politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Labour’s NEC deciding the leadership election rules Long-

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Labour’s NEC deciding the leadership election rules Long-Bailey has yet to declare

Over the weekend we have seen a fair bit of the prospective successors to Corbyn as LAB leader of which five have already declared. These are:

Read the full story here

Wulfrun_Phil

1st?

Wulfrun_Phil

2nd? FPT

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

matt said:

An excellent Times Red Box article from Lisa Nandy this morning indicating the depth of her thinking and ability to think differently.

...but she is still a lightweight. Starmer is the only serious candidate that Labour have to offer at the moment who stands a chance, which is probably why they will not elect him.

I’m not sure that Starmer has the X factor to be leader.

He is clever, whereas Corbyn is thick. This may prove unpopular with Boris fanbois on here, but the recent GE was not "won" by their man, it was lost comprehensively by Corbyn, who was about as hopeless as it is possible to be. A half decent Labour leader would have exposed Johnson for what he is. Blair would have torn him to pieces. Starmer is probably no Blair, but he has his intelligence and that is a start to bring British politics back to a sensible place, if that is at all possible.

For once I agree with you Nigel.

What is also impressive about Starmer is that he has run the gauntlet of the last 4 years very effectively, such that without in any way being in the Corbyn camp he has cleverly kept his head down to emerge at the right time as a front runner who the Momentum cultists are going to find it very difficult to attack based on his record under Corbyn. As such he has the potential to be a unifying figure in a party all but destroyed by internal division.

He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.

You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.

Cyclefree

Morning.

Why is someone with so little history of Labour activism and no other accomplishments to her name seen as a likely leader? I just don’t see what she has to offer or why Corbyn and McDonnell rate her.

houndtang

Wonder if there could be a switcheroo with Rayner standing instead?

isam

houndtang said:

Wonder if there could be a switcheroo with Rayner standing instead?

That would salvage my hideous betting book

isam

Cyclefree said:

Morning.

Why is someone with so little history of Labour activism and no other accomplishments to her name seen as a likely leader? I just don’t see what she has to offer or why Corbyn and McDonnell rate her.

Sock puppet maybe?

houndtang

Cyclefree said:

Morning.

Why is someone with so little history of Labour activism and no other accomplishments to her name seen as a likely leader? I just don’t see what she has to offer or why Corbyn and McDonnell rate her.

She's hard left. That seems to be about it.

Slackbladder

Out of interest, Why does labour have the leadership elections at the same time as the deputy leaders.

Seems silly, as some of the leadership contenders would be pretty good deputies.

For example, Starmer as leader, but Phillips as Deputy would be pretty good as a team I would think.

Holding them at the same time, means less choice and combinations.

SouthamObserver

The nomination requirements are clear and cannot be changed. The timetable can be fiddled around with but not changed dramatically. The only really big thing that can happen is Corbyn changing his mind about standing down or delaying it. That will lead to a challenge.

SouthamObserver

Cyclefree said:

Morning.

Why is someone with so little history of Labour activism and no other accomplishments to her name seen as a likely leader? I just don’t see what she has to offer or why Corbyn and McDonnell rate her.

They do not rate her. If they did her candidacy would already have been confirmed. But who else is there to keep the far-left flame burning? Pidcock is no longer available, Burgon is an imbecile, Abbott too old. Rayner is her own woman, Lavery his own man. It is clear, though, that Long-Bailey is nowhere near the finished article. It would be extraordinary if she now won, in my view. And if she did I cannot see her lasting.

eek

Slackbladder said:

Out of interest, Why does labour have the leadership elections at the same time as the deputy leaders.

Seems silly, as some of the leadership contenders would be pretty good deputies.

For example, Starmer as leader, but Phillips as Deputy would be pretty good as a team I would think.

Holding them at the same time, means less choice and combinations.

Two reasons - 1 is cost, the other is simply because both jobs are currently vacant.

Slackbladder

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Morning.

Why is someone with so little history of Labour activism and no other accomplishments to her name seen as a likely leader? I just don’t see what she has to offer or why Corbyn and McDonnell rate her.

They do not rate her. If they did her candidacy would already have been confirmed. But who else is there to keep the far-left flame burning? Pidcock is no longer available, Burgon is an imbecile, Abbott too old. Rayner is her own woman, Lavery his own man. It is clear, though, that Long-Bailey is nowhere near the finished article. It would be extraordinary if she now won, in my view. And if she did I cannot see her lasting.

We would also be saying the same about Piddock if she was available, which shows how rubbish the Corbynite Clan is and was.

Yet they still control the labour party in terms of the NEC, and membership backing (possibly).

OldKingCole

Slackbladder said:

Out of interest, Why does labour have the leadership elections at the same time as the deputy leaders.

Seems silly, as some of the leadership contenders would be pretty good deputies.

For example, Starmer as leader, but Phillips as Deputy would be pretty good as a team I would think.

Holding them at the same time, means less choice and combinations.

It could be a little confusing, but is it possible for somebody to stand as both?

SouthamObserver

Wulfrun_Phil said:

2nd? FPT

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

matt said:

An excellent Times Red Box article from Lisa Nandy this morning indicating the depth of her thinking and ability to think differently.

...but she is still a lightweight. Starmer is the only serious candidate that Labour have to offer at the moment who stands a chance, which is probably why they will not elect him.

I’m not sure that Starmer has the X factor to be leader.

He is clever, whereas Corbyn is thick. This may prove unpopular with Boris fanbois on here, but the recent GE was not "won" by their man, it was lost comprehensively by Corbyn, who was about as hopeless as it is possible to be. A half decent Labour leader would have exposed Johnson for what he is. Blair would have torn him to pieces. Starmer is probably no Blair, but he has his intelligence and that is a start to bring British politics back to a sensible place, if that is at all possible.

For once I agree with you Nigel.

What is also impressive about Starmer is that he has run the gauntlet of the last 4 years very effectively, such that without in any way being in the Corbyn camp he has cleverly kept his head down to emerge at the right time as a front runner who the Momentum cultists are going to find it very difficult to attack based on his record under Corbyn. As such he has the potential to be a unifying figure in a party all but destroyed by internal division.

He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.

You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.

In this country someone with Starmer's background does not achieve what he has achieved without being extremely smart and extremely ambitious. I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious, but I have no doubts he would use all wings inside Labour to create a front bench that actually provides a decent opposition: he will be able to take advantage of government slips, will hold Johnson to account on those occasions when the PM cannot runaway and will not scare potential LibDem voters. All of which would be a huge advance on where Labour is now. Most important of all, though, I think he will be able to formulate a response to the EHRC report on anti-Semitism that involves unconditional acceptance, deep repentance and fulsome apology. I cannot see Long-Bailey being able to do any of these things.

houndtang

OldKingCole said:

Slackbladder said:

Out of interest, Why does labour have the leadership elections at the same time as the deputy leaders.

Seems silly, as some of the leadership contenders would be pretty good deputies.

For example, Starmer as leader, but Phillips as Deputy would be pretty good as a team I would think.

Holding them at the same time, means less choice and combinations.

It could be a little confusing, but is it possible for somebody to stand as both?

Don't know if rules have since changed but Beckett and Prescott stood in both in 1994. So did Hattersley in 83.

SouthamObserver

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Morning.

Why is someone with so little history of Labour activism and no other accomplishments to her name seen as a likely leader? I just don’t see what she has to offer or why Corbyn and McDonnell rate her.

They do not rate her. If they did her candidacy would already have been confirmed. But who else is there to keep the far-left flame burning? Pidcock is no longer available, Burgon is an imbecile, Abbott too old. Rayner is her own woman, Lavery his own man. It is clear, though, that Long-Bailey is nowhere near the finished article. It would be extraordinary if she now won, in my view. And if she did I cannot see her lasting.

We would also be saying the same about Piddock if she was available, which shows how rubbish the Corbynite Clan is and was.

Yet they still control the labour party in terms of the NEC, and membership backing (possibly).

My sense is that things are beginning to slip away from them. The NEC meeting today will, in part, be an exercise in trying to shore up power in anticipation of things not being as conducive for them as they have been for the last four years.

SouthamObserver

Made me laugh anyway ...
https://twitter.com/Skiplols/status/1214101409186091013

isam

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

2nd? FPT

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

matt said:

An excellent Times Red Box article from Lisa Nandy this morning indicating the depth of her thinking and ability to think differently.

...but she is still a lightweight. Starmer is the only serious candidate that Labour have to offer at the moment who stands a chance, which is probably why they will not elect him.

I’m not sure that Starmer has the X factor to be leader.

For once I agree with you Nigel.

What is also impressive about Starmer is that he has run the gauntlet of the last 4 years very effectively, such that without in any way being in the Corbyn camp he has cleverly kept his head down to emerge at the right time as a front runner who the Momentum cultists are going to find it very difficult to attack based on his record under Corbyn. As such he has the potential to be a unifying figure in a party all but destroyed by internal division.

He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.

You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.

In this country someone with Starmer's background does not achieve what he has achieved without being extremely smart and extremely ambitious. I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious, but I have no doubts he would use all wings inside Labour to create a front bench that actually provides a decent opposition: he will be able to take advantage of government slips, will hold Johnson to account on those occasions when the PM cannot runaway and will not scare potential LibDem voters. All of which would be a huge advance on where Labour is now. Most important of all, though, I think he will be able to formulate a response to the EHRC report on anti-Semitism that involves unconditional acceptance, deep repentance and fulsome apology. I cannot see Long-Bailey being able to do any of these things.

He did go to a fee paying school it seems, albeit he passed the 11 plus to get there... that helps

RandallFlagg

SouthamObserver said:

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Morning.

Why is someone with so little history of Labour activism and no other accomplishments to her name seen as a likely leader? I just don’t see what she has to offer or why Corbyn and McDonnell rate her.

They do not rate her. If they did her candidacy would already have been confirmed. But who else is there to keep the far-left flame burning? Pidcock is no longer available, Burgon is an imbecile, Abbott too old. Rayner is her own woman, Lavery his own man. It is clear, though, that Long-Bailey is nowhere near the finished article. It would be extraordinary if she now won, in my view. And if she did I cannot see her lasting.

We would also be saying the same about Piddock if she was available, which shows how rubbish the Corbynite Clan is and was.

Yet they still control the labour party in terms of the NEC, and membership backing (possibly).

My sense is that things are beginning to slip away from them. The NEC meeting today will, in part, be an exercise in trying to shore up power in anticipation of things not being as conducive for them as they have been for the last four years.

They'd switch their support to Rayner if they had any sense. Half a loaf of bread is better than none. Even Clive Lewis seems a better option than RLB. But it seems they'd rather lose any influence they have over the leadership, as opposed to endorsing someone they can't control.

Wulfrun_Phil

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

2nd? FPT

For once I agree with you Nigel.

What is also impressive about Starmer is that he has run the gauntlet of the last 4 years very effectively, such that without in any way being in the Corbyn camp he has cleverly kept his head down to emerge at the right time as a front runner who the Momentum cultists are going to find it very difficult to attack based on his record under Corbyn. As such he has the potential to be a unifying figure in a party all but destroyed by internal division.

He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.

You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.

In this country someone with Starmer's background does not achieve what he has achieved without being extremely smart and extremely ambitious. I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious, but I have no doubts he would use all wings inside Labour to create a front bench that actually provides a decent opposition: he will be able to take advantage of government slips, will hold Johnson to account on those occasions when the PM cannot runaway and will not scare potential LibDem voters. All of which would be a huge advance on where Labour is now. Most important of all, though, I think he will be able to formulate a response to the EHRC report on anti-Semitism that involves unconditional acceptance, deep repentance and fulsome apology. I cannot see Long-Bailey being able to do any of these things.

"I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious"

Fair point. But John Smith was initially subject to exactly the same criticisms, yet on becoming leader showed those concerns to be ill founded and is now revered in the labour movement as a "what might have been" potential PM. And I think that after 6 years of Johnson the country could be yearning for someone who comes across as a bit wooden as they exude competence.

Casino_Royale

Happy New Year everyone. I’ve basically taken a two week break from pb.com.

Starmer feels like a good LOTO to me. He’ll probably be more of a Michael Howard type figure but he can do forensics and will hold Boris to account, and may well just be able to hold the Labour coalition together.

That’s the best that can be expected for them at the moment, IMHO.

Casino_Royale

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Morning.

Why is someone with so little history of Labour activism and no other accomplishments to her name seen as a likely leader? I just don’t see what she has to offer or why Corbyn and McDonnell rate her.

They do not rate her. If they did her candidacy would already have been confirmed. But who else is there to keep the far-left flame burning? Pidcock is no longer available, Burgon is an imbecile, Abbott too old. Rayner is her own woman, Lavery his own man. It is clear, though, that Long-Bailey is nowhere near the finished article. It would be extraordinary if she now won, in my view. And if she did I cannot see her lasting.

We would also be saying the same about Piddock if she was available, which shows how rubbish the Corbynite Clan is and was.

Yet they still control the labour party in terms of the NEC, and membership backing (possibly).

My sense is that things are beginning to slip away from them. The NEC meeting today will, in part, be an exercise in trying to shore up power in anticipation of things not being as conducive for them as they have been for the last four years.

They'd switch their support to Rayner if they had any sense. Half a loaf of bread is better than none. Even Clive Lewis seems a better option than RLB. But it seems they'd rather lose any influence they have over the leadership, as opposed to endorsing someone they can't control.

I’ve laid RLB down to zero this morning.

Whatever it is, she hasn’t got it. She’s just gingerly holding the conch that the Corbynites have passed her, and is trying to decide what to do with it.

I imagine she’s also discussing it (to an extent) with Angela Rayner, as they share a flat and have both been quiet recently.

Richard_Nabavi

Morning all. I hope you all had a good Xmas and New Year.

Of the announced and probable candidates, I think several could do a reasonably good job. Keir Starmer presents well and would be the best Labour leader since Blair, although admittedly that is quite a low bar given the poor to disastrous incumbents that followed Blair. Yes, Starmer might be a bit lawyerly and dull, but as @Wulfrun_Phil says that might not be too bad a thing. Lisa Nandy would probably also be a good choice; she might be a little more inspiring. Jess Phillips strikes me as a bit too maverick to be leader - she's perhaps more suited to being an independent voice in the party, with very much her own take on issues, than a leader whose role is partly to consolidate and shape party opinion. Emily Thornberry is quite articulate and I think could do the job, but I don't see that she has any particular advantages over some of the other candidates, and she'd have trouble getting away from her image as rather elitist and arrogant. RLB would be a disaster for the party. Clive Lewis is lightweight.

But we have to remember that we're not trying to assess who would make the best leader, but who the party members and affiliates will choose. That's a difficult assessment to make because the selectorate is complex: not just party members, but unions and affiliates as well. Certainly a complete break with Corbynism looks a bit unlikely, but based on previous contests the hustings and media events may make a big difference; I suspect many of those who will vote won't yet have a firm view.

Pro_Rata

SouthamObserver said:

The nomination requirements are clear and cannot be changed. The timetable can be fiddled around with but not changed dramatically. The only really big thing that can happen is Corbyn changing his mind about standing down or delaying it. That will lead to a challenge.

With the CLP or Union/Affiliate endorsementss now more central to the process, does the rulebook say anything to state how and when these should be determined, and would the NEC seek to plug any ambiguities or not? It would probably suit them just fine if half the CLPs didn't bother with any endorsements.

Cyclefree

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

2nd? FPT

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

matt said:

He is clever, whereas Corbyn is thick. This may prove unpopular with Boris fanbois on here, but the recent GE was not "won" by their man, it was lost comprehensively by Corbyn, who was about as hopeless as it is possible to be. A half decent Labour leader would have exposed Johnson for what he is. Blair would have torn him to pieces. Starmer is probably no Blair, but he has his intelligence and that is a start to bring British politics back to a sensible place, if that is at all possible.

For once I agree with you Nigel.

What is also impressive about Starmer is that he has run the gauntlet of the last 4 years very effectively, such that without in any way being in the Corbyn camp he has cleverly kept his head down to emerge at the right time as a front runner who the Momentum cultists are going to find it very difficult to attack based on his record under Corbyn. As such he has the potential to be a unifying figure in a party all but destroyed by internal division.

He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.

You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.

In this country someone with Starmer's background does not achieve what he has achieved without being extremely smart and extremely ambitious. I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious, but I have no doubts he would use all wings inside Labour to create a front bench that actually provides a decent opposition: he will be able to take advantage of government slips, will hold Johnson to account on those occasions when the PM cannot runaway and will not scare potential LibDem voters. All of which would be a huge advance on where Labour is now. Most important of all, though, I think he will be able to formulate a response to the EHRC report on anti-Semitism that involves unconditional acceptance, deep repentance and fulsome apology. I cannot see Long-Bailey being able to do any of these things.

All true. On anti-semitism, he will have to do more than apologise. He will need to expel and discipline people. That will upset some in the party. Does he have the balls to do this and face up to those who will not like such action? And he needs to get rid of people like Milne and Murray. They are part of the Corbynista project and need to go with Corbyn.

Casino_Royale

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Royale, welcome back.

I don't know all the candidates well enough to say if I entirely agree. Nandy might be better.

But of the options available there are definitely some much worse than Starmer.

OldKingCole

Casino_Royale said:

Happy New Year everyone. I’ve basically taken a two week break from pb.com.

Starmer feels like a good LOTO to me. He’ll probably be more of a Michael Howard type figure but he can do forensics and will hold Boris to account, and may well just be able to hold the Labour coalition together.

That’s the best that can be expected for them at the moment, IMHO.

I think one has to have some respect for Starmer. Having worked his way to a very senior professional position he decided, reasonably well on in life, to try and make a go of something different. he could easily be making a comfortable, expenses paid, living as a member of a few Boards, Commissions of Inquiry or similar.

TOPPING

fpt
Nandy on Pienaar was imo taken apart by Guto Harri when she had no response to the why are you still banging on about trades unions although if you are of the left then presumably this is music to your ears.

RandallFlagg

Rayner launching her deputy leadership campaign in Stockport, apparently. So, it looks like she definitely won't be involved in the leadership race, and that RLB is going to be the candidate of the left. Good news for Starmer.

Casino_Royale

On defence/security, the UK should really be spending closer to 3% of GDP on it rather than just scraping 2% with some jiggery pokey on pension contributions. That would allow several more destroyers/frigates needed (and the sailors/logistics/fuel to man them) a few more squadrons for the RAF, and a modern well equipped army of 100-110k which is actually capable of doing stuff with our allies, rather than just a emergency disaster relief/token force as we currently have. On top of that, MI5/6 and GCHQ could be upped to fight interstate espionage and cyber threats too.

The trouble is it would cost an extra £15bn a year, but that’s where we’re at if we want to guarantee regional/global security, and our safety and prosperity.

The idealistic pacifism of the post Cold War 1990s is long gone. Salami slicing a bit more off the armed forces every 5-6 years (which is the frequency with which we have budgetary crises, and has been going on for almost 30 years now) is no longer responsible or sustainable.

Richard_Nabavi

Also, how sure are we that there won't be bids from some MPs who aren't yet amongst those whose names are being bandied around? Stella Creasy, for example?

Casino_Royale

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, welcome back.

I don't know all the candidates well enough to say if I entirely agree. Nandy might be better.

But of the options available there are definitely some much worse than Starmer.

Nandy has done the most interesting thinking, but seems to also be charisma free. Has she worked on her oratory? Can she learn to light up a room? What’s her “story” ?

She needs to watch she doesn’t become this contest’s Liz Kendall.

Casino_Royale

Richard_Nabavi said:

Also, how sure are we that there won't be bids from some MPs who aren't yet amongst those whose names are being bandied around? Stella Creasy, for example?

I’m not, which is why I’ve backed a few long shots like her.

TOPPING

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

2nd? FPT

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

matt said:

An excellent Times Red Box article from Lisa Nandy this morning indicating the depth of her thinking and ability to think differently.

...but she is still a lightweight. Starmer is the only serious candidate that Labour have to offer at the moment who stands a chance, which is probably why they will not elect him.

I’m not sure that Starmer has the X factor to be leader.

For once I agree with you Nigel.

What is also impressive about Starmer is that he has run the gauntlet of the last 4 years very effectively, such that without in any way being in the Corbyn camp he has cleverly kept his head down to emerge at the right time as a front runner who the Momentum cultists are going to find it very difficult to attack based on his record under Corbyn. As such he has the potential to be a unifying figure in a party all but destroyed by internal division.

He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.

You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.

In this country someone with Starmer's background does not achieve what he has achieved without being extremely smart and extremely ambitious. I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious, but I have no doubts he would use all wings inside Labour to create a front bench that actually provides a decent opposition: he will be able to take advantage of government slips, will hold Johnson to account on those occasions when the PM cannot runaway and will not scare potential LibDem voters. All of which would be a huge advance on where Labour is now. Most important of all, though, I think he will be able to formulate a response to the EHRC report on anti-Semitism that involves unconditional acceptance, deep repentance and fulsome apology. I cannot see Long-Bailey being able to do any of these things.

He did go to a fee paying school it seems, albeit he passed the 11 plus to get there... that helps

Oh no! Fee paying school (but hold on, it wasn't until 1976), 11 plus, nurse mother, toolmaker father. So a solid working class lad. Well done him.

SouthamObserver

Richard_Nabavi said:

Also, how sure are we that there won't be bids from some MPs who aren't yet amongst those whose names are being bandied around? Stella Creasy, for example?

The nomination process will make it very tough for anyone.

Stella Creasey has just had a child and is on maternity leave, so I would not bet on her entering.

SouthamObserver

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

2nd? FPT

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

matt said:

He is clever, whereas Corbyn is thick. This may prove unpopular with Boris fanbois on here, but the recent GE was not "won" by their man, it was lost comprehensively by Corbyn, who was about as hopeless as it is possible to be. A half decent Labour leader would have exposed Johnson for what he is. Blair would have torn him to pieces. Starmer is probably no Blair, but he has his intelligence and that is a start to bring British politics back to a sensible place, if that is at all possible.

For once I agree with you Nigel.

What l division.

He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.

You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.

In this country someone with Starmer's background does not achieve what he has achieved without being extremely smart and extremely ambitious. I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious, but I have no doubts he would use all wings inside Labour to create a front bench that actually provides a decent opposition: he will be able to take advantage of government slips, will hold Johnson to account on those occasions when the PM cannot runaway and will not scare potential LibDem voters. All of which would be a huge advance on where Labour is now. Most important of all, though, I think he will be able to formulate a response to the EHRC report on anti-Semitism that involves unconditional acceptance, deep repentance and fulsome apology. I cannot see Long-Bailey being able to do any of these things.

All true. On anti-semitism, he will have to do more than apologise. He will need to expel and discipline people. That will upset some in the party. Does he have the balls to do this and face up to those who will not like such action? And he needs to get rid of people like Milne and Murray. They are part of the Corbynista project and need to go with Corbyn.

The EHRC report is likely to provide a lot of cover for expulsions and sackings.

isam

TOPPING said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

2nd? FPT

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

matt said:

An excellent Times Red Box article from Lisa Nandy this morning indicating the depth of her thinking and ability to think differently.

...but she is still a lightweight. Starmer is the only serious candidate that Labour have to offer at the moment who stands a chance, which is probably why they will not elect him.

I’m not sure that Starmer has the X factor to be leader.

For once I agree with you Nigel.

What is also impressive about Starmer is that he has run the gauntlet of the last 4 years very effectively, such that without in any way being in the Corbyn camp he has cleverly kept his head down to emerge at the right time as a front runner who the Momentum cultists are going to find it very difficult to attack based on his record under Corbyn. As such he has the potential to be a unifying figure in a party all but destroyed by internal division.

He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.

You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.

In this country someone with Starmer's background does not achieve what he has achieved without being extremely smart and extremely ambitious. I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious, but I have no doubts he would use all wings inside Labour to create a front bench that actually provides a decent opposition: he will be able to take advantage of government slips, will hold Johnson to account on those occasions when the PM cannot runaway and will not scare potential LibDem voters. All of which would be a huge advance on where Labour is now. Most important of all, though, I think he will be able to formulate a response to the EHRC report on anti-Semitism that involves unconditional acceptance, deep repentance and fulsome apology. I cannot see Long-Bailey being able to do any of these things.

He did go to a fee paying school it seems, albeit he passed the 11 plus to get there... that helps

Oh no! Fee paying school (but hold on, it wasn't until 1976), 11 plus, nurse mother, toolmaker father. So a solid working class lad. Well done him.

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

NorthernPowerhouse

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

2nd? FPT

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

matt said:

He is clever, whereas Corbyn is thick. This may prove unpopular with Boris fanbois on here, but the recent GE was not "won" by their man, it was lost comprehensively by Corbyn, who was about as hopeless as it is possible to be. A half decent Labour leader would have exposed Johnson for what he is. Blair would have torn him to pieces. Starmer is probably no Blair, but he has his intelligence and that is a start to bring British politics back to a sensible place, if that is at all possible.

For once I agree with you Nigel.

What l division.

He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.

You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.

In this country someone with Starmer's background does not achieve what he has achieved without being extremely smart and extremely ambitious. I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious, but I have no doubts he would use all wings inside Labour to create a front bench that actually provides a decent opposition: he will be able to take advantage of government slips, will hold Johnson to account on those occasions when the PM cannot runaway and will not scare potential LibDem voters. All of which would be a huge advance on where Labour is now. Most important of all, though, I think he will be able to formulate a response to the EHRC report on anti-Semitism that involves unconditional acceptance, deep repentance and fulsome apology. I cannot see Long-Bailey being able to do any of these things.

All true. On anti-semitism, he will have to do more than apologise. He will need to expel and discipline people. That will upset some in the party. Does he have the balls to do this and face up to those who will not like such action? And he needs to get rid of people like Milne and Murray. They are part of the Corbynista project and need to go with Corbyn.

The EHRC report is likely to provide a lot of cover for expulsions and sackings.

Who doesnt like a good purge??

Casino_Royale

RandallFlagg said:

Rayner launching her deputy leadership campaign in Stockport, apparently. So, it looks like she definitely won't be involved in the leadership race, and that RLB is going to be the candidate of the left. Good news for Starmer.

Ah.

TOPPING

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

Casino_Royale

Yvette Cooper has been very quiet.

NorthernPowerhouse

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

How bad would it have to be for the Stop the War not to cheer them on?

contrarian

The labour problem seems to be that candidate electable can;t win and any candidate that can win isn't electable.

DecrepiterJohnL

Damn. Have been posting my usual brilliant insights (or not) on the old thread when this one is nearly two hours old

SouthamObserver

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

My school became a comprehensive when I was in the third year. The alternative was to become private. All those who were already there would have carried on as was - ie, funded by the local authority. It may be that Starmer's school had the same choice to make and went the other way.

DecrepiterJohnL

Casino_Royale said:

Yvette Cooper has been very quiet.

Cooper dropped out last week.

ETA: or did she? The papers reported it but I cannot immediately find a definitive statement from Yvette Cooper herself.

SouthamObserver

RandallFlagg said:

Rayner launching her deputy leadership campaign in Stockport, apparently. So, it looks like she definitely won't be involved in the leadership race, and that RLB is going to be the candidate of the left. Good news for Starmer.

It is. Rayner will walk the deputy role and is a very good bet to be the next leader but one, I'd have thought.

isam

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

Someone should ask him.

The time you harangued me to define working class, I was in a mess trading a t20 cricket match, had a screaming baby in the next room, a girlfriend with flu, Dad in hospital with sepsis, and an anxiety ridden cat over grooming on the sofa. Not sure whether your trolling was light relief or an added annoyance! It sure gave me a headache, but my fault for posting with all that going on really.

Dura_Ace

Casino_Royale said:

On defence/security, the UK should really be spending closer to 3% of GDP on it rather than just scraping 2% with some jiggery pokey on pension contributions. That would allow several more destroyers/frigates needed (and the sailors/logistics/fuel to man them) a few more squadrons for the RAF, and a modern well equipped army of 100-110k which is actually capable of doing stuff with our allies, rather than just a emergency disaster relief/token force as we currently have. On top of that, MI5/6 and GCHQ could be upped to fight interstate espionage and cyber threats too.

You don't get £15bn worth of extra defence capability just by spending £15bn as long as we have a policy of using defence spending as industrial welfare.

If the MoD did have the extra money then large proportion of it would disappear to BEA/Babcock/Serco without generating much in the way of extra capability.

The Army will go the other way in the 2020 SDSR in my opinion and drop to 70-75,000 acknowledging that the recruitment and retention crisis is the new normal.

Alistair

Casino_Royale said:

Yvette Cooper has been very quiet.

I thought I read she'd decided she can't win so won't attempt to stand,

TOPPING

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

My school became a comprehensive when I was in the third year. The alternative was to become private. All those who were already there would have carried on as was - ie, funded by the local authority. It may be that Starmer's school had the same choice to make and went the other way.

Yes. I can't believe that for the generation at the school at the time there was a need to pay those fees.

But if he bought a sticky bun in the tuck shop there after 1976 that might qualify as paying money to the school and thereby elevate him from the working to the middle classes.

TOPPING

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

Someone should ask him.

The time you harangued me to define working class, I was in a mess trading a t20 cricket match, had a screaming baby in the next room, a girlfriend with flu, Dad in hospital with sepsis, and an anxiety ridden cat over grooming on the sofa. Not sure whether your trolling was light relief or an added annoyance! It sure gave me a headache, but my fault for posting with all that going on really.

Blimey hope your dad is ok.

That was a lot going on what on earth did you come on to PB for?

Casino_Royale

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

How bad would it have to be for the Stop the War not to cheer them on?

USA act: “Down with the imperialist USA!”

Iran act: “We condemn all acts of terrorism and violence.”

Cyclefree

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

MikeSmithson

Remember LAB does a lot better at general elections with leaders who were not state school educated. Just five times in its history has it secured sustainable working majorities four of them under leaders who went to private schools. It has never secured a majority under someone who didn't go to Oxford. Stamer's undergraduate uni was Leeds but he went to Oxford for his higher degree.

matt

Richard_Nabavi said:

Morning all. I hope you all had a good Xmas and New Year.

Of the announced and probable candidates, I think several could do a reasonably good job. Keir Starmer presents well and would be the best Labour leader since Blair, although admittedly that is quite a low bar given the poor to disastrous incumbents that followed Blair. Yes, Starmer might be a bit lawyerly and dull, but as @Wulfrun_Phil says that might not be too bad a thing. Lisa Nandy would probably also be a good choice; she might be a little more inspiring. Jess Phillips strikes me as a bit too maverick to be leader - she's perhaps more suited to being an independent voice in the party, with very much her own take on issues, than a leader whose role is partly to consolidate and shape party opinion. Emily Thornberry is quite articulate and I think could do the job, but I don't see that she has any particular advantages over some of the other candidates, and she'd have trouble getting away from her image as rather elitist and arrogant. RLB would be a disaster for the party. Clive Lewis is lightweight.

But we have to remember that we're not trying to assess who would make the best leader, but who the party members and affiliates will choose. That's a difficult assessment to make because the selectorate is complex: not just party members, but unions and affiliates as well. Certainly a complete break with Corbynism looks a bit unlikely, but based on previous contests the hustings and media events may make a big difference; I suspect many of those who will vote won't yet have a firm view.

Nandy article today in The Times is a study is meaningless vacuity. It strikes the right notes for the audience she is appealing to, albeit one can’t help feeling that for those purposes, The Times is a misstep.

Casino_Royale

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

On defence/security, the UK should really be spending closer to 3% of GDP on it rather than just scraping 2% with some jiggery pokey on pension contributions. That would allow several more destroyers/frigates needed (and the sailors/logistics/fuel to man them) a few more squadrons for the RAF, and a modern well equipped army of 100-110k which is actually capable of doing stuff with our allies, rather than just a emergency disaster relief/token force as we currently have. On top of that, MI5/6 and GCHQ could be upped to fight interstate espionage and cyber threats too.

You don't get £15bn worth of extra defence capability just by spending £15bn as long as we have a policy of using defence spending as industrial welfare.

If the MoD did have the extra money then large proportion of it would disappear to BEA/Babcock/Serco without generating much in the way of extra capability.

The Army will go the other way in the 2020 SDSR in my opinion and drop to 70-75,000 acknowledging that the recruitment and retention crisis is the new normal.

I agree on procurement of defence equipment, inflation and project management there is woeful, but I’m talking about raw manpower as well here.

I’m not sure the recruitment crisis is a given. The army almost hit its full recruiting target last year. They just need to be open minded about recruiting from all walks of life and training youngsters up on the job. I would ditch any education requirements.

matt

Casino_Royale said:

Yvette Cooper has been very quiet.

At least then she understands that if one has nothing to say, silence can give you a sphinx-like aura. Her problems will come if she purports to be interesting.

TOPPING

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

On defence/security, the UK should really be spending closer to 3% of GDP on it rather than just scraping 2% with some jiggery pokey on pension contributions. That would allow several more destroyers/frigates needed (and the sailors/logistics/fuel to man them) a few more squadrons for the RAF, and a modern well equipped army of 100-110k which is actually capable of doing stuff with our allies, rather than just a emergency disaster relief/token force as we currently have. On top of that, MI5/6 and GCHQ could be upped to fight interstate espionage and cyber threats too.

You don't get £15bn worth of extra defence capability just by spending £15bn as long as we have a policy of using defence spending as industrial welfare.

If the MoD did have the extra money then large proportion of it would disappear to BEA/Babcock/Serco without generating much in the way of extra capability.

The Army will go the other way in the 2020 SDSR in my opinion and drop to 70-75,000 acknowledging that the recruitment and retention crisis is the new normal.

It always was if you remember MARILYN.

isam

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

Someone should ask him.

The time you harangued me to define working class, I was in a mess trading a t20 cricket match, had a screaming baby in the next room, a girlfriend with flu, Dad in hospital with sepsis, and an anxiety ridden cat over grooming on the sofa. Not sure whether your trolling was light relief or an added annoyance! It sure gave me a headache, but my fault for posting with all that going on really.

Blimey hope your dad is ok.

That was a lot going on what on earth did you come on to PB for?

I look at it between overs to take my mind off work!

He is getting better, I was worried. Even more so when he came round last week to tell me that he had a tumour removed three days before my son was born in November... superficial bladder cancer. Didn’t say anything at the as he didn’t want to add to our stress!

Casino_Royale

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.

I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.

contrarian

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

Surely Iran is at a constant state of war, both with its enemies, and with its own people.

TOPPING

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

Someone should ask him.

The time you harangued me to define working class, I was in a mess trading a t20 cricket match, had a screaming baby in the next room, a girlfriend with flu, Dad in hospital with sepsis, and an anxiety ridden cat over grooming on the sofa. Not sure whether your trolling was light relief or an added annoyance! It sure gave me a headache, but my fault for posting with all that going on really.

Blimey hope your dad is ok.

That was a lot going on what on earth did you come on to PB for?

I look at it between overs to take my mind off work!

He is getting better, I was worried. Even more so when he came round last week to tell me that he had a tumour removed three days before my son was born in November... superficial bladder cancer. Didn’t say anything at the as he didn’t want to add to our stress!

That is extraordinarily brave and thoughtful of him. Sepsis is a real scare also so v glad he is on the mend.

contrarian

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.

I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.

Iran is a revolutionary islamic regime. Constant war against its enemies is its default setting. Enemies at home, and abroad.

All the Americans have done is finally respond to being kicked in the shins.

Dura_Ace

Casino_Royale said:

I’m not sure the recruitment crisis is a given. The army almost hit its full recruiting target last year. They just need to be open minded about recruiting from all walks of life and training youngsters up on the job. I would ditch any education requirements.

The big missed opportunity was not opening up recruitment to EU nationals. However crap the pay and conditions are in the British forces they are still favourable compared to Eastern Europe. If they had made that adjustment then infantry units would now be well stocked with Estonian brick shithouses.

It makes no sense to make recruitment open to Fijians but not Poles.

Cyclefree

contrarian said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.

I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.

Iran is a revolutionary islamic regime. Constant war against its enemies is its default setting. Enemies at home, and abroad.

All the Americans have done is finally respond to being kicked in the shins.

And when Iran responds, what then? More retaliation? All out war? What?

kle4

Casino_Royale said:

Happy New Year everyone. I’ve basically taken a two week break from pb.com.

I hope you applied for that as leave from TSE, you cannot just take breaks willy nilly

Casino_Royale

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

I’m not sure the recruitment crisis is a given. The army almost hit its full recruiting target last year. They just need to be open minded about recruiting from all walks of life and training youngsters up on the job. I would ditch any education requirements.

The big missed opportunity was not opening up recruitment to EU nationals. However crap the pay and conditions are in the British forces they are still favourable compared to Eastern Europe. If they had made that adjustment then infantry units would now be well stocked with Estonian brick shithouses.

It makes no sense to make recruitment open to Fijians but not Poles.

Well, the Government are promising in future not to discriminate between EU and non EU migrants where there are skills shortages.

Maybe that will come?

Gabs3

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.

I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.

Iran is a barbaric country that oppresses it's own people. But it had agreed and was in 100% compliance with an international agreement that severely limited its nuclear ambitions. That accord was rashly pulled out of by the current President and the cult of personality that is now the Republican Party, who told us at the time it would not lead to war as "the alternative to this deal was a better deal".

Stocky

On topic: I wonder whether Corbyn will stay on longer than expected. The NEC could delay a leadership election to, perhaps, the autumn - and RLB knows this, which is why she hasn`t declared.

All Corbyn has said is that he wouldn`t lead labour into another election. He has not, to my knowledge, said that he would be resigning in the short term. In fact I think he has called for "a period of reflection", though I`m happy to be corrected on this.

I suspect that the left will defend their piracy of the LP to the end.

OldKingCole

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

Someone should ask him.

The time you harangued me to define working class, I was in a mess trading a t20 cricket match, had a screaming baby in the next room, a girlfriend with flu, Dad in hospital with sepsis, and an anxiety ridden cat over grooming on the sofa. Not sure whether your trolling was light relief or an added annoyance! It sure gave me a headache, but my fault for posting with all that going on really.

Blimey hope your dad is ok.

That was a lot going on what on earth did you come on to PB for?

I look at it between overs to take my mind off work!

He is getting better, I was worried. Even more so when he came round last week to tell me that he had a tumour removed three days before my son was born in November... superficial bladder cancer. Didn’t say anything at the as he didn’t want to add to our stress!

That is extraordinarily brave and thoughtful of him. Sepsis is a real scare also so v glad he is on the mend.

Sepsis is dangerous. Had a nasty bout when a prostate cancer biopsy went wrong. OK now though, but what happened is still in my head

contrarian

Cyclefree said:

contrarian said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.

I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.

Iran is a revolutionary islamic regime. Constant war against its enemies is its default setting. Enemies at home, and abroad.

All the Americans have done is finally respond to being kicked in the shins.

And when Iran responds, what then? More retaliation? All out war? What?

Im not even sure Iran will respond. Plenty in the regime must be wondering if they are going to be next.

Iran is a lagered up teenager playing a man's game.

Trump could hardly have handled the PR around this worse, I grant you. He could have gone on about frsutration, years of repeated warnings, evidence of terrorism, forced to act etc.

But he didn't.

Philip_Thompson

Cyclefree said:

contrarian said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.

I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.

Iran is a revolutionary islamic regime. Constant war against its enemies is its default setting. Enemies at home, and abroad.

All the Americans have done is finally respond to being kicked in the shins.

And when Iran responds, what then? More retaliation? All out war? What?

Perhaps. Regrettably.

People speak about Iran retaliating as if it is new. As if this General was killed in a vaccuum which may spark Iran into action. Reality on the other hand is that Iran has been attacking America and American allies for a long time. American embassies are already getting attacked by Iran, which is what this was a retaliation for.

What is America supposed to do realistically to get the attacks to stop?

Seems to me there are three options available and I don't have the stomach for any of them.
1: Just accept being attacked repeatedly without retaliation.
2: Eye for an eye retaliations.
3: All out aggression until Iran surrenders.

None of those options are good. I don't know what the answer is. I'm glad I'm not the one making the call as I don't want to be a keyboard warrior advocating anything but lets not pretend any "retaliation" is new or one sided alone.

Philip_Thompson

contrarian said:

Cyclefree said:

contrarian said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.

I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.

Iran is a revolutionary islamic regime. Constant war against its enemies is its default setting. Enemies at home, and abroad.

All the Americans have done is finally respond to being kicked in the shins.

And when Iran responds, what then? More retaliation? All out war? What?

Im not even sure Iran will respond. Plenty in the regime must be wondering if they are going to be next.

Iran is a lagered up teenager playing a man's game.

Trump could hardly have handled the PR around this worse, I grant you. He could have gone on about frsutration, years of repeated warnings, evidence of terrorism, forced to act etc.

But he didn't.

My toddler has better self control than Trump.

HYUFD

Long Bailey seems hesitant and nervous, not really the smooth, confident performer Labour need to take on Boris after a heavy defeat. On that respect Starmer comes across best and is gaining momentum having announced early

Philip_Thompson

Gabs3 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.

I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.

Iran is a barbaric country that oppresses it's own people. But it had agreed and was in 100% compliance with an international agreement that severely limited its nuclear ambitions. That accord was rashly pulled out of by the current President and the cult of personality that is now the Republican Party, who told us at the time it would not lead to war as "the alternative to this deal was a better deal".

Was it in 100% compliance?

contrarian

HYUFD said:

Long Bailey seems hesitant and nervous, not really the smooth, confident performer Labour need to take on Boris after a heavy defeat. On that respect Starmer comes across best and is gaining momentum having announced early

He may be gaining momentum. But can he gain Momentum.....

HYUFD

MikeSmithson said:

Remember LAB does a lot better at general elections with leaders who were not state school educated. Just five times in its history has it secured sustainable working majorities four of them under leaders who went to private schools. It has never secured a majority under someone who didn't go to Oxford. Stamer's undergraduate uni was Leeds but he went to Oxford for his higher degree.

Indeed and nobody mentions Bill Clinton went to Georgetown for his undergraduate degree or Barack Obama to Occidental college and Columbia, both are considered graduates of Yale and Harvard Law schools too so Starmer should be considered to be an Oxford graduate even if postgraduate

HYUFD

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

IS is not really on the rise again bar a handful of fighters still left on the Kurdish border, more significant is both the Iraqi and Syrian governments are now Shia and loyal to Iran, if anything the remainder of Sunni IS are anti Iran and surprisingly not as far from the US of Trump as you might think now

bookseller

Stocky said:

On topic: I wonder whether Corbyn will stay on longer than expected. The NEC could delay a leadership election to, perhaps, the autumn - and RLB knows this, which is why she hasn`t declared.

All Corbyn has said is that he wouldn`t lead labour into another election. He has not, to my knowledge, said that he would be resigning in the short term. In fact I think he has called for "a period of reflection", though I`m happy to be corrected on this.

I suspect that the left will defend their piracy of the LP to the end.

This is my thought too. After all, having taken control of the PLP Corbyn and his allies are not going to want to relinquish it, especially now that the media circus has moved on somewhat.

You can easily see a 'steady the ship, see what happens with Brexit' being the pitch. Is there a market on whether Corbyn is still in power come April 1st?

Cyclefree

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

IS is not really on the rise again bar a handful of fighters still left on the Kurdish border, more significant is both the Iraqi and Syrian governments are now Shia and loyal to Iran, if anything the remainder of Sunni IS are anti Iran and surprisingly not as far from the US of Trump as you might think now

Your view of IS is not shared by our intelligence services who, I suspect, know rather more about the threat IS pose than you do.

nova

Stocky said:

On topic: I wonder whether Corbyn will stay on longer than expected. The NEC could delay a leadership election to, perhaps, the autumn - and RLB knows this, which is why she hasn`t declared.

All Corbyn has said is that he wouldn`t lead labour into another election. He has not, to my knowledge, said that he would be resigning in the short term. In fact I think he has called for "a period of reflection", though I`m happy to be corrected on this.

I suspect that the left will defend their piracy of the LP to the end.

I suspect she hasn't declared because she's not getting the expected backing. A lot of social media posters who get their lead from the Unite side of the leaders office are coming out for Ian Lavery.

She's had some support from Jon Lansman (Momentum), but if Unite have decided on a different candidate, then it could get messy.

Skwawkbox (pushing Lavery, and with strong Unite links), is suggesting a single candidate will be chosen by the Campaign group MPs, but it wouldn't surprise me if RLB is right now in an episode of the Thick if It, and wondering where it's all gone wrong.

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/01/03/excl-lavery-rlb-face-off-next-week-to-decide-left-candidate-as-left-mps-meet/

DecrepiterJohnL

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

I’m not sure the recruitment crisis is a given. The army almost hit its full recruiting target last year. They just need to be open minded about recruiting from all walks of life and training youngsters up on the job. I would ditch any education requirements.

The big missed opportunity was not opening up recruitment to EU nationals. However crap the pay and conditions are in the British forces they are still favourable compared to Eastern Europe. If they had made that adjustment then infantry units would now be well stocked with Estonian brick shithouses.

It makes no sense to make recruitment open to Fijians but not Poles.

As of last week, we are now recruiting overweight asthmatics with self-esteem issues. Shades of McNamara's morons in Vietnam. Perhaps the idea is that future soldiers will need only to control drones from a darkened room in Catterick.

TrèsDifficile

FPT

Theuniondivvie said:

nunu2 said:

I really don't think Trump knows what he has got himself into bu attacking Iran.

A general lesson to be learned is that if you're an opposition group in a repressive country (see also Venezuela), you don't want Trump and his goons sticking their oars in.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1213956785951907840?s=20

Pah! Looks tiny compared to the Peoples' Vote march.

HYUFD

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

IS is not really on the rise again bar a handful of fighters still left on the Kurdish border, more significant is both the Iraqi and Syrian governments are now Shia and loyal to Iran, if anything the remainder of Sunni IS are anti Iran and surprisingly not as far from the US of Trump as you might think now

Your view of IS is not shared by our intelligence services who, I suspect, know rather more about the threat IS pose than you do.

5 years ago IS controlled most of Syria and half of Iraq, now they barely control any of either so my point stands absolutely.

IS are also closer to Saudi Arabia and the UAE than they are to Iran, Russia and Iran were key in defeating IS and are still their enemies, Trump has now shifted from IS to Iran

Dura_Ace

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

I’m not sure the recruitment crisis is a given. The army almost hit its full recruiting target last year. They just need to be open minded about recruiting from all walks of life and training youngsters up on the job. I would ditch any education requirements.

The big missed opportunity was not opening up recruitment to EU nationals. However crap the pay and conditions are in the British forces they are still favourable compared to Eastern Europe. If they had made that adjustment then infantry units would now be well stocked with Estonian brick shithouses.

It makes no sense to make recruitment open to Fijians but not Poles.

As of last week, we are now recruiting overweight asthmatics with self-esteem issues.

That's fine, we'll always need C-130 pilots.

squareroot2

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

Someone should ask him.

The time you harangued me to define working class, I was in a mess trading a t20 cricket match, had a screaming baby in the next room, a girlfriend with flu, Dad in hospital with sepsis, and an anxiety ridden cat over grooming on the sofa. Not sure whether your trolling was light relief or an added annoyance! It sure gave me a headache, but my fault for posting with all that going on really.

Blimey hope your dad is ok.

That was a lot going on what on earth did you come on to PB for?

I look at it between overs to take my mind off work!

He is getting better, I was worried. Even more so when he came round last week to tell me that he had a tumour removed three days before my son was born in November... superficial bladder cancer. Didn’t say anything at the as he didn’t want to add to our stress!

That is extraordinarily brave and thoughtful of him. Sepsis is a real scare also so v glad he is on the mend.

Sepsis is dangerous. Had a nasty bout when a prostate cancer biopsy went wrong. OK now though, but what happened is still in my head

Indeed quite correct. My wife might have died but for an on the money Gp who spotted it immediately...

Stocky

bookseller said:

Stocky said:

On topic: I wonder whether Corbyn will stay on longer than expected. The NEC could delay a leadership election to, perhaps, the autumn - and RLB knows this, which is why she hasn`t declared.

All Corbyn has said is that he wouldn`t lead labour into another election. He has not, to my knowledge, said that he would be resigning in the short term. In fact I think he has called for "a period of reflection", though I`m happy to be corrected on this.

I suspect that the left will defend their piracy of the LP to the end.

This is my thought too. After all, having taken control of the PLP Corbyn and his allies are not going to want to relinquish it, especially now that the media circus has moved on somewhat.

You can easily see a 'steady the ship, see what happens with Brexit' being the pitch. Is there a market on whether Corbyn is still in power come April 1st?

Yes there is - BF`s Corbyn Exit Date. You can get 55 on his exit date being July or later.

DecrepiterJohnL

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

IS is not really on the rise again bar a handful of fighters still left on the Kurdish border, more significant is both the Iraqi and Syrian governments are now Shia and loyal to Iran, if anything the remainder of Sunni IS are anti Iran and surprisingly not as far from the US of Trump as you might think now

Your view of IS is not shared by our intelligence services who, I suspect, know rather more about the threat IS pose than you do.

5 years ago IS controlled most of Syria and half of Iraq, now they barely control any of either so my point stands absolutely.

IS are also closer to Saudi Arabia and the UAE than they are to Iran, Russia and Iran were key in defeating IS and are still their enemies, Trump has now shifted from IS to Iran

Surely the opposite? In blowing up the Iranian general who defeated ISIS, Trump has shifted from Iran to IS.

HYUFD

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

IS is not really on the rise again bar a handful of fighters still left on the Kurdish border, more significant is both the Iraqi and Syrian governments are now Shia and loyal to Iran, if anything the remainder of Sunni IS are anti Iran and surprisingly not as far from the US of Trump as you might think now

Your view of IS is not shared by our intelligence services who, I suspect, know rather more about the threat IS pose than you do.

5 years ago IS controlled most of Syria and half of Iraq, now they barely control any of either so my point stands absolutely.

IS are also closer to Saudi Arabia and the UAE than they are to Iran, Russia and Iran were key in defeating IS and are still their enemies, Trump has now shifted from IS to Iran

Surely the opposite? In blowing up the Iranian general who defeated ISIS, Trump has shifted from Iran to IS.

Trump no longer considers IS a threat, so in a sense as both Trump and the remains of IS are anti Shia Assad and anti Shia Iran it may be a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'

brokenwheel

TrèsDifficile said:

FPT

Theuniondivvie said:

nunu2 said:

I really don't think Trump knows what he has got himself into bu attacking Iran.

A general lesson to be learned is that if you're an opposition group in a repressive country (see also Venezuela), you don't want Trump and his goons sticking their oars in.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1213956785951907840?s=20

Pah! Looks tiny compared to the Peoples' Vote march.

They don't even have a petition.

TrèsDifficile

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

Long Bailey seems hesitant and nervous, not really the smooth, confident performer Labour need to take on Boris after a heavy defeat. On that respect Starmer comes across best and is gaining momentum having announced early

He may be gaining momentum. But can he gain Momentum.....

Could a member of the Trilateral Commission really get Momentum backing?

OldKingCole

squareroot2 said:

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case

Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.

Even better working class credentials.

Someone should ask him.

The time you harangued me to define working class, I was in a mess trading a t20 cricket match, had a screaming baby in the next room, a girlfriend with flu, Dad in hospital with sepsis, and an anxiety ridden cat over grooming on the sofa. Not sure whether your trolling was light relief or an added annoyance! It sure gave me a headache, but my fault for posting with all that going on really.

Blimey hope your dad is ok.

That was a lot going on what on earth did you come on to PB for?

I look at it between overs to take my mind off work!

He is getting better, I was worried. Even more so when he came round last week to tell me that he had a tumour removed three days before my son was born in November... superficial bladder cancer. Didn’t say anything at the as he didn’t want to add to our stress!

That is extraordinarily brave and thoughtful of him. Sepsis is a real scare also so v glad he is on the mend.

Sepsis is dangerous. Had a nasty bout when a prostate cancer biopsy went wrong. OK now though, but what happened is still in my head

Indeed quite correct. My wife might have died but for an on the money Gp who spotted it immediately...

Hope she’s OK now. Although if she’s like me, as I said, it’s always in my head if I feel rough after even a slight wound. It’s a know hazard of prostate biopsies, though, which is why new techniques are being developed.

TheWhiteRabbit

Is anyone keeping track of these Lab MPs and who they are backing?

Stark_Dawning

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

IS is not really on the rise again bar a handful of fighters still left on the Kurdish border, more significant is both the Iraqi and Syrian governments are now Shia and loyal to Iran, if anything the remainder of Sunni IS are anti Iran and surprisingly not as far from the US of Trump as you might think now

Your view of IS is not shared by our intelligence services who, I suspect, know rather more about the threat IS pose than you do.

5 years ago IS controlled most of Syria and half of Iraq, now they barely control any of either so my point stands absolutely.

IS are also closer to Saudi Arabia and the UAE than they are to Iran, Russia and Iran were key in defeating IS and are still their enemies, Trump has now shifted from IS to Iran

Surely the opposite? In blowing up the Iranian general who defeated ISIS, Trump has shifted from Iran to IS.

Trump no longer considers IS a threat, so in a sense as both Trump and the remains of IS are anti Shia Assad and anti Shia Iran it may be a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'

Will Trump make ISIS his equivalent of the Afghan Mujahedin?

Endillion

Gabs3 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.

The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.

What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.

Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.

6 days into the NY and we have:-

1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit.
3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes.
4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before.
5. IS on the rise again.
6. No clear US strategy.
7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.

How encouraging .....

De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.

I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.

Iran ... had agreed and was in 100% compliance with an international agreement that severely limited its nuclear ambitions...

I really don't think this is right. The internet agrees with me:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49849448

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1214131202589970432?s=20

rottenborough

Time to take another look at Klobuchar?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/opinion/amy-klobuchar-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

bookseller

Stocky said:

bookseller said:

Stocky said:

On topic: I wonder whether Corbyn will stay on longer than expected. The NEC could delay a leadership election to, perhaps, the autumn - and RLB knows this, which is why she hasn`t declared.

All Corbyn has said is that he wouldn`t lead labour into another election. He has not, to my knowledge, said that he would be resigning in the short term. In fact I think he has called for "a period of reflection", though I`m happy to be corrected on this.

I suspect that the left will defend their piracy of the LP to the end.

This is my thought too. After all, having taken control of the PLP Corbyn and his allies are not going to want to relinquish it, especially now that the media circus has moved on somewhat.

You can easily see a 'steady the ship, see what happens with Brexit' being the pitch. Is there a market on whether Corbyn is still in power come April 1st?

Yes there is - BF`s Corbyn Exit Date. You can get 55 on his exit date being July or later.

Oooh...