On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
IS is not really on the rise again bar a handful of fighters still left on the Kurdish border, more significant is both the Iraqi and Syrian governments are now Shia and loyal to Iran, if anything the remainder of Sunni IS are anti Iran and surprisingly not as far from the US of Trump as you might think now
Your view of IS is not shared by our intelligence services who, I suspect, know rather more about the threat IS pose than you do.
5 years ago IS controlled most of Syria and half of Iraq, now they barely control any of either so my point stands absolutely.
IS are also closer to Saudi Arabia and the UAE than they are to Iran, Russia and Iran were key in defeating IS and are still their enemies, Trump has now shifted from IS to Iran
Surely the opposite? In blowing up the Iranian general who defeated ISIS, Trump has shifted from Iran to IS.
Trump no longer considers IS a threat, so in a sense as both Trump and the remains of IS are anti Shia Assad and anti Shia Iran it may be a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'
Will Trump make ISIS his equivalent of the Afghan Mujahedin?
We'd be able to welcome back all those British Jihadis as allies in the the new world order.
Iran is, I suggest, rather like China, if somewhat smaller. Once a powerful State, a major regional, if not, like China a world power, it became rather a backwater and was fairly comprehensively ‘shafted’ by European powers, especially GB, and the US, particularly over its oil. So as it regains it’s strength there are long-standing grievances and potential for paybacks.
He is clever, whereas Corbyn is thick. This may prove unpopular with Boris fanbois on here, but the recent GE was not "won" by their man, it was lost comprehensively by Corbyn, who was about as hopeless as it is possible to be. A half decent Labour leader would have exposed Johnson for what he is. Blair would have torn him to pieces. Starmer is probably no Blair, but he has his intelligence and that is a start to bring British politics back to a sensible place, if that is at all possible.
For once I agree with you Nigel.
What l division.
He also has a highly creditable record of achievement prior to becoming an MP, with his relatively humble origins belying the assumption of the detractors that he could only have risen so far by hailing from a relatively privileged background.
You don't do all that against the odds without a lot of political and other nous. If he does succeed as leader, the Tories will underestimate him at their peril.
In this country someone with Starmer's background does not achieve what he has achieved without being extremely smart and extremely ambitious. I do worry he is over-lawyerly, a bit wooden and too cautious, but I have no doubts he would use all wings inside Labour to create a front bench that actually provides a decent opposition: he will be able to take advantage of government slips, will hold Johnson to account on those occasions when the PM cannot runaway and will not scare potential LibDem voters. All of which would be a huge advance on where Labour is now. Most important of all, though, I think he will be able to formulate a response to the EHRC report on anti-Semitism that involves unconditional acceptance, deep repentance and fulsome apology. I cannot see Long-Bailey being able to do any of these things.
All true. On anti-semitism, he will have to do more than apologise. He will need to expel and discipline people. That will upset some in the party. Does he have the balls to do this and face up to those who will not like such action? And he needs to get rid of people like Milne and Murray. They are part of the Corbynista project and need to go with Corbyn.
The EHRC report is likely to provide a lot of cover for expulsions and sackings.
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
Iran ... had agreed and was in 100% compliance with an international agreement that severely limited its nuclear ambitions...
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case
Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.
Even better working class credentials.
Someone should ask him.
The time you harangued me to define working class, I was in a mess trading a t20 cricket match, had a screaming baby in the next room, a girlfriend with flu, Dad in hospital with sepsis, and an anxiety ridden cat over grooming on the sofa. Not sure whether your trolling was light relief or an added annoyance! It sure gave me a headache, but my fault for posting with all that going on really.
Blimey hope your dad is ok.
That was a lot going on what on earth did you come on to PB for?
I look at it between overs to take my mind off work!
He is getting better, I was worried. Even more so when he came round last week to tell me that he had a tumour removed three days before my son was born in November... superficial bladder cancer. Didn’t say anything at the as he didn’t want to add to our stress!
That is extraordinarily brave and thoughtful of him. Sepsis is a real scare also so v glad he is on the mend.
Sepsis is dangerous. Had a nasty bout when a prostate cancer biopsy went wrong. OK now though, but what happened is still in my head
Indeed quite correct. My wife might have died but for an on the money Gp who spotted it immediately...
Hope she’s OK now. Although if she’s like me, as I said, it’s always in my head if I feel rough after even a slight wound. It’s a know hazard of prostate biopsies, though, which is why new techniques are being developed.
Thank you for your concern... She also had a spinal abscess and the nerve damage post the abscess going causes a lot of pain.. coild take years to settle down..
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
I’m assuming he was still there aged 14, so he was privately educated, unless the fees only applied to those who joined in 1976 which could well be the case
Yes I wonder. Started when it was free then they introduce fees. I've got to believe that they let that generation continue without cost. So it could easily be that the school was fee paying but he wasn't paying any fees.
Even better working class credentials.
Someone should ask him.
The time you harangued me to define working class, I was in a mess trading a t20 cricket match, had a screaming baby in the next room, a girlfriend with flu, Dad in hospital with sepsis, and an anxiety ridden cat over grooming on the sofa. Not sure whether your trolling was light relief or an added annoyance! It sure gave me a headache, but my fault for posting with all that going on really.
Blimey hope your dad is ok.
That was a lot going on what on earth did you come on to PB for?
I look at it between overs to take my mind off work!
He is getting better, I was worried. Even more so when he came round last week to tell me that he had a tumour removed three days before my son was born in November... superficial bladder cancer. Didn’t say anything at the as he didn’t want to add to our stress!
That is extraordinarily brave and thoughtful of him. Sepsis is a real scare also so v glad he is on the mend.
Sepsis is dangerous. Had a nasty bout when a prostate cancer biopsy went wrong. OK now though, but what happened is still in my head
Indeed quite correct. My wife might have died but for an on the money Gp who spotted it immediately...
Hope she’s OK now. Although if she’s like me, as I said, it’s always in my head if I feel rough after even a slight wound. It’s a know hazard of prostate biopsies, though, which is why new techniques are being developed.
⁷she also had a spinal abscess and the nerve damage ppst the abscess going causes a lot of pain.. coild take years to settle down..
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
Iran ... had agreed and was in 100% compliance with an international agreement that severely limited its nuclear ambitions...
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
The Sultan of Oman may be on his way out soon (cancer). He has no children so it is unclear who the successor will be.
Jess Philips won't back rejoin. Seeing as she was the most pro remain of all the candidates declared thus far that's the last rites for rejoin I think.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
Well I disagree with that if so - although I would substitute "disincentivize" for "attack". Labour must not become so timid as to put reform of such a powerful engine of inequality into the "too hard" basket. Little point in the party if they do that. But I prefer to think that all he was doing was skipping over an area he did not want to dwell on right now. Which is fair enough.
Jess Philips won't back rejoin. Seeing as she was the most pro remain of all the candidates declared thus far that's the last rites for rejoin I think.
I thought she'd said she might but it depends how "Tory Leave" works out?
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
The Sultan of Oman may be on his way out soon (cancer). He has no children so it is unclear who the successor will be.
Expect another conservative Islamist takeover then.
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
And people might start mentioning that he went to one!
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
And people might start mentioning that he went to one!
Well quite.
He looks too sensible a candidate to be elected by Labour. But maybe things are finally returning to sanity. We shall see.
On topic, my growing sense is that Rebecca won’t run. Suspect she thinks she cannot win and fancies ShadChan.
Still begs the eternal question about Trump: did he shit the bed as part of some nebulous strategy or because he's a deeply stupid narcissist with the attention span of a brain damaged goldfish?
Iran is, I suggest, rather like China, if somewhat smaller. Once a powerful State, a major regional, if not, like China a world power, it became rather a backwater and was fairly comprehensively ‘shafted’ by European powers, especially GB, and the US, particularly over its oil. So as it regains it’s strength there are long-standing grievances and potential for paybacks.
And its grievances are of more recent vintage than China’s.
The US had a chance of rapprochement back in 2003 prior to the Iraq invasion - with the approach coming from the same guy they just offed.
Given the US has neither the will nor capacity to occupy Iran, I really don’t see the purpose of what passes for their current policy.
Still begs the eternal question about Trump: did he shit the bed as part of some nebulous strategy or because he's a deeply stupid narcissist with the attention span of a brain damaged goldfish?
From The Times...
[Following the protests at the American embassy in Iraq]
“Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities,” Mr Trump tweeted. The response on the ayatollah’s Twitter account read: “That guy has tweeted that we see Iran responsible for the events in Baghdad and we will respond to Iran . . . You can’t do anything.”
Mr Trump snapped, and, no doubt to the Pentagon’s surprise, reached for the option he had overlooked [killing the general]
Mr. Eagles, if that turns out to be true, it makes Trump's action look even more ill-considered.
If his motive was a domestic poll boost - and I'm sorry but I cannot conceive of any other - then this does not necessarily follow. But, yes, I get what you're saying and by conventional thinking it's undeniably true.
Do we know what the response was or was that obliterated along with him?
Peace.
Apparently the Iranians and Saudis have come to the conclusion they'd much rather spend their oil/gas money on their respective countries rather than fighting and funding proxy wars.
Also both agree that ISIS are worse than a Hawaiian pizza and must be stopped.
Do we know what the response was or was that obliterated along with him?
Peace.
Apparently the Iranians and Saudis have come to the conclusion they'd much rather spend their oil/gas money on their respective countries rather than fighting and funding proxy wars.
Also both agree that ISIS are worse than a Hawaiian pizza and must be stopped.
Still begs the eternal question about Trump: did he shit the bed as part of some nebulous strategy or because he's a deeply stupid narcissist with the attention span of a brain damaged goldfish?
The latter. Trump is like one of the sheep in Orwell`s Animal Farm - he is persuaded by the last person he spoke to.
If you haven`t read "Fire and Fury" you should. It is terrifying.
Do we know what the response was or was that obliterated along with him?
Peace.
Apparently the Iranians and Saudis have come to the conclusion they'd much rather spend their oil/gas money on their respective countries rather than fighting and funding proxy wars.
Also both agree that ISIS are worse than a Hawaiian pizza and must be stopped.
Wow, if this is true it means that Trump DOES have a strategy! He wants to stop peace breaking out in the Middle East.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
Well I disagree with that if so - although I would substitute "disincentivize" for "attack". Labour must not become so timid as to put reform of such a powerful engine of inequality into the "too hard" basket. Little point in the party if they do that. But I prefer to think that all he was doing was skipping over an area he did not want to dwell on right now. Which is fair enough.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
The Sultan of Oman may be on his way out soon (cancer). He has no children so it is unclear who the successor will be.
Expect another conservative Islamist takeover then.
Hard to know. The Sultan is of course an autocrat but is also somewhat unorthodox being known for his handsome male bodyguards. Perhaps as a result the Omanis have been known to turn a blind eye to activities that might get one into trouble elsewhere in the Arab world, provided discretion is maintained.
Cummings has been criticised by employment lawyers and unions after posting a rambling 2,900-word blogpost calling for people with “odd skills” to circumvent the usual rules in applying for jobs as special advisers and officials in government.
Is it compulsory under this Conservative government always to count how many rambling words Dom has posted, in the same way the Mail always tells us how much everyone's house costs? I normally just guess 75 or 80,000.
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
Iran ... had agreed and was in 100% compliance with an international agreement that severely limited its nuclear ambitions...
Iran began breaching its commitments under the deal after the US abandoned it and imposed sanctions last year.
Fair point; my mistake.
Having re-read it seems they only officially started breaching the terms after the US withdrawal (although I would question why this is OK, since the other signatories are still committed and Iran hasn't formally repudiated the treaty).
However, Trump seems to have justified his withdrawal in part based on Israeli intelligence reports which show non-compliance. Who knows.
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
The Sultan of Oman may be on his way out soon (cancer). He has no children so it is unclear who the successor will be.
Expect another conservative Islamist takeover then.
Hard to know. The Sultan is of course an autocrat but is also somewhat unorthodox being known for his handsome male bodyguards. Perhaps as a result the Omanis have been known to turn a blind eye to activities that might get one into trouble elsewhere in the Arab world, provided discretion is maintained.
Rumour is (apart from *that* rumour) that Qaboos and his courtiers have decided and agreed who will succeed him already, in writing. I do hope so, as a smooth transition would be preferable all round. Oman is a lovely, lovely place.
I wonder who gets the (absolutely feckin' enormous) yacht?
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
IS is not really on the rise again bar a handful of fighters still left on the Kurdish border, more significant is both the Iraqi and Syrian governments are now Shia and loyal to Iran, if anything the remainder of Sunni IS are anti Iran and surprisingly not as far from the US of Trump as you might think now
Your view of IS is not shared by our intelligence services who, I suspect, know rather more about the threat IS pose than you do.
5 years ago IS controlled most of Syria and half of Iraq, now they barely control any of either so my point stands absolutely.
IS are also closer to Saudi Arabia and the UAE than they are to Iran, Russia and Iran were key in defeating IS and are still their enemies, Trump has now shifted from IS to Iran
These recent articles suggest that control of territory is not the measure by which a judgment should be made. Or perhaps you know better than the people on the ground?
Paul Waugh: "Am hearing NEC has decided registered supporters will have to pay £25 each to vote in Labour leader election and can only sign up in 48 hour window next week.."
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
Well I disagree with that if so - although I would substitute "disincentivize" for "attack". Labour must not become so timid as to put reform of such a powerful engine of inequality into the "too hard" basket. Little point in the party if they do that. But I prefer to think that all he was doing was skipping over an area he did not want to dwell on right now. Which is fair enough.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I don't think anyone designing an education system from scratch would design the one we have, large parts of which are a hodge-podge of historical accident. But we are where we are, etc. Personally, I'd be in more of a hurry to get rid of religious schools - no one is forced to go to a private school but in many cases parents have no choice but to send their children to the local church school.
Even in my kids' supposedly secular state primary school, there is what I consider to be an uncomfortable amount of religion, and assemblies include hymns and prayers. Perhaps it is a valuable exercise in going through the motions. But it just strikes me as weird. (Still a far better school than the bullshit education-free state primary school I went to in the 80s though.)
I think Keir is right that the best way to address private schools is to make sure state schools are so good that people don't feel the need to go outside the state sector. Though this is much easier said than done.
On topic: I wonder whether Corbyn will stay on longer than expected. The NEC could delay a leadership election to, perhaps, the autumn - and RLB knows this, which is why she hasn`t declared.
All Corbyn has said is that he wouldn`t lead labour into another election. He has not, to my knowledge, said that he would be resigning in the short term. In fact I think he has called for "a period of reflection", though I`m happy to be corrected on this.
I suspect that the left will defend their piracy of the LP to the end.
I suspect she hasn't declared because she's not getting the expected backing. A lot of social media posters who get their lead from the Unite side of the leaders office are coming out for Ian Lavery.
She's had some support from Jon Lansman (Momentum), but if Unite have decided on a different candidate, then it could get messy.
Skwawkbox (pushing Lavery, and with strong Unite links), is suggesting a single candidate will be chosen by the Campaign group MPs, but it wouldn't surprise me if RLB is right now in an episode of the Thick if It, and wondering where it's all gone wrong.
Thanks for that link. If anyone doubts the insanity that is the sectarian far left, the comments are worth a read if not for the faint hearted. This sort of crap for example:
"RLB bought into the Zionist attacks on Labour by saying Corbyn had lost the trust of the Jewish community. She went running to the Zionist JLM to commiserate and said Chris Williamson should not be in the Party. In short, she is a disgrace and must not be allowed anywhere near the Leadership position."
"The dream ticket to ensure continuity would have been Pidcock and Burgon. An operation that put Lavery in place until such time as Pidcock could be re-elected would be a possibility but it would mean a Lavery/Burgon ticket, which idpol mongers would find unacceptable in this day and age. Butler, I’m afraid, is an accident waiting for a place to happen and RBL – a straw blown in the wind and a creature beholden to McDonnell. Whoever it is must be brave enough to say the Israeli government and its “friends” will have no veto over who leads the British Labour Party in future – and brave enough to say that Williamson, Livingstone and Galloway are welcome back"
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
On topic: I wonder whether Corbyn will stay on longer than expected. The NEC could delay a leadership election to, perhaps, the autumn - and RLB knows this, which is why she hasn`t declared.
All Corbyn has said is that he wouldn`t lead labour into another election. He has not, to my knowledge, said that he would be resigning in the short term. In fact I think he has called for "a period of reflection", though I`m happy to be corrected on this.
I suspect that the left will defend their piracy of the LP to the end.
I suspect she hasn't declared because she's not getting the expected backing. A lot of social media posters who get their lead from the Unite side of the leaders office are coming out for Ian Lavery.
She's had some support from Jon Lansman (Momentum), but if Unite have decided on a different candidate, then it could get messy.
Skwawkbox (pushing Lavery, and with strong Unite links), is suggesting a single candidate will be chosen by the Campaign group MPs, but it wouldn't surprise me if RLB is right now in an episode of the Thick if It, and wondering where it's all gone wrong.
Thanks for that link. If anyone doubts the insanity that is the sectarian far left, the comments are worth a read if not for the faint hearted. This sort of crap for example:
"RLB bought into the Zionist attacks on Labour by saying Corbyn had lost the trust of the Jewish community. She went running to the Zionist JLM to commiserate and said Chris Williamson should not be in the Party. In short, she is a disgrace and must not be allowed anywhere near the Leadership position."
"The dream ticket to ensure continuity would have been Pidcock and Burgon. An operation that put Lavery in place until such time as Pidcock could be re-elected would be a possibility but it would mean a Lavery/Burgon ticket, which idpol mongers would find unacceptable in this day and age. Butler, I’m afraid, is an accident waiting for a place to happen and RBL – a straw blown in the wind and a creature beholden to McDonnell. Whoever it is must be brave enough to say the Israeli government and its “friends” will have no veto over who leads the British Labour Party in future – and brave enough to say that Williamson, Livingstone and Galloway are welcome back"
Off topic, I'm seeing Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes speech being rt-ed approvingly by KT Hopkins, Leave.EU, Paul Joseph Watson and the like. Perhaps not the effect he was aiming for, or perhaps it was, who knows any more?
Cummings has been criticised by employment lawyers and unions after posting a rambling 2,900-word blogpost calling for people with “odd skills” to circumvent the usual rules in applying for jobs as special advisers and officials in government.
I bloody applied! I spent some hours updating my CV (which I was going to do anyway, so no biggie) and wrote my covering letter!
IIUC he's entitled to employ people outside the ambit of the Civil Service. We've had this argument before about spads, so I think this is not a problem. It's unlikely I'll get it but hell, that's never stopped me before...
On topic: I wonder whether Corbyn will stay on longer than expected. The NEC could delay a leadership election to, perhaps, the autumn - and RLB knows this, which is why she hasn`t declared.
All Corbyn has said is that he wouldn`t lead labour into another election. He has not, to my knowledge, said that he would be resigning in the short term. In fact I think he has called for "a period of reflection", though I`m happy to be corrected on this.
I suspect that the left will defend their piracy of the LP to the end.
I suspect she hasn't declared because she's not getting the expected backing. A lot of social media posters who get their lead from the Unite side of the leaders office are coming out for Ian Lavery.
She's had some support from Jon Lansman (Momentum), but if Unite have decided on a different candidate, then it could get messy.
Skwawkbox (pushing Lavery, and with strong Unite links), is suggesting a single candidate will be chosen by the Campaign group MPs, but it wouldn't surprise me if RLB is right now in an episode of the Thick if It, and wondering where it's all gone wrong.
Thanks for that link. If anyone doubts the insanity that is the sectarian far left, the comments are worth a read if not for the faint hearted. This sort of crap for example:
"RLB bought into the Zionist attacks on Labour by saying Corbyn had lost the trust of the Jewish community. She went running to the Zionist JLM to commiserate and said Chris Williamson should not be in the Party. In short, she is a disgrace and must not be allowed anywhere near the Leadership position."
"The dream ticket to ensure continuity would have been Pidcock and Burgon. An operation that put Lavery in place until such time as Pidcock could be re-elected would be a possibility but it would mean a Lavery/Burgon ticket, which idpol mongers would find unacceptable in this day and age. Butler, I’m afraid, is an accident waiting for a place to happen and RBL – a straw blown in the wind and a creature beholden to McDonnell. Whoever it is must be brave enough to say the Israeli government and its “friends” will have no veto over who leads the British Labour Party in future – and brave enough to say that Williamson, Livingstone and Galloway are welcome back"
I must admit that was my favourite comment too
Here's another outrider, who I believe has the same sources, and who is now promoting the theory that RLB and Momentum are the problem and that Ian Lavery is the solution.
Off topic, I'm seeing Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes speech being rt-ed approvingly by KT Hopkins, Leave.EU, Paul Joseph Watson and the like. Perhaps not the effect he was aiming for, or perhaps it was, who knows any more?
Paul Waugh: "Am hearing NEC has decided registered supporters will have to pay £25 each to vote in Labour leader election and can only sign up in 48 hour window next week.."
Which faction will this help?
Not the ones who earlier this afternoon backed Corbyn to stay until late summer. If there is to be only a 48-hour window, I'd anticipate reports of servers being overloaded.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
"Class War" would be a charge that is levelled, I agree, but the main issue for me, as a liberal, is that banning private schools curtails freedom.
I`m conflicted on this issue. I`m more amenable for VAT to be charged on fees rather than banning, and loss of charitable status. But even these moderate reforms could have unintended consequences - filtering out those (like me and my wife) who can only-just-afford to privately educate their children (at the expense of doing other things with their money, e.g. flash cars/holidays). It won`t affect the very rich. Also, don`t underestimate the positive role that private schools play in the fabric of society.
Off topic, I'm seeing Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes speech being rt-ed approvingly by KT Hopkins, Leave.EU, Paul Joseph Watson and the like. Perhaps not the effect he was aiming for, or perhaps it was, who knows any more?
Off topic, I'm seeing Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes speech being rt-ed approvingly by KT Hopkins, Leave.EU, Paul Joseph Watson and the like. Perhaps not the effect he was aiming for, or perhaps it was, who knows any more?
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
"Class War" would be a charge that is levelled, I agree, but the main issue for me, as a liberal, is that banning private schools curtails freedom.
I`m conflicted on this issue. I`m more amenable for VAT to be charged on fees rather than banning, and loss of charitable status. But even these moderate reforms could have unintended consequences - filtering out those (like me and my wife) who can only-just-afford to privately educate their children (at the expense of doing other things with our money). It won`t affect the very rich. Also, don`t underestimate the positive role that private schools play in the fabric of society.
We should abolish all state schools/the Department for Education and use the money to give parents vouchers for schools of their choice.
It is entirely up to the parents if they wish to top up these vouchers.
Free markets work, the DfE, comprehensives, grammar schools do not.
Having re-read it seems they only officially started breaching the terms after the US withdrawal (although I would question why this is OK, since the other signatories are still committed and Iran hasn't formally repudiated the treaty).
However, Trump seems to have justified his withdrawal in part based on Israeli intelligence reports which show non-compliance. Who knows.
The Iran deal wasn't a great deal.
But then again, it was an actual deal, and the general consensus is that Iran paused work on its nuclear programme. Ultimately, Iran is a big country, with lots of oil, an if they want to get a nuclear weapon, then they will eventually get one, and there's pretty much nothing the rest of the world can do about it short of invasion.
To my mind, there are two big issue with the US breaking the Iran deal
1. Just as with the US breaking the trade agreements with Argentina and Brazil, the word of the United States no longer means anything. Why bother doing a deal with them if they're just going to change their mind a little later?
2. This is a dumb long-term play, which just pushes other countries into the hands of Russia and China.
I have little doubt that Iran will push full on for nuclear weapons now. They will probably achieve them within the next two years. I'm not convinced this makes the region safer.
Paul Waugh: "Am hearing NEC has decided registered supporters will have to pay £25 each to vote in Labour leader election and can only sign up in 48 hour window next week.."
Which faction will this help?
Not the ones who earlier this afternoon backed Corbyn to stay until late summer. If there is to be only a 48-hour window, I'd anticipate reports of servers being overloaded.
The 48 hour window is not necessarily connected to the eventually-agreed timetable for a new leader to be in place. As I`ve pointed out before, it took 4 months in 2015 for the process to be completed. Taking this as a guide, I`ve placed my bets on April or later.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
"Class War" would be a charge that is levelled, I agree, but the main issue for me, as a liberal, is that banning private schools curtails freedom.
I`m conflicted on this issue. I`m more amenable for VAT to be charged on fees rather than banning, and loss of charitable status. But even these moderate reforms could have unintended consequences - filtering out those (like me and my wife) who can only-just-afford to privately educate their children (at the expense of doing other things with our money). It won`t affect the very rich. Also, don`t underestimate the positive role that private schools play in the fabric of society.
We should abolish all state schools/the Department for Education and use the money to give parents vouchers for schools of their choice.
It is entirely up to the parents if they wish to top up these vouchers.
Free markets work, the DfE, comprehensives, grammar schools do not.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
Class War gets you 200 seats and complete political irrelevance.
The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC MP - a symbol of the vertiginous social mobility enabled by the Thatcher-Blair settlement if ever there was one - seems to have the sense to appreciate this.
Basically, the more his policies upset you, the closer Labour will be to regaining power...
Off topic, I'm seeing Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes speech being rt-ed approvingly by KT Hopkins, Leave.EU, Paul Joseph Watson and the like. Perhaps not the effect he was aiming for, or perhaps it was, who knows any more?
There were some good gags in there. I thought the Felicity Huffman one was pretty funny, as was the Epstein gag, and I liked the way he dealt with pedophilia. The Joe Pesci ones were pretty cheap mind.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
"Class War" would be a charge that is levelled, I agree, but the main issue for me, as a liberal, is that banning private schools curtails freedom.
I`m conflicted on this issue. I`m more amenable for VAT to be charged on fees rather than banning, and loss of charitable status. But even these moderate reforms could have unintended consequences - filtering out those (like me and my wife) who can only-just-afford to privately educate their children (at the expense of doing other things with their money, e.g. flash cars/holidays). It won`t affect the very rich. Also, don`t underestimate the positive role that private schools play in the fabric of society.
I've never understood the "stripping charitable status" part of the crusade against private schools. Given that the operating entities of private schools are often limited companies anyway, it seems the actual impact of such a move would be to create a tonne of unintended consequences in other educational charities.
The NEC has now announced the timetable for the leadership election. A Labour spokesman said:
"Our national executive committee has agreed the timetable and process for the leadership and deputy leadership elections. The ballot will run from 21 February to 2 April, with the results announced on Saturday 4 April.
We are by far the largest political party in the UK with well over half a million members. We want as many of our members and supporters to take part, so it has been designed to be open, fair and democratic."
Paul Waugh: "Am hearing NEC has decided registered supporters will have to pay £25 each to vote in Labour leader election and can only sign up in 48 hour window next week.."
Which faction will this help?
Not the ones who earlier this afternoon backed Corbyn to stay until late summer. If there is to be only a 48-hour window, I'd anticipate reports of servers being overloaded.
The 48 hour window is not necessarily connected to the eventually-agreed timetable for a new leader to be in place. As I`ve pointed out before, it took 4 months in 2015 for the process to be completed. Taking this as a guide, I`ve placed my bets on April or later.
Bingo - I hate to crow but:
"Our national executive committee has agreed the timetable and process for the leadership and deputy leadership elections. The ballot will run from 21 February to 2 April, with the results announced on Saturday 4 April"
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
"Class War" would be a charge that is levelled, I agree, but the main issue for me, as a liberal, is that banning private schools curtails freedom.
I`m conflicted on this issue. I`m more amenable for VAT to be charged on fees rather than banning, and loss of charitable status. But even these moderate reforms could have unintended consequences - filtering out those (like me and my wife) who can only-just-afford to privately educate their children (at the expense of doing other things with their money, e.g. flash cars/holidays). It won`t affect the very rich. Also, don`t underestimate the positive role that private schools play in the fabric of society.
I've never understood the "stripping charitable status" part of the crusade against private schools. Given that the operating entities of private schools are often limited companies anyway, it seems the actual impact of such a move would be to create a tonne of unintended consequences in other educational charities.
You think any Labour MP has a clue how a private school actually works? Heck most people don't have a clue how anything they don't work on daily actually works and even then I wonder about the workers at a lot of organisations.
Paul Waugh: "Am hearing NEC has decided registered supporters will have to pay £25 each to vote in Labour leader election and can only sign up in 48 hour window next week.."
Which faction will this help?
I suspect it won't help anyione who has not yet declared.
In any case you can join on DD and pay £4 a month.
Paul Waugh: "Am hearing NEC has decided registered supporters will have to pay £25 each to vote in Labour leader election and can only sign up in 48 hour window next week.."
Which faction will this help?
Not the ones who earlier this afternoon backed Corbyn to stay until late summer. If there is to be only a 48-hour window, I'd anticipate reports of servers being overloaded.
The 48 hour window is not necessarily connected to the eventually-agreed timetable for a new leader to be in place. As I`ve pointed out before, it took 4 months in 2015 for the process to be completed. Taking this as a guide, I`ve placed my bets on April or later.
Bingo - I hate to crow but:
"Our national executive committee has agreed the timetable and process for the leadership and deputy leadership elections. The ballot will run from 21 February to 2 April, with the results announced on Saturday 4 April"
Well played, Sir! I screwed up because I took notice of the fact that Corbyn said he wanted to leave by the end of March.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
Class War gets you 200 seats and complete political irrelevance.
The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC MP - a symbol of the vertiginous social mobility enabled by the Thatcher-Blair settlement if ever there was one - seems to have the sense to appreciate this.
Basically, the more his policies upset you, the closer Labour will be to regaining power...
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
"Class War" would be a charge that is levelled, I agree, but the main issue for me, as a liberal, is that banning private schools curtails freedom.
I`m conflicted on this issue. I`m more amenable for VAT to be charged on fees rather than banning, and loss of charitable status. But even these moderate reforms could have unintended consequences - filtering out those (like me and my wife) who can only-just-afford to privately educate their children (at the expense of doing other things with our money). It won`t affect the very rich. Also, don`t underestimate the positive role that private schools play in the fabric of society.
We should abolish all state schools/the Department for Education and use the money to give parents vouchers for schools of their choice.
It is entirely up to the parents if they wish to top up these vouchers.
Free markets work, the DfE, comprehensives, grammar schools do not.
It was quite striking when we first moved from having children at the local nursery (paid for by vouchers) to the local primary school (state run). In the former, we were treated as customers; our opinion was valuable, it was recignised that we could have chosen and could still choose to go elsewhere, the nursery strove to provide the sort of education and environment we would want for our children; at the latter, it felt like we had to do as we were told and put up with things as they were. After all, what else were we going to do?
Jess Philips won't back rejoin. Seeing as she was the most pro remain of all the candidates declared thus far that's the last rites for rejoin I think.
Depends if the LibDems go for rejoin, and demand a referendum on it in return for supporting a Labour minority government. I think they will and they should, because I can't see leavers forgetting 'bollocks to Brexit' and 'Revoke A50' anytime soon. Might as well chase after centre-right remainers who stuck with Boris out of fear of Corbyn, and try to win seats like Winchester, Cheltenham, and Esher and Walton.
Ms Warren has drifted too far in the betting. She's a buy here.
If she wasn't already my largest Green I would concur.
I find myself too low on Sanders and am worried my position is rather fragile if I try and rejig it.
I sold Ms Warren (in relatively small size) when she was showing as a 50+% chance for the nomination, despite being off the pace in the national polls.
I'm not convinced by the Sanders argument. It seems to me that it is:
Sanders will win Iowa and New Hampshire, and if you win Iowa and New Hampshire you win the nomination.
This comes to me under "the poverty of historicism", a belief that the past offers sure fire rules. Sanders needs to get 40+% of the primary vote to grab the nomination, and I simply don't see that as a high probability event. Most likely one of the moderates (probably Biden, but it could be someone else) ends up taking the mantle and consolidating the moderate vote.
Warren is unusual. She's not as far left as Sanders and she could consolidate the establishment vote in a way the Independent Senator could not. She's barely off the pace in Iowa, and has the second best ground game there.
Labour timetable confirmed. It actually looks very helpful to contenders who do not currently have a strong party base as it allows them to recruit new members (at £4/month DD) for another six weeks. https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1214205217522274306
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
"Class War" would be a charge that is levelled, I agree, but the main issue for me, as a liberal, is that banning private schools curtails freedom.
I`m conflicted on this issue. I`m more amenable for VAT to be charged on fees rather than banning, and loss of charitable status. But even these moderate reforms could have unintended consequences - filtering out those (like me and my wife) who can only-just-afford to privately educate their children (at the expense of doing other things with our money). It won`t affect the very rich. Also, don`t underestimate the positive role that private schools play in the fabric of society.
We should abolish all state schools/the Department for Education and use the money to give parents vouchers for schools of their choice.
It is entirely up to the parents if they wish to top up these vouchers.
Free markets work, the DfE, comprehensives, grammar schools do not.
It was quite striking when we first moved from having children at the local nursery (paid for by vouchers) to the local primary school (state run). In the former, we were treated as customers; our opinion was valuable, it was recignised that we could have chosen and could still choose to go elsewhere, the nursery strove to provide the sort of education and environment we would want for our children; at the latter, it felt like we had to do as we were told and put up with things as they were. After all, what else were we going to do?
Elder Grandson is a teacher in a state primary school; he really wishes more parents would engage sensibly with the school, instead of turning up occasionally to complain.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
Class War gets you 200 seats and complete political irrelevance.
The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC MP - a symbol of the vertiginous social mobility enabled by the Thatcher-Blair settlement if ever there was one - seems to have the sense to appreciate this.
Basically, the more his policies upset you, the closer Labour will be to regaining power...
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
Rather depressing what a low baseline it is for 'impressive' - accepting the result of a referendum, not consorting with terrorists and not promoting class war. Once upon a time that sort of thing was a minimum requirement for a politican to be taken seriously in a democracy. Though I agree with your point.
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
I think it might well be enough. Last month Labour got a third of the vote despite having the weakest front bench any major party has had in living memory, with a superannuated 60s hard-left, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitic leader who wasn't even supported by his own MPs or by the Labour mayor of London, and all this on a platform which was completely risible even before they announced they'd bung £58bn at a very undeserving cause.
If the Labour brand is so incredibly strong that it can survive that and still get so many votes and seats, how well will they do if they are led by someone sane, who is not mired in a moral sewer, and who appreciates the importance of putting forward a vaguely credible manifesto?
Jess Philips won't back rejoin. Seeing as she was the most pro remain of all the candidates declared thus far that's the last rites for rejoin I think.
Depends if the LibDems go for rejoin, and demand a referendum on it in return for supporting a Labour minority government. I think they will and they should, because I can't see leavers forgetting 'bollocks to Brexit' and 'Revoke A50' anytime soon. Might as well chase after centre-right remainers who stuck with Boris out of fear of Corbyn, and try to win seats like Winchester, Cheltenham, and Esher and Walton.
Jess P has said that at the moment she's for Rejoin, but that she's prepared to wait and see how the situation develops before saying whether or not she'll have the same view 3-4 years down the track.
Jess Philips won't back rejoin. Seeing as she was the most pro remain of all the candidates declared thus far that's the last rites for rejoin I think.
Depends if the LibDems go for rejoin, and demand a referendum on it in return for supporting a Labour minority government. I think they will and they should, because I can't see leavers forgetting 'bollocks to Brexit' and 'Revoke A50' anytime soon. Might as well chase after centre-right remainers who stuck with Boris out of fear of Corbyn, and try to win seats like Winchester, Cheltenham, and Esher and Walton.
Jess P has said that at the moment she's for Rejoin, but that she's prepared to wait and see how the situation develops before saying whether or not she'll have the same view 3-4 years down the track.
Which in my opinion is the most reasonable, pragmatic position.
Comments
We have always been at war with Shia Islam.
So as it regains it’s strength there are long-standing grievances and potential for paybacks.
She also had a spinal abscess and the nerve damage post the abscess going causes a lot of pain.. coild take years to settle down..
Iran began breaching its commitments under the deal after the US abandoned it and imposed sanctions last year.
I’m certainly not laying him yet.
He looks too sensible a candidate to be elected by Labour. But maybe things are finally returning to sanity. We shall see.
On topic, my growing sense is that Rebecca won’t run. Suspect she thinks she cannot win and fancies ShadChan.
The US had a chance of rapprochement back in 2003 prior to the Iraq invasion - with the approach coming from the same guy they just offed.
Given the US has neither the will nor capacity to occupy Iran, I really don’t see the purpose of what passes for their current policy.
[Following the protests at the American embassy in Iraq]
“Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities,” Mr Trump tweeted. The response on the ayatollah’s Twitter account read: “That guy has tweeted that we see Iran responsible for the events in Baghdad and we will respond to Iran . . . You can’t do anything.”
Mr Trump snapped, and, no doubt to the Pentagon’s surprise, reached for the option he had overlooked [killing the general]
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/qasem-soleimani-killing-trump-snapped-and-enemy-was-dead-in-hours-63lmcg2qv
Apparently the Iranians and Saudis have come to the conclusion they'd much rather spend their oil/gas money on their respective countries rather than fighting and funding proxy wars.
Also both agree that ISIS are worse than a Hawaiian pizza and must be stopped.
If you haven`t read "Fire and Fury" you should. It is terrifying.
He wants to stop peace breaking out in the Middle East.
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1214196328831561728
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1214197038063243266
Is it compulsory under this Conservative government always to count how many rambling words Dom has posted, in the same way the Mail always tells us how much everyone's house costs? I normally just guess 75 or 80,000.
Having re-read it seems they only officially started breaching the terms after the US withdrawal (although I would question why this is OK, since the other signatories are still committed and Iran hasn't formally repudiated the treaty).
However, Trump seems to have justified his withdrawal in part based on Israeli intelligence reports which show non-compliance. Who knows.
I wonder who gets the (absolutely feckin' enormous) yacht?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/isis-is-back-not-just-regrouping-and-next-year-will-be-worse-wl7mz937s
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50850325
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/us-report-isis-regrouping-syria-and-iraq
https://www.newsweek.com/isis-militants-iraq-are-like-al-qaeda-steroids-says-counter-terrorism-official-1478916
Which faction will this help?
Even in my kids' supposedly secular state primary school, there is what I consider to be an uncomfortable amount of religion, and assemblies include hymns and prayers. Perhaps it is a valuable exercise in going through the motions. But it just strikes me as weird. (Still a far better school than the bullshit education-free state primary school I went to in the 80s though.)
I think Keir is right that the best way to address private schools is to make sure state schools are so good that people don't feel the need to go outside the state sector. Though this is much easier said than done.
"RLB bought into the Zionist attacks on Labour by saying Corbyn had lost the trust of the Jewish community. She went running to the Zionist JLM to commiserate and said Chris Williamson should not be in the Party. In short, she is a disgrace and must not be allowed anywhere near the Leadership position."
"The dream ticket to ensure continuity would have been Pidcock and Burgon. An operation that put Lavery in place until such time as Pidcock could be re-elected would be a possibility but it would mean a Lavery/Burgon ticket, which idpol mongers would find unacceptable in this day and age. Butler, I’m afraid, is an accident waiting for a place to happen and RBL – a straw blown in the wind and a creature beholden to McDonnell. Whoever it is must be brave enough to say the Israeli government and its “friends” will have no veto over who leads the British Labour Party in future – and brave enough to say that Williamson, Livingstone and Galloway are welcome back"
IIUC he's entitled to employ people outside the ambit of the Civil Service. We've had this argument before about spads, so I think this is not a problem. It's unlikely I'll get it but hell, that's never stopped me before...
Here's another outrider, who I believe has the same sources, and who is now promoting the theory that RLB and Momentum are the problem and that Ian Lavery is the solution.
https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1214149585783939072
https://twitter.com/MrTCHarris/status/1214155746277036032
I`m conflicted on this issue. I`m more amenable for VAT to be charged on fees rather than banning, and loss of charitable status. But even these moderate reforms could have unintended consequences - filtering out those (like me and my wife) who can only-just-afford to privately educate their children (at the expense of doing other things with their money, e.g. flash cars/holidays). It won`t affect the very rich. Also, don`t underestimate the positive role that private schools play in the fabric of society.
It is entirely up to the parents if they wish to top up these vouchers.
Free markets work, the DfE, comprehensives, grammar schools do not.
But then again, it was an actual deal, and the general consensus is that Iran paused work on its nuclear programme. Ultimately, Iran is a big country, with lots of oil, an if they want to get a nuclear weapon, then they will eventually get one, and there's pretty much nothing the rest of the world can do about it short of invasion.
To my mind, there are two big issue with the US breaking the Iran deal
1. Just as with the US breaking the trade agreements with Argentina and Brazil, the word of the United States no longer means anything. Why bother doing a deal with them if they're just going to change their mind a little later?
2. This is a dumb long-term play, which just pushes other countries into the hands of Russia and China.
I have little doubt that Iran will push full on for nuclear weapons now. They will probably achieve them within the next two years. I'm not convinced this makes the region safer.
Note the red hand on the side of the cake.
https://twitter.com/Aaron_Rankin87/status/1213843273565048834
The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC MP - a symbol of the vertiginous social mobility enabled by the Thatcher-Blair settlement if ever there was one - seems to have the sense to appreciate this.
Basically, the more his policies upset you, the closer Labour will be to regaining power...
I find myself too low on Sanders and am worried my position is rather fragile if I try and rejig it.
I had done an initial back and lay @240 and @120 respectively but went back in at a shorter price
The NEC has now announced the timetable for the leadership election. A Labour spokesman said:
"Our national executive committee has agreed the timetable and process for the leadership and deputy leadership elections. The ballot will run from 21 February to 2 April, with the results announced on Saturday 4 April.
We are by far the largest political party in the UK with well over half a million members. We want as many of our members and supporters to take part, so it has been designed to be open, fair and democratic."
Damn it, don't they know that will cost me £100?
"Our national executive committee has agreed the timetable and process for the leadership and deputy leadership elections. The ballot will run from 21 February to 2 April, with the results announced on Saturday 4 April"
In any case you can join on DD and pay £4 a month.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
The last 10 runners up in the U.S presidential elections.
I won't leap in and spoil it for others, except to say that the one I struggled with was 2012. I had completely forgotten about him!
I'm not convinced by the Sanders argument. It seems to me that it is:
Sanders will win Iowa and New Hampshire, and if you win Iowa and New Hampshire you win the nomination.
This comes to me under "the poverty of historicism", a belief that the past offers sure fire rules. Sanders needs to get 40+% of the primary vote to grab the nomination, and I simply don't see that as a high probability event. Most likely one of the moderates (probably Biden, but it could be someone else) ends up taking the mantle and consolidating the moderate vote.
Warren is unusual. She's not as far left as Sanders and she could consolidate the establishment vote in a way the Independent Senator could not. She's barely off the pace in Iowa, and has the second best ground game there.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1214205217522274306
Though I agree with your point.
Romney '12
McCain '08
Kerry '04
Gore '00
That Really Old Guy '96
Bush '92
Dukakis '88
Mondale '84
Carter '80
No Googling.
If the Labour brand is so incredibly strong that it can survive that and still get so many votes and seats, how well will they do if they are led by someone sane, who is not mired in a moral sewer, and who appreciates the importance of putting forward a vaguely credible manifesto?
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1214206614141579264