Some worrying statistics from America – politicalbetting.com

Foxy said:

contrarian said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/us/oregon-delta-national-guard-.html

On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).

High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.

Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.

Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Rory Stewart:-
Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out?
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078

Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).

You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.

Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?

There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.

I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.

Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.

I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.

Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.

Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...

DougSeal said:

Foxy said:

contrarian said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/us/oregon-delta-national-guard-.html

On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).

High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.

Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.

Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.

I am of the view now that the only option is a massive increase of funding for the NHS. This is very much a personal view but I’d be far happier to pay more in taxes to avoid putting people like Mr and Mrs Foxy back into this horrible situation than having to remain stuck at home to do so.

CarlottaVance said:

BREAKING — The Afghan president Ghani is relinquishing power and an interim government led by Taliban is formed — Al Arabiya

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1426837632542285826?s=20

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

geoffw said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Rory Stewart:-
Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out?
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078

Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).

You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.

Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?

There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.

I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.

Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.

Isn't the mens' education largely provided by madrassas instilling knowledge of the Koran by incantation?

No, not in areas that have been under government control. The situation has been messy and underfunded, especially for girls, but not dominated by madrassas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Afghanistan#:~:text=Education in Afghanistan includes K–12 and higher education,,The nation still requires more schools and teachers.

That will now, sadly, presumably change.

First indications are that it has changed overnight in some areas taken by the Taliban. A return to islamic schooling:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58191440
Along with the compete segregation of women.

Back to the medieval state, by the look of it.

DougSeal said:

Tying together two topics of the week, we are seeing an incel takeover of an entire country today.

StuartDickson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.

And they will vote to remain in the union

Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.

Pulpstar said:

M16s aren't massively different to AK47s...

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Rob_downunder said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?

He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.

On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998

The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.

The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!

If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place

Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?

I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.

Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism

https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1426223270961975305?s=20
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1425827915455942656?s=20

Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.

The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now

Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).

Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.

Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.

I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔

It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.

As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.

However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.

“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'

“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”

If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/567907-trump-slams-biden-for-not-following-the-plan-he-left-on

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.

Under the Scotland Act 1998 it is the UK government which will decide the future of the Union actually and the UK government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 and respect the decision of Scots to stay in the UK in 2014.

As recently as May the Scots re-elected a pro-independence legislature. The manifesto commitments of both the SNP and the Greens were quite clear, and they received democratic support.

Westminster cannot legislate away a nation’s right to self-determination.

The problem is that at present Scotland is part of the UK and though you do not like it, the only legal referendum has to be sanctioned by the HOC

UDI would be struck down in Scotland on a challenge from pro union Scots

You’ve given Scenario A and Scenario D. Missing a couple there.

And Parliament to be recalled over Afghanistan

StuartDickson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Rob_downunder said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?

He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.

On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998

The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.

The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.

HYUFD is a Remainer don't forget.

The UK did hold the cards. That's why we got a deal we wanted and not the backstop the EU wanted. That's why we're now able to frustrate and make unworkable even the token Protocol we got the EU to reluctantly sign up to instead of the backstop they'd spent years demanding.

We held all the cards and sold them a pup.

So much for good faith.

pigeon said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Rory Stewart:-
Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out?
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078

Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).

You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.

Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?

There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.

I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.

Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.

I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.

Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.

I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.

Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.

Philip_Thompson said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Rob_downunder said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

Didn't Boris also say he would never allow a border down the Irish Sea?

He had no choice to get a trade deal with the EU as the EU held the key hand on that.

On indyref2 Boris holds the key hand, not Sturgeon, under the Scotland Act 1998

The Tories told us that they “held all the cards”.

The Scottish nation hold the key hand, not any single politician. The Tories are playing with fire here.

HYUFD is a Remainer don't forget.

The UK did hold the cards. That's why we got a deal we wanted and not the backstop the EU wanted. That's why we're now able to frustrate and make unworkable even the token Protocol we got the EU to reluctantly sign up to instead of the backstop they'd spent years demanding.

We held all the cards and sold them a pup.

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!

If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place

Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?

I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.

Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism

https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1426223270961975305?s=20
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1425827915455942656?s=20

Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.

The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now

I trust you are referring to the policies Charles Kennedy espoused rather than expressing satisfaction at his passing?I hope so anyway.

Of course, I had nothing against Kennedy personally, he was a genial chap, just his policies

His policies have stood the test of time: He was right, The Iraq war was indeed a massive mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives to the benefit of few except our enemies in Iran. When Charles had the courage to speak out aganist the unfolding disaster you, and many warmongers like you, did not merely disagree with him, you accused him of treachery.

Now Blair is rightly reviled for leading our country into an illegal war that he could and should have avoided, so I think if you are still opposed to the "policies" of Charles Kennedy you might want to go and sit in a dark room and contemplate the folly of your miserable, wasted life.

Charles had failings, but both he and Paddy Ashdown (and indeed Ming Campbell) had the political courage to speak up for what was right rather than what was merely politically expediant or temporarily popular amongst the poisonous British media.

Its called being principled and is almost the exact opposite of the lightweight, shallow fools in charge today.

DougSeal said:

Sky News is saying Parliament will be recalled next week. Phew…I thought things were serious but this will sort it out.

Cyclefree said:

pigeon said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Rory Stewart:-
Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out?
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078

Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).

You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.

Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?

There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.

I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.

Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.

I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.

Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.

I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.

Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.

The same happened in Iran, a very different country. Turkey is also becoming more Islamic. 3 very different countries but all have moved or are moving away from Western values. The unwillingness to accept that faith does have something - probably quite a lot, in fact - to do with how and why these societies are the way they are is one reason why the West keeps getting it wrong in its relationships with them. Just because faith does not matter to us, we think it does not matter to others - despite all the evidence that it does.

dixiedean said:

pigeon said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Rory Stewart:-
Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out?
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078

Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).

You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.

Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?

There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.

I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.

Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.

I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.

Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.

I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.

Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.

Afghanistan has a long pre-Islamic history. And, as others have noted, Kabul was a popular stop on the 60's hippy trail. And Afghanistan has cultures, not a culture. What is Pashtun is not Tajik.
40+ years of conflict will influence a country more than its religion or culture I fear.

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!

If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place

Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?

I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.

Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism

https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1426223270961975305?s=20
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1425827915455942656?s=20

Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.

The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now

Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).

Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.

Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.

I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔

It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.

As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.

However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.

“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'

“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”

If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/567907-trump-slams-biden-for-not-following-the-plan-he-left-on

The people who really 'took out' ISIS were the Kurds and the Iraqi army though, surely.

That region seems to have a strong spine of anti-islamism that is sadly lacking in Afghanistan.

RochdalePioneers said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.

And they will vote to remain in the union

Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.

Independence should have happened in 2014. It could have easily and workably been achieved whilst the UK was part of the EU - all it really required was some sort of mutually workable agreement over defence and a fudged agreement about money.The border would have been a non issue, because freedom of movement, capital etc was enshrined in the EU - a way could be found for an Independent Scotland to join the EU.

I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.

Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.

How do we know that such things won't happen anyway? The UK government unilaterally abolished the UK customs zone and imposed a customs border between GB and NI. There is nothing stopping them doing the same to Scotland and if they say "we won't do that" its the exact same thing they said to NI.

This is why I keep coming back to just how massive the NI issue is. South of the wall most people don't care. North of the wall its a direct warning for how much you can trust the word of the UK government.

RochdalePioneers said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.

And they will vote to remain in the union

Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.

Independence should have happened in 2014. It could have easily and workably been achieved whilst the UK was part of the EU - all it really required was some sort of mutually workable agreement over defence and a fudged agreement about money.The border would have been a non issue, because freedom of movement, capital etc was enshrined in the EU - a way could be found for an Independent Scotland to join the EU.

I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.

Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.

How do we know that such things won't happen anyway? The UK government unilaterally abolished the UK customs zone and imposed a customs border between GB and NI. There is nothing stopping them doing the same to Scotland and if they say "we won't do that" its the exact same thing they said to NI.

This is why I keep coming back to just how massive the NI issue is. South of the wall most people don't care. North of the wall its a direct warning for how much you can trust the word of the UK government.

Razedabode said:

Whilst everyone has the same old Indy debates on here, surely the focus should be on the utter humiliation of the USA and the UK in relation to Afghanistan.

What a failure of leadership from both countries - but the Chinese must be looking on in glee at the moment.

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!

If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place

Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?

I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.

Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism

https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1426223270961975305?s=20
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1425827915455942656?s=20

Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.

The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now

I trust you are referring to the policies Charles Kennedy espoused rather than expressing satisfaction at his passing?I hope so anyway.

Of course, I had nothing against Kennedy personally, he was a genial chap, just his policies

His policies have stood the test of time: He was right, The Iraq war was indeed a massive mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives to the benefit of few except our enemies in Iran. When Charles had the courage to speak out aganist the unfolding disaster you, and many warmongers like you, did not merely disagree with him, you accused him of treachery.

Now Blair is rightly reviled for leading our country into an illegal war that he could and should have avoided, so I think if you are still opposed to the "policies" of Charles Kennedy you might want to go and sit in a dark room and contemplate the folly of your miserable, wasted life.

Charles had failings, but both he and Paddy Ashdown (and indeed Ming Campbell) had the political courage to speak up for what was right rather than what was merely politically expediant or temporarily popular amongst the poisonous British media.

Its called being principled and is almost the exact opposite of the lightweight, shallow fools in charge today.

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!

If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place

Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?

I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.

Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism

https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1426223270961975305?s=20
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1425827915455942656?s=20

Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.

The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now

I trust you are referring to the policies Charles Kennedy espoused rather than expressing satisfaction at his passing?I hope so anyway.

Of course, I had nothing against Kennedy personally, he was a genial chap, just his policies

His policies have stood the test of time: He was right, The Iraq war was indeed a massive mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives to the benefit of few except our enemies in Iran. When Charles had the courage to speak out aganist the unfolding disaster you, and many warmongers like you, did not merely disagree with him, you accused him of treachery.

Now Blair is rightly reviled for leading our country into an illegal war that he could and should have avoided, so I think if you are still opposed to the "policies" of Charles Kennedy you might want to go and sit in a dark room and contemplate the folly of your miserable, wasted life.

Charles had failings, but both he and Paddy Ashdown (and indeed Ming Campbell) had the political courage to speak up for what was right rather than what was merely politically expediant or temporarily popular amongst the poisonous British media.

Its called being principled and is almost the exact opposite of the lightweight, shallow fools in charge today.

Iraq is now a free democracy.

If you and Charles Kennedy had had your way it would still be under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein

Or maybe not.

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Just as it respected the rights of the people of NI to stay in customs union with GB...

To avoid a hard border in Ireland which most of them wanted and to get a UK trade deal with the EU.

In the Brexit talks the EU held the cards on that, on indyref2 the power is all with Boris under the Scotland Act 1998

Its laughable that you can post this stuff with a straight face - we know you aren't stupid enough to think what you are posing is actually true. You know its nonsense and so do we. Yet you keep posting it.

I am not at all sure you are correct on that comment

OK, maybe he IS that stupid.

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.

And they will vote to remain in the union

Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.

Independence should have happened in 2014. It could have easily and workably been achieved whilst the UK was part of the EU - all it really required was some sort of mutually workable agreement over defence and a fudged agreement about money.The border would have been a non issue, because freedom of movement, capital etc was enshrined in the EU - a way could be found for an Independent Scotland to join the EU.

I cannot see it happening now, because Independence means a hard border and the end of freedom of movement. The nationalists will not be able to provide any denials/assurances about this; and they have seen what happened with the UK and EU under Brexit and all the pain that it has caused in Northern Ireland.

Having spent some time in Scotland I just can't believe that Scots will vote for this type of disruption.

How do we know that such things won't happen anyway? The UK government unilaterally abolished the UK customs zone and imposed a customs border between GB and NI. There is nothing stopping them doing the same to Scotland and if they say "we won't do that" its the exact same thing they said to NI.

This is why I keep coming back to just how massive the NI issue is. South of the wall most people don't care. North of the wall its a direct warning for how much you can trust the word of the UK government.

I hesitate to add whisky to the fire, but the NI situation (stay in the EU) is also a solution many Scots would have liked.

StuartDickson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Gallowgate said:

StuartDickson said:

squareroot2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

StuartDickson said:

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

With regard to the tories on the previous thread getting drippy dicks about the informal transmanche regatta which has so adorned out summer...

They are correct in their analysis: this government lacks the fortitude to do any on water operation that would make any difference.

However, what they are missing is that this cannot be fixed by a tory government. This is a Europe wide problem that needs a European solution. However the tories have spent the last five years gleefully shitting on European cooperation in general and the French and particular. They withdrew from the Dublin Convention which would have allowed the legal return of some of the arrivals to other European countries.

It's going to take a government of a different political complexion that can upgrade the UK's relationship with the EU to fix it.

In fairness, Commander(?) Ace, the situation cannot be fixed by THIS Tory government; up until 2015 one could reasonably say that Tory governments were, generally speaking, pro-Europe.

It's only under Johnson and his acolytes that the party has become rabid English Nationalists.

So, what is more likely?

1. the Conservative Party abandoning English Nationalism and becoming pro-Europe again, or
2. a government of a different political complexion taking power

Because one of those two things has to happen to solve the informal transmanche regatta.

Path 2 seems far more likely than path 1.

Consider also that, at least since party leaders were chosen by members, the standard response to defeat is to double down on what the members want and moderation can go to hell.

Suppose the Conservatives lose in 2024. Is the next LotO more likely to be a "Brexit with a human face" type (Hunt, say) or a "Boris's problem was he was just too soft on Europe, bless him" character (Patel or JRM, for example)?

It will always be the more extreme of the two members presented to them by the filtering committee of Tory MPs

In one year, Conservative Party membership increased by 50 per cent. That's ordinary Conservatives enthused by Boris, you understand, and not entryists as you'd suspect with Labour. 2018, 120,000 members; 2019, 180,000. So be slightly careful in guessing which way members will vote in any leadership election. Past performance may be no guide.

Whereas i read on here that Labour was almost broke and could barely pay its head office staff. The Unions don't seem keen to cough up much at the moment.

Talking of trade unions, I’ve just spotted this new market:

Best prices - Unite General Secretary election

Steve Turner 10/11
Gerard Coyne 2/1
Sharon Graham 11/4

I can’t think of a more depressing betting market

How about the Boris Johnson exit date market?

2024 or later 4/6

At least the Scots have an exit route.

They don't, as long as Boris remains PM he has made clear he will refuse indyref2

The Scots will decide the future constitutional status of our country, not Boris Johnson.

And they will vote to remain in the union

Maybe. Maybe not. There is only one way to find out.

Carnyx said:

Foxy said:

make action GIFs like this at MakeaGif

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DougSeal said:

Foxy said:

contrarian said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/us/oregon-delta-national-guard-.html

On topic, inconvenient facts for those who seek to criticise Florida policy. (not really a low vaxx state in any case).

High vaccination states Oregon and Hawaii are struggling with an explosion in covid cases.

Sure but we have loads of cases too. It is deaths, and to a lesser degree hospitalisations that are down, to about 10% of the winter wave.

Though still quite a pressure on hospitals. Mrs Foxy is press ganged back on ICU again this week. She couldn't sleep last night because of the stress of going back.

I am of the view now that the only option is a massive increase of funding for the NHS. This is very much a personal view but I’d be far happier to pay more in taxes to avoid putting people like Mr and Mrs Foxy back into this horrible situation than having to remain stuck at home to do so.

It is not just funding. We do not train anything like enough doctors and nurses. That needs to change, especially now given the shrinking pool of immigrants we rely on to fill the gaps. We also need to acknowledge that spare capacity is needed and not simply a waste of resources.

Yes, staffing is the issue. On top of Annual leave (much of it deferred from earlier in the year because of covid pressure) we have 57 WTE vacancies on ICU, a mix of unfillable posts, maternity leave and long term sick. We have 21 current ICU/ECMO patients, many from out of area, compared with 83 at the February peak.

I have never seen morale so low amongst our nurses and HCAs, not helped by patients giving them abuse because they have been told that things are back to normal. Routine and specialist stuff is repeatedly cancelled.

Perhaps more this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7QARslq74

On more serious matters, how much difference is vaccination making to the actual patients who come in? I've lost track a bit but presumably there are so many cases that some vaccinated people are being hospitalised anyway.

Cyclefree said:

dixiedean said:

pigeon said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Rory Stewart:-
Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out?
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078

Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).

You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.

Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?

There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.

I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.

Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.

I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.

Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.

I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.

Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.

Afghanistan has a long pre-Islamic history. And, as others have noted, Kabul was a popular stop on the 60's hippy trail. And Afghanistan has cultures, not a culture. What is Pashtun is not Tajik.
40+ years of conflict will influence a country more than its religion or culture I fear.

Is there any significant difference in how the Pashtun treat Pashtun women from how the Tajik treat Tajik women? Any difference at all?

DougSeal said:

Princess Anne’s birthday today. She wouldn’t take any shit from the Taliban.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

Looks like Kabul has already been effectively lost

And if it does it is on the Biden-Harris administration, without doubt the weakest, most hapless and useless US administration of the past 100 years in terms of foreign policy. Cutting and running with no responsibility at all to the Afghan people and handing it back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

A truly disgusting post.

It is not disgusting but it is pure hyperbole and nonsensical

No, you are giving him too much credit there. There is a kernel of pure evil in there.

As you know @HYUFD and I are very different conservative members and we regularly disagree but 'pure evil' is what we witnessed in Plymouth this week, not any political opinion HYUFD expresses or yourself for that matter

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

"BREAKING: The Taliban has entered Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, "from all sides" according to the interior ministry.

The group says it has no plans to take the city “by force.” Workers are fleeing govt offices. Thousands of civilians are camped out in parks and open areas."


It's like Day Zero in Phnom Penh, potentially a grotesque tragedy - WORSE than the Fall of Saigon

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1426834317670551552?s=20

I'm not sure it's worse than the fall of Saigon but it's very bad, I grant you.

HYUFD said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hopefully HYUFD is out there in his little tank, valiantly trying to hold back the Taliban hordes from entering Kabul!

If I was in charge I would never have withdrawn the troops in the first place

Are you going to resign from the Conservative Party in protest at the support given by the British Government to the American Government’s decision?

I stand with Tory MPs from Tobias Ellwood to Tom Tugenhadt who are appalled at this withdrawal, although to be fair to Boris once the US withdrew it was unrealistic for the UK to stay alone. The fault lies with Biden.

Kudos to the LDs too who have attacked Biden's withdrawal as condemning the Afghans to medieval barbarity and us to the return of terrorism

https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1426223270961975305?s=20
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1425827915455942656?s=20

Davey is a proper liberal in the Gladstone and Ashdown mode, prepared to intervene abroad where needed.

The old wet, pacifist social democratic LDs of Charles Kennedy is now thankfully dead for now

Funny how you're solely firing your ire at Biden and have not a word to say about Trump who signed a Treaty committing the USA to withdrawing this year (which Biden has honoured).

Nor to Trump releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners.

Nor George W Bush for letting the Taliban retreat and get safe harbour in Pakistan from which they could regroup.

I wonder why solely Biden gets criticism? 🤔

It was George W Bush who toppled the Taliban in the first place and removed Al Qaeda from the country and forced Bin Laden to Pakistan where US special forces were able to kill him.

As for Trump, I have said Romney would be far better than him or Biden as President now and Romney has opposed the withdrawal.

However even Trump has a few sound words today 'Former President Trump slammed President Biden Saturday for not “following the plan” the former administration left for him regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“He ran out of Afghanistan instead of following the plan our Administration left for him—a plan that protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban would never dream of taking our Embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America. The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground,” Trump said in a statement.

“After I took out ISIS, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power,” he added.'

“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence,” Trump said. “What a disgrace it will be when the Taliban raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul.”

If Kabul falls Trump will begin his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 the day after mark my words, presenting himself as Reagan after Carter and the humiliation of the Iran hostages

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/567907-trump-slams-biden-for-not-following-the-plan-he-left-on

The people who really 'took out' ISIS were the Kurds and the Iraqi army though, surely.

That region seems to have a strong spine of anti-islamism that is sadly lacking in Afghanistan.

Yes, rather ironic that after all the criticism of the Iraq War as the 'wrong war' it is Iraqis who are prepared to stand up and fight for freedom and democracy against militants rather more than Afghans in the so called 'right war.'

dixiedean said:

Cyclefree said:

dixiedean said:

pigeon said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:

darkage said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Rory Stewart:-
Deeply disappointing to hear – on top of everything – that Afghans who received Scholarships from the UK government to study in the UK this year have now been told they will not be granted visas due to "administration issues". Surely someone can sort this out?
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1426558342709891078

Hardly any point now though. There are only about 10 flights out of Afghanistan per day, and of course, they are full (you can only board if you have a negative coronavirus test).

You've got to admire the insanity. Woke governments (of which the US and to a lesser extent the UK are included) are in a performative panic about racism and womens rights; whilst they actively abandon a whole generation of young women to a life of rape and slavery, if they survive at all; in an actual patriarchial hell.

Whilst this is sadly true what is your solution: that we keep fighting?

There is no solution; obviously the problem was in trying to achieve liberal democracy and womens rights by way of regime change, too late now to go back in time and change that. It was more a comment on the obsession with identity politics: as an obsessive and possibly disproportionate amount of effort is spent achieving 'progress' in a small number of western countries, the rest of the world takes giant leaps backwards, and it all largely passes without significant comment or interest outside the old school legacy media.

I agree with you but successive UK governments did pour hundreds of millions into the education of female Afghans in the hope that this would create a more equal society. It's not as if we did nothing. We just failed. But it is undeniable that it puts the obsession with our supposed patriarchy here into perspective.

Perhaps Afghan men should also have been given some education. Because if men do not support women's rights then, no matter what you do for the women, those rights have little chance of lasting.

I am sure that they were. But the traditions and culture of the country proved far more powerful than our "universal values". The Afghan people face a brutal misogynist regime. Its tragic but I don't really buy into the idea that it is somehow our fault.

Yes - the country's religion - Islam - was stronger than what has been taught to some of the people in the last few years. And it is under a brutal Islamic regime that the people will now live. Some will like it because it gives them power. Others will hate it - but they will be ignored and crushed.

I feel immensely sad for the latter group - who will be mostly (though not exclusively) women. And there is nothing that we can do - save for helping those women who manage to escape.

Of course, the Islamic world is a very large and heterogeneous sphere. Quite how much all of this has to do with the faith, and how much the faith is merely a thin veneer applied over the surface of a society largely unchanged in its fundamental attitudes since the Neolithic, I leave those better acquainted with its complexities to judge.

Afghanistan has a long pre-Islamic history. And, as others have noted, Kabul was a popular stop on the 60's hippy trail. And Afghanistan has cultures, not a culture. What is Pashtun is not Tajik.
40+ years of conflict will influence a country more than its religion or culture I fear.

Is there any significant difference in how the Pashtun treat Pashtun women from how the Tajik treat Tajik women? Any difference at all?

Probably not a great deal. Although the Afghan army is overwhelmingly Tajik, and has thus been supporting the status quo ante. Women arent getting a good deal whoever is in charge.
However. What Afghanistan really needs is peace. The entire country is suffering from trauma. Which only facilitates conflict.

Dura_Ace said:

The Taliban could really fuck things up for Johnson and Biden by parking a few HiLuxes on the runway at KBL.