politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Mr Corbyn’s plan to win the next election by signing up
Options
Comments
-
Anyone seen any circling lawyers? VW are apparently attracting them like flies.0
-
Enjoy the darkness well.mwadams said:
Not to mention Ken Clarke and his other half (Caius and Newnham). Oh, and me and my other half of 22 years (same).ydoethur said:
Please mention that to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
In fact, I would say that a fairly high proportion of student romances end in marriage/long term cohabitation - roughly 40% in my circle (although as I spent eight and a half years at university until I was approaching thirty, I appreciate my experience may be exceptional)!
That's very nearly a statistic.
(My brief delurk after about 5 years is over. Back to the shadows for me.)0 -
To be honest, it took me 5 years to work out how to reply.Tissue_Price said:
Welcome, and goodbye!0 -
Russia has enough trouble with Islamists from the Caucasus and Central Asia without ISIS spurring them on or providing recruits, then there is the Russian naval base in Syria that Russia would like to keep secure. It is definitely in Russia's interest to see ISIS defeated.JosiasJessop said:
Why do you think they're interested in sorting ISIS out?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
0 -
Isam
"Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out"
I guess we'll see a mass return of the headbangers from Birmingham now they look like facing the might of the Red army0 -
@RuthDavidsonMSP: This cannot be right. Surely to goodness someone in the captioning department has just won a bet. And lost their job.
http://t.co/NDLYvXfyd00 -
Could it be that the Russians have taken the view that Isis is on its way down and that by getting involved now they can take the credit for its defeat. Putin is quite a clever game player0
-
Lawyers are opportunists by nature.Roger said:Anyone seen any circling lawyers? VW are apparently attracting them like flies.
0 -
Whoever wrote that Spectator article needs to do some research.isam said:
As in "they are and what do I think there reasons for doing so are" or (more likely) "They're not so why do I think they are?"JosiasJessop said:
Why do you think they're interested in sorting ISIS out?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
I read an article last week about it which suggested they were. I'll try and find it, hang on
EDIT: Here we are
This was the most brazen overseas military deployment by Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. But it caught Nato off guard. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, we learnt of the Islamic State’s new caliphate — arguably the most important development in the region since the founding of Israel in 1948 — only when its leader announced the event on YouTube. Still, the question remains: why did the Russians move to guarantee Assad’s survival? The short answer is because the West’s Syrian strategy was in such disarray that Russia could expect Nato to look the other way.
Assad’s forces, long thought to be on the verge of collapse, meanwhile celebrated the bolstering of their military arsenal by bombing Islamic State targets in the north. Wave after wave of airstrikes hit their targets with previously unimaginable precision. Who could object to that? Senior Washington and London politicians, after years of repeating like a mantra that The Evil Dictator Assad Must Go Now, suddenly found themselves mumbling that, come to think of it, Assad does not need to go just yet after all. In fact, Nato should co-ordinate with Russia, in a renewed effort to destroy the Islamic State and stem the flow of refugees. Russia’s bluff played off."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9643672/putin-and-assad-have-made-fools-of-the-west/
1. NATO weren't taken by surprise. Russian intent was communicated the West before the forces landed. Christ, I was able to post on here about the beginnings of those movements. You think if I knew NATO didn't? The writer needs to wise up. The West just sat on its hands.
2. Russian airpower has yet to attack any strategic IS areas at all.
3. The Syrian airforce have always been capable of launching short term intensive air attacks, but they cant sustain them at a high tempo for long and their resources are spread thin to cover all areas they need to at any one time. Secondly they are so bolstered that they are launching sea mines out of choppers.....
Assad's forces are severely degraded and the biggest area of degradation is good manpower. Bashar was on TV admitting it himself a few months back. 1000 Russian Marine Infantry are not going to change that and nor is 3 months.
4. What tanks are those? How many exactly?0 -
@JWisemann
'Except of course, there were still large numbers of non-voters in the marginals too, more than enough to win a lot of them if you got a decent percentage of them out on your side.'
Problem is that with Corbyn as leader the most likely non- voters that turnout will be not be voting for him.
0 -
Well, he is an arch BlairiteGIN1138 said:
I wonder what "Tim" thinks about it?JonnyJimmy said:
Do you think any of them will even try to justify that position though? It would be most entertaining to read!GIN1138 said:
No good asking Labour supporters, they've all gone mad.JonnyJimmy said:Are any of their supporters happy that Labour's current position on Trident is to pay for it but to promise not to use it? If they are happy with that then they're stupider than I imagined possible.
Even that nice Dr Palmer has lost the plot...
Didn't he want to bomb the hell out of everyone most of the time? :^O
0 -
Sadly a fakeScott_P said:@RuthDavidsonMSP: This cannot be right. Surely to goodness someone in the captioning department has just won a bet. And lost their job.
http://t.co/NDLYvXfyd0
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP?lang=en-gb0 -
Indeed. It's funny though.HYUFD said:Sadly a fake
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP?lang=en-gb
Apparently it now features on his Wiki page0 -
I notice on all the maps of Syria they show four areas of control: Assad, ISIS, Kurds and "rebels". They don't distinguish between al-Nusra and the FSA. Presumably that's because the FSA don't actually hold any territory these days.SeanT said:Those *US allies* apparently bombed by Putin? "al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, hardline Islamists Ahrar al-Sham"
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423229/russia-bombing-isis-syria0 -
Well thats what his career will be famed for thenScott_P said:
Indeed. It's funny though.HYUFD said:Sadly a fake
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP?lang=en-gb
Apparently it now features on his Wiki page0 -
If twitter is an election winning machine then Ruth Davidson is next first minister.HYUFD said:
Well thats what his career will be famed for thenScott_P said:
Indeed. It's funny though.HYUFD said:Sadly a fake
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP?lang=en-gb
Apparently it now features on his Wiki page0 -
Indeed, she is neck and neck with Louise Mensch as top Tory tweeterflightpath01 said:
If twitter is an election winning machine then Ruth Davidson is next first minister.HYUFD said:
Well thats what his career will be famed for thenScott_P said:
Indeed. It's funny though.HYUFD said:Sadly a fake
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP?lang=en-gb
Apparently it now features on his Wiki page0 -
Russia drops a few bombs and suddenly everyone jumps to their own conclusions.JEO said:
I quite like Russia doing it. Hopefully a lot of extremists will be killed and Russia will get the blowback.isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
0 -
I just like that someone is sorting them out... And that it's not uswatford30 said:
What threat did ISIS pose to residents of North East London?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
North East London is one of the most likely places to find Homegrown ISIS mind you
0 -
Direct your questions to John R BradleyY0kel said:
Whoever wrote that Spectator article needs to do some research.isam said:
As in "they are and what do I think there reasons for doing so are" or (more likely) "They're not so why do I think they are?"JosiasJessop said:
Why do you think they're interested in sorting ISIS out?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
I read an article last week about it which suggested they were. I'll try and find it, hang on
EDIT: Here we are
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9643672/putin-and-assad-have-made-fools-of-the-west/
1. NATO weren't taken by surprise. Russian intent was communicated the West before the forces landed. Christ, I was able to post on here about the beginnings of those movements. You think if I knew NATO didn't? The writer needs to wise up. The West just sat on its hands.
2. Russian airpower has yet to attack any strategic IS areas at all.
3. The Syrian airforce have always been capable of launching short term intensive air attacks, but they cant sustain them at a high tempo for long and their resources are spread thin to cover all areas they need to at any one time. Secondly they are so bolstered that they are launching sea mines out of choppers.....
Assad's forces are severely degraded and the biggest area of degradation is good manpower. Bashar was on TV admitting it himself a few months back. 1000 Russian Marine Infantry are not going to change that and nor is 3 months.
4. What tanks are those? How many exactly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bradley0 -
Except Vlad isn't sorting out ISIS as such, but taking out Assad's other opponents. Still, if you're happy with to live with a false sense of security.isam said:
I just like that someone is sorting them out... And that it's not uswatford30 said:
What threat did ISIS pose to residents of North East London?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
North East London is one of the most likely places to find Homegrown ISIS mind you0 -
Haha just a minute ago you implied they posed no threat anyway, now it's a false sense of security! Make your mind up!watford30 said:
Except Vlad isn't sorting out ISIS as such, but taking out Assad's other opponents. Still, if you're happy with to live with a false sense of security.isam said:
I just like that someone is sorting them out... And that it's not uswatford30 said:
What threat did ISIS pose to residents of North East London?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
North East London is one of the most likely places to find Homegrown ISIS mind you0 -
The flaw is corbyn .0
-
I'm not the one shaking like a shitting dog, and cowering behind the sofa!isam said:
Haha just a minute ago you implied they posed no threat anyway, now it's a false sense of security! Make your mind up!watford30 said:
Except Vlad isn't sorting out ISIS as such, but taking out Assad's other opponents. Still, if you're happy with to live with a false sense of security.isam said:
I just like that someone is sorting them out... And that it's not uswatford30 said:
What threat did ISIS pose to residents of North East London?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
North East London is one of the most likely places to find Homegrown ISIS mind you
From what you say, perhaps Vlad should start offensive operations in Walthamstow.0 -
He is quoting opinion as fact. And he is wrong.isam said:
Direct your questions to John R BradleyY0kel said:
Whoever wrote that Spectator article needs to do some research.isam said:
As in "they are and what do I think there reasons for doing so are" or (more likely) "They're not so why do I think they are?"JosiasJessop said:
Why do you think they're interested in sorting ISIS out?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
I read an article last week about it which suggested they were. I'll try and find it, hang on
EDIT: Here we are
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9643672/putin-and-assad-have-made-fools-of-the-west/
1. NATO weren't taken by surprise. Russian intent was communicated the West before the forces landed. Christ, I was able to post on here about the beginnings of those movements. You think if I knew NATO didn't? The writer needs to wise up. The West just sat on its hands.
2. Russian airpower has yet to attack any strategic IS areas at all.
3. The Syrian airforce have always been capable of launching short term intensive air attacks, but they cant sustain them at a high tempo for long and their resources are spread thin to cover all areas they need to at any one time. Secondly they are so bolstered that they are launching sea mines out of choppers.....
Assad's forces are severely degraded and the biggest area of degradation is good manpower. Bashar was on TV admitting it himself a few months back. 1000 Russian Marine Infantry are not going to change that and nor is 3 months.
4. What tanks are those? How many exactly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bradley0 -
Who is?! I just said I feel safer knowing someone who takes no shit is sorting them outwatford30 said:
I'm not the one shaking like a shitting dog, and cowering behind the sofa!isam said:
Haha just a minute ago you implied they posed no threat anyway, now it's a false sense of security! Make your mind up!watford30 said:
Except Vlad isn't sorting out ISIS as such, but taking out Assad's other opponents. Still, if you're happy with to live with a false sense of security.isam said:
I just like that someone is sorting them out... And that it's not uswatford30 said:
What threat did ISIS pose to residents of North East London?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
North East London is one of the most likely places to find Homegrown ISIS mind you
From what you say, perhaps Vlad should start offensive operations in Walthamstow.
But you might be onto something with Walthamstow
http://www.channel4.com/news/radical-british-muslims-islamic-state-caliphate-iraq-Syria
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/29/police-hunt-missing-mother-zahera-tariq-walthamstow-syria
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/12961985.Walthamstow_jihadi_promises_Western_coffee_and_chocolate_in_Isis_recruitment_drive/?ref=mr&lp=30 -
Why? You are the one spouting off on here.isam said:
Direct your questions to John R BradleyY0kel said:
Whoever wrote that Spectator article needs to do some research.isam said:
As in "they are and what do I think there reasons for doing so are" or (more likely) "They're not so why do I think they are?"JosiasJessop said:
Why do you think they're interested in sorting ISIS out?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
I read an article last week about it which suggested they were. I'll try and find it, hang on
EDIT: Here we are
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9643672/putin-and-assad-have-made-fools-of-the-west/
1. NATO weren't taken by surprise. Russian intent was communicated the West before the forces landed. Christ, I was able to post on here about the beginnings of those movements. You think if I knew NATO didn't? The writer needs to wise up. The West just sat on its hands.
2. Russian airpower has yet to attack any strategic IS areas at all.
3. The Syrian airforce have always been capable of launching short term intensive air attacks, but they cant sustain them at a high tempo for long and their resources are spread thin to cover all areas they need to at any one time. Secondly they are so bolstered that they are launching sea mines out of choppers.....
Assad's forces are severely degraded and the biggest area of degradation is good manpower. Bashar was on TV admitting it himself a few months back. 1000 Russian Marine Infantry are not going to change that and nor is 3 months.
4. What tanks are those? How many exactly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bradley0 -
I read an article written by someone... Why should that make me the person to answer all the questions about it?!,flightpath01 said:
Why? You are the one spouting off on here.isam said:
Direct your questions to John R BradleyY0kel said:
Whoever wrote that Spectator article needs to do some research.isam said:
As in "they are and what do I think there reasons for doing so are" or (more likely) "They're not so why do I think they are?"JosiasJessop said:
Why do you think they're interested in sorting ISIS out?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
I read an article last week about it which suggested they were. I'll try and find it, hang on
EDIT: Here we are
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9643672/putin-and-assad-have-made-fools-of-the-west/
1. NATO weren't taken by surprise. Russian intent was communicated the West before the forces landed. Christ, I was able to post on here about the beginnings of those movements. You think if I knew NATO didn't? The writer needs to wise up. The West just sat on its hands.
2. Russian airpower has yet to attack any strategic IS areas at all.
3. The Syrian airforce have always been capable of launching short term intensive air attacks, but they cant sustain them at a high tempo for long and their resources are spread thin to cover all areas they need to at any one time. Secondly they are so bolstered that they are launching sea mines out of choppers.....
Assad's forces are severely degraded and the biggest area of degradation is good manpower. Bashar was on TV admitting it himself a few months back. 1000 Russian Marine Infantry are not going to change that and nor is 3 months.
4. What tanks are those? How many exactly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bradley
Haha you silly old fool0 -
BTW IIRC opinion polls during the pre-election campaign showed that the young weren't as enthusiastic about labour as they used to be. The BBC even ran a radio programme on it last year http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b046kr4j0
-
The thing about Russia is that when they wage war then they wage war, nor an orchestrated ballet of manoeuvres of troops so hamstrung by politically correct edicts that the enemy have a good belly-laugh before slaughtering them.flightpath01 said:
Russia drops a few bombs and suddenly everyone jumps to their own conclusions.JEO said:
I quite like Russia doing it. Hopefully a lot of extremists will be killed and Russia will get the blowback.isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
0 -
Labour had one of their biggest leads ever with the under-30s this year. But turnout was very low.weejonnie said:BTW IIRC opinion polls during the pre-election campaign showed that the young weren't as enthusiastic about labour as they used to be. The BBC even ran a radio programme on it last year http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b046kr4j
0 -
I didn't say Milton Keynes was trending Labour yet - but it (and quite a lot of other southern towns) is trending towards a more Labour-friendly demographic, which should show up in the election results sooner rather than later. The other side of the coin though is the more white and middle-aged/elderly Midlands towns will continue trending Tory - some of the old classic marginals like Tamworth and the Wrekin probably wouldn't even fall to Labour on a 1997-style landslide now.Sean_F said:
Luton, Brighton and Hove, and Exeter are clear examples of a pro-Labour swing. Peterborough and Reading may head that way. Milton Keynes isn't heading that way. Stevenage almost looks like a safe Tory seat.HYUFD said:
Seats like Reading and Stevenage and Milton Keynes maybe, seats like Chatham and Rochestor and Thanet probably not. Of course Essex differs between areas like Epping, Upminster, Hornchurch and Romford which are really outer London border and Southend and Braintree and Thurrock and Basildon, Colchestor and Chelmsford and Saffron Walden which may be less prone to changeDanny565 said:
No, the report said much of the South was demographically trending towards being more multi-ethnic and younger on average - though it did single out Essex as an exception to that.HYUFD said:
Apart from a few areas like Brighton, where 2/3 seats are Labour or Green already, that is more the case in outer London where Labour did better than average at the election in marginal seats. Most of the Kent and Essex marginals still have far more elderly and white man van voters than young graduates and ethnic minoritiesDanny565 said:Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.0 -
Yes and it is still the Midlands not Southern marginals which determine elections, even in 1997 the South remained ToryDanny565 said:
I didn't say Milton Keynes was trending Labour yet - but it (and quite a lot of other southern towns) is trending towards a more Labour-friendly demographic, which should show up in the election results sooner rather than later. The other side of the coin though is the more white and middle-aged/elderly Midlands towns will continue trending Tory - some of the old classic marginals like Tamworth and the Wrekin probably wouldn't even fall to Labour on a 1997-style landslide now.Sean_F said:
Luton, Brighton and Hove, and Exeter are clear examples of a pro-Labour swing. Peterborough and Reading may head that way. Milton Keynes isn't heading that way. Stevenage almost looks like a safe Tory seat.HYUFD said:
Seats like Reading and Stevenage and Milton Keynes maybe, seats like Chatham and Rochestor and Thanet probably not. Of course Essex differs between areas like Epping, Upminster, Hornchurch and Romford which are really outer London border and Southend and Braintree and Thurrock and Basildon, Colchestor and Chelmsford and Saffron Walden which may be less prone to changeDanny565 said:
No, the report said much of the South was demographically trending towards being more multi-ethnic and younger on average - though it did single out Essex as an exception to that.HYUFD said:
Apart from a few areas like Brighton, where 2/3 seats are Labour or Green already, that is more the case in outer London where Labour did better than average at the election in marginal seats. Most of the Kent and Essex marginals still have far more elderly and white man van voters than young graduates and ethnic minoritiesDanny565 said:Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.0 -
Russia are not waging war in Syria any more than the West are.weejonnie said:
The thing about Russia is that when they wage war then they wage war, nor an orchestrated ballet of manoeuvres of troops so hamstrung by politically correct edicts that the enemy have a good belly-laugh before slaughtering them.flightpath01 said:
Russia drops a few bombs and suddenly everyone jumps to their own conclusions.JEO said:
I quite like Russia doing it. Hopefully a lot of extremists will be killed and Russia will get the blowback.isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
0 -
Hello there Mr Empty Head.isam said:
I read an article written by someone... Why should that make me the person to answer all the questions about it?!,flightpath01 said:
Why? You are the one spouting off on here.isam said:
Direct your questions to John R BradleyY0kel said:
Whoever wrote that Spectator article needs to do some research.isam said:
As in "they are and what do I think there reasons for doing so are" or (more likely) "They're not so why do I think they are?"JosiasJessop said:
Why do you think they're interested in sorting ISIS out?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
I read an article last week about it which suggested they were. I'll try and find it, hang on
EDIT: Here we are
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9643672/putin-and-assad-have-made-fools-of-the-west/
1. NATO weren't taken by surprise. Russian intent was communicated the West before the forces landed. Christ, I was able to post on here about the beginnings of those movements. You think if I knew NATO didn't? The writer needs to wise up. The West just sat on its hands.
2. Russian airpower has yet to attack any strategic IS areas at all.
3. The Syrian airforce have always been capable of launching short term intensive air attacks, but they cant sustain them at a high tempo for long and their resources are spread thin to cover all areas they need to at any one time. Secondly they are so bolstered that they are launching sea mines out of choppers.....
Assad's forces are severely degraded and the biggest area of degradation is good manpower. Bashar was on TV admitting it himself a few months back. 1000 Russian Marine Infantry are not going to change that and nor is 3 months.
4. What tanks are those? How many exactly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bradley
Haha you silly old fool
Haha0 -
It's ok I know you have to wait until Cameron or Osborne agree with something before you feel you can!flightpath01 said:
Hello there Mr Empty Head.isam said:
I read an article written by someone... Why should that make me the person to answer all the questions about it?!,flightpath01 said:
Why? You are the one spouting off on here.isam said:
Direct your questions to John R BradleyY0kel said:
Whoever wrote that Spectator article needs to do some research.isam said:
As in "they are and what do I think there reasons for doing so are" or (more likely) "They're not so why do I think they are?"JosiasJessop said:
Why do you think they're interested in sorting ISIS out?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
I read an article last week about it which suggested they were. I'll try and find it, hang on
EDIT: Here we are
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9643672/putin-and-assad-have-made-fools-of-the-west/
1. NATO weren't taken by surprise. Russian intent was communicated the West before the forces landed. Christ, I was able to post on here about the beginnings of those movements. You think if I knew NATO didn't? The writer needs to wise up. The West just sat on its hands.
2. Russian airpower has yet to attack any strategic IS areas at all.
3. The Syrian airforce have always been capable of launching short term intensive air attacks, but they cant sustain them at a high tempo for long and their resources are spread thin to cover all areas they need to at any one time. Secondly they are so bolstered that they are launching sea mines out of choppers.....
Assad's forces are severely degraded and the biggest area of degradation is good manpower. Bashar was on TV admitting it himself a few months back. 1000 Russian Marine Infantry are not going to change that and nor is 3 months.
4. What tanks are those? How many exactly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bradley
Haha you silly old fool
Haha
Have a werthers original and go to bed gramps xx0 -
A bit like Russia bravely attacking Japan a week before the end of WWII and stealing the Kurils.gettingbetter said:Could it be that the Russians have taken the view that Isis is on its way down and that by getting involved now they can take the credit for its defeat. Putin is quite a clever game player
0 -
All Vlad is doing is making sure Syria empties quicker. Prepare for many many more people fleeing to europe.isam said:
I just like that someone is sorting them out... And that it's not uswatford30 said:
What threat did ISIS pose to residents of North East London?isam said:Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
North East London is one of the most likely places to find Homegrown ISIS mind you
Vlad helps Assad, europe gets more refugees causing more splits. Ukraine gets forgotten about.0 -
If Corbyn's policies are science fiction, so is the belief that the UK deports anyone anymore. Once you're in, you're in.JEO said:How was someone that had their asylum claim rejected five years ago still in the UK able to rape a woman in 2015?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-343929090 -
Corbyn becoming PM will always remain a fiction though, whereas George and Dave have the rather more serious task of actually getting to grips with crap like this !KentRising said:
If Corbyn's policies are science fiction, so is the belief that the UK deports anyone anymore. Once you're in, you're in.JEO said:How was someone that had their asylum claim rejected five years ago still in the UK able to rape a woman in 2015?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-343929090 -
Hezbollah and Putin. The last line in the defence against ISISSeanT said:Those *US allies* apparently bombed by Putin? "al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, hardline Islamists Ahrar al-Sham"
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423229/russia-bombing-isis-syria
0 -
Fantastic PB Tory Propaganda piece, TSE!0
-
Steady on - they did fight the Germans all the way from Moscow and Stalingrad to Berlin!No_Offence_Alan said:
A bit like Russia bravely attacking Japan a week before the end of WWII and stealing the Kurils.gettingbetter said:Could it be that the Russians have taken the view that Isis is on its way down and that by getting involved now they can take the credit for its defeat. Putin is quite a clever game player
0 -
Upminster, Hornchurch and Romford are in Greater London. Epping is in Essex.HYUFD said:
Seats like Reading and Stevenage and Milton Keynes maybe, seats like Chatham and Rochestor and Thanet probably not. Of course Essex differs between areas like Epping, Upminster, Hornchurch and Romford which are really outer London border and Southend and Braintree and Thurrock and Basildon, Colchestor and Chelmsford and Saffron Walden which may be less prone to changeDanny565 said:
No, the report said much of the South was demographically trending towards being more multi-ethnic and younger on average - though it did single out Essex as an exception to that.HYUFD said:
Apart from a few areas like Brighton, where 2/3 seats are Labour or Green already, that is more the case in outer London where Labour did better than average at the election in marginal seats. Most of the Kent and Essex marginals still have far more elderly and white man van voters than young graduates and ethnic minoritiesDanny565 said:Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.0 -
Morning all. No comments for four hours, is everybody sleeping..?0
-
No.Sandpit said:Morning all. No comments for four hours, is everybody sleeping..?
0 -
WE MUST GET HOME
by James Whitcomb Riley
We must get home! How could we stray like this? -
So far from home, we know not where it is, -
Only in some fair, apple-blossomy place
Of children's faces - and the mother's face -
(...and so on, for about 12 verses...)
Creep back from the vain quest through endless strife
To find not anywhere in all of life
A happier happiness than blest us then...
We must get home - we must get home again!0 -
No doubt In honour of JohnO.JohnLoony said:WE MUST GET HOME
by James Whitcomb Riley
We must get home! How could we stray like this? -
So far from home, we know not where it is, -
Only in some fair, apple-blossomy place
Of children's faces - and the mother's face -
(...and so on, for about 12 verses...)
Creep back from the vain quest through endless strife
To find not anywhere in all of life
A happier happiness than blest us then...
We must get home - we must get home again!
0 -
The poor guy is never going to be allowed to forget that one, is he?JackW said:
No doubt In honour of JohnO.JohnLoony said:WE MUST GET HOME
by James Whitcomb Riley
We must get home! How could we stray like this? -
So far from home, we know not where it is, -
Only in some fair, apple-blossomy place
Of children's faces - and the mother's face -
(...and so on, for about 12 verses...)
Creep back from the vain quest through endless strife
To find not anywhere in all of life
A happier happiness than blest us then...
We must get home - we must get home again!0 -
As an act of PB comradeship and sympathy a short amnesty for JohnO might be considered during the first few weeks of Jezza's premiership ...Sandpit said:
The poor guy is never going to be allowed to forget that one, is he?JackW said:
No doubt In honour of JohnO.JohnLoony said:WE MUST GET HOME
by James Whitcomb Riley
We must get home! How could we stray like this? -
So far from home, we know not where it is, -
Only in some fair, apple-blossomy place
Of children's faces - and the mother's face -
(...and so on, for about 12 verses...)
Creep back from the vain quest through endless strife
To find not anywhere in all of life
A happier happiness than blest us then...
We must get home - we must get home again!
0 -
And in other news, looks like the Ruskies have been bombing the US-backed rebels rather than ISIS. "Urgent Talks" to happen between the two superpowers today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11900853/Putin-request-for-use-of-Russian-troops-in-Syria-approved-live.html0 -
Two questions we need to ask:Sandpit said:And in other news, looks like the Ruskies have been bombing the US-backed rebels rather than ISIS. "Urgent Talks" to happen between the two superpowers today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11900853/Putin-request-for-use-of-Russian-troops-in-Syria-approved-live.html
1) What do the Russians want out of this? What is their end game?
2) What do we want out of this? What is our end game?
Possible answers:
1) The Russians want a secure warm-water port at Tartus, more influence in the region via a puppet regime, and the relaxation of sanctions.
2) We want ... well, an end to IS, obviously. And for everyone to be jolly nice to one another.
It seems to me that Russian aims are far more focussed and achievable than ours.
Also: Russia will not want to inflame the situation with Islamic nutters too much. It has had massive problem in its mainly-Muslim regions (e.g. Chechnya), and even the US's failure in Afghanistan will not ease the Russian military's memory of their embarrassment in that same country twenty years earlier. Russia will be well aware - more than us - that the Muslim fighter is fanatical in the extreme, and all too willing to export that fanatacism to countries that attack it.
Expect Russia to do the minimum possible to achieve their aims, whilst letting others do the hard and really risky graft against IS.0 -
Two very good questions, Mr Jessop. Both questions which it doesn’t appear anyone is answering, or even thinking about answering, least of all in the US.0
-
I think the Russian end game is relatively clear. It's the western end game which is unclear and fuzzy, and has been since the vote not to bomb Assad and the conflict's further spread and complication.OldKingCole said:Two very good questions, Mr Jessop. Both questions which it doesn’t appear anyone is answering, or even thinking about answering, least of all in the US.
From what Yokel and others are saying, it's clear that Russia doesn't have the military might in Syria to go anywhere near beating IS, and neither is it clear that they want to do that. (*) They're looking after their own interests, front, right, and centre. Unfortunately their interests do not necessarily coincide with our own fuzzy ones.
(*) And how exactly do we 'beat' IS? It is as much an idea as a state, and ideas are hard to destroy.0 -
Interesting how language works isn't it.
We have 'valuable allies in the war on terror'
You have 'a puppet regime'
The neocons really are spinning hard here aren't they, desperately trying to suggest Russia are strenuously avoiding attacking jihadis whilst focusing all their efforts on some mysterious non-existent 'moderate rebels'. You can almost hear the cognitive dissonance from here.0 -
The western endgame is fuzzy because it suits establishment interests for IsIs to win, but they obviously can't be seen to support that.
The right wing transatlantic foreign policy establishment have never found an Islamic fundamentalist insurgency they don't prefer over a solid strong, secular, independent state.0 -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-scotland-is-intent-on-having-the-arguments-of-the-past-rather-than-embracing-the-a6674361.html
There's none so blind as cannot see...the irony the irony...
0 -
Black cabbies vote Tory, perhaps ?felix said:0 -
I had a thought this morning about this. We all know that Putin is devious in the extreme and plays multi layered games. How about this bombing campaign has another function - to further destabilise the region and to stimulate even more people to leave Syria and look for refuge in the EU. This puts even more strain on the economic and political establishment in the EU, foments internal dispute, and diverts attention away from Ukraine.JosiasJessop said:
Two questions we need to ask:Sandpit said:And in other news, looks like the Ruskies have been bombing the US-backed rebels rather than ISIS. "Urgent Talks" to happen between the two superpowers today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11900853/Putin-request-for-use-of-Russian-troops-in-Syria-approved-live.html
1) What do the Russians want out of this? What is their end game?
2) What do we want out of this? What is our end game?
Possible answers:
1) The Russians want a secure warm-water port at Tartus, more influence in the region via a puppet regime, and the relaxation of sanctions.
2) We want ... well, an end to IS, obviously. And for everyone to be jolly nice to one another.
It seems to me that Russian aims are far more focussed and achievable than ours.
Also: Russia will not want to inflame the situation with Islamic nutters too much. It has had massive problem in its mainly-Muslim regions (e.g. Chechnya), and even the US's failure in Afghanistan will not ease the Russian military's memory of their embarrassment in that same country twenty years earlier. Russia will be well aware - more than us - that the Muslim fighter is fanatical in the extreme, and all too willing to export that fanatacism to countries that attack it.
Expect Russia to do the minimum possible to achieve their aims, whilst letting others do the hard and really risky graft against IS.0 -
It is they who won the WW2. The Yanks were Johnny Come Lately.0
-
There's so many sides to this one - residents, tourists, black cabbies, minicabs and the upstarts.felix said:
As a resident I want a roadworthy car with a non-criminal driver and an approved meter.
As a tourist I want the above plus a driver who knows where he's going and isn't going to spend hours stuck in traffic
As a black cabbie who studied for 3 years and spent 30k on a car, I'd be pretty peeved if anyone with a smartphone can call themselves a cabbie.
As an existing minicab I want my company to be better equipped to compete with the upstart.
As the upstart I want to ignore all the rules, or pretend they don't apply to me. One upstart in particular is being particularly sh1tty about ignoring rules.
The specific proposals mentioned seem designed to attack the upstart but in completely the wrong way - by attacking the things that the residents and tourists WANT from them.
A better approach would be to require commercial licences for drivers, regular inspections of vehicles and public liability insurance from companies operating cars for hire, then let the market work things out.0 -
From the DT - this para rang so true http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11902864/Jeremy-Corbyn-has-no-understanding-of-the-British-people-beyond-Islington.html
This doesn’t mean that more cannot be done to bolster our ownership society, and reverse the decline in home ownership, but Mr Corbyn’s mindset should terrify his supporters. He cannot comprehend that the UK is not merely a larger version of Islington North, his inner-London constituency, where just 28 per cent of householders own their own homes, two thirds don’t have a car and which has voted Labour continuously since 1935. It is home to vast numbers of poor people, a small number of wealthy residents, and not much of a middle class.
0 -
The moderate rebels are non-existent only because they were all but wiped out following Miliband's treachery two years ago.JWisemann said:Interesting how language works isn't it.
We have 'valuable allies in the war on terror'
You have 'a puppet regime'
The neocons really are spinning hard here aren't they, desperately trying to suggest Russia are strenuously avoiding attacking jihadis whilst focusing all their efforts on some mysterious non-existent 'moderate rebels'. You can almost hear the cognitive dissonance from here.
So go on: if you really are wise: what would your end game be for the UK wrt Syria and ISIS? How would you get there?0 -
Surbiton .. The Americans came in late ..but thank fuck they did..0
