politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May now level-pegging with “Don’t know” as to who woul
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But the differences are not huge.
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?
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.
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).
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?
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).
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.
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 ?
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.
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?
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
My company has had 18 fantastic months of sales. However, orders are gradually slipping. The tail-wind [ world wide growth ] is waning.
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 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.
"You want Boris and Corbyn to be the ones in charge? Really? Exactly.
Vote May - Shit that you can rely on at least"
She is a whip. So maybe Theresa May is trying to rally the backbenchers?
Good evening, everyone.
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.
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.
Can’t see a lot of Tory MPs willing to stand behind Corbyn on this one.
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.
His political beliefs/twisted moral stances are dangerous and would make this country a lot less safer.
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
Tomorrow is going to be 10° hotter than today was though, and I think their cars are better set up for those warmer conditions.
John Woodcock is the closest to support and in a series of tweets said: Alison McGovern: Ben Bradshaw: Caroline Flint: 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.
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.
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.
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.
The real test for him would be if the UN did agree with something he did not like.
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.
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.)
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.
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.'.
So it's not surprising he signed this one.
Perhaps UN support is always needed, but is not enough on its own?
Even if he didn't win, didn't Pleasant Company jump beautifully? Never touched a twig.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/985193374989869058
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/985195853752258560
https://twitter.com/thom_brooks/status/985149679980642304
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/985179069787582465
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spS71LKcA3Y
Of course, if they do win then my Hamilton tip will fail.