On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).
High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.
Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.
Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.
I am of the view now that the only option is a massive increase of funding for the NHS. This is very much a personal view but I’d be far happier to pay more in taxes to avoid putting people like Mr and Mrs Foxy back into this horrible situation than having to remain stuck at home to do so.
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
We needed to make the economy work for most people. Getting the median income to somewhere around $10-20 per day would have been sufficient for people to embrace a major cultural change and try and build from there, and gradually reduce the power of local "leaders".
Expecting those on a couple of dollars per day to care about politics, religion or education over day to day survival is not going to work.
This is a fallacy which we keep repeating. Economic development does not lead to the embrace of liberal social values - there is abundant evidence of this in the middle east.
With the patriarchy, you are dealing with an entrenched system of social values: an order that has survived millennia. On a historical scale, the alternatives can only be regarded as tentative and experimental. In the afghan case, we can clearly conclude that it failed.
Yes but remember until the 1980s both Pakistan and Afghanistan were more-or-less westernised, more-or-less secular states. It was the reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and to World Bank imposed cuts in Pakistan, that opened the door for cash and madrassas to flood in from Saudi extremists.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
As recently as May the Scots re-elected a pro-independence legislature. The manifesto commitments of both the SNP and the Greens were quite clear, and they received democratic support.
Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.
On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).
High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.
Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.
Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.
Yes I am sure. If people want health and freedom at the same time, the plain fact is its going to cost them much more. It already is.
How many are digging into savings or going into debt to pay for private treatment to beat the exploding queues? Having paid NI all their lives?
I don’t know why but I’m absolutely devastated about what’s going on in Afghanistan. Like seriously gutted. One can only imagine what life is going to be like for women going forward.
There are plenty just like it , never heard much whining about Yemen where we are supplying the bombs and the planes for the genocide. Britain is a shithole of a country that causes suffering around the world on it's own or as the USA's lapdog. Give it a week or two and normal service will be resumed and no-one will give a crap about Afghanistan, they will be back to empty supermarket shelves or cutting pensioners money.
That's a very cynical, but accurate post and I have posted on both those topics so I am equally at fault. That's life I'm afraid sad as it may be.
Exactly , the "outraged Turnbridge Wells" on here would make you laugh if it was not so tragic and done in their names.
Tunbridge Wells Malc. Tunbridge Wells.
How very dare you.
Royal Tunbridge Wells if you please.
Oh yes, a friend's parents lived there. Mrs was always very insistent on the Royal in the address.
Tunbridge Wells is the name of the local government district. Royal Tunbridge Wells is the name of the principal settlement, and administrative centre, within said district, and of its Town Council.
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.
Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.
I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...
The rights of peripheral folk are irrelevant. It is only the rights of England Proper that must be respected.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).
Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.
Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.
I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔
This isn’t something I’ve followed closely, but presumably the Taliban has reneged on the deal (shock horror!), in which case the Americans would not (or, at least, should not) be criticised for going back in all guns blazing.
Trump is a shit of the highest order so it’s not a surprise that he’s laying into Biden. But to govern is to choose. Biden could have changed his mind when it became obvious what was happening. It’s in him that he hasn’t done so.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...
To avoid a hard border in Ireland which most of them wanted and to get a UK trade deal with the EU.
In the Brexit talks the EU held the cards on that, on indyref2 the power is all with Boris under the Scotland Act 1998
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.
Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.
I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.
Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.
On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).
High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.
Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.
Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.
I am of the view now that the only option is a massive increase of funding for the NHS. This is very much a personal view but I’d be far happier to pay more in taxes to avoid putting people like Mr and Mrs Foxy back into this horrible situation than having to remain stuck at home to do so.
It is not just funding. We do not train anything like enough doctors and nurses. That needs to change, especially now given the shrinking pool of immigrants we rely on to fill the gaps. We also need to acknowledge that spare capacity is needed and not simply a waste of resources.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
As recently as May the Scots re-elected a pro-independence legislature. The manifesto commitments of both the SNP and the Greens were quite clear, and they received democratic support.
Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.
The problem is that at present Scotland is part of the UK and though you do not like it, the only legal referendum has to be sanctioned by the HOC
UDI would be struck down in Scotland on a challenge from pro union Scots
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?
He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.
On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998
The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
I trust you are referring to the policies Charles Kennedy espoused rather than expressing satisfaction at his passing?I hope so anyway.
Of course, I had nothing against Kennedy personally, he was a genial chap, just his policies
His policies have stood the test of time: He was right, The Iraq war was indeed a massive mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives to the benefit of few except our enemies in Iran. When Charles had the courage to speak out aganist the unfolding disaster you, and many warmongers like you, did not merely disagree with him, you accused him of treachery.
Now Blair is rightly reviled for leading our country into an illegal war that he could and should have avoided, so I think if you are still opposed to the "policies" of Charles Kennedy you might want to go and sit in a dark room and contemplate the folly of your miserable, wasted life.
Charles had failings, but both he and Paddy Ashdown (and indeed Ming Campbell) had the political courage to speak up for what was right rather than what was merely politically expediant or temporarily popular amongst the poisonous British media.
Its called being principled and is almost the exact opposite of the lightweight, shallow fools in charge today.
On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).
High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.
Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.
Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.
I am of the view now that the only option is a massive increase of funding for the NHS. This is very much a personal view but I’d be far happier to pay more in taxes to avoid putting people like Mr and Mrs Foxy back into this horrible situation than having to remain stuck at home to do so.
It is not just funding. We do not train anything like enough doctors and nurses. That needs to change, especially now given the shrinking pool of immigrants we rely on to fill the gaps. We also need to acknowledge that spare capacity is needed and not simply a waste of resources.
When I said funding I had that in mind too - paying for more people to go to medical school etc,
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...
The rights of peripheral folk are irrelevant. It is only the rights of England Proper that must be respected.
When the referendum happens we will see English politicians cross the wall and reassure people that you can trust their promises. And all we will get on endless repeat is the Prime Minister pledging to NI that he would never do what he then did.
In Kabul : utterly chaotic scenes at the airport, as to be expected, some sounds of gunfire at distance, but reports that British and American forces have been engaged doesn’t appear to be true.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).
Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.
Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.
I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔
It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.
As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.
However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.
“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'
“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”
If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
As recently as May the Scots re-elected a pro-independence legislature. The manifesto commitments of both the SNP and the Greens were quite clear, and they received democratic support.
Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.
The problem is that at present Scotland is part of the UK and though you do not like it, the only legal referendum has to be sanctioned by the HOC
UDI would be struck down in Scotland on a challenge from pro union Scots
You’ve given Scenario A and Scenario D. Missing a couple there.
What’s the unbiased opinion on whose at fault? Biden is just following Trumps plan isn’t he? Both to blame?
Why is Biden following Trump's plan? he doesn't follow Trump's plan on anything else.
I thought that America's security forces and the neo-con Republican rump supported Biden over Trump because the former was an expansionist internationally....?
Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...
To avoid a hard border in Ireland which most of them wanted and to get a UK trade deal with the EU.
In the Brexit talks the EU held the cards on that, on indyref2 the power is all with Boris under the Scotland Act 1998
Its laughable that you can post this stuff with a straight face - we know you aren't stupid enough to think what you are posing is actually true. You know its nonsense and so do we. Yet you keep posting it.
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
Isn't the mens' education largely provided by madrassas instilling knowledge of the Koran by incantation?
No, not in areas that have been under government control. The situation has been messy and underfunded, especially for girls, but not dominated by madrassas.
First indications are that it has changed overnight in some areas taken by the Taliban. A return to islamic schooling: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58191440 Along with the compete segregation of women.
Back to the medieval state, by the look of it.
Worse than medieval. The medieval world was full of learning and culture. This lot despise both.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?
He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.
On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998
The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
HYUFD is a Remainer don't forget.
The UK did hold the cards. That's why we got a deal we wanted and not the backstop the EU wanted. That's why we're now able to frustrate and make unworkable even the token Protocol we got the EU to reluctantly sign up to instead of the backstop they'd spent years demanding.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...
The rights of peripheral folk are irrelevant. It is only the rights of England Proper that must be respected.
When the referendum happens we will see English politicians cross the wall and reassure people that you can trust their promises. And all we will get on endless repeat is the Prime Minister pledging to NI that he would never do what he then did.
The problem is that the Scottish electorate have heard it all before. Better Together was a tissue of lies from start to finish. Once bitten, twice shy
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
As recently as May the Scots re-elected a pro-independence legislature. The manifesto commitments of both the SNP and the Greens were quite clear, and they received democratic support.
Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.
The problem is that at present Scotland is part of the UK and though you do not like it, the only legal referendum has to be sanctioned by the HOC
UDI would be struck down in Scotland on a challenge from pro union Scots
You’ve given Scenario A and Scenario D. Missing a couple there.
You can make up as many scenarios as you like but without HOC consent indyref2 will not take place
I'm no expert, but it strikes me that the ease with which the Taliban have taken over suggests that they have considerable support within both the civilian population and the Afghan armed forces. Resistance seems to have been fairly minimal.
The West never learns. Occupying a country, then trying to change its culture and values through a combination of military force and 're-education' doesn't work. It can lead to a backlash that is more reactionary than the original 'sin'. The desire for change needs to come from within, not be imposed externally. It's desperately sad to see the Taliban take over, but I don't think there's much that we can, or should, do about it.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
As recently as May the Scots re-elected a pro-independence legislature. The manifesto commitments of both the SNP and the Greens were quite clear, and they received democratic support.
Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.
The problem is that at present Scotland is part of the UK and though you do not like it, the only legal referendum has to be sanctioned by the HOC
UDI would be struck down in Scotland on a challenge from pro union Scots
You’ve given Scenario A and Scenario D. Missing a couple there.
You can make up as many scenarios as you like but without HOC consent indyref2 will not take place
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
And they will vote to remain in the union
Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.
Independence should have happened in 2014. It could have easily and workably been achieved whilst the UK was part of the EU - all it really required was some sort of mutually workable agreement over defence and a fudged agreement about money.The border would have been a non issue, because freedom of movement, capital etc was enshrined in the EU - a way could be found for an Independent Scotland to join the EU.
I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.
Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...
The rights of peripheral folk are irrelevant. It is only the rights of England Proper that must be respected.
When the referendum happens we will see English politicians cross the wall and reassure people that you can trust their promises. And all we will get on endless repeat is the Prime Minister pledging to NI that he would never do what he then did.
As opposed to building a hard border in Ireland which was the only alternative and even more NI residents opposed
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?
He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.
On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998
The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
HYUFD is a Remainer don't forget.
The UK did hold the cards. That's why we got a deal we wanted and not the backstop the EU wanted. That's why we're now able to frustrate and make unworkable even the token Protocol we got the EU to reluctantly sign up to instead of the backstop they'd spent years demanding.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?
He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.
On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998
The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
Nope, the Union is in the hands of the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998
Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...
To avoid a hard border in Ireland which most of them wanted and to get a UK trade deal with the EU.
In the Brexit talks the EU held the cards on that, on indyref2 the power is all with Boris under the Scotland Act 1998
Its laughable that you can post this stuff with a straight face - we know you aren't stupid enough to think what you are posing is actually true. You know its nonsense and so do we. Yet you keep posting it.
I am not at all sure you are correct on that comment
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).
Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.
Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.
I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔
It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.
As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.
However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.
“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'
“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”
If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
As recently as May the Scots re-elected a pro-independence legislature. The manifesto commitments of both the SNP and the Greens were quite clear, and they received democratic support.
Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.
It can, see also Spain and Catalonia.
However the UK government allowed Scots a once in a generation independence vote in 2014, they said no, tough
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
As recently as May the Scots re-elected a pro-independence legislature. The manifesto commitments of both the SNP and the Greens were quite clear, and they received democratic support.
Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.
The problem is that at present Scotland is part of the UK and though you do not like it, the only legal referendum has to be sanctioned by the HOC
UDI would be struck down in Scotland on a challenge from pro union Scots
You’ve given Scenario A and Scenario D. Missing a couple there.
And Parliament to be recalled over Afghanistan
BREAKING: PM expected to recall Parliament next week to discuss situation in Afghanistan - No 10 sources.
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
We needed to make the economy work for most people. Getting the median income to somewhere around $10-20 per day would have been sufficient for people to embrace a major cultural change and try and build from there, and gradually reduce the power of local "leaders".
Expecting those on a couple of dollars per day to care about politics, religion or education over day to day survival is not going to work.
This is a fallacy which we keep repeating. Economic development does not lead to the embrace of liberal social values - there is abundant evidence of this in the middle east.
With the patriarchy, you are dealing with an entrenched system of social values: an order that has survived millennia. On a historical scale, the alternatives can only be regarded as tentative and experimental. In the afghan case, we can clearly conclude that it failed.
Yes but remember until the 1980s both Pakistan and Afghanistan were more-or-less westernised, more-or-less secular states. It was the reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and to World Bank imposed cuts in Pakistan, that opened the door for cash and madrassas to flood in from Saudi extremists.
I think that's rather over-stating the case for Afghanistan, especially outside the cities. But the Communist revolution, backed up by the subsequent Soviet invasion comprehensively wrecked any progress.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?
He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.
On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998
The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
HYUFD is a Remainer don't forget.
The UK did hold the cards. That's why we got a deal we wanted and not the backstop the EU wanted. That's why we're now able to frustrate and make unworkable even the token Protocol we got the EU to reluctantly sign up to instead of the backstop they'd spent years demanding.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?
He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.
On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998
The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
Nope, the Union is in the hands of the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998
Continued membership of a voluntary Union is up to the people’s of the member countries. Their fundamental rights to self-determination cannot be legislated away.
The Tories would get on better trying to make the Union more attractive to the Scots rather than shaking their shackles and telling them they’re on bread and water for the next twenty years.
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.
Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.
I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.
Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.
Afghanistan has a long pre-Islamic history. And, as others have noted, Kabul was a popular stop on the 60's hippy trail. And Afghanistan has cultures, not a culture. What is Pashtun is not Tajik. 40+ years of conflict will influence a country more than its religion or culture I fear.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?
He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.
On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998
The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
HYUFD is a Remainer don't forget.
The UK did hold the cards. That's why we got a deal we wanted and not the backstop the EU wanted. That's why we're now able to frustrate and make unworkable even the token Protocol we got the EU to reluctantly sign up to instead of the backstop they'd spent years demanding.
We held all the cards and sold them a pup.
You're sounding a lot like an 11yr old here, Philip.
On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).
High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.
Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.
Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.
I am of the view now that the only option is a massive increase of funding for the NHS. This is very much a personal view but I’d be far happier to pay more in taxes to avoid putting people like Mr and Mrs Foxy back into this horrible situation than having to remain stuck at home to do so.
It is not just funding. We do not train anything like enough doctors and nurses. That needs to change, especially now given the shrinking pool of immigrants we rely on to fill the gaps. We also need to acknowledge that spare capacity is needed and not simply a waste of resources.
Yes, staffing is the issue. On top of Annual leave (much of it deferred from earlier in the year because of covid pressure) we have 57 WTE vacancies on ICU, a mix of unfillable posts, maternity leave and long term sick. We have 21 current ICU/ECMO patients, many from out of area, compared with 83 at the February peak.
I have never seen morale so low amongst our nurses and HCAs, not helped by patients giving them abuse because they have been told that things are back to normal. Routine and specialist stuff is repeatedly cancelled.
Whilst everyone has the same old Indy debates on here, surely the focus should be on the utter humiliation of the USA and the UK in relation to Afghanistan.
What a failure of leadership from both countries - but the Chinese must be looking on in glee at the moment.
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.
Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.
I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.
Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.
The same happened in Iran, a very different country. Turkey is also becoming more Islamic. 3 very different countries but all have moved or are moving away from Western values. The unwillingness to accept that faith does have something - probably quite a lot, in fact - to do with how and why these societies are the way they are is one reason why the West keeps getting it wrong in its relationships with them. Just because faith does not matter to us, we think it does not matter to others - despite all the evidence that it does.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
I trust you are referring to the policies Charles Kennedy espoused rather than expressing satisfaction at his passing?I hope so anyway.
Of course, I had nothing against Kennedy personally, he was a genial chap, just his policies
His policies have stood the test of time: He was right, The Iraq war was indeed a massive mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives to the benefit of few except our enemies in Iran. When Charles had the courage to speak out aganist the unfolding disaster you, and many warmongers like you, did not merely disagree with him, you accused him of treachery.
Now Blair is rightly reviled for leading our country into an illegal war that he could and should have avoided, so I think if you are still opposed to the "policies" of Charles Kennedy you might want to go and sit in a dark room and contemplate the folly of your miserable, wasted life.
Charles had failings, but both he and Paddy Ashdown (and indeed Ming Campbell) had the political courage to speak up for what was right rather than what was merely politically expediant or temporarily popular amongst the poisonous British media.
Its called being principled and is almost the exact opposite of the lightweight, shallow fools in charge today.
Iraq is now a free democracy.
If you and Charles Kennedy had had your way it would still be under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
And they will vote to remain in the union
Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.
Independence should have happened in 2014. It could have easily and workably been achieved whilst the UK was part of the EU - all it really required was some sort of mutually workable agreement over defence and a fudged agreement about money.The border would have been a non issue, because freedom of movement, capital etc was enshrined in the EU - a way could be found for an Independent Scotland to join the EU.
I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.
Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.
How do we know that such things won't happen anyway? The UK government unilaterally abolished the UK customs zone and imposed a customs border between GB and NI. There is nothing stopping them doing the same to Scotland and if they say "we won't do that" its the exact same thing they said to NI.
This is why I keep coming back to just how massive the NI issue is. South of the wall most people don't care. North of the wall its a direct warning for how much you can trust the word of the UK government.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
I trust you are referring to the policies Charles Kennedy espoused rather than expressing satisfaction at his passing?I hope so anyway.
Of course, I had nothing against Kennedy personally, he was a genial chap, just his policies
His policies have stood the test of time: He was right, The Iraq war was indeed a massive mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives to the benefit of few except our enemies in Iran. When Charles had the courage to speak out aganist the unfolding disaster you, and many warmongers like you, did not merely disagree with him, you accused him of treachery.
Now Blair is rightly reviled for leading our country into an illegal war that he could and should have avoided, so I think if you are still opposed to the "policies" of Charles Kennedy you might want to go and sit in a dark room and contemplate the folly of your miserable, wasted life.
Charles had failings, but both he and Paddy Ashdown (and indeed Ming Campbell) had the political courage to speak up for what was right rather than what was merely politically expediant or temporarily popular amongst the poisonous British media.
Its called being principled and is almost the exact opposite of the lightweight, shallow fools in charge today.
Iraq is now a free democracy.
If you and Charles Kennedy had had your way it would still be under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.
Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.
I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.
Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.
The same happened in Iran, a very different country. Turkey is also becoming more Islamic. 3 very different countries but all have moved or are moving away from Western values. The unwillingness to accept that faith does have something - probably quite a lot, in fact - to do with how and why these societies are the way they are is one reason why the West keeps getting it wrong in its relationships with them. Just because faith does not matter to us, we think it does not matter to others - despite all the evidence that it does.
Faith very much does matter in some parts of the the West, most notably the USA but also Israel and Italy and Poland too if you now class that as the West
Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...
To avoid a hard border in Ireland which most of them wanted and to get a UK trade deal with the EU.
In the Brexit talks the EU held the cards on that, on indyref2 the power is all with Boris under the Scotland Act 1998
Its laughable that you can post this stuff with a straight face - we know you aren't stupid enough to think what you are posing is actually true. You know its nonsense and so do we. Yet you keep posting it.
I am not at all sure you are correct on that comment
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.
Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.
I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.
Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.
Afghanistan has a long pre-Islamic history. And, as others have noted, Kabul was a popular stop on the 60's hippy trail. And Afghanistan has cultures, not a culture. What is Pashtun is not Tajik. 40+ years of conflict will influence a country more than its religion or culture I fear.
Is there any significant difference in how the Pashtun treat Pashtun women from how the Tajik treat Tajik women? Any difference at all?
On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).
High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.
Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.
Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.
I am of the view now that the only option is a massive increase of funding for the NHS. This is very much a personal view but I’d be far happier to pay more in taxes to avoid putting people like Mr and Mrs Foxy back into this horrible situation than having to remain stuck at home to do so.
It is not just funding. We do not train anything like enough doctors and nurses. That needs to change, especially now given the shrinking pool of immigrants we rely on to fill the gaps. We also need to acknowledge that spare capacity is needed and not simply a waste of resources.
Yes, staffing is the issue. On top of Annual leave (much of it deferred from earlier in the year because of covid pressure) we have 57 WTE vacancies on ICU, a mix of unfillable posts, maternity leave and long term sick. We have 21 current ICU/ECMO patients, many from out of area, compared with 83 at the February peak.
I have never seen morale so low amongst our nurses and HCAs, not helped by patients giving them abuse because they have been told that things are back to normal. Routine and specialist stuff is repeatedly cancelled.
On more serious matters, how much difference is vaccination making to the actual patients who come in? I've lost track a bit but presumably there are so many cases that some vaccinated people are being hospitalised anyway.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).
Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.
Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.
I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔
It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.
As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.
However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.
“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'
“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”
If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages
The people who really 'took out' ISIS were the Kurds and the Iraqi army though, surely.
That region seems to have a strong spine of anti-islamism that is sadly lacking in Afghanistan.
As usual, the Kurds were left holding the shitty end of the stick.
I don't think Iraq/Syria are anti-Islam by any manner of means; they're 'just not fundamentalist Moslems. The situation is akin to having the Puritans of 17th C New England or the Holy Inquisition of Spain in control.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).
Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.
Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.
I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔
It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.
As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.
However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.
“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'
“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”
If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages
The people who really 'took out' ISIS were the Kurds and the Iraqi army though, surely.
That region seems to have a strong spine of anti-islamism that is sadly lacking in Afghanistan.
Yes, rather ironic that after all the criticism of the Iraq War as the 'wrong war' it is Iraqis who are prepared to stand up and fight for freedom and democracy against militants rather more than Afghans in the so called 'right war.'
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
And they will vote to remain in the union
Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.
Independence should have happened in 2014. It could have easily and workably been achieved whilst the UK was part of the EU - all it really required was some sort of mutually workable agreement over defence and a fudged agreement about money.The border would have been a non issue, because freedom of movement, capital etc was enshrined in the EU - a way could be found for an Independent Scotland to join the EU.
I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.
Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.
How do we know that such things won't happen anyway? The UK government unilaterally abolished the UK customs zone and imposed a customs border between GB and NI. There is nothing stopping them doing the same to Scotland and if they say "we won't do that" its the exact same thing they said to NI.
This is why I keep coming back to just how massive the NI issue is. South of the wall most people don't care. North of the wall its a direct warning for how much you can trust the word of the UK government.
I hesitate to add whisky to the fire, but the NI situation (stay in the EU) is also a solution many Scots would have liked.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?
He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.
On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998
The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
Nope, the Union is in the hands of the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998
Continued membership of a voluntary Union is up to the people’s of the member countries. Their fundamental rights to self-determination cannot be legislated away.
The Tories would get on better trying to make the Union more attractive to the Scots rather than shaking their shackles and telling them they’re on bread and water for the next twenty years.
No, continued membership of the UK Union legally and constitutionally is up to Westminster and has been since the Act of Union of 1707.
The fact Scots endorsed membership in 2014 just reinforced that politically, legally it was not required
"Yet searing, anonymously sourced quotes kept appearing throughout the [presidential] race. One Democrat who spoke to Obama recalled the former president saying 'never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up'"
Like it or not, this is falling on Biden. And HYUFD is right, this will define the administration's foreign policy as a failure: end of. And if this causes terror attacks on the USA, it will mean the Republicans probably win in 2024
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.
As recently as May the Scots re-elected a pro-independence legislature. The manifesto commitments of both the SNP and the Greens were quite clear, and they received democratic support.
Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.
It can, see also Spain and Catalonia.
However the UK government allowed Scots a once in a generation independence vote in 2014, they said no, tough
History is not your strong point. Especially the post-war political history of Scotland. This is only going to end one way, and you’re not going to like it.
If the Tories really do want to hold on to Scotland then you’ve got a window of opportunity. But that window is closing fast. Don’t blame others when it is gone. Michael Gove seems to be the only minister who understands this, and he is a bust flush. Dominic Cummings appears also to have been on the right path. Unfortunately for Unionists, only the dunderheids are left.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
And they will vote to remain in the union
Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.
Independence should have happened in 2014. It could have easily and workably been achieved whilst the UK was part of the EU - all it really required was some sort of mutually workable agreement over defence and a fudged agreement about money.The border would have been a non issue, because freedom of movement, capital etc was enshrined in the EU - a way could be found for an Independent Scotland to join the EU.
I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.
Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.
How do we know that such things won't happen anyway? The UK government unilaterally abolished the UK customs zone and imposed a customs border between GB and NI. There is nothing stopping them doing the same to Scotland and if they say "we won't do that" its the exact same thing they said to NI.
This is why I keep coming back to just how massive the NI issue is. South of the wall most people don't care. North of the wall its a direct warning for how much you can trust the word of the UK government.
Because the circumstances of Northern Ireland are unique, and there are no foreseeable circumstances under which such a barrier would be needed in Great Britain so long as the whole of it is under the aegis of a single state.
One doesn't have to think well of the present Government to accept this when the hypothetical being advanced is fanciful.
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
And they will vote to remain in the union
Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.
Independence should have happened in 2014. It could have easily and workably been achieved whilst the UK was part of the EU - all it really required was some sort of mutually workable agreement over defence and a fudged agreement about money.The border would have been a non issue, because freedom of movement, capital etc was enshrined in the EU - a way could be found for an Independent Scotland to join the EU.
I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.
Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.
How do we know that such things won't happen anyway? The UK government unilaterally abolished the UK customs zone and imposed a customs border between GB and NI. There is nothing stopping them doing the same to Scotland and if they say "we won't do that" its the exact same thing they said to NI.
This is why I keep coming back to just how massive the NI issue is. South of the wall most people don't care. North of the wall its a direct warning for how much you can trust the word of the UK government.
Why would the UK government be inclined to impose a customs border with Scotland, if Scotland votes to stay in the union? Surely it only becomes an issue if Scotland becomes independent.
Whilst everyone has the same old Indy debates on here, surely the focus should be on the utter humiliation of the USA and the UK in relation to Afghanistan.
What a failure of leadership from both countries - but the Chinese must be looking on in glee at the moment.
It will probably make them even more determined to crush the Uighurs than they are already to ensure there is not the slightest chance of China facing any sort of rebellion by a Muslim population.
The sad irony is that it is largely Muslim states who support China over this whenever Western states criticise it for what it is doing to the Uighurs.
Looks like Kabul has already been effectively lost
The speed of the collapse of the government there has been extraordinary. It suggests that the billions spent trying to bolster and train the government's army has once again been a total waste.
It seems that over 99% of Afghans would prefer to live under the Taliban than fight the Taliban.
Amid all the wailing and whining and wringing of hands - that is what stands out for me. Not everyone in the world has the same moral compass.
"BREAKING: The Taliban has entered Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, "from all sides" according to the interior ministry.
The group says it has no plans to take the city “by force.” Workers are fleeing govt offices. Thousands of civilians are camped out in parks and open areas."
It's like Day Zero in Phnom Penh, potentially a grotesque tragedy - WORSE than the Fall of Saigon
I think HYUFD and Dickson are an AI set up by Leon to argue with one another as an experiment. No two actual humans could possibly have the boredom threshold to argue with one another repeating the same points over and over and over again ad infinitum.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
I trust you are referring to the policies Charles Kennedy espoused rather than expressing satisfaction at his passing?I hope so anyway.
Of course, I had nothing against Kennedy personally, he was a genial chap, just his policies
His policies have stood the test of time: He was right, The Iraq war was indeed a massive mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives to the benefit of few except our enemies in Iran. When Charles had the courage to speak out aganist the unfolding disaster you, and many warmongers like you, did not merely disagree with him, you accused him of treachery.
Now Blair is rightly reviled for leading our country into an illegal war that he could and should have avoided, so I think if you are still opposed to the "policies" of Charles Kennedy you might want to go and sit in a dark room and contemplate the folly of your miserable, wasted life.
Charles had failings, but both he and Paddy Ashdown (and indeed Ming Campbell) had the political courage to speak up for what was right rather than what was merely politically expediant or temporarily popular amongst the poisonous British media.
Its called being principled and is almost the exact opposite of the lightweight, shallow fools in charge today.
It's a terrible loss to the country that Charles Kennedy succumbed to alcoholism.
"Yet searing, anonymously sourced quotes kept appearing throughout the [presidential] race. One Democrat who spoke to Obama recalled the former president saying 'never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up'"
Like it or not, this is falling on Biden. And HYUFD is right, this will define the administration's foreign policy as a failure: end of. And if this causes terror attacks on the USA, it will mean the Republicans probably win in 2024
The irony is that this is Trump's mess.
But that wont stop him winning the nomination and then back into WH if the Taliban do start to harbour terrorists.
Why on earth did Biden not delay until the fighting season was over?
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
I trust you are referring to the policies Charles Kennedy espoused rather than expressing satisfaction at his passing?I hope so anyway.
Of course, I had nothing against Kennedy personally, he was a genial chap, just his policies
His policies have stood the test of time: He was right, The Iraq war was indeed a massive mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives to the benefit of few except our enemies in Iran. When Charles had the courage to speak out aganist the unfolding disaster you, and many warmongers like you, did not merely disagree with him, you accused him of treachery.
Now Blair is rightly reviled for leading our country into an illegal war that he could and should have avoided, so I think if you are still opposed to the "policies" of Charles Kennedy you might want to go and sit in a dark room and contemplate the folly of your miserable, wasted life.
Charles had failings, but both he and Paddy Ashdown (and indeed Ming Campbell) had the political courage to speak up for what was right rather than what was merely politically expediant or temporarily popular amongst the poisonous British media.
Its called being principled and is almost the exact opposite of the lightweight, shallow fools in charge today.
Iraq is now a free democracy.
If you and Charles Kennedy had had your way it would still be under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein
Or maybe not.
One of his sons would have taken over by now - probably the most brutal of them.
"BREAKING: The Taliban has entered Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, "from all sides" according to the interior ministry.
The group says it has no plans to take the city “by force.” Workers are fleeing govt offices. Thousands of civilians are camped out in parks and open areas."
It's like Day Zero in Phnom Penh, potentially a grotesque tragedy - WORSE than the Fall of Saigon
Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...
To avoid a hard border in Ireland which most of them wanted and to get a UK trade deal with the EU.
In the Brexit talks the EU held the cards on that, on indyref2 the power is all with Boris under the Scotland Act 1998
Its laughable that you can post this stuff with a straight face - we know you aren't stupid enough to think what you are posing is actually true. You know its nonsense and so do we. Yet you keep posting it.
I am not at all sure you are correct on that comment
OK, maybe he IS that stupid.
So instead of trading bitchy insults what is the actual truth of the matter. What is the situation in this case ?
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?
He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.
On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998
The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
HYUFD is a Remainer don't forget.
The UK did hold the cards. That's why we got a deal we wanted and not the backstop the EU wanted. That's why we're now able to frustrate and make unworkable even the token Protocol we got the EU to reluctantly sign up to instead of the backstop they'd spent years demanding.
We held all the cards and sold them a pup.
You're sounding a lot like an 11yr old here, Philip.
My 11 yo nephew would like to register a complaint!
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
And they will vote to remain in the union
Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.
Independence should have happened in 2014. It could have easily and workably been achieved whilst the UK was part of the EU - all it really required was some sort of mutually workable agreement over defence and a fudged agreement about money.The border would have been a non issue, because freedom of movement, capital etc was enshrined in the EU - a way could be found for an Independent Scotland to join the EU.
I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.
Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.
How do we know that such things won't happen anyway? The UK government unilaterally abolished the UK customs zone and imposed a customs border between GB and NI. There is nothing stopping them doing the same to Scotland and if they say "we won't do that" its the exact same thing they said to NI.
This is why I keep coming back to just how massive the NI issue is. South of the wall most people don't care. North of the wall its a direct warning for how much you can trust the word of the UK government.
I hesitate to add whisky to the fire, but the NI situation (stay in the EU) is also a solution many Scots would have liked.
"Yet searing, anonymously sourced quotes kept appearing throughout the [presidential] race. One Democrat who spoke to Obama recalled the former president saying 'never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up'"
Like it or not, this is falling on Biden. And HYUFD is right, this will define the administration's foreign policy as a failure: end of. And if this causes terror attacks on the USA, it will mean the Republicans probably win in 2024
The irony is that this is Trump's mess.
But that wont stop him winning the nomination and then back into WH if the Taliban do start to harbour terrorists.
Why on earth did Biden not delay until the fighting season was over?
POssibly the need for good weather for transport within Afghanistan? (Don't actually know myself.)
With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...
They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.
However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.
It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.
In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.
It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.
So, what is more likely?
1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or 2. a government of a different political complexion taking power
Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.
Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.
Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.
Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?
It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs
In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.
Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.
Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:
Best prices - Unite General Secretary election
Steve Turner 10/11 Gerard Coyne 2/1 Sharon Graham 11/4
I can’t think of a more depressing betting market
How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?
2024 or later 4/6
At least the Scots have an exit route.
They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2
The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.
And they will vote to remain in the union
Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.
On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).
High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.
Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.
Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.
I am of the view now that the only option is a massive increase of funding for the NHS. This is very much a personal view but I’d be far happier to pay more in taxes to avoid putting people like Mr and Mrs Foxy back into this horrible situation than having to remain stuck at home to do so.
It is not just funding. We do not train anything like enough doctors and nurses. That needs to change, especially now given the shrinking pool of immigrants we rely on to fill the gaps. We also need to acknowledge that spare capacity is needed and not simply a waste of resources.
Yes, staffing is the issue. On top of Annual leave (much of it deferred from earlier in the year because of covid pressure) we have 57 WTE vacancies on ICU, a mix of unfillable posts, maternity leave and long term sick. We have 21 current ICU/ECMO patients, many from out of area, compared with 83 at the February peak.
I have never seen morale so low amongst our nurses and HCAs, not helped by patients giving them abuse because they have been told that things are back to normal. Routine and specialist stuff is repeatedly cancelled.
On more serious matters, how much difference is vaccination making to the actual patients who come in? I've lost track a bit but presumably there are so many cases that some vaccinated people are being hospitalised anyway.
Yes, the gif was on my clipboard, I didn't mean to post it on this thread.
The ICU cases are all unvaxxinated, some with good reason, the admissions are more 50/50.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).
Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.
Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.
I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔
It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.
As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.
However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.
“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'
“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”
If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages
The people who really 'took out' ISIS were the Kurds and the Iraqi army though, surely.
That region seems to have a strong spine of anti-islamism that is sadly lacking in Afghanistan.
As usual, the Kurds were left holding the shitty end of the stick.
I don't think Iraq/Syria are anti-Islam by any manner of means; they're 'just not fundamentalist Moslems. The situation is akin to having the Puritans of 17th C New England or the Holy Inquisition of Spain in control.
I think the Kurds have a saying, ‘Our only friends are mountains’.
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.
Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.
I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.
Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.
Afghanistan has a long pre-Islamic history. And, as others have noted, Kabul was a popular stop on the 60's hippy trail. And Afghanistan has cultures, not a culture. What is Pashtun is not Tajik. 40+ years of conflict will influence a country more than its religion or culture I fear.
Is there any significant difference in how the Pashtun treat Pashtun women from how the Tajik treat Tajik women? Any difference at all?
Probably not a great deal. Although the Afghan army is overwhelmingly Tajik, and has thus been supporting the status quo ante. Women arent getting a good deal whoever is in charge. However. What Afghanistan really needs is peace. The entire country is suffering from trauma. Which only facilitates conflict.
On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).
High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.
Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.
Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.
I am of the view now that the only option is a massive increase of funding for the NHS. This is very much a personal view but I’d be far happier to pay more in taxes to avoid putting people like Mr and Mrs Foxy back into this horrible situation than having to remain stuck at home to do so.
It is not just funding. We do not train anything like enough doctors and nurses. That needs to change, especially now given the shrinking pool of immigrants we rely on to fill the gaps. We also need to acknowledge that spare capacity is needed and not simply a waste of resources.
Yes, staffing is the issue. On top of Annual leave (much of it deferred from earlier in the year because of covid pressure) we have 57 WTE vacancies on ICU, a mix of unfillable posts, maternity leave and long term sick. We have 21 current ICU/ECMO patients, many from out of area, compared with 83 at the February peak.
I have never seen morale so low amongst our nurses and HCAs, not helped by patients giving them abuse because they have been told that things are back to normal. Routine and specialist stuff is repeatedly cancelled.
On more serious matters, how much difference is vaccination making to the actual patients who come in? I've lost track a bit but presumably there are so many cases that some vaccinated people are being hospitalised anyway.
Yes, the gif was on my clipboard, I didn't mean to post it on this thread.
The ICU cases are all unvaxxinated, some with good reason, the admissions are more 50/50.
I thought you were making a p oint about the diversion of the thread!
Thanks re admissions, that's useful to know. Any particular age cutoff?
Princess Anne’s birthday today. She wouldn’t take any shit from the Taliban.
If she lived there, they would not be prostrating themselves, boot licking , etc. She is only a big gob because she feels entitled to talk down to plebs. Another nasty piece of work.
I think HYUFD and Dickson are an AI set up by Leon to argue with one another as an experiment. No two actual humans could possibly have the boredom threshold to argue with one another repeating the same points over and over and over again ad infinitum.
It is a live possibility worth considering. Their argument - mirroring the predicament of you-know-where very neatly - is much like the end of a game of chess where neither side has enough material on the board to force a victory, yet both are too stubborn to agree a draw. So they just keep moving pointlessly around one another for ever and ever.
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).
Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.
Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.
I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔
It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.
As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.
However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.
“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'
“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”
If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages
The people who really 'took out' ISIS were the Kurds and the Iraqi army though, surely.
That region seems to have a strong spine of anti-islamism that is sadly lacking in Afghanistan.
As usual, the Kurds were left holding the shitty end of the stick.
I don't think Iraq/Syria are anti-Islam by any manner of means; they're 'just not fundamentalist Moslems. The situation is akin to having the Puritans of 17th C New England or the Holy Inquisition of Spain in control.
Which of the Puritans and the Inquisition play the role of not fundamentalist in your analogy?
Looks like Kabul has already been effectively lost
And if it does it is on the Biden-Harris administration, without doubt the weakest, most hapless and useless US administration of the past 100 years in terms of foreign policy. Cutting and running with no responsibility at all to the Afghan people and handing it back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
A truly disgusting post.
It is not disgusting but it is pure hyperbole and nonsensical
No, you are giving him too much credit there. There is a kernel of pure evil in there.
As you know @HYUFD and I are very different conservative members and we regularly disagree but 'pure evil' is what we witnessed in Plymouth this week, not any political opinion HYUFD expresses or yourself for that matter
Princess Anne’s birthday today. She wouldn’t take any shit from the Taliban.
If she lived there, they would not be prostrating themselves, boot licking , etc. She is only a big gob because she feels entitled to talk down to plebs. Another nasty piece of work.
"BREAKING: The Taliban has entered Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, "from all sides" according to the interior ministry.
The group says it has no plans to take the city “by force.” Workers are fleeing govt offices. Thousands of civilians are camped out in parks and open areas."
It's like Day Zero in Phnom Penh, potentially a grotesque tragedy - WORSE than the Fall of Saigon
Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!
If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place
Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?
I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.
Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism
Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.
The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now
Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).
Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.
Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.
I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔
It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.
As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.
However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.
“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'
“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”
If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages
The people who really 'took out' ISIS were the Kurds and the Iraqi army though, surely.
That region seems to have a strong spine of anti-islamism that is sadly lacking in Afghanistan.
Yes, rather ironic that after all the criticism of the Iraq War as the 'wrong war' it is Iraqis who are prepared to stand up and fight for freedom and democracy against militants rather more than Afghans in the so called 'right war.'
Largely because between Shia and Kurds there was a majority willing to fight Salafism. It wasn't the Westernised middle classes doing the fighting.
Rory Stewart:- Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out? https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078
Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).
You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.
Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?
There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.
I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.
Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.
I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.
Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.
I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.
Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.
Afghanistan has a long pre-Islamic history. And, as others have noted, Kabul was a popular stop on the 60's hippy trail. And Afghanistan has cultures, not a culture. What is Pashtun is not Tajik. 40+ years of conflict will influence a country more than its religion or culture I fear.
Is there any significant difference in how the Pashtun treat Pashtun women from how the Tajik treat Tajik women? Any difference at all?
Probably not a great deal. Although the Afghan army is overwhelmingly Tajik, and has thus been supporting the status quo ante. Women arent getting a good deal whoever is in charge. However. What Afghanistan really needs is peace. The entire country is suffering from trauma. Which only facilitates conflict.
Doesn't strike me as particularly desirable to have a country's Army overwhelmingly from a minority community.
Different cartridge. 7.62x39 vs 5.65x45. Probably not worth the effort unless they come across millions of rounds somewhere.
And AK's probably still take a hellauva bigger battering from Panjshir Valley dust and snow than M16s. The disparity is I guess smaller now but didn’t grunts in Vietnam initially pick up AK47s when they could cos their M16s had given up the ghost after a drop of rain?
Comments
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1426837632542285826?s=20
Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.
"Incel" requires women to have rights and the confidence and ability to say "no" and have that respected.
Sadly I don't think that's going to be the case in Afghanistan at all.
How many are digging into savings or going into debt to pay for private treatment to beat the exploding queues? Having paid NI all their lives?
I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.
What’s the unbiased opinion on whose at fault? Biden is just following Trumps plan isn’t he? Both to blame?
Trump is a shit of the highest order so it’s not a surprise that he’s laying into Biden. But to govern is to choose. Biden could have changed his mind when it became obvious what was happening. It’s in him that he hasn’t done so.
In the Brexit talks the EU held the cards on that, on indyref2 the power is all with Boris under the Scotland Act 1998
UDI would be struck down in Scotland on a challenge from pro union Scots
The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.
The US assessment of what would happen with their pull out now appears woefully wide of the mark.
As to who's fault? Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that covered that.....
Now Blair is rightly reviled for leading our country into an illegal war that he could and should have avoided, so I think if you are still opposed to the "policies" of Charles Kennedy you might want to go and sit in a dark room and contemplate the folly of your miserable, wasted life.
Charles had failings, but both he and Paddy Ashdown (and indeed Ming Campbell) had the political courage to speak up for what was right rather than what was merely politically expediant or temporarily popular amongst the poisonous British media.
Its called being principled and is almost the exact opposite of the lightweight, shallow fools in charge today.
https://twitter.com/KimSengupta07/status/1426841112195575809?s=20
As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.
However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.
“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'
“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”
If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/567907-trump-slams-biden-for-not-following-the-plan-he-left-on
I thought that America's security forces and the neo-con Republican rump supported Biden over Trump because the former was an expansionist internationally....?
Somebody got that one wrong.
My report on UK's abandonment of Afghans with British ties, essentially because they worked for the wrong part of the mission in Afghanistan
https://twitter.com/_EmmaGH/status/1426823192195342341?s=20
The UK did hold the cards. That's why we got a deal we wanted and not the backstop the EU wanted. That's why we're now able to frustrate and make unworkable even the token Protocol we got the EU to reluctantly sign up to instead of the backstop they'd spent years demanding.
We held all the cards and sold them a pup.
And Parliament to be recalled over Afghanistan
The West never learns. Occupying a country, then trying to change its culture and values through a combination of military force and 're-education' doesn't work. It can lead to a backlash that is more reactionary than the original 'sin'. The desire for change needs to come from within, not be imposed externally. It's desperately sad to see the Taliban take over, but I don't think there's much that we can, or should, do about it.
Good.
I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.
Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.
That region seems to have a strong spine of anti-islamism that is sadly lacking in Afghanistan.
However the UK government allowed Scots a once in a generation independence vote in 2014, they said no, tough
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1426844464220360707?s=20
The Tories would get on better trying to make the Union more attractive to the Scots rather than shaking their shackles and telling them they’re on bread and water for the next twenty years.
40+ years of conflict will influence a country more than its religion or culture I fear.
I have never seen morale so low amongst our nurses and HCAs, not helped by patients giving them abuse because they have been told that things are back to normal. Routine and specialist stuff is repeatedly cancelled.
What a failure of leadership from both countries - but the Chinese must be looking on in glee at the moment.
If you and Charles Kennedy had had your way it would still be under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein
This is why I keep coming back to just how massive the NI issue is. South of the wall most people don't care. North of the wall its a direct warning for how much you can trust the word of the UK government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7QARslq74
On more serious matters, how much difference is vaccination making to the actual patients who come in? I've lost track a bit but presumably there are so many cases that some vaccinated people are being hospitalised anyway.
I don't think Iraq/Syria are anti-Islam by any manner of means; they're 'just not fundamentalist Moslems. The situation is akin to having the Puritans of 17th C New England or the Holy Inquisition of Spain in control.
The fact Scots endorsed membership in 2014 just reinforced that politically, legally it was not required
"Yet searing, anonymously sourced quotes kept appearing throughout the [presidential] race. One Democrat who spoke to Obama recalled the former president saying 'never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up'"
https://twitter.com/Apathycase/status/1426714038185062406?s=20
Like it or not, this is falling on Biden. And HYUFD is right, this will define the administration's foreign policy as a failure: end of. And if this causes terror attacks on the USA, it will mean the Republicans probably win in 2024
If the Tories really do want to hold on to Scotland then you’ve got a window of opportunity. But that window is closing fast. Don’t blame others when it is gone. Michael Gove seems to be the only minister who understands this, and he is a bust flush. Dominic Cummings appears also to have been on the right path. Unfortunately for Unionists, only the dunderheids are left.
One doesn't have to think well of the present Government to accept this when the hypothetical being advanced is fanciful.
The sad irony is that it is largely Muslim states who support China over this whenever Western states criticise it for what it is doing to the Uighurs.
The group says it has no plans to take the city “by force.” Workers are fleeing govt offices. Thousands of civilians are camped out in parks and open areas."
It's like Day Zero in Phnom Penh, potentially a grotesque tragedy - WORSE than the Fall of Saigon
https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1426834317670551552?s=20
But that wont stop him winning the nomination and then back into WH if the Taliban do start to harbour terrorists.
Why on earth did Biden not delay until the fighting season was over?
“US Public Supports Withdrawal From Afghanistan”
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/commentary-and-analysis/blogs/us-public-supports-withdrawal-afghanistan
The ICU cases are all unvaxxinated, some with good reason, the admissions are more 50/50.
However. What Afghanistan really needs is peace. The entire country is suffering from trauma. Which only facilitates conflict.
Thanks re admissions, that's useful to know. Any particular age cutoff?
Con Maj 5/4
NOM 11/8
Lab Maj 7/1
The Fall of Phnom Penh led to the Killing Fields, an entire nation enslaved, and a third of them slaughtered
For many Afghanis - especially women - Taliban rule may feel closer to the Khmer Rouge than the Viet Cong
https://twitter.com/RichardEngel/status/1426841704313806851?s=20
No ones ever seems to learn from history.
Leave the Afghans to their own devices.