politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May now level-pegging with “Don’t know” as to who woul

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May now level-pegging with “Don’t know” as to who would make the best PM

This polling, from the latest YouGov, rather sums up British politics at the moment. When respondents were asked who would make the best prime minister 37% said Mrs May which is exactly the same number who said they didn’t know

Read the full story here

fitalass

First

DavidL

Theresa May, best of a bad job and definitely better than the alternative. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Mortimer

Third, like the absolute boy.

surby

It seems the 40-40 split does not change, whatever happens !

DavidL

Its perhaps interesting that Corbyn's score is, along 4/4/18, his lowest score. Just maybe the gloss coming off a bit? http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x9lc4zo3af/YG Trackers - Best Prime Minister.pdf

But the differences are not huge.

Cyclefree

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

stodge

Afternoon all

Well, I'd say "so far, so reasonable". Plenty of chest-thumping and positive spin from Trump, May and others but I'd like some independent verification as to the effectiveness of these strikes.

I'm not a supporter of the Prime Minister or her Government but it appears a well-planned, co-ordinated and restricted attack on certain installations appears to have been carried out with the customary effectiveness by the Armed Forces involved.

It's completely right and proper to question the medium and long term consequences of what we have done. None of this will stop the slaughter of men, women and children by other, more conventional means, I fear.

I think the diplomatic aim has to be to prize Russia from Assad but that will mean a Syrian Government recognising Russian strategic interests at Tartus and elsewhere even if that Government throws Assad and his thugs under the nearest tank.

I'm convinced Putin needs a ruined client state in Damascus like he needs a hole in the head so let's start sweetening a deal which guarantees Russian strategic interests while offering them a chance to disengage from active participation in the civil war.

Big_G_NorthWales

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Well, I'd say "so far, so reasonable". Plenty of chest-thumping and positive spin from Trump, May and others but I'd like some independent verification as to the effectiveness of these strikes.

I'm not a supporter of the Prime Minister or her Government but it appears a well-planned, co-ordinated and restricted attack on certain installations appears to have been carried out with the customary effectiveness by the Armed Forces involved.

It's completely right and proper to question the medium and long term consequences of what we have done. None of this will stop the slaughter of men, women and children by other, more conventional means, I fear.

I think the diplomatic aim has to be to prize Russia from Assad but that will mean a Syrian Government recognising Russian strategic interests at Tartus and elsewhere even if that Government throws Assad and his thugs under the nearest tank.

I'm convinced Putin needs a ruined client state in Damascus like he needs a hole in the head so let's start sweetening a deal which guarantees Russian strategic interests while offering them a chance to disengage from active participation in the civil war.

Good post

stodge

The small matter of the Grand National coming up in a couple of hours.

I've had a few pounds on RAZ DE MAREE at 33s and pleased to see some support into 20s but that means nothing to the horse.

Unfortunately, the greedy bookmakers are frantically shortening up all the fancied horses to gouge as much as they can from the "once-a-year" punters. It's appalling but I'll be told it's "the market". This happens further as the off-course firms shovel money on to the track and force the on-course firms to shorten again so the SP is even shorter still.

Most firms seem to be paying 5 places which is something - Paddy are going six places but they are often shorter odds than the other firms so RAZ DE MAREE is 25s with Coral (five places) and only 20s with Paddy (six places).

volcanopete

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

surby

We are clearly not a supporter of the despotic Assad regime. Which of his various sharia waving opponents do we support ? And, where are they now ?

Big_G_NorthWales

volcanopete said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

Noble aims but completely unattainable

oxfordsimon

volcanopete said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

Assad and Putin aren't interested in talking. So how are these 'negotiations' to take place?

Yorkcity

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

There hardly is any on here .You will have to get out more and ask them.

surby

DavidL said:

Its perhaps interesting that Corbyn's score is, along 4/4/18, his lowest score. Just maybe the gloss coming off a bit? http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x9lc4zo3af/YG Trackers - Best Prime Minister.pdf

But the differences are not huge.

Interesting or , is it ? Since 5th June 2017, both May and Corbyn have dropped 6 points each. Don't know is the only beneficiary.

Cyclefree

volcanopete said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

That does not answer my question.

But to respond to your answer: with whom would these bilateral and multilateral communication lines be opened up and what if the parties approached refuse to engage and/or agree a ceasefire, what then?

What if one of the parties continues to use chemical weapons instead of talking? Is the Corbyn position that this would have to be permitted because the communication lines option had not worked? And that no other option could be considered?

stodge

Big_G_NorthWales said:

volcanopete said:

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

Noble aims but completely unattainable

I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.

Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.

Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.

Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).

Cyclefree

Yorkcity said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

There hardly is any on here .You will have to get out more and ask them.

Nick Palmer and BJO are supporters. J Wisemann too - assuming he/she is not a bot. Foxy supports him on foreign policy, I understand. SO has rejoined Labour. There are quite a few others who have said they will vote for Corbyn: Dura Ace, for one and Sandy Rentool. I had you down as Corbynite too but apologies if that is wrong.

Andrew

volcanopete said:

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and......

We tried that five years ago, when Assad gassed 700 of his own civilians. Syria joined the OPCW, committed to destroying all its own chemical stocks. It hasn't. There have been dozens of attacks since.

Yorkcity

Trump declares mission accomplished.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-trump/trump-mission-accomplished-on-perfectly-executed-syria-strike-idUSKBN1HL0TW

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/JohntNeal/status/985139656177090560

DM_Andy

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

Answered on the previous thread -Here's my take on the Corbyn position.

1. There was at least evidence of a chemical weapons attack on Douma on Saturday 7th April.
2. There is dispute on who caused it and the best people to make a determination is the OPCW.
3. There were two UN Security Council motions on it, the main difference being that Russia's version wanted the OPCW to take a position on who caused it and the US/UK/France position was they wanted OPCW to produce a fact-finding report and the UNSC to decide who was guilty.
3a. This is where I'm more hawkish than Corbyn, his position is that the OPCW would make a fair decision so is in line with the Russian position. I think that any OPCW report would be weighted with caveats and "balance of probabilities" to make the whole thing cloudy and an excuse to let everything slide.
4. Because neither UNSC draft resolution was adopted no progress is made.
5. Parliament should be recalled to discuss possible use of force.
5a. It isn't clear what the Labour whip would be in a Parliamentary recall, remember that 2015 (under Corbyn) was a free vote, 2013 (under Miliband) was a three line whip.
6. Because May has authorised the use of force and risked loss of life, without recalling Parliament that is the focus of Corbyn's statements this morning.

Yorkcity

Cyclefree said:

Yorkcity said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

There hardly is any on here .You will have to get out more and ask them.

Nick Palmer and BJO are supporters. J Wisemann too - assuming he/she is not a bot. Foxy supports him on foreign policy, I understand. SO has rejoined Labour. There are quite a few others who have said they will vote for Corbyn: Dura Ace, for one and Sandy Rentool. I had you down as Corbynite too but apologies if that is wrong.

No and old fashioned third way Blairite .

surby

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

volcanopete said:

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

Noble aims but completely unattainable

I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.

Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.

Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.

Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).

Russia [ and its proxy Syria ] are months away from [ almost ] total victory and the defeat of all jihadis. Only a pocket of the Turkish backed entity close to their border will remain.

The next fight will be between the Syrian government heavily backed by Russia and the Kurdish backed element which controls Raqqa and the North-East. Will the West intervene then ?

Barnesian

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

volcanopete said:

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

Noble aims but completely unattainable

I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.

Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.

Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.

Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).

If our aim is to stop the suffering we should just recognise that Assad has won this war and is the legitimate ruler of Syria. I don't see any UK PM shaking his hand any time soon (unless he has a big budget for arms purchases).

If our aim is regime change then we should recognise that the price is countless more deaths and suffering. We really should just butt out.

JosiasJessop

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

volcanopete said:

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

Noble aims but completely unattainable

I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.

Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.

Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.

Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).

Russia is not interested in a settled Syria. The government of a settled Syria could ask them to leave at any time - and especially a democratic Syria. A Syria that needs Russia is much more in their interests, especially from the machismo point of view.

There's also the issue of whether we are in a position to, or should, 'offer' a country parts of another country - we've done enough damage drawing lines on that region.

And finally there are the Kurds and others in that region. What about them?

Yorkcity

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/14/theresa-may-essential-argument-for-syria-strikes-nonsensical

Big_G_NorthWales

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

volcanopete said:

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

Noble aims but completely unattainable

I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.

Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.

Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.

Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).

I agree with you but the point about yesteday was Assad's use of chemical weapons.

If it opens the way to more dialogue as Trump demanded of all the nations in the area in his announcement at 2.00am this morning then all to the good

ydoethur

Yorkcity said:

Trump declares mission accomplished.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-trump/trump-mission-accomplished-on-perfectly-executed-syria-strike-idUSKBN1HL0TW

So did Dubya, infamously.

surby

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43756202

My company has had 18 fantastic months of sales. However, orders are gradually slipping. The tail-wind [ world wide growth ] is waning.

Big_G_NorthWales

surby said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

volcanopete said:

The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.

Noble aims but completely unattainable

I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.

Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.

Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.

Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).

Russia [ and its proxy Syria ] are months away from [ almost ] total victory and the defeat of all jihadis. Only a pocket of the Turkish backed entity close to their border will remain.

The next fight will be between the Syrian government heavily backed by Russia and the Kurdish backed element which controls Raqqa and the North-East. Will the West intervene then ?

Only if chemical wrapons are used

kle4

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

It's an interesting question really. He appears to believe, utterly and completely, in the necessity of any action being through the UN and always trying to get people talking, but is he able to contemplate anything should neither of those options being attainable?

People who would like to resolve things with a gunboat all the time will very quickly come up against the reality that that is not possible, and so have to contemplate other solutions (or simply do nothing), but if only UN action is permissible, what to do when someone with a veto does something, or shields others? What to do when people have been calling for talking for a long long time but no one wants to, particularly if they are winning? It's not enough to act as though some options are still on the table when they clearly are not, so is doing nothing preferable to the limited something that is available?

The answer might be yes, but I don't know that Corbyn has the flexibility to consider what if his preferred solution is not possible, other than do it again.

kle4

Yorkcity said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/14/theresa-may-essential-argument-for-syria-strikes-nonsensical

Lots of nonsense to go around on this issue, unfortunately.

surby

ydoethur said:

Yorkcity said:

Trump declares mission accomplished.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-trump/trump-mission-accomplished-on-perfectly-executed-syria-strike-idUSKBN1HL0TW

So did Dubya, infamously.

I think the Defense Department spokesperson navigated that well !

kle4

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JohntNeal/status/985139656177090560

I am interested to hear it. If its about UN approval, we've heard it all before, but whatever. If it is about the PM not consulting parliament then I would be very interested what rules were broken, other than some non-existent convention. And perhaps it is something else entirely.

Sandpit

Joke of the day, from an American perspective:

“I’m not saying that the strikes were an attempt to distract everyone from Trump’s domestic problems, but they did call it Operation Desert Stormy” - Bill Maher.

kle4

DavidL said:

Theresa May, best of a bad job and definitely better than the alternative. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

I can see the campaign to retain her for 2022 now:

"You want Boris and Corbyn to be the ones in charge? Really? Exactly.

Vote May - Shit that you can rely on at least"

ydoethur

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JohntNeal/status/985139656177090560

I am interested to hear it. If its about UN approval, we've heard it all before, but whatever. If it is about the PM not consulting parliament then I would be very interested what rules were broken, other than some non-existent convention. And perhaps it is something else entirely.

HAve just come from a major civic event. The MP was expected to be present and was not. I am wondering why. All we were told was that there were 'pressing reasons of state.' So obviously something to do with Syria but not sure what.

She is a whip. So maybe Theresa May is trying to rally the backbenchers?

AnneJGP

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

It's an interesting question really. He appears to believe, utterly and completely, in the necessity of any action being through the UN and always trying to get people talking, but is he able to contemplate anything should neither of those options being attainable?

People who would like to resolve things with a gunboat all the time will very quickly come up against the reality that that is not possible, and so have to contemplate other solutions (or simply do nothing), but if only UN action is permissible, what to do when someone with a veto does something, or shields others? What to do when people have been calling for talking for a long long time but no one wants to, particularly if they are winning? It's not enough to act as though some options are still on the table when they clearly are not, so is doing nothing preferable to the limited something that is available?

The answer might be yes, but I don't know that Corbyn has the flexibility to consider what if his preferred solution is not possible, other than do it again.

It's hard to gauge whether Mr Corbyn adopts the temporizing measure because he really believes it will work or because he's confident it won't work.

Good evening, everyone.

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

Joke of the day, from an American perspective:

“I’m not saying that the strikes were an attempt to distract everyone from Trump’s domestic problems, but they did call it Operation Desert Stormy” - Bill Maher.

From a cricketing perspective the first proper day of the Championship has seen wickets falling faster than Stormy Daniels' knickers.

It is quite possible that there will be three complete innings today at Canterbury and Northants, Lancashire and Warwickshire haven't exactly covered themselves in glory either.

FrancisUrquhart

US has 'blatant disregard' for law, says Corbyn

I "condemn in the strongest possible terms" the military action in Syria.

"The US panders to the terrorists and the current situation is destructive," he said.

"The US and its allies continue to demonstrate blatant disregard for international law."

He said it was "shameful that the US constitution was cited as a reason to launch military action.

"It's interesting what the UK and France will think when they realise they have broken international law while citing the US constitution."

Oh no wait, it wasn't Jezza, it was the Vasily Nebenzya the Russian UN envoy. Sorry, it is hard to tell the statements apart.

Yorkcity

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JohntNeal/status/985139656177090560

I am interested to hear it. If its about UN approval, we've heard it all before, but whatever. If it is about the PM not consulting parliament then I would be very interested what rules were broken, other than some non-existent convention. And perhaps it is something else entirely.

HAve just come from a major civic event. The MP was expected to be present and was not. I am wondering why. All we were told was that there were 'pressing reasons of state.' So obviously something to do with Syria but not sure what.

She is a whip. So maybe Theresa May is trying to rally the backbenchers?

Hard to see May having a problem , with the action taken place thus far.

kle4

FrancisUrquhart said:

US has 'blatant disregard' for law, says Corbyn

I "condemn in the strongest possible terms" the military action in Syria.

"The US panders to the terrorists and the current situation is destructive," he said.

"The US and its allies continue to demonstrate blatant disregard for international law."

He said it was "shameful that the US constitution was cited as a reason to launch military action.

"It's interesting what the UK and France will think when they realise they have broken international law while citing the US constitution."

Oh no wait, it wasn't Jezza, it was the Vasily Nebenzya the Russian UN envoy. Sorry, it is hard to tell the statements apart.

Well played - until you got to the final quoted paragraph, I really did think it might have been Corbyn, I was just confused as to why he was suddenly taking a much stronger tone on the illegality and the US than I would have expected, given previous remarks.

Sandpit

Yorkcity said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JohntNeal/status/985139656177090560

I am interested to hear it. If its about UN approval, we've heard it all before, but whatever. If it is about the PM not consulting parliament then I would be very interested what rules were broken, other than some non-existent convention. And perhaps it is something else entirely.

HAve just come from a major civic event. The MP was expected to be present and was not. I am wondering why. All we were told was that there were 'pressing reasons of state.' So obviously something to do with Syria but not sure what.

She is a whip. So maybe Theresa May is trying to rally the backbenchers?

Hard to see May having a problem , with the action taken place thus far.

What is it they say about it being easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Can’t see a lot of Tory MPs willing to stand behind Corbyn on this one.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

F1: interesting little comment in the linked article, suggesting that the Mercedes is struggling to turn tyres on in the cold:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43766081

If so, Red Bull might just fancy their chances of a podium finish.

jonny83

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

It's an interesting question really. He appears to believe, utterly and completely, in the necessity of any action being through the UN and always trying to get people talking, but is he able to contemplate anything should neither of those options being attainable?

People who would like to resolve things with a gunboat all the time will very quickly come up against the reality that that is not possible, and so have to contemplate other solutions (or simply do nothing), but if only UN action is permissible, what to do when someone with a veto does something, or shields others? What to do when people have been calling for talking for a long long time but no one wants to, particularly if they are winning? It's not enough to act as though some options are still on the table when they clearly are not, so is doing nothing preferable to the limited something that is available?

The answer might be yes, but I don't know that Corbyn has the flexibility to consider what if his preferred solution is not possible, other than do it again.

It's hard to gauge whether Mr Corbyn adopts the temporizing measure because he really believes it will work or because he's confident it won't work.

Good evening, everyone.

He knows it won't work, just like his calls for sending a sample of the Novichok to Russia to see if it's theirs.

His political beliefs/twisted moral stances are dangerous and would make this country a lot less safer.

AramintaMoonbeamQC

stodge said:

The small matter of the Grand National coming up in a couple of hours.

I've had a few pounds on RAZ DE MAREE at 33s and pleased to see some support into 20s but that means nothing to the horse.

Unfortunately, the greedy bookmakers are frantically shortening up all the fancied horses to gouge as much as they can from the "once-a-year" punters. It's appalling but I'll be told it's "the market". This happens further as the off-course firms shovel money on to the track and force the on-course firms to shorten again so the SP is even shorter still.

Most firms seem to be paying 5 places which is something - Paddy are going six places but they are often shorter odds than the other firms so RAZ DE MAREE is 25s with Coral (five places) and only 20s with Paddy (six places).

Got a few quid on this, and Rags to Riches.

Roger

Yorkcity said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JohntNeal/status/985139656177090560

I am interested to hear it. If its about UN approval, we've heard it all before, but whatever. If it is about the PM not consulting parliament then I would be very interested what rules were broken, other than some non-existent convention. And perhaps it is something else entirely.

HAve just come from a major civic event. The MP was expected to be present and was not. I am wondering why. All we were told was that there were 'pressing reasons of state.' So obviously something to do with Syria but not sure what.

She is a whip. So maybe Theresa May is trying to rally the backbenchers?

Hard to see May having a problem , with the action taken place thus far.

Don't bet on it. There are plenty of MPs who find ignoring parliament when bombing a third country quite a serious matter.

Morris_Dancer

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

F1: interesting little comment in the linked article, suggesting that the Mercedes is struggling to turn tyres on in the cold:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43766081

If so, Red Bull might just fancy their chances of a podium finish.

I said that about Mercedes and the tyres this morning!

Tomorrow is going to be 10° hotter than today was though, and I think their cars are better set up for those warmer conditions.

kle4

Roger said:

Yorkcity said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JohntNeal/status/985139656177090560

I am interested to hear it. If its about UN approval, we've heard it all before, but whatever. If it is about the PM not consulting parliament then I would be very interested what rules were broken, other than some non-existent convention. And perhaps it is something else entirely.

HAve just come from a major civic event. The MP was expected to be present and was not. I am wondering why. All we were told was that there were 'pressing reasons of state.' So obviously something to do with Syria but not sure what.

She is a whip. So maybe Theresa May is trying to rally the backbenchers?

Hard to see May having a problem , with the action taken place thus far.

Don't bet on it. There are plenty of MPs who find ignoring parliament when bombing a third country quite a serious matter.

Nothing wrong with them being mad about it- but there's nothing improper about doing so, so it cannot be that serious, else there would be a rule that they cannot be ignored.

DM_Andy

Thought I would look to see if any of the Labour MPs you would expect to back action have been tweeting, but most of them are on radio silence.

John Woodcock is the closest to support and in a series of tweets said:

"It was right that the UK joined our allies in action to degrade Assad’s chemical weapon capability in Syria - we must act together to remove the threat of these dreadful weapons that indiscriminately slaughter civilians. The prime minister must explain to parliament why she believed it was not appropriate to put this to vote in advance but that should not obscure focus on the two central groups of questions: 1) On the military action itself: is it effective to degrade and deter chemical weapon use; have we taken sufficient steps to avoid civilian casualties; are we sufficiently managing the risk of escalation with Russia? 2) Now the UK, France and the US has rightly shown there is a will for concerted action militarily, what wider humanitarian action will we countenance to alleviate the terrible ongoing suffering in the region?"

Alison McGovern:

"This *must* be part of a comprehensive strategy to save civilian life, help the victims of the chemical attacks, and assist those that Assad has besieged. We have arguably the best aid capacity in the world. Time to use it."

Ben Bradshaw:

"I welcome the limited & targeted international action in response to Assad’s chemical weapons’ crimes. It’s five years late. But May should have sought Commons’ approval and still should, retrospectively."

Caroline Flint:

"What I said on #bbcaq last night still stands. The PM will have to answer these questions when she comes before Parliament."

Benn, Angela Smith, Umunna, Jarvis, Harman have all been tweeting but nothing about Syria. Angela Eagle, Field, Kendall, Creasy, Watson and Cooper haven't tweeted at all.

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

kle4

DM_Andy said:

Thought I would look to see if any of the Labour MPs you would expect to back action have been tweeting, but most of them are on radio silence.

John Woodcock is the closest to support and in a series of tweets said:
"It was right that the UK joined our allies in action to degrade Assad’s chemical weapon capability in Syria - we must act together to remove the threat of these dreadful weapons that indiscriminately slaughter civilians. The prime minister must explain to parliament why she believed it was not appropriate to put this to vote in advance but that should not obscure focus on the two central groups of questions: 1) On the military action itself: is it effective to degrade and deter chemical weapon use; have we taken sufficient steps to avoid civilian casualties; are we sufficiently managing the risk of escalation with Russia? 2) Now the UK, France and the US has rightly shown there is a will for concerted action militarily, what wider humanitarian action will we countenance to alleviate the terrible ongoing suffering in the region?"

Alison McGovern:
"This *must* be part of a comprehensive strategy to save civilian life, help the victims of the chemical attacks, and assist those that Assad has besieged. We have arguably the best aid capacity in the world. Time to use it."

Ben Bradshaw:
"I welcome the limited & targeted international action in response to Assad’s chemical weapons’ crimes. It’s five years late. But May should have sought Commons’ approval and still should, retrospectively."

Caroline Flint:
"What I said on #bbcaq last night still stands. The PM will have to answer these questions when she comes before Parliament."

Benn, Angela Smith, Umunna, Jarvis, Harman have all been tweeting but nothing about Syria. Angela Eagle, Field, Kendall, Creasy, Watson and Cooper haven't tweeted at all.

What would they gain from it I suppose. It's a complicated issue few will likely feel hugely confident about, and without a parliamentary vote to come might as well keep their powder dry.

NickPalmer

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

It's an interesting question really. He appears to believe, utterly and completely, in the necessity of any action being through the UN and always trying to get people talking, but is he able to contemplate anything should neither of those options being attainable?

People who would like to resolve things with a gunboat all the time will very quickly come up against the reality that that is not possible, and so have to contemplate other solutions (or simply do nothing), but if only UN action is permissible, what to do when someone with a veto does something, or shields others? What to do when people have been calling for talking for a long long time but no one wants to, particularly if they are winning? It's not enough to act as though some options are still on the table when they clearly are not, so is doing nothing preferable to the limited something that is available?

The answer might be yes, but I don't know that Corbyn has the flexibility to consider what if his preferred solution is not possible, other than do it again.

I think that's a fair question. The answer in his case is clearly that it'd have to be very extreme to take action outside the UN framework (I remember exacly that argument over Iraq). We're all on a spectrum from "take armed action if anyone is rude to Britain" to "never take armed action even with the UN". I'm a little more militant than Jeremy - I'd consider armed action outside the UN. But I accept that we've been far too ready for it in the past.

My understanding is that Russia's proposal (which we in turn vetoed) was a UN investigation of the facts, to report back to the Security Council - what they vetoed was the investigation reaching conclusions itself on who was to blame. The problem in Russia's position is that they'd then obviously veto any adverse conclusions. But their position wasn't as crass as to oppose any invstigation.

The poll is worth noting for breaking the series of Conservative leads, incidentally. TM has had an optimal couple of weeks and JC has had very rough waters, but the underlying position remains close to a dead heat.

Sandpit

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

Or the Americans, or the Israelis.

You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.

DM_Andy

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

Or the Americans, or the Israelis.

You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.

I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.

kle4

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

Or the Americans, or the Israelis.

You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.

I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.

I imagine you are correct, I find it hard to believe he would support military action in that situation. I suppose a better question would be, in that situation, would be he be far quicker to offer a firm condemnation (without getting in to the sins of another side)?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, be fair. I was sleepy and trying to find some damn value, anywhere (might've gone for a Red Bull podium instead, but there we are).

Anyway, my apologies for not noticing.

On weather, I did check the forecast and the increase I saw wasn't quite that much. Maybe 7 degrees high (celsius).

Mr. D, it's not for me to explain why the Labour front bench opposes bombs used against chemical weapons factories in Syria and praises their past use against innocent British civilians.

Sandpit

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

Or the Americans, or the Israelis.

You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.

I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.

They haven’t used chemical weapons.

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. D, it's not for me to explain why the Labour front bench opposes bombs used against chemical weapons factories in Syria and praises their past use against innocent British civilians.

You mean past use against imperialist scum, surely?

JosiasJessop

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

It's an interesting question really. He appears to believe, utterly and completely, in the necessity of any action being through the UN and always trying to get people talking, but is he able to contemplate anything should neither of those options being attainable?

People who would like to resolve things with a gunboat all the time will very quickly come up against the reality that that is not possible, and so have to contemplate other solutions (or simply do nothing), but if only UN action is permissible, what to do when someone with a veto does something, or shields others? What to do when people have been calling for talking for a long long time but no one wants to, particularly if they are winning? It's not enough to act as though some options are still on the table when they clearly are not, so is doing nothing preferable to the limited something that is available?

The answer might be yes, but I don't know that Corbyn has the flexibility to consider what if his preferred solution is not possible, other than do it again.

I'm unsure he even truly believes in the UN. I think he knows darned well that in such matters the UN cannot reach a suitable agreement, and therefore it's easy to hide being that and sound reasonable.

The real test for him would be if the UN did agree with something he did not like.

DM_Andy

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

Or the Americans, or the Israelis.

You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.

I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.

They haven’t used chemical weapons.

That is quite a disputed statement, Certainly Israel has significant chemical weapon capability.

AnneJGP

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

stodge said:

The small matter of the Grand National coming up in a couple of hours.

I've had a few pounds on RAZ DE MAREE at 33s and pleased to see some support into 20s but that means nothing to the horse.

Unfortunately, the greedy bookmakers are frantically shortening up all the fancied horses to gouge as much as they can from the "once-a-year" punters. It's appalling but I'll be told it's "the market". This happens further as the off-course firms shovel money on to the track and force the on-course firms to shorten again so the SP is even shorter still.

Most firms seem to be paying 5 places which is something - Paddy are going six places but they are often shorter odds than the other firms so RAZ DE MAREE is 25s with Coral (five places) and only 20s with Paddy (six places).

Got a few quid on this, and Rags to Riches.

I was out of my usual orbit this morning, and was vaguely surprised to see a young lady outside a betting shop inviting people to have a punt on the Grand National. I suppose it was a surprise because they usually seem to operate behind closed doors & shuttered windows, so I'd got the impression they didn't go out looking for business, so to speak.

Roger

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

Or the Americans, or the Israelis.

You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.

In that case he's been very restrained. All who watched the news last night saw Israeli soldiers shooting dead young protesters behind a wire while settlers stood and cheered. i didn't hear any comment from Corbyn when one would have been most appropriate.

AlastairMeeks

NickPalmer said:

The poll is worth noting for breaking the series of Conservative leads, incidentally. TM has had an optimal couple of weeks and JC has had very rough waters, but the underlying position remains close to a dead heat.

Public opinion seems very settled on both party choice and Brexit right now.

kle4

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

It's an interesting question really. He appears to believe, utterly and completely, in the necessity of any action being through the UN and always trying to get people talking, but is he able to contemplate anything should neither of those options being attainable?

People who would like to resolve things with a gunboat all the time will very quickly come up against the reality that that is not possible, and so have to contemplate other solutions (or simply do nothing), but if only UN action is permissible, what to do when someone with a veto does something, or shields others? What to do when people have been calling for talking for a long long time but no one wants to, particularly if they are winning? It's not enough to act as though some options are still on the table when they clearly are not, so is doing nothing preferable to the limited something that is available?

The answer might be yes, but I don't know that Corbyn has the flexibility to consider what if his preferred solution is not possible, other than do it again.

I'm unsure he even truly believes in the UN. I think he knows darned well that in such matters the UN cannot reach a suitable agreement, and therefore it's easy to hide being that and sound reasonable.

The real test for him would be if the UN did agree with something he did not like.

That must have happened at least once. Surely?

Andrew

AnneJGP said:

I was out of my usual orbit this morning, and was vaguely surprised to see a young lady outside a betting shop inviting people to have a punt on the Grand National. I suppose it was a surprise because they usually seem to operate behind closed doors & shuttered windows, so I'd got the impression they didn't go out looking for business, so to speak.

The shops aren't in the best of state these days. The internet has taken away so much of their business, and now the government are cutting down the maximum stake on the in-store slot machines.

ydoethur

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

Or the Americans, or the Israelis.

You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.

I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.

Wasn't he accused of laying a wreath in memory of the Munich attackers?

I also seem to recall he was also arrested for breach of the peace while protesting at the trial of the Brighton Bomber.

Neither of them meets your criteria of saying he supports bombing but if true (I don't have the information to hand) they are both rather suggestive.

TheScreamingEagles

The Dutchman at 20/1, Thunder & Roses at 33/1, and Virgilio and Perfect Candidate at 50/1 are my bets on the Grand National

ydoethur

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

Or the Americans, or the Israelis.

You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.

I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.

They haven’t used chemical weapons.

That is quite a disputed statement, Certainly Israel has significant chemical weapon capability.

When have they used them, though?

We have BCW capability as do the US, as do France. But if we don't use it we're not breaking any treaties.

(Sometimes even when we do use them we're technically not breaking rules - the US using Agent Orange, us using white phosphorous in the Falklands. That says something about the inadequacy of the rules.)

JosiasJessop

Okay, so let's go back to Gulf War 1. There, we had the invasion of a sovereign country by another, and the UNSC passed a series of resolutions - with only China abstaining on the important ones.

You would therefore think he might just be in favour, however reluctantly.

Now, this is from Reddit, so its veracity might be in doubt. But here goes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/3jmadr/are_the_corbyn_supporters_aware_of_his_position/

So even when the UNSC are agreed, he's against. He always seems to be against.

ydoethur

JosiasJessop said:

Okay, so let's go back to Gulf War 1. There, we had the invasion of a sovereign country by another, and the UNSC passed a series of resolutions - with only China abstaining on the important ones.

You would therefore think he might just be in favour, however reluctantly.

Now, this is from Reddit, so its veracity might be in doubt. But here goes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/3jmadr/are_the_corbyn_supporters_aware_of_his_position/

So even when the UNSC are agreed, he's against. He always seems to be against.

I think the only military action by the west he has ever supported in advance was East Timor.

kle4

JosiasJessop said:

Okay, so let's go back to Gulf War 1. There, we had the invasion of a sovereign country by another, and the UNSC passed a series of resolutions - with only China abstaining on the important ones.

You would therefore think he might just be in favour, however reluctantly.

Now, this is from Reddit, so its veracity might be in doubt. But here goes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/3jmadr/are_the_corbyn_supporters_aware_of_his_position/

So even when the UNSC are agreed, he's against. He always seems to be against.

https://www.parliament.uk/edm/1990-91/147

That this House is deeply concerned that the United Nations Security Council is backing a resolution authorising the use of force to drive Iraq from Kuwait; does not believe that the conditions under Chapter 7, Articles 42-43 allowing for direct intervention have been fulfilled; is appalled that Her Majesty's Government, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, have backed a resolution which is tantamount to a declaration of war with Iraq; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government and, in particular, the new Prime Minister to continue to take part in negotiations in good faith for a peaceful resolution of the Gulf crisis.

Amended

leave out from 'continue' to end and add 'to support sanctions until such time as Iraq withdraws from Kuwait.'.

ydoethur

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Okay, so let's go back to Gulf War 1. There, we had the invasion of a sovereign country by another, and the UNSC passed a series of resolutions - with only China abstaining on the important ones.

You would therefore think he might just be in favour, however reluctantly.

Now, this is from Reddit, so its veracity might be in doubt. But here goes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/3jmadr/are_the_corbyn_supporters_aware_of_his_position/

So even when the UNSC are agreed, he's against. He always seems to be against.

https://www.parliament.uk/edm/1990-91/147

That this House is deeply concerned that the United Nations Security Council is backing a resolution authorising the use of force to drive Iraq from Kuwait; does not believe that the conditions under Chapter 7, Articles 42-43 allowing for direct intervention have been fulfilled; is appalled that Her Majesty's Government, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, have backed a resolution which is tantamount to a declaration of war with Iraq; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government and, in particular, the new Prime Minister to continue to take part in negotiations in good faith for a peaceful resolution of the Gulf crisis.

Amended

leave out from 'continue' to end and add 'to support sanctions until such time as Iraq withdraws from Kuwait.'.

In fairness, as a backbencher he signed practically every early day motion. He signed 686 in 2012. One was on Aberystwyth Farmers' Market and another criticised the Iranian government (as well as one supporting it).

So it's not surprising he signed this one.

kle4

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Okay, so let's go back to Gulf War 1. There, we had the invasion of a sovereign country by another, and the UNSC passed a series of resolutions - with only China abstaining on the important ones.

You would therefore think he might just be in favour, however reluctantly.

Now, this is from Reddit, so its veracity might be in doubt. But here goes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/3jmadr/are_the_corbyn_supporters_aware_of_his_position/

So even when the UNSC are agreed, he's against. He always seems to be against.

https://www.parliament.uk/edm/1990-91/147

That this House is deeply concerned that the United Nations Security Council is backing a resolution authorising the use of force to drive Iraq from Kuwait; does not believe that the conditions under Chapter 7, Articles 42-43 allowing for direct intervention have been fulfilled; is appalled that Her Majesty's Government, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, have backed a resolution which is tantamount to a declaration of war with Iraq; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government and, in particular, the new Prime Minister to continue to take part in negotiations in good faith for a peaceful resolution of the Gulf crisis.

Amended

leave out from 'continue' to end and add 'to support sanctions until such time as Iraq withdraws from Kuwait.'.

In fairness, as a backbencher he signed practically every early day motion. He signed 686 in 2012. One was on Aberystwyth Farmers' Market and another criticised the Iranian government (as well as one supporting it).

So it's not surprising he signed this one.

You are probably right - and it is just an EDM after all. I cannot be bothered to look through the rest of the claims.

Perhaps UN support is always needed, but is not enough on its own?

Big_G_NorthWales

Closed Beachers Brook - hope the horses are ok

AramintaMoonbeamQC

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Closed Beachers Brook - hope the horses are ok

Screens up - looks bad.

ydoethur

That was close! Thought it was going to be easy and then a photo!

Even if he didn't win, didn't Pleasant Company jump beautifully? Never touched a twig.

Sandpit

Photo finish!

DM_Andy

oooh, another stride and Pleasant Company would have had that.

AramintaMoonbeamQC

Tiger Roll has it.

Elliot

This is just more evidence the Tories need a new leader before the election. As I have said before, they should put them in a year before the election.

rcs1000

surby said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43756202

My company has had 18 fantastic months of sales. However, orders are gradually slipping. The tail-wind [ world wide growth ] is waning.

Composite PMI surveys have shown pretty sharp slowdowns in the last two months: the EU has gone from 59 to 55, the US has gone from 56 to 54, and the UK from 56 to 52.

Now, it's too early to say whether this is just a blip, or whether the global expansion is coming to an end. To my mind, the most concerning of these in the US, because the tax bill should be expansionary.

Edit to add: when I typed "EU", I actually meant "EZ". Eurozone PMIs have moved down. As far as I am aware, there is no EU PMI.

Edit to add (2): also worth noting China's PMI has come in too. It's down at 51.

FrancisUrquhart

Meanwhile, Paxman bellowed pointlessly and Josh Widdicombe barely uttered a word. Rarely has a show appeared more tired, more flabby, more blunted by its own complacency. The time has come to put it out of its misery. To go quietly would surely be the modest thing to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/apr/14/is-it-time-to-put-have-i-got-news-for-you-out-of-its-misery

Add Newnsight and Question Time to the list.

Sandpit

FrancisUrquhart said:

Meanwhile, Paxman bellowed pointlessly and Josh Widdicombe barely uttered a word. Rarely has a show appeared more tired, more flabby, more blunted by its own complacency. The time has come to put it out of its misery. To go quietly would surely be the modest thing to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/apr/14/is-it-time-to-put-have-i-got-news-for-you-out-of-its-misery

Add Newnsight and Question Time to the list.

Paxman was crap. The lovely Victoria Coren was much better last night.

FrancisUrquhart

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Meanwhile, Paxman bellowed pointlessly and Josh Widdicombe barely uttered a word. Rarely has a show appeared more tired, more flabby, more blunted by its own complacency. The time has come to put it out of its misery. To go quietly would surely be the modest thing to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/apr/14/is-it-time-to-put-have-i-got-news-for-you-out-of-its-misery

Add Newnsight and Question Time to the list.

Paxman was crap. The lovely Victoria Coren was much better last night.

I gave up watching it years ago. It never had the same zing for me as when old coke head was the permanent presenter.

felix

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

It's an interesting question really. He appears to believe, utterly and completely, in the necessity of any action being through the UN and always trying to get people talking, but is he able to contemplate anything should neither of those options being attainable?

People who would like to resolve things with a gunboat all the time will very quickly come up against the reality that that is not possible, and so have to contemplate other solutions (or simply do nothing), but if only UN action is permissible, what to do when someone with a veto does something, or shields others? What to do when people have been calling for talking for a long long time but no one wants to, particularly if they are winning? It's not enough to act as though some options are still on the table when they clearly are not, so is doing nothing preferable to the limited something that is available?

The answer might be yes, but I don't know that Corbyn has the flexibility to consider what if his preferred solution is not possible, other than do it again.

It's hard to gauge whether Mr Corbyn adopts the temporizing measure because he really believes it will work or because he's confident it won't work.

Good evening, everyone.

Not hard to gauge at all. No siree!

kle4

I'm out of the habit of watching HIGNFY. It was always inconsistent in quality with rotating presenters, but most of the time I thought it was still very good, but for some reason I just stopped watching regularly, then I forgot to watch at all.

rottenborough

The Syria conspiracy people are now losing their last threads of contact with reality:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/985193374989869058

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/985195853752258560

felix

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

lol - awkward!

FrancisUrquhart

rottenborough said:

The Syria conspiracy people are now losing their last threads of contact with reality:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/985193374989869058

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/985195853752258560

He also tweeted this...tin foil hat stuff.

https://twitter.com/thom_brooks/status/985149679980642304

felix

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army

Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?

Or the Americans, or the Israelis.

You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.

I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.

Maybe you should find a quote where he has specifically condemned Hama or Hezbollah for their attacks on Israel

MarqueeMark

kle4 said:

I'm out of the habit of watching HIGNFY. It was always inconsistent in quality with rotating presenters, but most of the time I thought it was still very good, but for some reason I just stopped watching regularly, then I forgot to watch at all.

In its prime, HIGNFY gave us Brian Blessed and Alan Duncan.....

Morris_Dancer

F1: related tweets connected to this. Worth a read.
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/985179069787582465

DM_Andy

kle4 said:

I'm out of the habit of watching HIGNFY. It was always inconsistent in quality with rotating presenters, but most of the time I thought it was still very good, but for some reason I just stopped watching regularly, then I forgot to watch at all.

Me too, I was vaguely surprised it was still on. But the audience ratings are still quite solid. In its first years on BBC One it was around the 20th most popular show on that channel and it's still getting that position regularly.

Barnesian

MarqueeMark said:

kle4 said:

I'm out of the habit of watching HIGNFY. It was always inconsistent in quality with rotating presenters, but most of the time I thought it was still very good, but for some reason I just stopped watching regularly, then I forgot to watch at all.

In its prime, HIGNFY gave us Brian Blessed and Alan Duncan.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spS71LKcA3Y

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/mwood2001/status/985199118036463617

Morris_Dancer

F1: as an aside, Verstappen is 26 (with boost) and Ricciardo 31 (with boost) for the win. If you go down that route, I'd advocate hedging given recent reliability and pit stop woes.

Of course, if they do win then my Hamilton tip will fail.

FrancisUrquhart

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/mwood2001/status/985199118036463617

And the nerve agent attack wasn't the Russians, and the Syrian chemical attack wasn't Assad, it was the white helmets funded by the UK....InfoWars Leftist Edition.