lives of millions and instead threw it all away by trying to be his father's son.
For now selective strikes to degrade Assad's ability to inflict suffering on his own people is the best we can hope. Perhaps we can also remind Iran and Hezbollah of their role in all this as well. As for the Russians, their complicity is evident but I suspect no one wants a shooting war with Russia in Syria or anywhere else.
No one wants one, but they seem to keep pushing - a very dangerous game they play.
A huge amount of hand-wringing. Suggesting we should do "something" while confessing we'll probably do nothing,
A couple of points - back in 2013, the alternative to Assad was most likely to be Islamist - indeed many argued we should join forces with Assad to break ISIL. Assad was bad but the alternative looked worse, the debacle of Iraq was fresh in the memory.
Five years on, and what realistically can we do ? Occasional air strikes perhaps but little or nothing that will stop Assad and his punishment offensives against those who dared to stand up to him. What of the Kurds far from Damascus ? Will they be next ?
Perhaps we should be trying to split Assad from Putin but that won't happen if our sole objective is to chase the Russians out of Tartus and their other bases. For Moscow a continuing Russian presence in the eastern Med is what it's all about and they'll back anyone who will guarantee that.
That's why they have yoked themselves to Assad who I suspect will one day be quietly removed by Moscow in favour of someone more useful and even more pliant. I'll shed no tears for Bashir Assad who had the opportunity to enrich the lives of millions and instead threw it all away by trying to be his father's son.
For now selective strikes to degrade Assad's ability to inflict suffering on his own people is the best we can hope. Perhaps we can also remind Iran and Hezbollah of their role in all this as well. As for the Russians, their complicity is evident but I suspect no one wants a shooting war with Russia in Syria or anywhere else.
A bleak but perhaps realistic take from Simon Jenkins.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
I can say it because I think its true.
I've not heard anyone mention Syria but I hear people talk about football all the time.
And people will watch the WC in millions in this country and billions across the world.
BTW little children have died in conflicts during previous WCs, Olympic Games and other sporting tournaments.
I find it difficult that anyone could be so dismissive of the gassing in Syria but listening to the Russian Ambassador tonight this is going to get ugly.
Were you as bothered when NATO drone strikes killed civilians ?
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
I can say it because I think its true.
I've not heard anyone mention Syria but I hear people talk about football all the time.
And people will watch the WC in millions in this country and billions across the world.
BTW little children have died in conflicts during previous WCs, Olympic Games and other sporting tournaments.
I find it difficult that anyone could be so dismissive of the gassing in Syria but listening to the Russian Ambassador tonight this is going to get ugly.
Were you as bothered when NATO drone strikes killed civilians ?
Did we use gas weapons then?
NATO tries to strike military targets - Assad / Moscow seem to go out of their way to cause them (civilian ).
Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.
Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.
Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
It's brutal; it's horrible; it shouldn't happen.
But people are weary of the Middle East with its interminable wars and brutality and incomprehensible feuds between groups going back centuries and its cruelty and mess. They don't see what good it does Britain to intervene and they think Britain has spent quite enough treasure and spilt quite enough blood.
That is why Corbyn's approach - for all its inconsistency with how he treats other countries (notably Israel), with his own previous statements, with his principles - and however immoral it may be is unlikely to harm him that much. People want the Middle East to just go away and stop bothering them. Anything we do is either ineffective or leads to us being blamed by some group or other and may end up with people here being bombed and killed because someone somewhere has found a grievance and thinks more blood being spilt is the answer.
So however immoral or short-sighted or uncaring you think this attitude is I suspect it is shared by quite a lot of people and why people really couldn't care that much that Corbyn is a buddy of a man who gasses children in a far away country of which we know little. They ought to care - because it shows up Corbyn's appalling judgment - and that is something which will affect us here should he ever become PM. But they don't - the majority of them - care that much.
Indeed.
There are no good guys or bad guys. How do we stand by and allow children and civilians to be slaughtered with intent?
Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.
Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point
Yeah, well who honestly knows what went on there. But the Crimea episode was particularly shocking and obvious.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
I can say it because I think its true.
I've not heard anyone mention Syria but I hear people talk about football all the time.
And people will watch the WC in millions in this country and billions across the world.
BTW little children have died in conflicts during previous WCs, Olympic Games and other sporting tournaments.
I find it difficult that anyone could be so dismissive of the gassing in Syria but listening to the Russian Ambassador tonight this is going to get ugly.
Were you as bothered when NATO drone strikes killed civilians ?
Did we use gas weapons then?
NATO tries to strike military targets - Assad / Moscow seem to go out of their way to cause them (civilian ).
Bunker busters on hospitals anyone?
Its easy for NATO in its actions with drones and cruise missiles and air strikes from 30,000ft.
And if mistakes are made or 'collateral damage' inflicted or 'stuff happens' the victims are Arabs or Afghans and nobody really cares.
But countries fighting for survival or engaged in civil war are a lot less concerned about the 'rules'.
1. It is very unlikely to go anywhere because of the limitations of FPTP, but it could be very damaging to Labour. I find it very odd the way that people like Paul Mason and Owen Jones have this 'bring it on' attitude. Splitting they what do I know.
2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
I don’t know about May’s government being that centrist - I think it rhetorically tries to strike a tone which addresses what you state in your second point, but it’s still pursuing things, like say the marketisation of public services. I actually don’t think a centrist party would really damage Labour, in part because of reasons Stephen Bush has said today: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/983382369074900993
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
A huge amount of hand-wringing. Suggesting we should do "something" while confessing we'll probably do nothing,
A couple of points - back in 2013, the alternative to Assad was most likely to be Islamist - indeed many argued we should join forces with Assad to break ISIL. Assad was bad but the alternative looked worse, the debacle of Iraq was fresh in the memory.
Five years on, and what realistically can we do ? Occasional air strikes perhaps but little or nothing that will stop Assad and his punishment offensives against those who dared to stand up to him. What of the Kurds far from Damascus ? Will they be next ?
Perhaps we should be trying to split Assad from Putin but that won't happen if our sole objective is to chase the Russians out of Tartus and their other bases. For Moscow a continuing Russian presence in the eastern Med is what it's all about and they'll back anyone who will guarantee that.
That's why they have yoked themselves to Assad who I suspect will one day be quietly removed by Moscow in favour of someone more useful and even more pliant. I'll shed no tears for Bashir Assad who had the opportunity to enrich the lives of millions and instead threw it all away by trying to be his father's son.
For now selective strikes to degrade Assad's ability to inflict suffering on his own people is the best we can hope. Perhaps we can also remind Iran and Hezbollah of their role in all this as well. As for the Russians, their complicity is evident but I suspect no one wants a shooting war with Russia in Syria or anywhere else.
I agree with all of that but I also think it is time that our defence budget was given a higher priority. We have an undisciplined thug playing on the world stage and he seems to revel in every piece of mischief he can find. We need to be better positioned to respond. Achieving energy independence from Russia should also be Europe's priority.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
I can say it because I think its true.
I've not heard anyone mention Syria but I hear people talk about football all the time.
And people will watch the WC in millions in this country and billions across the world.
BTW little children have died in conflicts during previous WCs, Olympic Games and other sporting tournaments.
I find it difficult that anyone could be so dismissive of the gassing in Syria but listening to the Russian Ambassador tonight this is going to get ugly.
Were you as bothered when NATO drone strikes killed civilians ?
Did we use gas weapons then?
NATO tries to strike military targets - Assad / Moscow seem to go out of their way to cause them (civilian ).
Bunker busters on hospitals anyone?
If ever there was a case to go after the bastards behind that in The Hague.....
1. It is very unlikely to go anywhere because of the limitations of FPTP, but it could be very damaging to Labour. I find it very odd the way that people like Paul Mason and Owen Jones have this 'bring it on' attitude. Splitting they what do I know.
2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
I don’t know about May’s government being that centrist - I think it rhetorically tries to strike a tone which addresses what you state in your second point, but it’s still pursuing things, like say the marketisation of public services. I actually don’t think a centrist party would really damage Labour, in part because of reasons Stephen Bush has said today: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/983382369074900993
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
The polling told us that many Labour voters don’t actually like Corbyn’s position on Brexit, it didn’t stop them from voting for him even though the fact he wasn’t an ultra Remainer was obvious.
The Board of Deputies statement on the Hungarian elections has to be the end of Johnson.He is not fit to do the job and if May really wants zero tolerance on anti-semitism in the Tory party,and elsewhere,surely Johnson has to go.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
It's brutal; it's horrible; it shouldn't happen.
But people are weary of the Middle East with its interminable wars and brutality and incomprehensible feuds between groups going back centuries and its cruelty and mess. They don't see what good it does Britain to intervene and they think Britain has spent quite enough treasure and spilt quite enough blood.
That is why Corbyn's approach - for all its inconsistency with how he treats other countries (notably Israel), with his own previous statements, with his principles - and however immoral it may be is unlikely to harm him that much. People want the Middle East to just go away and stop bothering them. Anything we do is either ineffective or leads to us being blamed by some group or other and may end up with people here being bombed and killed because someone somewhere has found a grievance and thinks more blood being spilt is the answer.
So however immoral or short-sighted or uncaring you think this attitude is I suspect it is shared by quite a lot of people and why people really couldn't care that much that Corbyn is a buddy of a man who gasses children in a far away country of which we know little. They ought to care - because it shows up Corbyn's appalling judgment - and that is something which will affect us here should he ever become PM. But they don't - the majority of them - care that much.
Indeed.
There are no good guys or bad guys. How do we stand by and allow children and civilians to be slaughtered with intent?
We stand by and do this all the time. There are brutal wars and insurgencies going on all the time all over the world in which children and civilians are slaughtered with intent and we turn a blind eye because they are far away and we are weary and don't - frankly - see anything in it for us. Cynically, the only reason we care about the Middle East is because of (a) oil; and (b) we don't want any more of their terrorists on our territory bombing us. Beyond that most of us don't give a toss, really.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
I can say it because I think its true.
I've not heard anyone mention Syria but I hear people talk about football all the time.
And people will watch the WC in millions in this country and billions across the world.
BTW little children have died in conflicts during previous WCs, Olympic Games and other sporting tournaments.
I find it difficult that anyone could be so dismissive of the gassing in Syria but listening to the Russian Ambassador tonight this is going to get ugly.
Were you as bothered when NATO drone strikes killed civilians ?
A huge amount of hand-wringing. Suggesting we should do "something" while confessing we'll probably do nothing,
A couple of points - back in 2013, the alternative to Assad was most likely to be Islamist - indeed many argued we should join forces with Assad to break ISIL. Assad was bad but the alternative looked worse, the debacle of Iraq was fresh in the memory.
Five years on, and what realistically can we do ? Occasional air strikes perhaps but little or nothing that will stop Assad and his punishment offensives against those who dared to stand up to him. What of the Kurds far from Damascus ? Will they be next ?
Perhaps we should be trying to split Assad from Putin but that won't happen if our sole objective is to chase the Russians out of Tartus and their other bases. For Moscow a continuing Russian presence in the eastern Med is what it's all about and they'll back anyone who will guarantee that.
That's why they have yoked themselves to Assad who I suspect will one day be quietly removed by Moscow in favour of someone more useful and even more pliant. I'll shed no tears for Bashir Assad who had the opportunity to enrich the lives of millions and instead threw it all away by trying to be his father's son.
For now selective strikes to degrade Assad's ability to inflict suffering on his own people is the best we can hope. Perhaps we can also remind Iran and Hezbollah of their role in all this as well. As for the Russians, their complicity is evident but I suspect no one wants a shooting war with Russia in Syria or anywhere else.
I agree with all of that but I also think it is time that our defence budget was given a higher priority. We have an undisciplined thug playing on the world stage and he seems to revel in every piece of mischief he can find. We need to be better positioned to respond. Achieving energy independence from Russia should also be Europe's priority.
"Achieving energy independence from Russia should also be Europe's priority." And from the Middle East. The sooner the better.
The Board of Deputies statement on the Hungarian elections has to be the end of Johnson.He is not fit to do the job and if May really wants zero tolerance on anti-semitism in the Tory party,and elsewhere,surely Johnson has to go.
I agree with all of that but I also think it is time that our defence budget was given a higher priority. We have an undisciplined thug playing on the world stage and he seems to revel in every piece of mischief he can find. We need to be better positioned to respond. Achieving energy independence from Russia should also be Europe's priority.
We could spend 5% of our GDP on defence and someone would say it isn't enough. As Dura Ace opined this morning we could get a much more efficient and effective defence policy by challenging the Armed Forces as an institution and establishing new priorities.
By the way, I thought the part on veterans was superbly argued and if there's one area on which money does need to be spent it's ensuring those who served in the armed forces are properly looked after in civilian life.
The Board of Deputies statement on the Hungarian elections has to be the end of Johnson.He is not fit to do the job and if May really wants zero tolerance on anti-semitism in the Tory party,and elsewhere,surely Johnson has to go.
What have they said? Certainly if they have come down hard on Johnson it would be very hard to ignore given their statements on Corbyn have been accepted as very serious.
A huge amount of hand-wringing. Suggesting we should do "something" while confessing we'll probably do nothing,
A couple of points - back in 2013, the alternative to Assad was most likely to be Islamist - indeed many argued we should join forces with Assad to break ISIL. Assad was bad but the alternative looked worse, the debacle of Iraq was fresh in the memory.
Five years on, and what realistically can we do ? Occasional air strikes perhaps but little or nothing that will stop Assad and his punishment offensives against those who dared to stand up to him. What of the Kurds far from Damascus ? Will they be next ?
Perhaps we should be trying to split Assad from Putin but that won't happen if our sole objective is to chase the Russians out of Tartus and their other bases. For Moscow a continuing Russian presence in the eastern Med is what it's all about and they'll back anyone who will guarantee that.
That's why they have yoked themselves to Assad who I suspect will one day be quietly removed by Moscow in favour of someone more useful and even more pliant. I'll shed no tears for Bashir Assad who had the opportunity to enrich the lives of millions and instead threw it all away by trying to be his father's son.
For now selective strikes to degrade Assad's ability to inflict suffering on his own people is the best we can hope. Perhaps we can also remind Iran and Hezbollah of their role in all this as well. As for the Russians, their complicity is evident but I suspect no one wants a shooting war with Russia in Syria or anywhere else.
I agree with all of that but I also think it is time that our defence budget was given a higher priority. We have an undisciplined thug playing on the world stage and he seems to revel in every piece of mischief he can find. We need to be better positioned to respond. Achieving energy independence from Russia should also be Europe's priority.
"Achieving energy independence from Russia should also be Europe's priority." And from the Middle East. The sooner the better.
I agree with all of that but I also think it is time that our defence budget was given a higher priority. We have an undisciplined thug playing on the world stage and he seems to revel in every piece of mischief he can find. We need to be better positioned to respond. Achieving energy independence from Russia should also be Europe's priority.
We could spend 5% of our GDP on defence and someone would say it isn't enough. As Dura Ace opined this morning we could get a much more efficient and effective defence policy by challenging the Armed Forces as an institution and establishing new priorities.
By the way, I thought the part on veterans was superbly argued and if there's one area on which money does need to be spent it's ensuring those who served in the armed forces are properly looked after in civilian life.
I was pleased to learn from @AndyCooke that the excellent help my dad got in the late 70s on leaving the army was still available. The decompression tour sounded an excellent idea.
We certainly need to learn to spend our defence budget much better but the days when it was a relatively painless cut have gone.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
IIRC, from the last time the idea of a sporting boycott was floated, there's no way for the government to insist that our people don't take part.
I think it quite possible that Russia 18 will be the last ever World Cup. Qatar will be a farce, and the mooted expansion to 48 teams makes it too unweidy for more than a handfull of countries.
For World Cup betting,I think Russia is a good trading bet this year as confirmation bias amongst the UK odds-compiliers should mean value in backing them.They are the home team and the world will be against them,perfect conditions for a Russian victory on the football pitch.Good bet for quarter finals at least.
It was probably a big shock to Russia when the international community stood with the UK over Salisbury. They could yet do the same over the Syrian chemical attacks.
Russia: admit your total responsibility for Salisbury. Admit your complicity with Assad in chemical attacks on Syrian civilians. Or we, the undersigned will boycott the World Cup.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
IIRC, from the last time the idea of a sporting boycott was floated, there's no way for the government to insist that our people don't take part.
I think it quite possible that Russia 18 will be the last ever World Cup. Qatar will be a farce, and the mooted expansion to 48 teams makes it too unweidy for more than a handfull of countries.
For World Cup betting,I think Russia is a good trading bet this year as confirmation bias amongst the UK odds-compiliers should mean value in backing them.They are the home team and the world will be against them,perfect conditions for a Russian victory on the football pitch.Good bet for quarter finals at least.
Russia are ranked 63 by FIFA at the moment. They really shouldn't get out of their group.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
IIRC, from the last time the idea of a sporting boycott was floated, there's no way for the government to insist that our people don't take part.
I think it quite possible that Russia 18 will be the last ever World Cup. Qatar will be a farce, and the mooted expansion to 48 teams makes it too unweidy for more than a handfull of countries.
For World Cup betting,I think Russia is a good trading bet this year as confirmation bias amongst the UK odds-compiliers should mean value in backing them.They are the home team and the world will be against them,perfect conditions for a Russian victory on the football pitch.Good bet for quarter finals at least.
Russia are ranked 63 by FIFA at the moment. They really shouldn't get out of their group.
When they do, everyone will assume they bribed their way through, like they won the Cup in the first place.
US states that even if the UN fails to act - it will.
The US will act unilaterally against a brutal Middle Eastern despot who uses chemical weapons on his own people despite the reservations of the rest of us?
US states that even if the UN fails to act - it will.
The ever interesting comment by @Yokel earlier in the thread indicates the way that this might go. A large scale combined US/Israel air operation with a heavy missile input is likely. Corbyn will no doubt have the same impartial position on that.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
I can say it because I think its true.
I've not heard anyone mention Syria but I hear people talk about football all the time.
And people will watch the WC in millions in this country and billions across the world.
BTW little children have died in conflicts during previous WCs, Olympic Games and other sporting tournaments.
I find it difficult that anyone could be so dismissive of the gassing in Syria but listening to the Russian Ambassador tonight this is going to get ugly.
Were you as bothered when NATO drone strikes killed civilians ?
Did we use gas weapons then?
NATO tries to strike military targets - Assad / Moscow seem to go out of their way to cause them (civilian ).
Bunker busters on hospitals anyone?
Its easy for NATO in its actions with drones and cruise missiles and air strikes from 30,000ft.
And if mistakes are made or 'collateral damage' inflicted or 'stuff happens' the victims are Arabs or Afghans and nobody really cares.
But countries fighting for survival or engaged in civil war are a lot less concerned about the 'rules'.
A look back at British history shows that.
I'm sorry are you arguing that rules don't matter or they only matter to the West?
You obviously have missed the point that the victims here are arabs.
The Board of Deputies statement on the Hungarian elections has to be the end of Johnson.He is not fit to do the job and if May really wants zero tolerance on anti-semitism in the Tory party,and elsewhere,surely Johnson has to go.
What have the Board said - and Johnson?
So far as I can make out, it's an elision of the BDBJ condemning Orban's dog-whistle racism in his campaign, and Johnson congratulating him on his re-election.
Hard to see how that's a resigning matter for Johnson when the likes of Tusk and Netanyahu have done the same (admittedly Netanyahu is one of the more racist bastards around).
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:
France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
IIRC, from the last time the idea of a sporting boycott was floated, there's no way for the government to insist that our people don't take part.
I think it quite possible that Russia 18 will be the last ever World Cup. Qatar will be a farce, and the mooted expansion to 48 teams makes it too unweidy for more than a handfull of countries.
For World Cup betting,I think Russia is a good trading bet this year as confirmation bias amongst the UK odds-compiliers should mean value in backing them.They are the home team and the world will be against them,perfect conditions for a Russian victory on the football pitch.Good bet for quarter finals at least.
Russia are ranked 63 by FIFA at the moment. They really shouldn't get out of their group.
When they do, everyone will assume they bribed their way through, like they won the Cup in the first place.
If I was a Liverpool fan I would be worrying about Salah's health....
Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.
Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point
Yeah, well who honestly knows what went on there. But the Crimea episode was particularly shocking and obvious.
I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.
Indeed.
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
It's brutal; it's horrible; it shouldn't happen.
But people are weary of the Middle East with its interminable wars and brutality and incomprehensible feuds between groups going back centuries and its cruelty and mess. They don't see what good it does Britain to intervene and they think Britain has spent quite enough treasure and spilt quite enough blood.
That is why Corbyn's approach - for
So however immoral or short-sighted or uncaring you think this attitude is I suspect it is shared by quite a lot of people and why people really couldn't care that much that Corbyn is a buddy of a man who gasses children in a far away country of which we know little. They ought to care - because it shows up Corbyn's appalling judgment - and that is something which will affect us here should he ever become PM. But they don't - the majority of them - care that much.
Indeed.
There are no good guys or bad guys. How do we stand by and allow children and civilians to be slaughtered with intent?
We stand by and do this all the time. There are brutal wars and insurgencies going on all the time all over the world in which children and civilians are slaughtered with intent and we turn a blind eye because they are far away and we are weary and don't - frankly - see anything in it for us. Cynically, the only reason we care about the Middle East is because of (a) oil; and (b) we don't want any more of their terrorists on our territory bombing us. Beyond that most of us don't give a toss, really.
There is a racism of low expectations concerning events in the Middle East and Africa, where violent deaths are shrugged off by many in the West.
About 5 million have died in the last 20 years in the wars in the Eastern Congo, with very little on the news about it here. Is it really worse to be gassed, rather than hacked to pieces with a machete, or burnt alive? The reality of Civil wars is that brutal deaths are inflicted on civilians, who comprise about 90% of casualties in modern wars.
Comments
The Russians & Syrians lit themselves up like a Christmas tree .
Not too long after a specialist US RADINT aircraft (one that gathers radar signatures) that had made a very long journey from the US was in the area.
1. Was it coincidence? Probably. I have no idea how close one of these aircraft needs to be to be doing its work but it was decent timing all the same.
2. The fact that the aircraft was in the region at all is signal that the US is indicating it means business and its rattling the sabre to show it or signal that it will be doing business.
1. It is very unlikely to go anywhere because of the limitations of FPTP, but it could be very damaging to Labour. I find it very odd the way that people like Paul Mason and Owen Jones have this 'bring it on' attitude. Splitting the labour party is essentially embarking on a path of mutually assured destruction, where a centrist party make inroads it would split the vote, thereby leading to the conservatives winning in unlikely constituencies, on a low share of the vote. It strikes me that they would be better advised to try to take a concillitary approach towards the moderates in the party, but hey what do I know.
2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.
In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/03/09/england-boycott-russia-world-cup-could-see-banned-2022/
Am I right in thinking that was a real remark by some football manager or commentator?
Good evening, everyone.
I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
I'm curious about this sentance though:
' Since the end of World War 2 every Conservative government, with the notable exception of Sir Edward Richard George Heath KG, MBE, has left office with lower defence spending as a proportion of GDP than it inherited. '
Haven't there been the grand total of 3 Conservative governments since 1945 not including the present one which, of course, has not yet ended.
So disregarding Heath's government there was the 1951-1964 government and the 1979-1997 government.
Now in 1951 the Korean War was raging, national service was in place and large parts of world map were still covered pink. By 1964 these had changed so is it surprising that defence spending had proportionally declined ?
Likewise in 1979 the Cold War was at its height and Northern Ireland was in low level civil war. By 1997 both of these situations had ended so again is it surprising that defence spending had proportionally declined ?
We already have a Centrist party, in the LDs, what we need is for Uncle Vince to pass the baton to someone awake!
These are seriously dangerous times
To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
I actually think one of the LDs biggest issues, aside from the legacy of the coalition still tainting them, is that they appear to offer a very kind of bland centrism - one which presents Brexit as the worst thing to happen since the Black Plague/Death. Brexit is pretty awful IMHO, but most voters are just not interested in it at the moment.
How many conservative constituencies, outside of those areas, have a high remain vote? Very few. There are a handful of places in the wider London Commuter Belt. The whole of Kent voted to leave, with the exception of Tunbridge Wells, which should be overwhelmingly in the bag for remain, but where the margin was only 54/46.
The problem is that the remain vote was stacked up overwhelmingly in a few constituencies, which are mostly labour voting areas anyway.
If you then go on to look at the actual dymanics of how the party would form, it would in all probability be based on a split within the labour party, as this is where most of the current disagreements seems to be. But this is where the problem lies. If a load of Labour MP's quit the party, as they are threatening to do so, it will lead to a mutually destructive battle between the new centrist party and Corbynite labour, most likely to take place in those previously labour held constituencies.
Being about two thirds Sunni an Alawite controlled Syria is always going to have fundamental difficulties.
If other Sunni Arab states want to cause trouble there they'll always be able to find locals to support.
ooops - now he blames the rebels and by inference the West
I've not heard anyone mention Syria but I hear people talk about football all the time.
And people will watch the WC in millions in this country and billions across the world.
BTW little children have died in conflicts during previous WCs, Olympic Games and other sporting tournaments.
But people are weary of the Middle East with its interminable wars and brutality and incomprehensible feuds between groups going back centuries and its cruelty and mess. They don't see what good it does Britain to intervene and they think Britain has spent quite enough treasure and spilt quite enough blood.
That is why Corbyn's approach - for all its inconsistency with how he treats other countries (notably Israel), with his own previous statements, with his principles - and however immoral it may be is unlikely to harm him that much. People want the Middle East to just go away and stop bothering them. Anything we do is either ineffective or leads to us being blamed by some group or other and may end up with people here being bombed and killed because someone somewhere has found a grievance and thinks more blood being spilt is the answer.
So however immoral or short-sighted or uncaring you think this attitude is I suspect it is shared by quite a lot of people and why people really couldn't care that much that Corbyn is a buddy of a man who gasses children in a far away country of which we know little. They ought to care - because it shows up Corbyn's appalling judgment - and that is something which will affect us here should he ever become PM. But they don't - the majority of them - care that much.
But when the WC is held there will be plenty of match commentary on it among the PB comments.
I think you are right, Brexit just isn't a big issue for people.
I don't think many people read the Labour manifesto, or indeed any manifesto. I think that the labour vote is a mixture of people habitually voting for labour, and younger people being energised by Corbyn, which worked well in the circumstances of GE2017.
I think the fact that the demographics that the centrists would want to appeal to all mostly vote Labour is, if anything part of the issue for a new centre party. One of the reasons why left wingers across the spectrum voted Labour last time was because of the prospect of a Tory government with a massive majority; it was a big anti-Tory vote. If you desperately want to keep out the Tories - and putting aside all the issues you may have with Corbyn and voting Labour suggests a pretty big anti-Tory feeling - why are you going to ‘waste’ your vote on a centrist party, that quite frankly in other areas is likely to pursue neo-liberal polices that many Labour voters quite frankly don’t have much time for. Both Labour members and voters appear to me to be quite economically left wing.
Seems only this morning they denied any chemicals involved at all.
So hard to keep up.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-west-s-failure-over-syria-should-shame-us-all-a3809071.html
A huge amount of hand-wringing. Suggesting we should do "something" while confessing we'll probably do nothing,
A couple of points - back in 2013, the alternative to Assad was most likely to be Islamist - indeed many argued we should join forces with Assad to break ISIL. Assad was bad but the alternative looked worse, the debacle of Iraq was fresh in the memory.
Five years on, and what realistically can we do ? Occasional air strikes perhaps but little or nothing that will stop Assad and his punishment offensives against those who dared to stand up to him. What of the Kurds far from Damascus ? Will they be next ?
Perhaps we should be trying to split Assad from Putin but that won't happen if our sole objective is to chase the Russians out of Tartus and their other bases. For Moscow a continuing Russian presence in the eastern Med is what it's all about and they'll back anyone who will guarantee that.
That's why they have yoked themselves to Assad who I suspect will one day be quietly removed by Moscow in favour of someone more useful and even more pliant. I'll shed no tears for Bashir Assad who had the opportunity to enrich the lives of millions and instead threw it all away by trying to be his father's son.
For now selective strikes to degrade Assad's ability to inflict suffering on his own people is the best we can hope. Perhaps we can also remind Iran and Hezbollah of their role in all this as well. As for the Russians, their complicity is evident but I suspect no one wants a shooting war with Russia in Syria or anywhere else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-151701/President-Assad-meets-Queen.html
http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/31/the-queen-once-hid-in-a-bush-to-avoid-a-guest-she-really-didnt-like-6417762/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/09/assad-victory-syria-civil-war-west-chemical-attack-douma
NATO tries to strike military targets - Assad / Moscow seem to go out of their way to cause them (civilian ).
Bunker busters on hospitals anyone?
Always good to have a fallback position
And if mistakes are made or 'collateral damage' inflicted or 'stuff happens' the victims are Arabs or Afghans and nobody really cares.
But countries fighting for survival or engaged in civil war are a lot less concerned about the 'rules'.
A look back at British history shows that.
Turkey bombs the Kurdish forces
Britain and France bomb ISIS
America bombs the Assad regime
Which side is NATO on?
An October 2016 Yougov poll found a centrist, 'Stop Brexit' party would get 25.9% and would beat Labour but the Tories would still come top on 34.1%
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/party-promising-overturn-brexit-would-12069287
By the way, I thought the part on veterans was superbly argued and if there's one area on which money does need to be spent it's ensuring those who served in the armed forces are properly looked after in civilian life.
We certainly need to learn to spend our defence budget much better but the days when it was a relatively painless cut have gone.
Russia: admit your total responsibility for Salisbury. Admit your complicity with Assad in chemical attacks on Syrian civilians. Or we, the undersigned will boycott the World Cup.
Oh, and FIFA - STFU.
What could possibly go wrong with that, I wonder?
You obviously have missed the point that the victims here are arabs.
So basically you seem to just be flailing around
Hard to see how that's a resigning matter for Johnson when the likes of Tusk and Netanyahu have done the same (admittedly Netanyahu is one of the more racist bastards around).
About 5 million have died in the last 20 years in the wars in the Eastern Congo, with very little on the news about it here. Is it really worse to be gassed, rather than hacked to pieces with a machete, or burnt alive? The reality of Civil wars is that brutal deaths are inflicted on civilians, who comprise about 90% of casualties in modern wars.