politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB plan to give free bus travel to those of 25 and younger

JosiasJessop said:

And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.

We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.

And so we are back to where we were. What effective action do you advocate to enforce those treaties? Because bombing Syria sure as hell won't do it. The only way to militarily enforce those treaties is to have a full scale escalation and go to war in Syria, putting us into a direct shooting war with Russia and Iran. Nothing else militarily will work.

So what exactly are you advocating from your armchair? If you say 'Something must be done' it is incumbent upon you to say what you think that 'something' should be, otherwise all you are doing is repeating exactly the same mistakes we have made time and time again.

NickPalmer said:

No time to watch it, but my recollection of what he says personally is that he thinks the Sierra Leone intervention was sensible and successful, and that he would have very strongly supported the effort against Hitler. Essentially he feels that war should be a last resort, and that the West has too often treated it as a good early option.

I used to disagree, which is why I voted for the Iraq war, but I've come to feel he's right. I think it'd be a fair criticism to say that he'd tend to be slow off the mark if swift intervention was required (as it was in Sierra Leone) - his instinct is to say "Hang on a minute, let's look all around the issue and consider the options", and occasionally that can be the wrong policy. It is, however, safer than a policy of shooting from the hip, or blindly following another power's interventions.

"and that he would have very strongly supported the effort against Hitler."

I fear that's rubbish. Go back eighty years and Corbyn would have been a British Communist whilst it was still fashionable, and large numbers of them did not support the war until the Blitz or Hitler launched Barbarossa. Corbyn is not a Pollitt or Gallagher.

williamglenn said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...

(*) Who's Pete?

Saint Peter.

It was a polite way and less blasphemous way of saying 'For God's sake'

Nonsense. It is just more polite than using Pete's brother's name: the unfortunately titled 'Fuck'. Luckily the rise of social media and the term FFS means his legacy has been revitalised.

What about their other sibling Pity? Barely gets a mention these days.

Whilst Mercy has been airbrushed from history.....

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...

(*) Who's Pete?

Saint Peter.

It was a polite way and less blasphemous way of saying 'For God's sake'

Nonsense. It is just more polite than using Pete's brother's name: the unfortunately titled 'Fuck'. Luckily the rise of social media and the term FFS means his legacy has been revitalised.

What about their other sibling Pity? Barely gets a mention these days.

Whilst Mercy has been airbrushed from history.....

I have always assumed that 'pity' was a corruption of 'Peter'.

Although it could be a prayer, I suppose.

So Russia says it was not a chemical attack in Syria

Assad - there was no chemical attack but it was terrorist who did it

Give me strength

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

2 questions: (1) How do you determine such responsibility? (2) Do you think those who have gone to join ISIS and have had British citizenship removed, including women,should have it restored? And if not, what distinguishes their case from that of Mrs Assad?

She's not gone to join a proscribed terrorist organisation has she?

One is taking action against someone for their own actions, the other for the actions of their spouse.

The Assad is a proscribed regime. That needs to mean practical consequences for those who are part of that regime.

But she isn't. Or do you feel that marrying someone automatically signs you up to whatever they're doing?

I know an animal welfare rep who was based in Syria into the early days of the civil war and who met the Assads from time to time. Her (obviously anecdotal) view was that Assad was an opportunist, his brother was a psychopath, but Mrs Assad was extremely unpolitical and more interested in shopping than national affairs,

She likes shopping. With her husband’s money. And how does he earn his money? She may personally be apolitical but she is benefiting from his actions. That is why I think sanctions should apply to the whole family so that she cannot shop for, ooh I don’t know, a nice piece of London property.

She has also tried to humanise and defend her husband by giving soft soap interviews.

The Assad regime is a family regime. They are sanctioned. That must mean consequences for them and I think Britain should think carefully about allowing people in such a regime to have an easy out from the effect of sanctions by allowing their wives to carry on as normal.

She is not that different to those girls marrying IS fighters and having their babies. They may not commit any crimes themselves but there is a level of passive complicity there and, possibly, much more active support.

Making it clear to the likes of Assad and Putin and others that those who are closest to them, those who benefit financially from their close association with them will also suffer may be one relatively easy way of putting some pressure on them. And it may have less bad consequences than bombing innocents just to send a message. The likes of Assad don’t care about those innocents. He might care when those nearest to him are affected. Stopping wives shop for clothes in Knightsbridge boutiques is hardly on a par with waterboarding.

I see the OPCW report confirms the (not specifically identified as) Novichok was "of high purity".

So not knocked up in a kitchen by person or persons unknown then, Jeremy.

MarqueeMark said:

I see the OPCW report confirms the (not specifically identified as) Novichok was "of high purity".

So not knocked up in a kitchen by person or persons unknown then, Jeremy.

And no doubt the full, classified report will have been released to the government and available on Privy Council terms to those suitably cleared - which may or may not include Jeremy.

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

Not sure about source but was retweeted by a Sun journalist.
https://twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/984485608394502145

My assumption from that might be that he's had word his personal palaces and bunkers are targeted.

I was thinking earlier that these dictators generally embezzle a fortune and build themselves grand luxury palaces and mansions across the country.

When we do targeted air strikes against a dictator how about instead of blowing up some token tanks we simply target all known residences and palaces belonging to the dictator? Hit their own pocket. That will piss them off more and be more likely to send a message.

Not without precedent, in the war of 1812 we burnt down the White House.

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).

Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.

When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.

(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)

The_Apocalypse said:

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).

Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.

Not really. When I’ve been on the bus I just put on my headphones and stare out the windows. Most of the other people of my generation that I see are also glued to their phones in some way or another and just ignore everyone else. It’s basically what we do on the tube except it’s on a bus.

Indeed, the bus is better because you get a mobile signal and can write pithy comments on PB.

Philip_Thompson said:

Roger said:

Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.

Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.

Our closest ally is America. Ask that arch Europhile Tony Blair and see who he allied with over Iraq.

Nations don't have friends, they have interests.

JosiasJessop said:

The best thing for Assad would not be death, but for him to be brought before an international court and tried for crimes against humanity.

Sadly, I cannot see a realistic or safe way of getting there from where we are now.

I'm not sure Morris Dancer's view earlier in the thread is not better: forget justice and go back to the old days of giving dictators a sack of cash to go into exile. At least that way we got rid of them; now the prospect of The Hague means they cling on forever.

Cyclefree said:

She likes shopping. With her husband’s money. And how does he earn his money? She may personally be apolitical but she is benefiting from his actions. That is why I think sanctions should apply to the whole family so that she cannot shop for, ooh I don’t know, a nice piece of London property.

She has also tried to humanise and defend her husband by giving soft soap interviews.

The Assad regime is a family regime. They are sanctioned. That must mean consequences for them and I think Britain should think carefully about allowing people in such a regime to have an easy out from the effect of sanctions by allowing their wives to carry on as normal.

She is not that different to those girls marrying IS fighters and having their babies. They may not commit any crimes themselves but there is a level of passive complicity there and, possibly, much more active support.

Making it clear to the likes of Assad and Putin and others that those who are closest to them, those who benefit financially from their close association with them will also suffer may be one relatively easy way of putting some pressure on them. And it may have less bad consequences than bombing innocents just to send a message. The likes of Assad don’t care about those innocents. He might care when those nearest to him are affected. Stopping wives shop for clothes in Knightsbridge boutiques is hardly on a par with waterboarding.

I don't see an issue in including spouses on lists of those subject to sanctions, but I am very wary when people talk about removing citizenship

Yorkcity said:

Have we ever before bombed both sides in a foreign civil war ?

There are more than two sides in this civil war.

Yorkcity said:

Have we ever before bombed both sides in a foreign civil war ?

2 sides, not both sides - there are surely way more than just 2, and that's part of the problem.

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.

We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.

And so we are back to where we were. What effective action do you advocate to enforce those treaties? Because bombing Syria sure as hell won't do it. The only way to militarily enforce those treaties is to have a full scale escalation and go to war in Syria, putting us into a direct shooting war with Russia and Iran. Nothing else militarily will work.

So what exactly are you advocating from your armchair? If you say 'Something must be done' it is incumbent upon you to say what you think that 'something' should be, otherwise all you are doing is repeating exactly the same mistakes we have made time and time again.

" from your armchair?"

Oh, don't be silly. You too are in full armchair pontificating mode.

I've already expressed what I think should be done: enough to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not gain you any military or financial advantage. A good start (in two ways) might be attack the helicopter fleet that he is using to drop the bombs, the airfields and similar infrastructure. Try to discover where his munitions dumps are and attack them.

As I said earlier, unlike Saddam, Assad is not using these weapons because he is mad. He is using them because they are advantageous. We need to make it not advantageous, and also to show other countries such usage would not help them.

I am not the one advocating sending people to fight and kill on my behalf so I am quite comfortable in my armchair.

As for the rest of your suggestions. An utter waste of time. All that will happen is the helicopters will be replaced by the Russians and Iranians, just as the planes were last time. You will do absolutely nothing t prevent Assad winning the war because that is what the Russians want. Until you can provide a realistic alternative regime that the Russians will trust to maintain close ties, nothing will shift Assad short of all out war.

kle4 said:

Yorkcity said:

Have we ever before bombed both sides in a foreign civil war ?

2 sides, not both sides - there are surely way more than just 2, and that's part of the problem.

True, , have we ever bombed the existing state , and parties opposing in a foreign civil war ?

the donald really is a top twitter troll.

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.

We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.

And so we are back to where we were. What effective action do you advocate to enforce those treaties? Because bombing Syria sure as hell won't do it. The only way to militarily enforce those treaties is to have a full scale escalation and go to war in Syria, putting us into a direct shooting war with Russia and Iran. Nothing else militarily will work.

So what exactly are you advocating from your armchair? If you say 'Something must be done' it is incumbent upon you to say what you think that 'something' should be, otherwise all you are doing is repeating exactly the same mistakes we have made time and time again.

" from your armchair?"

Oh, don't be silly. You too are in full armchair pontificating mode.

I've already expressed what I think should be done: enough to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not gain you any military or financial advantage. A good start (in two ways) might be attack the helicopter fleet that he is using to drop the bombs, the airfields and similar infrastructure. Try to discover where his munitions dumps are and attack them.

As I said earlier, unlike Saddam, Assad is not using these weapons because he is mad. He is using them because they are advantageous. We need to make it not advantageous, and also to show other countries such usage would not help them.

I am not the one advocating sending people to fight and kill on my behalf so I am quite comfortable in my armchair.

As for the rest of your suggestions. An utter waste of time. All that will happen is the helicopters will be replaced by the Russians and Iranians, just as the planes were last time. You will do absolutely nothing t prevent Assad winning the war because that is what the Russians want. Until you can provide a realistic alternative regime that the Russians will trust to maintain close ties, nothing will shift Assad short of all out war.

Using the same tone you're using: you're willing to see people be gassed from the safety of your comfortable armchair.

I get the message. You'll reject whatever I suggest out of hand, so this conversation is absolutely pointless. Just don't bother asking me such questions again as you're unwilling to listen.

And again, you turn the conversation onto regime change, when I have said nothing about that.

I will leave it at this: your wish for the chemical and biological weapons treaties to fall by the wayside is utterly absurd, wrongheaded and dangerous.

FrancisUrquhart said:

the donald really is a top twitter troll.

I don't know how he managed to get by before it was invented,he seems made for it.

Ishmael_Z said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

Ishmael_Z said:

And

https://twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/984483403805462529

Well done, Donald. As you said in 2013, surprise is so important in these cases.

To be fair to the Donald (why?) the leaks might not be coming from the US, but from elsewhere. If the US are giving Russia hints due to the need to deconflict, the hints may be coming from that side.

Or this is some form of deconfliction message "keep out of those areas". Or even misinformation.

Or he wants to know if S-400 works or not, and wants to give it a decent trial.

They’ll probably be the first target.

The Guardian supports military action

Went to Sheffield Poly in the late 70s... bus trip 2p to anywhere in the city. Wasn’t called the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire for nothing.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Guardian supports military action

What is their plan ? Can they give it to Trump.

JosiasJessop said:

Using the same tone you're using: you're willing to see people be gassed from the safety of your comfortable armchair.

I get the message. You'll reject whatever I suggest out of hand, so this conversation is absolutely pointless. Just don't bother asking me such questions again as you're unwilling to listen.

And again, you turn the conversation onto regime change, when I have said nothing about that.

I will leave it at this: your wish for the chemical and biological weapons treaties to fall by the wayside is utterly absurd, wrongheaded and dangerous.

LOL. I see you are throwing one of your little tantrums.

I have asked you a series of simple questions. Given that bombing has utterly failed in the past, what military action would you advocate that would be effective in enforcing the treaties but would avoid us actually invading Syria? You have come up with absolutely nothing so far except what has clearly failed in the past.

Since you are apparently so keen for us to go and kill people I would at least expect you to have some plans about how to achieve your aims.

For those having trouble keeping up with the Russian version:

https://twitter.com/bwiedwards/status/984409005207556096

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Guardian supports military action

Just the Morning Star to go then?

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).

Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.

When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.

(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)

You aren't under 25.

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).

Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.

When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.

(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)

I far prefer the bus to the tube.

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Using the same tone you're using: you're willing to see people be gassed from the safety of your comfortable armchair.

I get the message. You'll reject whatever I suggest out of hand, so this conversation is absolutely pointless. Just don't bother asking me such questions again as you're unwilling to listen.

And again, you turn the conversation onto regime change, when I have said nothing about that.

I will leave it at this: your wish for the chemical and biological weapons treaties to fall by the wayside is utterly absurd, wrongheaded and dangerous.

LOL. I see you are throwing one of your little tantrums.

I have asked you a series of simple questions. Given that bombing has utterly failed in the past, what military action would you advocate that would be effective in enforcing the treaties but would avoid us actually invading Syria? You have come up with absolutely nothing so far except what has clearly failed in the past.

Since you are apparently so keen for us to go and kill people I would at least expect you to have some plans about how to achieve your aims.

Tantrum? Nah. I'm actually sitting down laughing at the BBC's excellent 'Doodlebugs' with my son before putting him to bed in a few minutes. Your silliness is just adding to my good humour.

I have given answers to your questions, but you just broad-brush reject them in (IMO) silly ways. It then becomes a pointless conversation.

Perhaps we should move onto something we agree on, like HS2 ...

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Guardian supports military action

Just the Morning Star to go then?

Does anyone know if the Morning Star still gets a subsidy from the Russian Government?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yorkcity said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Guardian supports military action

What is their plan ? Can they give it to Trump.

Teach Assad that he cannot use chemical weapons

Twitter - rumours Assad has left Syria

But what is required for Assad to actually care about a strike?

The_Apocalypse said:

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).

Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.

Not really. When I’ve been on the bus I just put on my headphones and stare out the windows. Most of the other people of my generation that I see are also glued to their phones in some way or another and just ignore everyone else. It’s basically what we do on the tube except it’s on a bus.

Sorry, been on the train.

And that's the problem. It's not on demand. It's not point-to-point. It's not a controlled environment that doesn't smell of wet wool between October and February. It's not, at all, aspirational - and we keep being told that the youth swing to Corbyn is (at least partly) down to the apparent blocking of otherwise reasonable aspirations for steady jobs and stable housing, and to have them on terms not functionally dissimilar to their parents. It's just making do, edging a little forward, on someone else's timetable, knowing that, at the end of it, you've still got 10 minutes walking in the cold and the rain, shopping in hand, and that, unless something changes radically, this is what it's going to be.

That's not to say they won't use it and thus end up with a few quid extra a week - but it's about a big a cure for the overall malaise as recommending they have fewer slices of avocado toast or switching to a cheaper bottle of beer.

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Guardian supports military action

Just the Morning Star to go then?

Does anyone know if the Morning Star still gets a subsidy from the Russian Government?

I wonder if the biggest buyers of the crap infowars sells to fund their operation is in a certain major city being with m?

CarlottaVance said:

For those having trouble keeping up with the Russian version:

https://twitter.com/bwiedwards/status/984409005207556096

Are you sure that isnt a summary of BJO posts on PB on the matter?

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Guardian supports military action

Just the Morning Star to go then?

Does anyone know if the Morning Star still gets a subsidy from the Russian Government?

I wonder if the biggest buyers of the crap infowars sells to fund their operation is in a certain major city being with m?

What, Manchester?

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Guardian supports military action

Just the Morning Star to go then?

Does anyone know if the Morning Star still gets a subsidy from the Russian Government?

The Russian (and Eastern Bloc) support of various left-wing things always seemed to me to be the most outrageous thing. Somehow no-one seemed to mind though.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Casino_Royale said:

Excellent posts by JosiasJessop on this thread.

Really? Care to point any out?

All of them on Syria.

AnneJGP said:

Books only work if reading whilst in motion doesn't make you sick. I can read a little on most trains.

Good evening, everyone.

Indeed so. I can't look at any kind of text be it book, magazine, kindle, internet or whatever else whilst in motion. Feeling really sick is a guaranteed result for me if I try. Music and podcasts are the only options to keep my brain distracted... having nothing to focus on also leads to me feeling sickly after a while too if the journey is a long one. Buses are worse than trains in that respect but cars are the worst of all for me.

Pound rises over 1.15 euros today following sub par Eurozone Economic Statistics

Sounds like we will take part then

kle4 said:

Floater said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Russia has called a UN security council meeting to discuss Syria tomorrow.

to discuss "the threat of US led military action"

Russian led military action is always just fine though.

Of course

Get Jezza to disagree if you can

The BBC has defended a decision to air Enoch Powell's 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech on Radio 4.

The Archive on 4 programme, presented by BBC media editor Amol Rajan, will on Saturday broadcast the right-wing MP's anti-immigration speech - voiced by an actor - in full, for the first time.

kle4 said:

Floater said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Russia has called a UN security council meeting to discuss Syria tomorrow.

to discuss "the threat of US led military action"

Russian led military action is always just fine though.

Well, technically the difference is that Russia was invited in to help Assad (i.e. Syria), whilst the allies have not been invited (for the obvious reasons), and therefore it is an unfriendly act towards Syria.

As a contrary example, AIUI we were 'invited' by the Iraqi government to help them tackle ISIS, and could therefore attack relevant targets within their country without major diplomatic issues.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Floater said:

Sounds like we will take part then

Source for your comment

Just heard the breaking news on BBC - looks as if we are part of the coalition