politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Jeremy Hunt might be onto a loser in his fight with the

Options
1235»

Comments

  • saddened
    saddened Posts: 2,245
    not_on_fire said:

    MaxPB said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cameron must now work very hard to win over his own MPs for military action against ISIS. The problem is not lack of support from Labour, it is lack of support from his own bloody MPs. Corbyn is clearly a shit but the government has a majority in Parliament, it has the capability to pass a vote with their own MPs, just get everyone to attend and force through military action unilaterally. Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn can defy the whips but the government should be able to win the vote without them. Cameron must make nice with Putin and form a broad international alliance to defeat ISIS, even if it means doing a deal to keep Assad in power then giving him safe passage to Russia or Iran once the transition of power to a multi-ethnic government is carried out.

    I'm all for MPs acting individually according to their consciences, rather than according to party whip. It's up to them to justify their actions to their constituents. In this case, that might prove rather hard.

    The problem is that Labour MPs are much less likely to do so, and will often slavishly follow the party whip, even when their leader did not in their position.

    Whipping is a massive problem in our democracy. Sadly, it is also probably necessary some of the time.
    After the events of Paris I think Tory opposition to intervention is based on the post-conflict plan. Most of those who do oppose would prefer to do a deal with Assad because the alternative is worse. Cameron's foolish position of removing Assad is holding us back from helping to destroy ISIS, a terrorist organisation who have threatened us and want to carry out attacks in Britain.
    Realistically what difference is our puny military going to make given the Americans are already involved?
    Nice trolling, not too obvious, just right.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Good spot. A token jobbie if ever there was one.
    JonathanD said:

    Scott_P said:

    @DMcCaffreySKY: Corbyn, Benn and Burnham will all address PLP in Parliament tonight. Told they have reached an agreed position on Syria.

    Presumably Maria Eagle as Shadow Defense wasn't invited to join the boys.
  • MP_SE
    MP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited November 2015
    Stumbled across this Twitter account:

    https://twitter.com/Cons_future/status/666057221386706944

    Hopefully CF are disbanded.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,728
    JonathanD said:

    Scott_P said:

    @DMcCaffreySKY: Corbyn, Benn and Burnham will all address PLP in Parliament tonight. Told they have reached an agreed position on Syria.

    Presumably Maria Eagle as Shadow Defense wasn't invited to join the boys.
    Probably forgot about her.
  • dyingswan
    dyingswan Posts: 189
    Could it be that Jeremy Corbyn has had enough? He may think that his days are numbered. It must be utterly exhausting to be opposed by 90 per cent of his own MPs. He may as well hold true to the beliefs of his teenage years and let his critics do their worst. Remember, we have only had 65 days of this. If the Labour party think this is bad,wait until they reach the doorsteps at election time. Labour can then explain their policy of arming our security people with rolled up copies of Manholes Monthly.
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Yes, the 'ones' pre 2012 - not sure what being a 'one party state' has to do with it. I've heard some accusations against Yougov before, but being puppets of the Assad regime is not one of them.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

    55% as Presedential candidate is pretty resounding I'd say, leaving as it does 45% to be divided amongst everyone else.

    It it's so silly, why be so insistent against Assad standing? Not only has he (according to the US) 'gassed his own people', he's also only the leader of a minority Alawite sect, ruling the dissatisfied majority by fear. So why not see him utterly electorally humiliated? Unless he actually commands a majority amongst Sunnis too. Unless Syrian's support their President, and want to keep Syria, rather than become a Muslim Balkans

    Doesn't the Yougov poll have the slight problem of having been undertaken during the civil war? In which case, perhaps you can see some problems with sampling (leaving aside the generic problems with polling we've seen in this country).

    The last ones pre-2012 were run in 2007, where about two-thirds of the seats were 'reserved' for Assad's party, and other parties willing to accept Ba'athite rule.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_parliamentary_election,_2007

    And if you're talking about the 2007 presidential election, you might like to look at the terms under which it was held. I don't really favour the 'Hobson's Choice' electoral system myself.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2007

    It makes Burma's electoral system look positively enlightened.

    I can understand why someone who backs Putin's interests at every opportunity would quite like Syria's political system.

    Oh, and why might people vote out of fear of Assad:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/images-syrian-torture-shock-new-yorkers-united-nations
    Weak on all fronts. Yougov didn't consider it fundamentally damaging to their polling, nor did the anti-Assad organisation that comisioned the poll, no doubt expecting a different result.

    Under new elections, a flood of international inspectors could be deployed ensuring they were free and fair. But other countries like the US, Turkey, KSA, insist he doesn't stand. What business is it of theirs, and what are they afraid of?
    As I said before, I'm not surprised someone who seemingly admires Putin likes Syria's electoral system.

    I mean, really.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2015
    The Belgian police have always been useless. They allowed the country's number one criminal, child serial killer Marc Dutroux, to escape from custody for example.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/82565.stm
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,728
    dyingswan said:

    Labour can then explain their policy of arming our security people with rolled up copies of Manholes Monthly.

    So thats where the cutbacks could come from rather than tax credits. Corbyn is a genius.
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    HurstLlama said:

    1. What is the objective?
    2. What will victory look like?
    3. Are we prepared to pay the cost?
    4. After we have won what happens next?

    1. Bomb the hell out of ISIS so as to destroy them
    2. ISIS wiped out
    3. Shouldn't be too much
    4. Up to the locals.
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    They are suggesting the ring leader may be a Belgium of Moroccan descent. This won't come as a surprise to the Dutch or Belgians.
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    surbiton said:

    JJ does not like Assad nor does he like Erdogan. Does he expect everyone will follow orders, like the Libyans did [ sic ] ?

    You are right about me not liking Assad, and let's just say that Erdogan and the AKP are not on my christmas card list.

    Aside from that, what exactly are you asking me?
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited November 2015
    I quickly read Corbyn's statement. Is his position any different from the Vienna talks ? He is NOT suggesting, we sit down with ISIS.

    Corbyn told ITV’s Lorraine: “I am not saying sit round the table with Isis, I am saying bring about a political settlement in Syria which will help then to bring some kind of unity government – technical government – in Syria,” he said.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I believe sitting cross-legged and singing Kumbaya is the answer to all world problems.

    ISIS are very receptive to this approach.
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    dyingswan said:

    Labour can then explain their policy of arming our security people with rolled up copies of Manholes Monthly.

    So thats where the cutbacks could come from rather than tax credits. Corbyn is a genius.
  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,687
    Scott_P said:

    @DMcCaffreySKY: Corbyn, Benn and Burnham will all address PLP in Parliament tonight. Told they have reached an agreed position on Syria.

    I'm not sure I'd want Andy Burnham in a crisis anymore than Jeremy Corbyn.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    edited November 2015
    Makes you proud to be a Yorkshireman

    Two Yorkshiremen sit in pub garden to finish their pints despite being waist-deep in floodwater

    http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/two-yorkshiremen-sit-in-pub-garden-to-finish-their-pints-despite-being-waistdeep-in-floodwater--bkjihdD8tx
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JJ does not like Assad nor does he like Erdogan. Does he expect everyone will follow orders, like the Libyans did [ sic ] ?

    You are right about me not liking Assad, and let's just say that Erdogan and the AKP are not on my christmas card list.

    Aside from that, what exactly are you asking me?
    Nothing. I don't rate you very highly.
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    AndyJS said:

    The Belgian police have always been useless. They allowed the country's number one criminal, child serial killer Marc Dutroux, to escape from custody for example.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/82565.stm

    There are conspiracy theories around the Dutroux case that I think might have some basis in reality. And I'm not usually one to favour such theories ... ;)
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    surbiton said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JJ does not like Assad nor does he like Erdogan. Does he expect everyone will follow orders, like the Libyans did [ sic ] ?

    You are right about me not liking Assad, and let's just say that Erdogan and the AKP are not on my christmas card list.

    Aside from that, what exactly are you asking me?
    Nothing. I don't rate you very highly.
    That's a shame.
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @Jossias_Jessop

    "... I am married to a Turk ..."

    From your previous posts on here I rather thought you were married to a Turkish Lady, but doubtless you know best.
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    HurstLlama said:

    @Jossias_Jessop

    "... I am married to a Turk ..."

    From your previous posts on here I rather thought you were married to a Turkish Lady, but doubtless you know best.

    Ahem. ;)
  • The_Apocalypse
    The_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    CD13 said:

    As expected, Hollande is no left wing patsy.

    But as expected, Jezza is.

    Really? He's been one of the most left-wing leaders in Europe up until now. I'm glad to hear what he's said to today though.

    As for Corbyn, what he has said is not really all that unbelievable. Corbyn is a pacifist to the core, after all. The trouble with Corbyn and certain sections of the left is that they form policy and opinions on how they'd like the world to be as opposed to how it actually is. We'd all love a peaceful world, where there was no war, and no ISIS. But we live in a world where war, and war against our values in particular is very real. And tbh - although a PBer has said Atlee would be spinning in his grave, I'm not so quite sure. For sometime in the 30s, Atlee opposed the Baldwin government's programme of re-arming, in anticipation of another war. Corbyn is simply a reflection of a long standing issue with the British Left, in that many of its members are too interested in doing things which 'feel good' as opposed to confronting difficult, and often complex issues.

    At some point, when many start to click (again) you can't actually change the world with power, and without confronting complex issues, they'll elect someone who can win a GE.
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    HL

    "4. After we have won what happens next?"

    See if another Saddam can be found quickly
  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,687
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Who reckons flip flop Burnham will support JC at tonight's PLP?

    NPxMP will be along shortly no doubt to repeat his claim that it' s refreshing to have a leader who sticks to his principles and tries to win people round to them...

    The best you can say about Corbyn is that at least he sticks to what principles he thinks he has, such as they are.

    I've met invertebrates with more backbone than Andy Burnham.
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HurstLlama said:

    1. What is the objective?
    2. What will victory look like?
    3. Are we prepared to pay the cost?
    4. After we have won what happens next?

    1. Bomb the hell out of ISIS so as to destroy them
    2. ISIS wiped out
    3. Shouldn't be too much
    4. Up to the locals.
    Really, Mr. Nabavi? If you were an MP you would vote for war on the basis of that? You wouldn't perhaps ask for some detail, maybe one or two probing questions first?
  • watford30
    watford30 Posts: 3,474
    AndyJS said:

    The Belgian police have always been useless. They allowed the country's number one criminal, child serial killer Marc Dutroux, to escape from custody for example.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/82565.stm

    They make the Scottish Police look half competent.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: David Cameron was right. Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party is a threat to national security > Telegraph > https://t.co/HZBd57tHSs
  • Omnium
    Omnium Posts: 11,764
    HurstLlama said:

    Omnium said:



    If our military forces aren't up to suppressing (and killing) a bunch of mad men in open terrain then we may as well not bother. There are hints as to the required stuff - oddly Harry seems to have found himself in amongst the right mix. However British Sailors surrendering to Iranians would have had Nelson turn in his grave.

    British Military forces should do jobs they can do outstandingly, and not be asked to jobs that they can't.

    I doubt the issue is whether the troops we have are up to the job. There must be however doubt as to whether we have enough of them to it and whether HMG has the balls to commit to the task wholeheartedly (they didn't in Afghanistan and I don't see what has changed since).

    However, before even considering putting troops in HMG should ask and answer the four questions as detailed by TimT on here the other evening (I paraphrase):

    1. What is the objective?
    2. What will victory look like?
    3. Are we prepared to pay the cost?
    4. After we have won what happens next?

    That requires some clear thinking about details and some real decision making, something Cameron isn't good at. However, unless he can answer those questions to their satisfaction every MP should vote against military action in Syria.
    Probably best to find out whether they can do these things first though. Assuming they can then it's clear that the best military objectives are of a single kind - "kick the shit out of %target".
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited November 2015
    @surbiton scores 11/10 on my Nitwit Scale.

    I can't recall a single post where he doesn't make a fool of himself or comes across as 12yrs old.

    Invoking my name as some form teenage upmanship gains him zero cred. Perhaps one day he'll grow up and say something worth reading.
    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JJ does not like Assad nor does he like Erdogan. Does he expect everyone will follow orders, like the Libyans did [ sic ] ?

    You are right about me not liking Assad, and let's just say that Erdogan and the AKP are not on my christmas card list.

    Aside from that, what exactly are you asking me?
    Nothing. I don't rate you very highly.
    That's a shame.
  • The_Apocalypse
    The_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited November 2015
    And OT, do PBers believe in the next five, ten, twenty years and beyond - the public will ever disagree with Conservative policy? On PB it seems like it's impossible that this will ever actually happen....
  • MaxPB
    MaxPB Posts: 40,327
    surbiton said:

    I quickly read Corbyn's statement. Is his position any different from the Vienna talks ? He is NOT suggesting, we sit down with ISIS.

    Corbyn told ITV’s Lorraine: “I am not saying sit round the table with Isis, I am saying bring about a political settlement in Syria which will help then to bring some kind of unity government – technical government – in Syria,” he said.

    You know as well as I do that a unity government will fall within weeks to ISIS. Without Assad the country and military will be too weak to fend them off.
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    HurstLlama said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HurstLlama said:

    1. What is the objective?
    2. What will victory look like?
    3. Are we prepared to pay the cost?
    4. After we have won what happens next?

    1. Bomb the hell out of ISIS so as to destroy them
    2. ISIS wiped out
    3. Shouldn't be too much
    4. Up to the locals.
    Really, Mr. Nabavi? If you were an MP you would vote for war on the basis of that? You wouldn't perhaps ask for some detail, maybe one or two probing questions first?
    Sure, but the most important thing is to be clear on the big picture.
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    Casino_Royale said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Who reckons flip flop Burnham will support JC at tonight's PLP?

    NPxMP will be along shortly no doubt to repeat his claim that it' s refreshing to have a leader who sticks to his principles and tries to win people round to them...

    The best you can say about Corbyn is that at least he sticks to what principles he thinks he has, such as they are.

    I've met invertebrates with more backbone than Andy Burnham.
    That's - Terrifyingly - Andy Burnham, Shadow Home Secretary to you. It's often overlooked due to the Laurel and Hardy Jezza and McDonnel show, but Labour are genuinely proposing a jellyfish to head up UK national security, and law and order.
  • blairf
    blairf Posts: 98
    ref NHS upheaval equivalents. How about Nokia, they used to make tractor tyres, then TV's, then mobile phones. The corporate world is in a perpetual state of constructive destruction. I've worked in and for both.... seriously the NHS and pub sect in general are not over-reorganised vs the private sector.

  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    This is a nice summary.....

    http://labourlist.org/2015/11/labour-mps-will-not-get-a-free-vote-on-syria-intervention/
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The_Apocalypse said:

    CD13 said:

    As expected, Hollande is no left wing patsy.

    But as expected, Jezza is.

    Really? He's been one of the most left-wing leaders in Europe up until now. I'm glad to hear what he's said to today though.

    As for Corbyn, what he has said is not really all that unbelievable. Corbyn is a pacifist to the core, after all. The trouble with Corbyn and certain sections of the left is that they form policy and opinions on how they'd like the world to be as opposed to how it actually is. We'd all love a peaceful world, where there was no war, and no ISIS. But we live in a world where war, and war against our values in particular is very real. And tbh - although a PBer has said Atlee would be spinning in his grave, I'm not so quite sure. For sometime in the 30s, Atlee opposed the Baldwin government's programme of re-arming, in anticipation of another war. Corbyn is simply a reflection of a long standing issue with the British Left, in that many of its members are too interested in doing things which 'feel good' as opposed to confronting difficult, and often complex issues.

    At some point, when many start to click (again) you can't actually change the world with power, and without confronting complex issues, they'll elect someone who can win a GE.
    It was not just Attlee that was not comfortable with rearmament. It was quite a widespread view at the time. Attlee had served with distinction in the first world war and was wounded in action. He was miles away from Corbyn in his views.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,728
    edited November 2015
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    This is a nice summary.....

    http://labourlist.org/2015/11/labour-mps-will-not-get-a-free-vote-on-syria-intervention/

    There is Tories election material sorted, with the headline "This man is a danger to national security". Forgot the bonkers stuff about sexist train carriages and QE for the people.
  • TCPoliticalBetting
    TCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited November 2015
    Plato_Says said:

    @surbiton scores 11/10 on my Nitwit Scale.
    I can't recall a single post where he doesn't make a fool of himself or comes across as 12yrs old.
    Invoking my name as some form teenage upmanship gains him zero cred. Perhaps one day he'll grow up and say something worth reading.

    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JJ does not like Assad nor does he like Erdogan. Does he expect everyone will follow orders, like the Libyans did [ sic ] ?

    You are right about me not liking Assad, and let's just say that Erdogan and the AKP are not on my christmas card list.

    Aside from that, what exactly are you asking me?
    Nothing. I don't rate you very highly.
    That's a shame.
    Surbiton does seem to have a lot of personal issues affecting his views.
  • MaxPB
    MaxPB Posts: 40,327
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HurstLlama said:

    1. What is the objective?
    2. What will victory look like?
    3. Are we prepared to pay the cost?
    4. After we have won what happens next?

    1. Bomb the hell out of ISIS so as to destroy them
    2. ISIS wiped out
    3. Shouldn't be too much
    4. Up to the locals.
    Really, Mr. Nabavi? If you were an MP you would vote for war on the basis of that? You wouldn't perhaps ask for some detail, maybe one or two probing questions first?
    Sure, but the most important thing is to be clear on the big picture.
    I think having a post-victory plan is as important a winning. We can't just defeat ISIS and then have no plan for what to do afterwards. I'm perfectly content with leaving Assad in place and letting the Russians mop up the various non-ISIS Islamist groups, but Cameron isn't and that is a major sticking point with Tory MPs who are against intervention.
  • The_Apocalypse
    The_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    foxinsoxuk said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    CD13 said:

    As expected, Hollande is no left wing patsy.

    But as expected, Jezza is.

    Really? He's been one of the most left-wing leaders in Europe up until now. I'm glad to hear what he's said to today though.

    As for Corbyn, what he has said is not really all that unbelievable. Corbyn is a pacifist to the core, after all. The trouble with Corbyn and certain sections of the left is that they form policy and opinions on how they'd like the world to be as opposed to how it actually is. We'd all love a peaceful world, where there was no war, and no ISIS. But we live in a world where war, and war against our values in particular is very real. And tbh - although a PBer has said Atlee would be spinning in his grave, I'm not so quite sure. For sometime in the 30s, Atlee opposed the Baldwin government's programme of re-arming, in anticipation of another war. Corbyn is simply a reflection of a long standing issue with the British Left, in that many of its members are too interested in doing things which 'feel good' as opposed to confronting difficult, and often complex issues.

    At some point, when many start to click (again) you can't actually change the world with power, and without confronting complex issues, they'll elect someone who can win a GE.
    It was not just Attlee that was not comfortable with rearmament. It was quite a widespread view at the time. Attlee had served with distinction in the first world war and was wounded in action. He was miles away from Corbyn in his views.
    I know that most of GBP didn't want to rearm (and still wanted to have faith in the league as means of preventing war) but from what I can recall, Atlee maintained this position even after 1938 and the whole Munich fiasco. I believe, it was after the Munich Agreement when the tide began to turn regarding public opinion on rearmament. Though that Attlee served in WW1 is something I didn't know, and that case he is indeed far away from the views of Corbyn.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Offski until tomorrow - lots of Fall season to catch up on.
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    The_Apocalypse said:

    CD13 said:

    As expected, Hollande is no left wing patsy.

    But as expected, Jezza is.

    Really? He's been one of the most left-wing leaders in Europe up until now. I'm glad to hear what he's said to today though.

    As for Corbyn, what he has said is not really all that unbelievable. Corbyn is a pacifist to the core, after all. The trouble with Corbyn and certain sections of the left is that they form policy and opinions on how they'd like the world to be as opposed to how it actually is. We'd all love a peaceful world, where there was no war, and no ISIS. But we live in a world where war, and war against our values in particular is very real. And tbh - although a PBer has said Atlee would be spinning in his grave, I'm not so quite sure. For sometime in the 30s, Atlee opposed the Baldwin government's programme of re-arming, in anticipation of another war. Corbyn is simply a reflection of a long standing issue with the British Left, in that many of its members are too interested in doing things which 'feel good' as opposed to confronting difficult, and often complex issues.

    At some point, when many start to click (again) you can't actually change the world with power, and without confronting complex issues, they'll elect someone who can win a GE.
    Attlee served with distinction during WWI (he was at Gallipoli, second last off the beach). He wasn't a warmonger, but he sure as hell knew that sometimes you have to fight, and that some things are worth fighting for - he opposed the Munich agreement for example.
  • Omnium
    Omnium Posts: 11,764
    The_Apocalypse said:

    And OT, do PBers believe in the next five, ten, twenty years and beyond - the public will ever disagree with Conservative policy? On PB it seems like it's impossible that this happen occur....

    So 'conservative' policy is no change, and 'Conservative' policy is roughly that, but change what you need to and bear in mind that expenses are paid for by the electorate. If that continues to be the case then I can't see any wild swings away from Tory support.

    That seems a reasonable framework to me. and as such I can't see anything other than a good baseline support for the Tories.

    However if they stray from this, or if people want something else then of course we can see a completely different politics.

    Labour is of course mostly 'conservative' too. Even Corbyn.

  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Omnium said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Omnium said:



    If our military forces aren't up to suppressing (and killing) a bunch of mad men in open terrain then we may as well not bother. There are hints as to the required stuff - oddly Harry seems to have found himself in amongst the right mix. However British Sailors surrendering to Iranians would have had Nelson turn in his grave.

    British Military forces should do jobs they can do outstandingly, and not be asked to jobs that they can't.

    I doubt the issue is whether the troops we have are up to the job. There must be however doubt as to whether we have enough of them to it and whether HMG has the balls to commit to the task wholeheartedly (they didn't in Afghanistan and I don't see what has changed since).

    However, before even considering putting troops in HMG should ask and answer the four questions as detailed by TimT on here the other evening (I paraphrase):

    1. What is the objective?
    2. What will victory look like?
    3. Are we prepared to pay the cost?
    4. After we have won what happens next?

    That requires some clear thinking about details and some real decision making, something Cameron isn't good at. However, unless he can answer those questions to their satisfaction every MP should vote against military action in Syria.
    Probably best to find out whether they can do these things first though. Assuming they can then it's clear that the best military objectives are of a single kind - "kick the shit out of %target".
    Oh dear, like Mr Nabavi, you seem to think that just piling in will be good enough. Well we did that in Iraq and it wasn't, was it? Not only did we come out of there with our tails between our legs (through no fault of the troops I might add) but to the massive detriment to our national prestige. When combined with our performance in Afghanistan, where again we refused to pay the price necessary to the job we said we were their to do (even if nobody in London had actually thought out what that job really was), we have rather set our reputation back in so many ways. Every nut job in Iraq and the Levant now "knows" that if they hang on and just kill some Brits we will run away after a while.

    Meanwhile our actions in Libya merely conformed to the nutters on the ground that we don't have the balls to fight and to Russia and China that might is right and if you ignore the UN you can get away with anything you want.

    Against that background of military and diplomatic failure over the past 15 years I would hope that at least Conservative MPs will be very careful before they vote to allow Cameron to take us into another stupid and, in the end, damaging war.
  • MP_SE
    MP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Quite disappointing to see Theresa May state that the attacks in Paris have nothing to do with Islam.

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/theresa-may-the-paris-attacks-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam/
  • blackburn63
    blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Plato_Says said:

    @surbiton scores 11/10 on my Nitwit Scale.
    I can't recall a single post where he doesn't make a fool of himself or comes across as 12yrs old.
    Invoking my name as some form teenage upmanship gains him zero cred. Perhaps one day he'll grow up and say something worth reading.

    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JJ does not like Assad nor does he like Erdogan. Does he expect everyone will follow orders, like the Libyans did [ sic ] ?

    You are right about me not liking Assad, and let's just say that Erdogan and the AKP are not on my christmas card list.

    Aside from that, what exactly are you asking me?
    Nothing. I don't rate you very highly.
    That's a shame.
    Surbiton does seem to have a lot of personal issues affecting his views.
    Interesting, last week I said I don't like London and he blatantly accused me of being a racist, I'd never knowingly engaged him prior to that,

  • blackburn63
    blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    MP_SE said:

    Quite disappointing to see Theresa May state that the attacks in Paris have nothing to do with Islam.

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/theresa-may-the-paris-attacks-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam/

    It doesn't matter if May says that, it's only if the tree hugging liberal lefties say it that it becomes a problem.

  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    MP_SE said:

    Quite disappointing to see Theresa May state that the attacks in Paris have nothing to do with Islam.

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/theresa-may-the-paris-attacks-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam/

    They really are going to have to stop this reflexive bollocks. It is totally to do with Islam.
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    The_Apocalypse said:

    And OT, do PBers believe in the next five, ten, twenty years and beyond - the public will ever disagree with Conservative policy? On PB it seems like it's impossible that this will ever actually happen....

    That's what frightens me; if Corbyn takes over the Labour party, there is a significant chance that he, or one of his identikit successors, will lead this country. No government lasts forever.
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    blackburn63 said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Plato_Says said:

    @surbiton scores 11/10 on my Nitwit Scale.
    I can't recall a single post where he doesn't make a fool of himself or comes across as 12yrs old.
    Invoking my name as some form teenage upmanship gains him zero cred. Perhaps one day he'll grow up and say something worth reading.

    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    surbiton said:

    JJ does not like Assad nor does he like Erdogan. Does he expect everyone will follow orders, like the Libyans did [ sic ] ?

    You are right about me not liking Assad, and let's just say that Erdogan and the AKP are not on my christmas card list.

    Aside from that, what exactly are you asking me?
    Nothing. I don't rate you very highly.
    That's a shame.
    Surbiton does seem to have a lot of personal issues affecting his views.
    Interesting, last week I said I don't like London and he blatantly accused me of being a racist, I'd never knowingly engaged him prior to that,

    We're very lucky that the dickhead-to-normal person ratio is pretty good on here, this being the Internet an' all.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    John_M said:

    MP_SE said:

    Quite disappointing to see Theresa May state that the attacks in Paris have nothing to do with Islam.

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/theresa-may-the-paris-attacks-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam/

    They really are going to have to stop this reflexive bollocks. It is totally to do with Islam.
    Lance Armstrong - nothing to do with cycling !
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCNormanS: Nigel Farage @UKIP tells BBC "We have a 5th column living within our country..,who have turned against us and wish us harm"
  • tlg86
    tlg86 Posts: 26,950
    The_Apocalypse said:

    And OT, do PBers believe in the next five, ten, twenty years and beyond - the public will ever disagree with Conservative policy? On PB it seems like it's impossible that this will ever actually happen....

    I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010, but for a number of reasons - Help to Buy the main one - I didn't vote Tory in 2015. Mind you, I didn't vote Labour.
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    Roger said:

    They are suggesting the ring leader may be a Belgium of Moroccan descent. This won't come as a surprise to the Dutch or Belgians.

    or Moroccans.
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    Pulpstar said:

    John_M said:

    MP_SE said:

    Quite disappointing to see Theresa May state that the attacks in Paris have nothing to do with Islam.

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/theresa-may-the-paris-attacks-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam/

    They really are going to have to stop this reflexive bollocks. It is totally to do with Islam.
    Lance Armstrong - nothing to do with cycling !
    Off-topic:

    Thanks to whoever recommended the Armstrong documentary on here the other week. We got a chance to watch it yesterday, and it was truly great TV. There was little I hadn't read about before, but seeing it in one place like that was quite something.

    He was an absolute master-manipulator.
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    edited November 2015
    Blackburn

    "Interesting, last week I said I don't like London and he (Surbiton) blatantly accused me of being a racist, I'd never knowingly engaged him prior to that,"

    Have you ever thought you might be paranoid? Yesterday you claimed I'd said you wanted to KILL Jews which was not remotely what I said.

    If you'd followed the conversation you would have understood that what I said was that if your (and Isam's) Powellite logic was followed there would have been no Jews ALLOWED into Sweden because they too were immigrants
  • blackburn63
    blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    tlg86 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    And OT, do PBers believe in the next five, ten, twenty years and beyond - the public will ever disagree with Conservative policy? On PB it seems like it's impossible that this will ever actually happen....

    I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010, but for a number of reasons - Help to Buy the main one - I didn't vote Tory in 2015. Mind you, I didn't vote Labour.
    I thought I was the lone voice on here for calling out help to buy for what it is. Govt giving high earning youngsters money to buy a house and Tories accusing labour of buying votes.

  • blackburn63
    blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Roger said:

    Blackburn

    "Interesting, last week I said I don't like London and he (Surbiton) blatantly accused me of being a racist, I'd never knowingly engaged him prior to that,"

    Have you ever thought you might be paranoid? Yesterday you claimed I'd said you wanted to KILL Jews which was not remotely what I said.

    If you'd followed the conversation you would have understood that what I said was that if your (and Isam's) Powellite logic was followed there would have been no Jews ALLOWED into Sweden because they too were immigrants

    Poor attempt at backtracking, I've never even mentioned Jews or Sweden on here. You told a lie and now you're attempting to justify it.

  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2015
    On topic:

    Junior doctor retention is down to 59% after 2 years. These are DoH figures from a parliamentary answer:

    http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/education/over-40-of-doctors-lost-after-foundation-year-training/20030428.article

    According to UCAS medical school applications are down 13.5% from 2 years ago.

    Some training schemes (such as General Practice in the East Midlands have half the training places unfilled). We have major problems with recruitment and retention brewing in UK medicine.

    A senior psychiatrist wrote this recently:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11994836/Our-junior-doctors-are-sick-of-their-uncertain-future.html

    Jeremy Hunt will wage a vicious and misleading spin campaign, after all he does have form with the Murdochs. He may well win a strike, but it will be a pyrrhic victory. He will have few doctors left to command.

    The issues are far more than money. The juniors would happily stay on current pay scales and conditions.

    I said my piece last week. I have never seen such action in my life, and my unit will make appropriate preparations, but take it from me : the juniors are not bluffing.
  • MikeK
    MikeK Posts: 9,053
    The_Apocalypse said:

    CD13 said:

    As expected, Hollande is no left wing patsy.

    But as expected, Jezza is.

    Really? He's been one of the most left-wing leaders in Europe up until now. I'm glad to hear what he's said to today though.

    As for Corbyn, what he has said is not really all that unbelievable. Corbyn is a pacifist to the core, after all. The trouble with Corbyn and certain sections of the left is that they form policy and opinions on how they'd like the world to be as opposed to how it actually is. We'd all love a peaceful world, where there was no war, and no ISIS. But we live in a world where war, and war against our values in particular is very real. And tbh - although a PBer has said Atlee would be spinning in his grave, I'm not so quite sure. For sometime in the 30s, Atlee opposed the Baldwin government's programme of re-arming, in anticipation of another war. Corbyn is simply a reflection of a long standing issue with the British Left, in that many of its members are too interested in doing things which 'feel good' as opposed to confronting difficult, and often complex issues.

    At some point, when many start to click (again) you can't actually change the world with power, and without confronting complex issues, they'll elect someone who can win a GE.
    What is all this nonsense of Corbyn being a pacifist. He is no such thing. This is the man that supported an armed insurrection against the British government by the IRA, that killed hundreds. This is the man that only recently said he supported the armed terrorist organisations of Hezbollah and Hamas that have killed thousands. He is the sort that turns a blind eye to what ISIS has done in Paris, but says we ourselves must act defenceless. Pacifist? Not Jezza.
  • john_zims
    john_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Chris_A

    john_zims


    Try working in the private sector where there is not a bottomless pit of taxpayers money or militant unions like the BMA & then complain about reorganizations.

    'And which private companies do you know which have had a similar amount of upheaval? As to the BMA being militant, pull the other one.'


    The Fortune 100 US multinational I spent 30 years working for had a reorganisation on average every 3 years.What was made clear to every employee was the only constant was change.

    If a private company doesn't react / reorganise according to what's happening in the market place it will not be around too long.

    Time you got out of your taxpayer funded bubble and experienced the real world.

    When has the BMA ever put it's customers interests ahead of their own ?

  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    john_zims said:

    @Chris_A

    john_zims


    Try working in the private sector where there is not a bottomless pit of taxpayers money or militant unions like the BMA & then complain about reorganizations.

    'And which private companies do you know which have had a similar amount of upheaval? As to the BMA being militant, pull the other one.'


    The Fortune 100 US multinational I spent 30 years working for had a reorganisation on average every 3 years.What was made clear to every employee was the only constant was change.

    If a private company doesn't react / reorganise according to what's happening in the market place it will not be around too long.

    Time you got out of your taxpayer funded bubble and experienced the real world.

    When has the BMA ever put it's customers interests ahead of their own ?

    The company I worked for had 130,000 employees in 1990. By the time it was sold to Compaq in 1998 it had less than 54,000. It was a pretty tough time.
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited November 2015
    foxinsoxuk said:

    On topic:

    Junior doctor retention is down to 59% after 2 years. These are DoH figures from a parliamentary answer:

    http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/education/over-40-of-doctors-lost-after-foundation-year-training/20030428.article

    According to UCAS medical school applications are down 13.5% from 2 years ago.

    Some training schemes (such as General Practice in the East Midlands have half the training places unfilled). We have major problems with recruitment and retention brewing in UK medicine.

    A senior psychiatrist wrote this recently:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11994836/Our-junior-doctors-are-sick-of-their-uncertain-future.html

    Jeremy Hunt will wage a vicious and misleading spin campaign, after all he does have form with the Murdochs. He may well win a strike, but it will be a pyrrhic victory. He will have few doctors left to command.

    The issues are far more than money. The juniors would happily stay on current pay scales and conditions.

    I said my piece last week. I have never seen such action in my life, and my unit will make appropriate preparations, but take it from me : the juniors are not bluffing.

    I am sure you have never seen such action in your life, nobody has. However, if junior doctors are going to go on strike and so condemn patients to misery, pain and, for some, death then as far as I am concerned said doctors are beneath contempt. I would not piss in their ear if their brain was on fire.

    We have here a group of very bright people who at the taxpayers considerable expense (£500,000 to train a medical student I read the other day) have been given entry to a profession that should be rewarding at the personal level and one which is very well remunerated. However, if the concern they have for the people who depend on them is so low that that they will, for the sake of an argument over pay and conditions, leave those people to suffer and die then we need to look again at medicos funding.

    The army used to, and still may, run a scheme whereby they would sponsor students through medical school on the understanding that once qualified the student would serve as an army doctor for six years. If they left earlier then they had to pay back the costs of their training. Maybe we should do that for all medical students and at each level above. If doctors want to put their wallets ahead of their patients then the people who pay should treat them accordingly.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories