Even if one doesn't agree with Tugendhat, it was a powerful speech of the type that HoC sees so rarely in modern times.
It was a powerful speech.
But I'm afraid that his talk of 'strategic patience', and the comparison with South Korea was facile. We didn't much engage in any kind of nation building there - just left it to the post-war dictators, and lucked out with Park Chung-hee (who wouldn't be acceptable these days in may different ways).
You can't rely on public opinion being stable on war issues - quite understandably they respond to events, and less understandably they often forget that they previously thought differently.
True. I think it's because most people will give some kind of yes/no answer to an opinion poll, but will not necessarily have thought much about it, so it's not so much that they have really changed their minds an forgotten/denying that as they moved from no real opinion to a clear opinion. So you get a majority favouring invading Iraq when it's happening say, but a clear majority who say they never favoured invading Iraq. Most of those probably had no strong opinion at the time, but preferred not to say 'don't know' when asked and went largely on the last thing they'd heard/what they thought others' opinions were, even on what was happening - the government were doing it, so presumably it was a good idea.
(See also lockdowns etc, polling might have been quite different on hypothetical lockdowns pre-Covid and may change a lot five years down the line, say).
How did the West get sucked into "nation building" in Afghanistan in the first place? We were suppose to be there only to dismantle the terrorism threat in 2001.
Rumsfeld cocked the job up, and everything followed from that.
He, you will recall, did it on the cheap, relying on the locals backed up by US air power...
Mission creep I suppose.
The conventional wisdom at the time was that the reason that things had gone wrong in Afghanistan was, that
- The Russians massive military intervention had put everyone in Afghanistan against them - After they were defeated - "The West abandoned Afghanistan". - Which allowed Osama and chums to roll in.
So, the conventional wisdom was that the intervention in Afghanistan should be Afghan led (if possible) and followed up with lots of... nation building.
From the report of the Select Committee on International Relations and Defence, Jan 2021... https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5801/ldselect/ldintrel/208/20812.htm#_idTextAnchor251 117.We heard that the ongoing presence of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan is essential to the Afghan government’s military strength and negotiating position. Premature withdrawal by the US, likely to be matched by NATO partners, runs contrary to the UK’s objective of securing a durable negotiated settlement. (Paragraph 545)
118.The UK should emphasise to the US and its NATO Allies the importance of their ongoing presence in Afghanistan until a peace deal is reached (Paragraph 546)
119.The ongoing presence of UK troops in Afghanistan depends on the deployment decisions of the US. We were disappointed by the lack of analysis of the implications of the planned US withdrawal from Afghanistan provided by ministers in their evidence. We ask the Government to provide to us its assessment of the US’s policy. (Paragraph 547)
120.The evidence we received demonstrated the challenges facing the Government on future security assistance to Afghanistan:
A government with Taliban representation might not accept such assistance, and the UK and NATO Allies would need to consider what sort of assistance to provide to such a regime. If a peace deal was reached with the Taliban and the UK and international partners withdrew funding for the Afghan National Security Forces, this would critically undermine the viability of the Afghan forces. The UK and non-US NATO Allies are unlikely to remain in Afghanistan if the US withdraws its troops. The US presence is the largest in NATO; the end of its non-NATO mission is likely to result in the security situation deteriorating. We invite the Government to provide us with its assessment of these challenges. (Paragraph 552)...
Two initial conclusions from this...
1) The House of Lords might be a very useful advisory institution... if anyone took any notice of it. 2) It's utter shite to claim that no one saw this coming.
Without large external armed forces permanently in Afghanistan then this was always going to happen. Anyone who "rules" Afghanistan will either be corrupt or madly religious. It will never ever be a place with a decent settled Government operating for the benefit of the population.
BREAKING: Former Afghan President fled with $169MILLION in his helicopter and has been given asylum in Dubai https://trib.al/PM1rH1F
He's lucky Dubai is a charitable nation, I'd be tempted to send him back to the hand choppers.
Theft of $169m might involve more for the chop than just the hands.
Something else - on various Twitter messages etc there are reports that Afghan soldiers were told to stand down by their senior commanders, because there was a peace deal.
And apparently, Afghan Vice President Saleh has stepped up, put together a force (in conjunction with Ahmad Massoud) and retaken the Charikar area from Taliban.
Yes, he was on the radio last night, claiming to be the legitimate president of Afghanistan as Ghani had effectively resigned by running away, and saying that he would stay and fight.
Even if one doesn't agree with Tugendhat, it was a powerful speech of the type that HoC sees so rarely in modern times.
It was a powerful speech.
But I'm afraid that his talk of 'strategic patience', and the comparison with South Korea was facile. We didn't much engage in any kind of nation building there - just left it to the post-war dictators, and lucked out with Park Chung-hee (who wouldn't be acceptable these days in may different ways).
You can't rely on public opinion being stable on war issues - quite understandably they respond to events, and less understandably they often forget that they previously thought differently.
In the poll that formed the basis of the last thread header, 9% thought Sir Keir had handled the Afghan crisis well, and 26% thought badly...
How can ANYONE have had an opinion on how he had done? He hadn't done, and cannot have done, anything!
That 26% is people like you - SDR types.
Obviously not, as I just said it was impossible to have an opinion on the matter.
Yes, fair enough, but that's because you're on here and there's standards. If they'd asked you in a survey, I bet you'd have gone for "badly".
Ah. I am slightly hurt you think that, but I wouldn't have anyway
I feel bad now. Please forget I ever said anything. We'll ctl alt del with this one and I'll assess things objectively from here based only on what I see.
How did the West get sucked into "nation building" in Afghanistan in the first place? We were suppose to be there only to dismantle the terrorism threat in 2001.
Rumsfeld cocked the job up, and everything followed from that.
He, you will recall, did it on the cheap, relying on the locals backed up by US air power...
Mission creep I suppose.
The conventional wisdom at the time was that the reason that things had gone wrong in Afghanistan was, that
- The Russians massive military intervention had put everyone in Afghanistan against them - After they were defeated - "The West abandoned Afghanistan". - Which allowed Osama and chums to roll in.
So, the conventional wisdom was that the intervention in Afghanistan should be Afghan led (if possible) and followed up with lots of... nation building.
Ed Davey’s LibDems have been going in hard on Afghanistan, both calling for a greater number of refugees to be allowed into the UK and strongly condemning the US & UK military withdrawal, saying “our leaders should all hang their heads in shame.”
Back at the LibDems’ 2009 conference, their future leader was instead calling for “tea with the Taliban”, and for Taliban fighters to be offered “a decent daily wage” to get them to defect. Now he criticises the withdrawal of troops, yet ten years ago Davey told the LibDem faithful:
“You don’t win wars by fighting in Afghanistan: witness the Soviets, witness the three Anglo-Afghan wars fought by the British Empire, witness Alexander the Great.”
LOL!
The Lib-Dems: Never knowingly having fewer than two positions at the same time on any subject since 1989!
To be fair, these are two positions at different times, which is more defensible than two positions at the same time for different electorates.
If the British public really care about this, then presumably we can expect a Lib Dem surge... Although, unlike when Kennedy was against the Iraq war, I doubt many have noticed Davey's (present) position, or indeed noticed Davey at all.
Completely off topic (I cant understand why people use "OT" as shorthand for that, as it could mean "On topic" as well), last night I did a v boring thing - watched a rerun of a snooker match I had recorded from the previous evening.
Mark Allen vs Reanna Evans in the British Open. The context of them being former partners who were now on bad terms made it quite enthralling viewing, possibly one of the most tense sporting encounters of all time. Evans refusing his offer of a fist bump at he start set the icy tone
BREAKING: Former Afghan President fled with $169MILLION in his helicopter and has been given asylum in Dubai https://trib.al/PM1rH1F
He's lucky Dubai is a charitable nation, I'd be tempted to send him back to the hand choppers.
Theft of $169m might involve more for the chop than just the hands.
Something else - on various Twitter messages etc there are reports that Afghan soldiers were told to stand down by their senior commanders, because there was a peace deal.
And apparently, Afghan Vice President Saleh has stepped up, put together a force (in conjunction with Ahmad Massoud) and retaken the Charikar area from Taliban.
Yes, he was on the radio last night, claiming to be the legitimate president of Afghanistan as Ghani had effectively resigned by running away, and saying that he would stay and fight.
Parliament pulled the same 'you've resigned by running away so we're in charge' move in 1689.
BREAKING: Former Afghan President fled with $169MILLION in his helicopter and has been given asylum in Dubai https://trib.al/PM1rH1F
He's lucky Dubai is a charitable nation, I'd be tempted to send him back to the hand choppers.
Theft of $169m might involve more for the chop than just the hands.
Something else - on various Twitter messages etc there are reports that Afghan soldiers were told to stand down by their senior commanders, because there was a peace deal.
And apparently, Afghan Vice President Saleh has stepped up, put together a force (in conjunction with Ahmad Massoud) and retaken the Charikar area from Taliban.
Yes, he was on the radio last night, claiming to be the legitimate president of Afghanistan as Ghani had effectively resigned by running away, and saying that he would stay and fight.
Parliament pulled the same 'you've resigned by running away so we're in charge' move in 1689.
Well if he stays and defeats the Taliban, he'll deserve to be the president.
How did the West get sucked into "nation building" in Afghanistan in the first place? We were suppose to be there only to dismantle the terrorism threat in 2001.
Rumsfeld cocked the job up, and everything followed from that.
He, you will recall, did it on the cheap, relying on the locals backed up by US air power...
Mission creep I suppose.
The conventional wisdom at the time was that the reason that things had gone wrong in Afghanistan was, that
- The Russians massive military intervention had put everyone in Afghanistan against them - After they were defeated - "The West abandoned Afghanistan". - Which allowed Osama and chums to roll in.
So, the conventional wisdom was that the intervention in Afghanistan should be Afghan led (if possible) and followed up with lots of... nation building.
BREAKING: Former Afghan President fled with $169MILLION in his helicopter and has been given asylum in Dubai https://trib.al/PM1rH1F
He's lucky Dubai is a charitable nation, I'd be tempted to send him back to the hand choppers.
Theft of $169m might involve more for the chop than just the hands.
Something else - on various Twitter messages etc there are reports that Afghan soldiers were told to stand down by their senior commanders, because there was a peace deal.
And apparently, Afghan Vice President Saleh has stepped up, put together a force (in conjunction with Ahmad Massoud) and retaken the Charikar area from Taliban.
Yes, he was on the radio last night, claiming to be the legitimate president of Afghanistan as Ghani had effectively resigned by running away, and saying that he would stay and fight.
Parliament pulled the same 'you've resigned by running away so we're in charge' move in 1689.
Well if he stays and defeats the Taliban, he'll deserve to be the president.
President of Afghanisan? If he defeats the Taliban, I rather think he should be rewarded, not punished!
Looks like we can expect the percentage vaccinated numbers to drop tomorrow as the UK switches from percent of adult population to percent of 16 and over. From the UK COVID Dashboard:
"On Thursday 19 August, headline vaccination uptake by report date for the UK and nations will be updated to include ages 16 and 17 in the denominator."
With many Taliban leaders claiming various religious authority and titles I'll confess I've never actually understood how senior clerics come to be acknowledged in Islam (though I'm sure its different across different branches).
Does one just study at a religious school and becomed learned in scripture and law and then start opining on religious matters, and if enough people think it makes sense hey presto you're a mullah/ayatollah?
Just saw Bill Nye's book, Indisputable (about evolution), in my daughter's room. And it made me think how our real time tracking of the new COVID variants, with Alpha and Delta serially outcompeting their predecessors, is perfect evidence with which to confront denialists to prove that evolution is real and ongoing
With many Taliban leaders claiming various religious authority and titles I'll confess I've never actually understood how senior clerics come to be acknowledged in Islam (though I'm sure its different across different branches).
Does one just study at a religious school and becomed learned in scripture and law and then start opining on religious matters, and if enough people think it makes sense hey presto you're a mullah/ayatollah?
What if you then coast on your laurels?
Essentially, yes. There's not really an establishment hierarchy in the way that the Roman Catholic church is organised.
Does one just study at a religious school and becomed learned in scripture and law and then start opining on religious matters, and if enough people think it makes sense hey presto you're a mullah/ayatollah?
That's my understanding, at least to be a mullah in Afghanistan. Historically, you could even drop the "study at a religious school and becomed learned in scripture and law" bit outside cities. Essentially, for hundreds of years, the existing village mullah would have an apprentice, who would gradually start to be treated like a mullah by his villagers, provided they respected him.
But I would guess it varies. Imagine trying to answer a similar question for Christianity, after all! For example I associate "Ayatollah" with Shia Islam, but I couldn't say with confidence that Sunnis don't use the term too.
Just saw Bill Nye's book, Indisputable (about evolution), in my daughter's room. And it made me think how our real time tracking of the new COVID variants, with Alpha and Delta serially outcompeting their predecessors, is perfect evidence with which to confront denialists to prove that evolution is real and ongoing
It would be, if the denialists had any interest in evidence.
The alternative 'theories' for how we all came to be can equally be applied to Covid variants, I guess.
With many Taliban leaders claiming various religious authority and titles I'll confess I've never actually understood how senior clerics come to be acknowledged in Islam (though I'm sure its different across different branches).
Does one just study at a religious school and becomed learned in scripture and law and then start opining on religious matters, and if enough people think it makes sense hey presto you're a mullah/ayatollah?
What if you then coast on your laurels?
Essentially, yes. There's not really an establishment hierarchy in the way that the Roman Catholic church is organised.
In fairness despite reading plenty on how the ideas affected politics I'm so blinkered I dont really wrap my head around the idea of Presbyterianism churches organise even.
Were I religious I'd definitely fall in with whatever was the most hierarchical.
With many Taliban leaders claiming various religious authority and titles I'll confess I've never actually understood how senior clerics come to be acknowledged in Islam (though I'm sure its different across different branches).
Does one just study at a religious school and becomed learned in scripture and law and then start opining on religious matters, and if enough people think it makes sense hey presto you're a mullah/ayatollah?
What if you then coast on your laurels?
Essentially, yes. There's not really an establishment hierarchy in the way that the Roman Catholic church is organised.
In fairness despite reading plenty on how the ideas affected politics I'm so blinkered I dont really wrap my head around the idea of Presbyterianism churches organise even.
Were I religious I'd definitely fall in with whatever was the most hierarchical.
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Not surprised. The guy is an idiot and in the back pocket of Germany's worst polluters. It's shocking that a nation as advanced as Germany is still burning surface lignite to keep the lights on.
Ed Davey’s LibDems have been going in hard on Afghanistan, both calling for a greater number of refugees to be allowed into the UK and strongly condemning the US & UK military withdrawal, saying “our leaders should all hang their heads in shame.”
Back at the LibDems’ 2009 conference, their future leader was instead calling for “tea with the Taliban”, and for Taliban fighters to be offered “a decent daily wage” to get them to defect. Now he criticises the withdrawal of troops, yet ten years ago Davey told the LibDem faithful:
“You don’t win wars by fighting in Afghanistan: witness the Soviets, witness the three Anglo-Afghan wars fought by the British Empire, witness Alexander the Great.”
LOL!
The Lib-Dems: Never knowingly having fewer than two positions at the same time on any subject since 1989!
The idea of anchoring on a number of refugees just show how barmy the debate is. Surely what is relevant is the rules for being able to come here or not. Translators for Western troops, translators' parents and siblings, Afghan national soldiers, people fleeing autocratic rule, university lecturers etc. That is a sensible debate to have.
Saying anything else will have the same effect as Merkel’s comments a few years ago, and lead to a mass exodus across Europe. The UK will be taking thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, but we have to do everything we can to stop the Channel boat crossings, which are costing lives and enabling smugglers.
There is a little bit of a difference. North Africa is just a boat ride away from Europe. You could hop on a trawler at any number of small ports and beaches, and the same day (admittedly a long day), you could wash up on a Greek, Cypriot or Maltese beach.
Kabul, by contrast, is a 7,500 kilometre trek from the UK. And it requires either crossing the entire lengths of Iran and Turkey, or going through Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Russia... or heading South through Iraq, Jordan and Israel to get to North Africa. The distance scales aren't really comparable.
This doesn't mean Ms Patel is wrong, it's just that the scale is somewhat difference:
North Africa is 400 million people a short boat ride from Europe Afghanistan is 38 million people a long, long, long walk from Europe
Ed Davey’s LibDems have been going in hard on Afghanistan, both calling for a greater number of refugees to be allowed into the UK and strongly condemning the US & UK military withdrawal, saying “our leaders should all hang their heads in shame.”
Back at the LibDems’ 2009 conference, their future leader was instead calling for “tea with the Taliban”, and for Taliban fighters to be offered “a decent daily wage” to get them to defect. Now he criticises the withdrawal of troops, yet ten years ago Davey told the LibDem faithful:
“You don’t win wars by fighting in Afghanistan: witness the Soviets, witness the three Anglo-Afghan wars fought by the British Empire, witness Alexander the Great.”
LOL!
The Lib-Dems: Never knowingly having fewer than two positions at the same time on any subject since 1989!
The idea of anchoring on a number of refugees just show how barmy the debate is. Surely what is relevant is the rules for being able to come here or not. Translators for Western troops, translators' parents and siblings, Afghan national soldiers, people fleeing autocratic rule, university lecturers etc. That is a sensible debate to have.
An upper limit may make sense, were it possible to settle on a clear number that was 'too much' for a nation to handle, but given the issue of how many are usually political, and there are many non-Afghans to consider, that probably is not possible. However, a competition on nations to come up with bigger numbers to look good will at least mean more are able to come.
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Blatantly obvious they should have gone with the CSU's Soder, Soder had 40% backing him as preferred Chancellor to 23% for Baerbock and 16% for Scholz back in April.
Just saw Bill Nye's book, Indisputable (about evolution), in my daughter's room. And it made me think how our real time tracking of the new COVID variants, with Alpha and Delta serially outcompeting their predecessors, is perfect evidence with which to confront denialists to prove that evolution is real and ongoing
It would be, if the denialists had any interest in evidence.
The alternative 'theories' for how we all came to be can equally be applied to Covid variants, I guess.
I once read a conversation with a conspiracy theorist who 'believed' that the Argentinians had sunk a British aircraft carrier in the war. Every time a bit of evidence was produced, he would either deny it, or work around it. Eventually he ended up with the US building an Invincible-class carrier to replace the one sunk. And nobody noticed ...
Sometimes it is pointless to argue with them. Better just to point and laugh.
Or just put a warlord in charge not a leftie intellectual like Ghani who is not a war leader and happy to put his leftwing principles to one side if there are millions of dollars on offer
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Blatantly obvious they should have gone with the CSU's Soder, Soder had 40% backing him as preferred Chancellor to 23% for Baerbock and 16% for Scholz back in April.
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Blatantly obvious they should have gone with the CSU's Soder, Soder had 40% backing him as preferred Chancellor to 23% for Baerbock and 16% for Scholz back in April.
It's going to be mighty close, given that the latest polling has the CDU/CSU, SPD, and Greens within just a few percent of each other.
Yes but none of those 3 want to work with the AfD or Linke, they would rather work with themselves than them.
So it is mainly a question of whether it is the FDP or the Greens who join another grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD to give it a majority.
The FDP are unlikely to want to work with the Greens, certainly if the CDU/CSU still have more seats than the SPD so an SPD-Greens-FDP group is unlikely in my view
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Not surprised. The guy is an idiot and in the back pocket of Germany's worst polluters. It's shocking that a nation as advanced as Germany is still burning surface lignite to keep the lights on.
While that's true, Germany's CO2 emissions from power gen are finally in retreat:
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Blatantly obvious they should have gone with the CSU's Soder, Soder had 40% backing him as preferred Chancellor to 23% for Baerbock and 16% for Scholz back in April.
It's going to be mighty close, given that the latest polling has the CDU/CSU, SPD, and Greens within just a few percent of each other.
Yes but none of those 3 want to work with the AfD or Linke, they would rather work with themselves than them.
So it is mainly a question of whether it is the FDP or the Greens who join another grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD to give it a majority.
The FDP are unlikely to want to work with the Greens, certainly if the CDU/CSU still have more seats than the SPD so an SPD-Greens-FDP group is unlikely in my view
Linke and the SPD have been in formal coalitions in state governments for a couple of years now, so I'm not sure the old "no-one will work with the former Communists" line is as true as it was.
BREAKING: Former Afghan President fled with $169MILLION in his helicopter and has been given asylum in Dubai https://trib.al/PM1rH1F
He's lucky Dubai is a charitable nation, I'd be tempted to send him back to the hand choppers.
Theft of $169m might involve more for the chop than just the hands.
Something else - on various Twitter messages etc there are reports that Afghan soldiers were told to stand down by their senior commanders, because there was a peace deal.
And apparently, Afghan Vice President Saleh has stepped up, put together a force (in conjunction with Ahmad Massoud) and retaken the Charikar area from Taliban.
The Tajiks of the Panshjr valley will be fighting the Pashtun Taliban for some time I think. We're best staying out of it*
*Doubtless the CIA will be in there somewhere...
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier." - Kipling.
Kabul, by contrast, is a 7,500 kilometre trek from the UK. And it requires either ... or heading South through Iraq, Jordan and Israel to get to North Africa.
I wholly agree with the substance of what you are saying, but for almost everywhere in Afghanistan, south is Pakistan.
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
Or just put a warlord in charge not a leftie intellectual like Ghani who is not a war leader and happy to put his leftwing principles to one side if there are millions of dollars on offer
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Blatantly obvious they should have gone with the CSU's Soder, Soder had 40% backing him as preferred Chancellor to 23% for Baerbock and 16% for Scholz back in April.
It's going to be mighty close, given that the latest polling has the CDU/CSU, SPD, and Greens within just a few percent of each other.
Yes but none of those 3 want to work with the AfD or Linke, they would rather work with themselves than them.
So it is mainly a question of whether it is the FDP or the Greens who join another grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD to give it a majority.
The FDP are unlikely to want to work with the Greens, certainly if the CDU/CSU still have more seats than the SPD so an SPD-Greens-FDP group is unlikely in my view
Linke and the SPD have been in formal coalitions in state governments for a couple of years now, so I'm not sure the old "no-one will work with the former Communists" line is as true as it was.
Given even SPD-Greens -Linke combined only comes to around 40% compared to about 45% for Union-FDP-AfD combined it is not a viable option anyway and none of the latter 3 will work with Linke. No party at all it seems will work with the AfD so that effectively rules them out
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
Something that makes it indisputably clear how far the Afghan conflict has been a proxy cultural and military conflict in the local region, is the distribution of social media posts. By far the lion's share of posts on twitter, and seemingly on Facebook too, are from India and Pakistan. Indians apparently almost uniformly take the horrified view of American and western conservatives, while posters from Pakistan seem to almost universally describe the events in terms of a 'great welcome and peaceful transition' from a lickspittle government.
Or just put a warlord in charge not a leftie intellectual like Ghani who is not a war leader and happy to put his leftwing principles to one side if there are millions of dollars on offer
You and your warlords.
It is the warlords on the Tajik border still leading resistance to the Taliban long after Ghani and the Afghan army fled
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
I suppose technically nothing is a barrier to independence, just to the comfortableness of that independence.
Or just put a warlord in charge not a leftie intellectual like Ghani who is not a war leader and happy to put his leftwing principles to one side if there are millions of dollars on offer
Because American backed warlords in the developing world are famously non-corrupt.
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
At some point Sturgeon is gonna have to turn around and say Uh, sorry guys, no Indy, not for quite a while, it’s just impossible
In the face of these astonishing figures, what else can a sane politician do?
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Blatantly obvious they should have gone with the CSU's Soder, Soder had 40% backing him as preferred Chancellor to 23% for Baerbock and 16% for Scholz back in April.
It's going to be mighty close, given that the latest polling has the CDU/CSU, SPD, and Greens within just a few percent of each other.
Yes but none of those 3 want to work with the AfD or Linke, they would rather work with themselves than them.
So it is mainly a question of whether it is the FDP or the Greens who join another grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD to give it a majority.
The FDP are unlikely to want to work with the Greens, certainly if the CDU/CSU still have more seats than the SPD so an SPD-Greens-FDP group is unlikely in my view
Linke and the SPD have been in formal coalitions in state governments for a couple of years now, so I'm not sure the old "no-one will work with the former Communists" line is as true as it was.
Given even SPD-Greens -Linke combined only comes to around 40% compared to about 45% for Union-FDP-AfD combined it is not a viable option anyway and none of the latter 3 will work with Linke. No party at all it seems will work with the AfD so that effectively rules them out
That poll may, of course, be completely wrong.
But it might also be right. In which case, why would the SPD choose to be junior partner to an unpopular CDU Chancellor?
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
Having consulted Twitter, it seems that the GERS figures are just a plot so that Scotland's wealth can be drained by England.
Ed Davey’s LibDems have been going in hard on Afghanistan, both calling for a greater number of refugees to be allowed into the UK and strongly condemning the US & UK military withdrawal, saying “our leaders should all hang their heads in shame.”
Back at the LibDems’ 2009 conference, their future leader was instead calling for “tea with the Taliban”, and for Taliban fighters to be offered “a decent daily wage” to get them to defect. Now he criticises the withdrawal of troops, yet ten years ago Davey told the LibDem faithful:
“You don’t win wars by fighting in Afghanistan: witness the Soviets, witness the three Anglo-Afghan wars fought by the British Empire, witness Alexander the Great.”
LOL!
The Lib-Dems: Never knowingly having fewer than two positions at the same time on any subject since 1989!
The idea of anchoring on a number of refugees just show how barmy the debate is. Surely what is relevant is the rules for being able to come here or not. Translators for Western troops, translators' parents and siblings, Afghan national soldiers, people fleeing autocratic rule, university lecturers etc. That is a sensible debate to have.
Surely 'people fleeing autocratic rule' covers pretty much everyone? And why the separate category for university lecturers?
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
I suppose technically nothing is a barrier to independence, just to the comfortableness of that independence.
True. ‘Look, ok, we will be eating moss and small pieces of dung for ten years but we can do it. We can go Indy. The big pieces of dung will be sold to Ireland, obvs’
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
I’ve just been to the Acropolis Museum where they constantly repeat the historical point that the SCOTTISH Lord Elgin, ambassador for the UK, looted all those marbles
I can only presume the poor Lord did it at gun point, forced by redcoats to go against his every instinct as a true Scotsman
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
I’ve just been to the Acropolis Museum where they constantly repeat the historical point that the SCOTTISH Lord Elgin, ambassador for the UK, looted all those marbles
I can only presume the poor Lord did it at gun point, forced by redcoats to go against his every instinct as a true Scotsman
Have you been to the restaurant ? I had a great meal there.
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Blatantly obvious they should have gone with the CSU's Soder, Soder had 40% backing him as preferred Chancellor to 23% for Baerbock and 16% for Scholz back in April.
It's going to be mighty close, given that the latest polling has the CDU/CSU, SPD, and Greens within just a few percent of each other.
Yes but none of those 3 want to work with the AfD or Linke, they would rather work with themselves than them.
So it is mainly a question of whether it is the FDP or the Greens who join another grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD to give it a majority.
The FDP are unlikely to want to work with the Greens, certainly if the CDU/CSU still have more seats than the SPD so an SPD-Greens-FDP group is unlikely in my view
Linke and the SPD have been in formal coalitions in state governments for a couple of years now, so I'm not sure the old "no-one will work with the former Communists" line is as true as it was.
Given even SPD-Greens -Linke combined only comes to around 40% compared to about 45% for Union-FDP-AfD combined it is not a viable option anyway and none of the latter 3 will work with Linke. No party at all it seems will work with the AfD so that effectively rules them out
That poll may, of course, be completely wrong.
But it might also be right. In which case, why would the SPD choose to be junior partner to an unpopular CDU Chancellor?
Even on that poll SPD + Greens + Linke only comes to 46%. Union + FDP + AfD comes to 45% so neck and neck and would be an extremely unstable SPD + Greens + Linke government with the Union still with most seats.
A Union + SPD + FDP government however would come to 56% combined and a Union + SPD + Greens government would come to 54% combined. Both those coalitions would have a comfortable majority in the Bundestag and be far more stable.
If the SPD does a deal with Linke, previously untouchable the likelihood is the Union would shift to the right in opposition, dump Laschet for Soder and look to do a deal with the AfD in response which Soder has not ruled out as strictly as Merkel and Laschet have. Don't forget the FDP has also accepted AfD support in Berlin already.
German politics would thus move from centrist consensus to polarisation between left and right
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
I’ve just been to the Acropolis Museum where they constantly repeat the historical point that the SCOTTISH Lord Elgin, ambassador for the UK, looted all those marbles
I can only presume the poor Lord did it at gun point, forced by redcoats to go against his every instinct as a true Scotsman
It's much worse than that. The information board says:
The most severe damage to the monument was caused in 1801-1802, when the Scotch ambassador of England to Constantinople Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, removed the greatest part of the sculptures that also comprised structural members of the temple.
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
At some point Sturgeon is gonna have to turn around and say Uh, sorry guys, no Indy, not for quite a while, it’s just impossible
In the face of these astonishing figures, what else can a sane politician do?
But what happens then? Is that the end of her?
Petulant rising wail
'None of the prolapse inducing, POTUS destroying mayhem I predicted for Afghanistan has come to pass and I'm so BOOOORED'
I am willing to do my bit for the cause, and refrain from any remarks relating to Scottish independence until Christmas Day 2021
I expect you to do the same, though unfortunately this will reduce your already weary output to one or two sad little comments about your past life as a milliner, but we must all make sacrifices
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
I suppose technically nothing is a barrier to independence, just to the comfortableness of that independence.
True. ‘Look, ok, we will be eating moss and small pieces of dung for ten years but we can do it. We can go Indy. The big pieces of dung will be sold to Ireland, obvs’
But Scotland will always have a deficit as long as RUK continues to send them more money than they make. There is no disincentive not to run up a massive deficit, because it will be covered by RUK.
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
I’ve just been to the Acropolis Museum where they constantly repeat the historical point that the SCOTTISH Lord Elgin, ambassador for the UK, looted all those marbles
I can only presume the poor Lord did it at gun point, forced by redcoats to go against his every instinct as a true Scotsman
It's much worse than that. The information board says:
The most severe damage to the monument was caused in 1801-1802, when the Scotch ambassador of England to Constantinople Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, removed the greatest part of the sculptures that also comprised structural members of the temple.
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
I’ve just been to the Acropolis Museum where they constantly repeat the historical point that the SCOTTISH Lord Elgin, ambassador for the UK, looted all those marbles
I can only presume the poor Lord did it at gun point, forced by redcoats to go against his every instinct as a true Scotsman
Have you been to the restaurant ? I had a great meal there.
Had lunch there today! Fabulous food. Going back again
Without large external armed forces permanently in Afghanistan then this was always going to happen. Anyone who "rules" Afghanistan will either be corrupt or madly religious. It will never ever be a place with a decent settled Government operating for the benefit of the population.
Not a serious suggestion, but what if the United States had simply annexed the country and turned it into a territory of the US?
Or just put a warlord in charge not a leftie intellectual like Ghani who is not a war leader and happy to put his leftwing principles to one side if there are millions of dollars on offer
Because American backed warlords in the developing world are famously non-corrupt.
Still better than the Taliban and Al Qaeda and jihadi militants returning and Ghani was obviously corrupt anyway, just weak too
And, to be honest, I don't think I'd vote for independence even if a fancy economist demonstrated it would increase prosperity. Some things are more important than money.
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
I’ve just been to the Acropolis Museum where they constantly repeat the historical point that the SCOTTISH Lord Elgin, ambassador for the UK, looted all those marbles
I can only presume the poor Lord did it at gun point, forced by redcoats to go against his every instinct as a true Scotsman
Have you been to the restaurant ? I had a great meal there.
Had lunch there today! Fabulous food. Going back again
It's making me hungry just thinking about it again.
And, to be honest, I don't think I'd vote for independence even if a fancy economist demonstrated it would increase prosperity. Some things are more important than money.
By just 52% to 48% and less than half of UK exports go to the EU, well over half of Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK.
55% of Scots already voted against independence in 2014 for that reason
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
I suppose technically nothing is a barrier to independence, just to the comfortableness of that independence.
True. ‘Look, ok, we will be eating moss and small pieces of dung for ten years but we can do it. We can go Indy. The big pieces of dung will be sold to Ireland, obvs’
Although you don't want Sindy to happen - since you value the Union almost more than words can say - you have enormous empathy for its core argument of Sovereignty. This being what made you vote Leave despite having real reservations on the economics.
You hide the empathy well though. Only the very astute can detect it.
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
Having consulted Twitter, it seems that the GERS figures are just a plot so that Scotland's wealth can be drained by England.
It's obvious innit?
I mean, GERS is even named after the pro-UK, Unionist RanGERS football club!
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
I suppose technically nothing is a barrier to independence, just to the comfortableness of that independence.
True. ‘Look, ok, we will be eating moss and small pieces of dung for ten years but we can do it. We can go Indy. The big pieces of dung will be sold to Ireland, obvs’
But Scotland will always have a deficit as long as RUK continues to send them more money than they make. There is no disincentive not to run up a massive deficit, because it will be covered by RUK.
There is quite a disincentive if you simultaneously wish to make a sound fiscal case for Scottish independence. These deficit stats are hallucinatory in their awfulness. The UK is bad enough, but we have our own bank and currency and a credit history several centuries long
Indy Scotland would be like ‘Indy Cambodia’ in 1975, or ‘Indy Venezuela’ last week
Without large external armed forces permanently in Afghanistan then this was always going to happen. Anyone who "rules" Afghanistan will either be corrupt or madly religious. It will never ever be a place with a decent settled Government operating for the benefit of the population.
Not a serious suggestion, but what if the United States had simply annexed the country and turned it into a territory of the US?
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
I suppose technically nothing is a barrier to independence, just to the comfortableness of that independence.
True. ‘Look, ok, we will be eating moss and small pieces of dung for ten years but we can do it. We can go Indy. The big pieces of dung will be sold to Ireland, obvs’
But Scotland will always have a deficit as long as RUK continues to send them more money than they make. There is no disincentive not to run up a massive deficit, because it will be covered by RUK.
There is quite a disincentive if you simultaneously wish to make a sound fiscal case for Scottish independence. These deficit stats are hallucinatory in their awfulness. The UK is bad enough, but we have our own bank and currency and a credit history several centuries long
Indy Scotland would be like ‘Indy Cambodia’ in 1975, or ‘Indy Venezuela’ last week
As supportive as I am of any argument bolstering the case for the UK I have a hard time imagining any outcome quite so bad.
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Blatantly obvious they should have gone with the CSU's Soder, Soder had 40% backing him as preferred Chancellor to 23% for Baerbock and 16% for Scholz back in April.
It's going to be mighty close, given that the latest polling has the CDU/CSU, SPD, and Greens within just a few percent of each other.
Yes but none of those 3 want to work with the AfD or Linke, they would rather work with themselves than them.
So it is mainly a question of whether it is the FDP or the Greens who join another grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD to give it a majority.
The FDP are unlikely to want to work with the Greens, certainly if the CDU/CSU still have more seats than the SPD so an SPD-Greens-FDP group is unlikely in my view
Linke and the SPD have been in formal coalitions in state governments for a couple of years now, so I'm not sure the old "no-one will work with the former Communists" line is as true as it was.
Given even SPD-Greens -Linke combined only comes to around 40% compared to about 45% for Union-FDP-AfD combined it is not a viable option anyway and none of the latter 3 will work with Linke. No party at all it seems will work with the AfD so that effectively rules them out
That poll may, of course, be completely wrong.
But it might also be right. In which case, why would the SPD choose to be junior partner to an unpopular CDU Chancellor?
Even on that poll SPD + Greens + Linke only comes to 46%. Union + FDP + AfD comes to 45% so neck and neck and would be an extremely unstable SPD + Greens + Linke government with the Union still with most seats.
A Union + SPD + FDP government however would come to 56% combined and a Union + SPD + Greens government would come to 54% combined. Both those coalitions would have a comfortable majority in the Bundestag and be far more stable.
If the SPD does a deal with Linke, previously untouchable the likelihood is the Union would shift to the right in opposition, dump Laschet for Soder and look to do a deal with the AfD in response which Soder has not ruled out as strictly as Merkel and Laschet have. Don't forget the FDP has also accepted AfD support in Berlin already.
German politics would thus move from centrist consensus to polarisation between left and right
Eh?
So, in the circumstance I've outlined, the CDU/CSU will enter into a coalition with AfD, even though that doen't get them to a majority in the Bundestag.
Why would they do that? What possible purpose does an opposition coalition serve?
Here's my prediction: if SPD + Green + Linke exceeds 50% of the seats in the Bundestag (which is perhaps a one-in-three shot), then Laschet will not be Chancellor. There is simply no mileage in the SPD propping up an extremely unpopular CDU leader.
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
I’ve just been to the Acropolis Museum where they constantly repeat the historical point that the SCOTTISH Lord Elgin, ambassador for the UK, looted all those marbles
I can only presume the poor Lord did it at gun point, forced by redcoats to go against his every instinct as a true Scotsman
It's much worse than that. The information board says:
The most severe damage to the monument was caused in 1801-1802, when the Scotch ambassador of England to Constantinople Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, removed the greatest part of the sculptures that also comprised structural members of the temple.
Without large external armed forces permanently in Afghanistan then this was always going to happen. Anyone who "rules" Afghanistan will either be corrupt or madly religious. It will never ever be a place with a decent settled Government operating for the benefit of the population.
Not a serious suggestion, but what if the United States had simply annexed the country and turned it into a territory of the US?
Can't get away with that thesedays. Indeed, conquest would be a lot easier if we adopted attitudes of the past about it.
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
I suppose technically nothing is a barrier to independence, just to the comfortableness of that independence.
True. ‘Look, ok, we will be eating moss and small pieces of dung for ten years but we can do it. We can go Indy. The big pieces of dung will be sold to Ireland, obvs’
But Scotland will always have a deficit as long as RUK continues to send them more money than they make. There is no disincentive not to run up a massive deficit, because it will be covered by RUK.
There is quite a disincentive if you simultaneously wish to make a sound fiscal case for Scottish independence. These deficit stats are hallucinatory in their awfulness. The UK is bad enough, but we have our own bank and currency and a credit history several centuries long
Indy Scotland would be like ‘Indy Cambodia’ in 1975, or ‘Indy Venezuela’ last week
As supportive as I am of any argument bolstering the case for the UK I have a hard time imagining any outcome quite so bad.
Insert hyperbole emoji
It wouldn’t be Venezuela. But fuck. It would be BAD
Something that makes it indisputably clear how far the Afghan conflict has been a proxy cultural and military conflict in the local region, is the distribution of social media posts. By far the lion's share of posts on twitter, and seemingly on Facebook too, are from India and Pakistan. Indians apparently almost uniformly take the horrified view of American and western conservatives, while posters from Pakistan seem to almost universally describe the events in terms of a 'great welcome and peaceful transition' from a lickspittle government.
"Taliban have broken ‘the shackles of slavery,’ says Pakistan PM Imran Khan"
It's all the fault of the evil English, you know. They've put down the Scots for too long, caused all of Scotland's ills. They made the Scots profit from the slave trade, made them imperialists. They ruined the shipbuilding industry. Every other country: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany - has learnt from their mistakes. But not England. Oh no.
(/Dickson mode)
I’ve just been to the Acropolis Museum where they constantly repeat the historical point that the SCOTTISH Lord Elgin, ambassador for the UK, looted all those marbles
I can only presume the poor Lord did it at gun point, forced by redcoats to go against his every instinct as a true Scotsman
Have you been to the restaurant ? I had a great meal there.
Had lunch there today! Fabulous food. Going back again
It's making me hungry just thinking about it again.
It’s one of the most interesting menus I’ve encountered in many months. Genuinely innovative and delicious and not that pricey
I haven’t had a bad meal in 8 days in Athens. OK I’ve had a lot of Greek salads but a Greek salad done well is a noble thing
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
I suppose technically nothing is a barrier to independence, just to the comfortableness of that independence.
True. ‘Look, ok, we will be eating moss and small pieces of dung for ten years but we can do it. We can go Indy. The big pieces of dung will be sold to Ireland, obvs’
But Scotland will always have a deficit as long as RUK continues to send them more money than they make. There is no disincentive not to run up a massive deficit, because it will be covered by RUK.
There is quite a disincentive if you simultaneously wish to make a sound fiscal case for Scottish independence. These deficit stats are hallucinatory in their awfulness. The UK is bad enough, but we have our own bank and currency and a credit history several centuries long
Indy Scotland would be like ‘Indy Cambodia’ in 1975, or ‘Indy Venezuela’ last week
Well 1) many Scots simply don't believe these figures (see malcolmg), so they don't provide much of a disincentive to vote Yes, but more importantly 2) A newly independent Scotland would presumably simply start living within its means. Scotland spends more than RUK per head because it can - we give it that money - not because it has to. There'll be a big hit to public spending - it'll be a shock to the subsidy junkies - but it would be able to function. (Assuming there's someone prepared to take on the challenge, of course!) Oh, and 3) it doesn't really matter - these are all problems to be faced *after* independence. The point of the SNP is presumably to get to independence - once there, mission accomplished: the future is somebody else's challenge, surely?
Absolutely terrible ratings for Laschet as preferred Chancellor.
Blatantly obvious they should have gone with the CSU's Soder, Soder had 40% backing him as preferred Chancellor to 23% for Baerbock and 16% for Scholz back in April.
It's going to be mighty close, given that the latest polling has the CDU/CSU, SPD, and Greens within just a few percent of each other.
Yes but none of those 3 want to work with the AfD or Linke, they would rather work with themselves than them.
So it is mainly a question of whether it is the FDP or the Greens who join another grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD to give it a majority.
The FDP are unlikely to want to work with the Greens, certainly if the CDU/CSU still have more seats than the SPD so an SPD-Greens-FDP group is unlikely in my view
Linke and the SPD have been in formal coalitions in state governments for a couple of years now, so I'm not sure the old "no-one will work with the former Communists" line is as true as it was.
Given even SPD-Greens -Linke combined only comes to around 40% compared to about 45% for Union-FDP-AfD combined it is not a viable option anyway and none of the latter 3 will work with Linke. No party at all it seems will work with the AfD so that effectively rules them out
That poll may, of course, be completely wrong.
But it might also be right. In which case, why would the SPD choose to be junior partner to an unpopular CDU Chancellor?
Even on that poll SPD + Greens + Linke only comes to 46%. Union + FDP + AfD comes to 45% so neck and neck and would be an extremely unstable SPD + Greens + Linke government with the Union still with most seats.
A Union + SPD + FDP government however would come to 56% combined and a Union + SPD + Greens government would come to 54% combined. Both those coalitions would have a comfortable majority in the Bundestag and be far more stable.
If the SPD does a deal with Linke, previously untouchable the likelihood is the Union would shift to the right in opposition, dump Laschet for Soder and look to do a deal with the AfD in response which Soder has not ruled out as strictly as Merkel and Laschet have. Don't forget the FDP has also accepted AfD support in Berlin already.
German politics would thus move from centrist consensus to polarisation between left and right
Eh?
So, in the circumstance I've outlined, the CDU/CSU will enter into a coalition with AfD, even though that doen't get them to a majority in the Bundestag.
Why would they do that? What possible purpose does an opposition coalition serve?
Here's my prediction: if SPD + Green + Linke exceeds 50% of the seats in the Bundestag (which is perhaps a one-in-three shot), then Laschet will not be Chancellor. There is simply no mileage in the SPD propping up an extremely unpopular CDU leader.
No, I said if SPD did a deal with the Stalinist Linke as well as their traditional coalition allies the Greens to get into government then inevitably the CDU/CSU would move right in opposition to consider a deal with the populist right AfD in response if that was what was needed to get them into government at the election after. The Union's traditional allies the FDP have already done a deal with the AfD in Berlin as I said.
It does I agree mean Laschet having failed to become Chancellor would also be dumped in opposition by the Union for a more rightwing leader like Soder or Merz
Interesting line up description on QT, given usual party labels, but I suppose they'd no other option James Cleverly - Conservative Lisa Nandy - Labour Rory Stewart - Former minister Nelufar Hedayat - Journalist Mehdi Hasan - Broadcaster
I also wonder if broadcaster outranks journalist or vice versa.
Comments
(See also lockdowns etc, polling might have been quite different on hypothetical lockdowns pre-Covid and may change a lot five years down the line, say).
Membrane fusion and immune evasion by the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.17.456689v1
- The Russians massive military intervention had put everyone in Afghanistan against them
- After they were defeated - "The West abandoned Afghanistan".
- Which allowed Osama and chums to roll in.
So, the conventional wisdom was that the intervention in Afghanistan should be Afghan led (if possible) and followed up with lots of... nation building.
If the British public really care about this, then presumably we can expect a Lib Dem surge... Although, unlike when Kennedy was against the Iraq war, I doubt many have noticed Davey's (present) position, or indeed noticed Davey at all.
Mark Allen vs Reanna Evans in the British Open. The context of them being former partners who were now on bad terms made it quite enthralling viewing, possibly one of the most tense sporting encounters of all time. Evans refusing his offer of a fist bump at he start set the icy tone
Here I use it for on topic...
"On Thursday 19 August, headline vaccination uptake by report date for the UK and nations will be updated to include ages 16 and 17 in the denominator."
Does one just study at a religious school and becomed learned in scripture and law and then start opining on religious matters, and if enough people think it makes sense hey presto you're a mullah/ayatollah?
What if you then coast on your laurels?
But I would guess it varies. Imagine trying to answer a similar question for Christianity, after all! For example I associate "Ayatollah" with Shia Islam, but I couldn't say with confidence that Sunnis don't use the term too.
The alternative 'theories' for how we all came to be can equally be applied to Covid variants, I guess.
Were I religious I'd definitely fall in with whatever was the most hierarchical.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KawoonKhamoosh/status/1427907632040398849
I'm going to take a stab and guess that 'keiner davon' means 'don't know' and not that it is the leader of the grey party.
Kabul, by contrast, is a 7,500 kilometre trek from the UK. And it requires either crossing the entire lengths of Iran and Turkey, or going through Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Russia... or heading South through Iraq, Jordan and Israel to get to North Africa. The distance scales aren't really comparable.
This doesn't mean Ms Patel is wrong, it's just that the scale is somewhat difference:
North Africa is 400 million people a short boat ride from Europe
Afghanistan is 38 million people a long, long, long walk from Europe
However I still expect a Union-SPD-FDP coalition after September and the Union to scrape home with most seats despite losses
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Soeder-liegt-gegen-Laschet-haushoch-vorne-article22461779.html
Sometimes it is pointless to argue with them. Better just to point and laugh.
What first name from a fictional character do we think would be most popular for a future Prime Minister?
Is James too obvious?
So it is mainly a question of whether it is the FDP or the Greens who join another grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD to give it a majority.
The FDP are unlikely to want to work with the Greens, certainly if the CDU/CSU still have more seats than the SPD so an SPD-Greens-FDP group is unlikely in my view
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
sorry, as I was saying, re the GERS report, what it fundamentally reveals is that the
HHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAU3UR0W8R8EE PFFFFFF HAHAHA
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/18/scotland-soaring-deficit-is-no-barrier-to-independence-says-minister?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
“My total loss of life in my recent car crash is no barrier to my bid for Olympic boxing gold, says mouldering corpse in tomb during imaginary conversation with bereaved wife”
(/Dickson mode)
In the face of these astonishing figures, what else can a sane politician do?
But what happens then? Is that the end of her?
That poll may, of course, be completely wrong.
But it might also be right. In which case, why would the SPD choose to be junior partner to an unpopular CDU Chancellor?
I can only presume the poor Lord did it at gun point, forced by redcoats to go against his every instinct as a true Scotsman
A Union + SPD + FDP government however would come to 56% combined and a Union + SPD + Greens government would come to 54% combined. Both those coalitions would have a comfortable majority in the Bundestag and be far more stable.
If the SPD does a deal with Linke, previously untouchable the likelihood is the Union would shift to the right in opposition, dump Laschet for Soder and look to do a deal with the AfD in response which Soder has not ruled out as strictly as Merkel and Laschet have. Don't forget the FDP has also accepted AfD support in Berlin already.
German politics would thus move from centrist consensus to polarisation between left and right
The most severe damage to the monument was caused in 1801-1802, when the Scotch ambassador of England to Constantinople Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, removed the greatest part of the sculptures that also comprised structural members of the temple.
'None of the prolapse inducing, POTUS destroying mayhem I predicted for Afghanistan has come to pass and I'm so BOOOORED'
The group’s claims of having changed are probably more reassuring to those unfamiliar with its history.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/dont-trust-taliban/619790/
And, to be honest, I don't think I'd vote for independence even if a fancy economist demonstrated it would increase prosperity. Some things are more important than money.
55% of Scots already voted against independence in 2014 for that reason
You hide the empathy well though. Only the very astute can detect it.
I mean, GERS is even named after the pro-UK, Unionist RanGERS football club!
How can people be so blind?
Indy Scotland would be like ‘Indy Cambodia’ in 1975, or ‘Indy Venezuela’ last week
So, in the circumstance I've outlined, the CDU/CSU will enter into a coalition with AfD, even though that doen't get them to a majority in the Bundestag.
Why would they do that? What possible purpose does an opposition coalition serve?
Here's my prediction: if SPD + Green + Linke exceeds 50% of the seats in the Bundestag (which is perhaps a one-in-three shot), then Laschet will not be Chancellor. There is simply no mileage in the SPD propping up an extremely unpopular CDU leader.
It wouldn’t be Venezuela. But fuck. It would be BAD
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/taliban-pakistan-imran-khan-afghanistan-b1903821.html
- generates 7.9% of UK revenues
- receives 9.1% of UK public sector spending
now marvel as Scottish separatists try to spin this as somehow a bad deal …
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1428033492571631622?s=20
I haven’t had a bad meal in 8 days in Athens. OK I’ve had a lot of Greek salads but a Greek salad done well is a noble thing
It does I agree mean Laschet having failed to become Chancellor would also be dumped in opposition by the Union for a more rightwing leader like Soder or Merz
James Cleverly - Conservative
Lisa Nandy - Labour
Rory Stewart - Former minister
Nelufar Hedayat - Journalist
Mehdi Hasan - Broadcaster
I also wonder if broadcaster outranks journalist or vice versa.