politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Taking the 66 to 1 on Michael Fallon as next Tory Leader
Options
Comments
-
Privilege.Wanderer said:
Why would they be scared? These are unpaid jobs on a sinking ship we're talking about.surbiton said:
The scared ones are pushing out stories to keep their jobs. Burnham does not need to do it because his job is safe.TheScreamingEagles said:@georgeeaton: Andy Burnham has not offered to swap jobs with Hilary Benn, source says in response to Times story. "No conversations/offers at all."
It comes with media interviews, party policy influence, seniority in the command chain, staff and other small perks.
To put it simply will anyone care what Benn had to say if he was not shadow foreign secretary?
The conspirators of course want to use their positions to fight Corbyn, not to fight the Tories.0 -
There's a core principle in the EU, you cannot treat citizens from another member state worse than you treat your own.Danny565 said:I have never understood these claims that banning EU migrants from claiming from the British welfare system would be "discriminatory". As far as I'm concerned, Poland would have equal right to block British migrants from claiming from their welfare system if they wished.
If jimbo from Basingstoke is entitled to £10k of tax credits when working here, then Patryk from Slupsk must also be entitled to £10k of tax credits (assuming they have the same family and earnings etc).
The rule is a bit fuzzier around a qualifying period. Are you entitled from the moment you get off the plane? From the moment you get a national insurance number etc?
If you want to limit tax credits and out of work benefits by creating a qualifying period, its perfectly acceptable, you just have to do it for your own citizens as well.
Interestingly, the rule about treating member states no worse than your own citizens. This was to stop countries from disadvantaging other citizens. The European Union never dreamt that a member state however would wish to discriminate against its own citizens.
This has created the most bizarre situation in Scotland in which Scottish residents get their fees paid for by the Scottish government, Welsh students get 2/3 of their fees paid for by the Welsh assembly, English students get no assistance other than a student loan, citizens from any other EU, EEA, Switzerland, or a child of a Turkish worker in the UK (I'm not making this up) you will get your tuition fees paid for in full.
The only people in the entire of the European Union, European Economic Area and Switzerland who pay full tuition in Scotland are those from England.0 -
I think everyone in the party has actually been quite restrained about Danczuk up to now (you'll recall that he was just as nasty about Ed as he is about Jeremy, for years, in a weekly column in the Mail FFS) - there was a decent reason for the restraint which I won't discuss here, but everything has its limits, and I don't think he should be a Labour MP.Tom said:
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
I agree that there are people among Corbyn's allies who are less amiable and tolerant, but in politics you do need some tough-minded allies, as you'll certainly have some tough-minded opponents.
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?0 -
You want to expel ordinary people from the Labour Party? OK.surbiton said:
Because they are warmongers ! And, he is bloody ORDINARY.Wanderer said:
If the aircraft aren't going to make any difference what's the big deal? Why do say that people who supported the action have no place in your party?surbiton said:
Of course, I do. Anyone who voted for this was simply showing off his willy. As if our 6 Typhoon's are going to make any difference.Wanderer said:
"Bombers like him"surbiton said:
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !RobD said:
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?surbiton said:
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.Tom said:
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.Scott_P said:
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injuryTheScreamingEagles said:SNIP
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Do you honestly and seriously think of Benn as some kind of wild-eyed warmonger?
Benn has always been very ordinary. Intellectually and politically. He is only there because of his father.0 -
Are you completing a Sunil-style mini-tour of England?AndyJS said:Useless fact: I visited Southend for the first time today, on what is probably their least busy day of the year. Had a go on the pier railway.
I suspect I've lived, worked in, or stayed with my excessively scattered family in more corners of England than most people (except travelling contractors etc): Yorkshire, East Anglia, the SE, the SW, and London. But it's amazing how many holes that still leaves, as a glance at a National Trust atlas or AA Guide will immediately attest. Before ill health/disability curtailed me, I used to spend a lot of my weekends going on round-Britain mini-breaks of a night or two, trying to fill some of the blanks. We live in a beautiful, varied and surprising big country - I'd recommend it highly to anyone with sufficient mobility and freedom from weekend-dominating responsibilities, and particularly if you can't afford jet-setting holidays to exotic destinations or simply want to spread your breaks across the year.0 -
You do sound slightly unhinged. Why are you banging on about him being 'ordinary'?surbiton said:
Because they are warmongers ! And, he is bloody ORDINARY.Wanderer said:
If the aircraft aren't going to make any difference what's the big deal? Why do say that people who supported the action have no place in your party?surbiton said:
Of course, I do. Anyone who voted for this was simply showing off his willy. As if our 6 Typhoon's are going to make any difference.Wanderer said:
"Bombers like him"surbiton said:
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !RobD said:
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?surbiton said:
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.Tom said:
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.Scott_P said:
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injuryTheScreamingEagles said:SNIP
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Do you honestly and seriously think of Benn as some kind of wild-eyed warmonger?
Benn has always been very ordinary. Intellectually and politically. He is only there because of his father.0 -
Of course, no room for a conscience in the new kinder Labour Party. Unlike Corbyn who hawked his conscience round Parliament year after year with no regard whatever for what the party wanted.surbiton said:
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.RobD said:
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?surbiton said:
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !RobD said:
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?surbiton said:
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.Tom said:
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.Scott_P said:
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injuryTheScreamingEagles said:SNIP
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
0 -
I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.0 -
I think people like Benn and that Dugher chappie [ hadn't heard of him until this evening ] are now shitting yellow stuff. And, the right wing media are helping create stories which are simply not true.
Jeremy, whilst I did not vote for you. this is your chance. Sack all the 11 warmongers.0 -
Yes, he will still get attention on the back benches. Most of Labour's talent is there after all.Speedy said:
Privilege.Wanderer said:
Why would they be scared? These are unpaid jobs on a sinking ship we're talking about.surbiton said:
The scared ones are pushing out stories to keep their jobs. Burnham does not need to do it because his job is safe.TheScreamingEagles said:@georgeeaton: Andy Burnham has not offered to swap jobs with Hilary Benn, source says in response to Times story. "No conversations/offers at all."
It comes with media interviews, party policy influence, seniority on the command chain, staff and other small perks.
To put it simply will anyone care what Benn had to say if he was not shadow foreign secretary?
The conspirators of course want to use their positions to fight Corbyn, not to fight the Tories.0 -
Yes, and Surbiton and I cross over on this - he didn't support Corbyn but wants Benn sacked, I'm the other way round: Benn was told he could express his opinion, so he did, nothing wrong with that. But I do see it's awkward to have Leader and Shadow FS disgree on the issue. If Benn were to get the Home Office or similar that'd seem a reasonable outcome to me.RobD said:
Aren't front benchers also allowed a free vote (genuine question)?
0 -
They have to be ten yards from the ball on a free kick. In the past they all snuck forward when the ref turned round. The line disappears after a minute or two.Tim_B said:I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.
0 -
Maybe it will be the Ice Twins reshuffle?Scott_P said:One more sleep till the Ice Pick reshuffle?
Jeremy Corbyn sacked one of his ministers. But can he be sure which one? Three months after he sacks the treacherous Angela, a Commons vote is due on Trident. But when his surviving minister, Maria, claims they have mistaken her identity - that she, in fact, is Angela - Jeremy's world comes crashing down once again. What really happened on that fateful day when he reshuffled his Shadow Cabinet?
0 -
Did they ever appoint Corbyn to the shadow cabinet?Cyclefree said:
Of course, no room for a conscience in the new kinder Labour Party. Unlike Corbyn who hawked his conscience round Parliament year after year with no regard whatever for what the party wanted.surbiton said:
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.RobD said:
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?surbiton said:
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !RobD said:
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?surbiton said:
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.Tom said:
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.Scott_P said:
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injuryTheScreamingEagles said:SNIP
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
No, because Corbyn disagreed with the party leadership on policy matters.
Ergo, Corbyn has the right to do the same, especially since some not only disagree with him but actively plotting against the Labour party.0 -
Btw, what happened in your college football friendly fire match up?Tim_B said:I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.0 -
Nick: I will give you a quick answer as it's late -NickPalmer said:
I think everyone in the party has actually been quite restrained about Danczuk up to now (you'll recall that he was just as nasty about Ed as he is about Jeremy, for years, in a weekly column in the Mail FFS) - there was a decent reason for the restraint which I won't discuss here, but everything has its limits, and I don't think he should be a Labour MP.Tom said:
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
I agree that there are people among Corbyn's allies who are less amiable and tolerant, but in politics you do need some tough-minded allies, as you'll certainly have some tough-minded opponents.
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
(1) Character i.e. a moral compass - what their default instinct is, what someone does when no-one is looking.
(2) Courage
(3) Judgment
(4) The ability to communicate and inspire others.0 -
To be fair, anyone in the Cabinet against air strikes would have been sacked, yes? Especially say Michael Fallon. So the error is not in Corbyn's behaviour but in the behaviour of the Labour Party which chose him as leader. It is hard to see what Corbyn could do better in this situation.0
-
Did those in the Cabinet have a free vote?EPG said:To be fair, anyone in the Cabinet against air strikes would have been sacked, yes? Especially say Michael Fallon. So the error is not in Corbyn's behaviour but in the behaviour of the Labour Party which chose him as leader. It is hard to see what Corbyn could do better in this situation.
0 -
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
0 -
UK is a top holiday countryMyBurningEars said:
Are you completing a Sunil-style mini-tour of England?AndyJS said:Useless fact: I visited Southend for the first time today, on what is probably their least busy day of the year. Had a go on the pier railway.
I suspect I've lived, worked in, or stayed with my excessively scattered family in more corners of England than most people (except travelling contractors etc): Yorkshire, East Anglia, the SE, the SW, and London. But it's amazing how many holes that still leaves, as a glance at a National Trust atlas or AA Guide will immediately attest. Before ill health/disability curtailed me, I used to spend a lot of my weekends going on round-Britain mini-breaks of a night or two, trying to fill some of the blanks. We live in a beautiful, varied and surprising big country - I'd recommend it highly to anyone with sufficient mobility and freedom from weekend-dominating responsibilities, and particularly if you can't afford jet-setting holidays to exotic destinations or simply want to spread your breaks across the year.
England for me particularly in the NW and the central bits around the Bristol-Oxford-Norwich axis (no offence to any others)
Oh and Scotland and Wales and NI0 -
The nightmare is complete. It's Clemson v Alabama.Wanderer said:
Btw, what happened in your college football friendly fire match up?Tim_B said:I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.
Worst of all the game is on my birthday.0 -
Really?Wanderer said:
Yes, he will still get attention on the back benches. Most of Labour's talent is there after all.Speedy said:
Privilege.Wanderer said:
Why would they be scared? These are unpaid jobs on a sinking ship we're talking about.surbiton said:
The scared ones are pushing out stories to keep their jobs. Burnham does not need to do it because his job is safe.TheScreamingEagles said:@georgeeaton: Andy Burnham has not offered to swap jobs with Hilary Benn, source says in response to Times story. "No conversations/offers at all."
It comes with media interviews, party policy influence, seniority on the command chain, staff and other small perks.
To put it simply will anyone care what Benn had to say if he was not shadow foreign secretary?
The conspirators of course want to use their positions to fight Corbyn, not to fight the Tories.
Have you ever heard of Liz Kendall, or Chuka Ummuna, or even Yvette Cooper since Corbyn got elected?
No one bothers with them anymore, like they don't even exist.
The only backbencher widely heard was Danzcuk, and he was eaten alive by the same Tory press that gave him his regular columns.0 -
Someone who shows no loyalty to the party has no right to demand it of others by claiming that the party demands it. Corbyn appointed Benn. He gave him a free vote. But his definition of freedom seems a very Stalinist one: you are free to vote how you want but if you don't vote how I say, you're out.Speedy said:
Did they ever appoint Corbyn to the shadow cabinet?Cyclefree said:
Of course, no room for a conscience in the new kinder Labour Party. Unlike Corbyn who hawked his conscience round Parliament year after year with no regard whatever for what the party wanted.surbiton said:
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.RobD said:
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?surbiton said:
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !RobD said:
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?surbiton said:
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.Tom said:
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.Scott_P said:
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injuryTheScreamingEagles said:SNIP
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
No, because Corbyn disagreed with the party leadership on policy matters.
Ergo, Corbyn has the right to do the same, especially since some not only disagree with him but actively plotting against the Labour party.
0 -
I don't like Danczuk either but there has been briefing over the last couple of days from the leaders office that he will be expelled, which to me is against natural justice before considering the case. Ken has opined as well. Again this is sanctioned stuff and is wrong.NickPalmer said:
I think everyone in the party has actually been quite restrained about Danczuk up to now (you'll recall that he was just as nasty about Ed as he is about Jeremy, for years, in a weekly column in the Mail FFS) - there was a decent reason for the restraint which I won't discuss here, but everything has its limits, and I don't think he should be a Labour MP.Tom said:
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
I agree that there are people among Corbyn's allies who are less amiable and tolerant, but in politics you do need some tough-minded allies, as you'll certainly have some tough-minded opponents.
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
The first quality of a leader is to be able to lead - the have a clear idea of what they want to do and how they get the party/army/organisation/sports team to get there. In the case of labour that includes an ability to unite the PLP and the membership and work out how to do that.
I would also like to see a senior politician with experience of some kind of leadership and/or administration outside politics.
And as a politician it is absolutely essential that you can engage with and attract the public outside of your own narrow support. Politics is a competitive sport I'm afraid.0 -
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.0 -
Surbitons posts tonight sums up the problem the Labour Party have .....its tribal. No other opinion is allowed, even from their own ministers .If other supporters are just like this then civil war has now broken out. There really is no way back for them thank god. Labour are finished put out the carcass for garbage collection and move on.
Its just as well because if Labour and these people with such attitudes ever got into power then we the general public, "The ordinary people" as it was nastily put up thread would be next in line for this precise attitude.
Do as your told, don't argue or else. Government by threats and intimidation its what's on offer from the left as can be seen from their repose to their own. Nasty indeed.0 -
Good points, Mrs Free, but I think you are missing the most important one - knowing where he/she wants to take his/her team. You can't lead if you don't know here you are going.Cyclefree said:
Nick: I will give you a quick answer as it's late -NickPalmer said:
I think everyone in the party has actually been quite restrained about Danczuk up to now (you'll recall that he was just as nasty about Ed as he is about Jeremy, for years, in a weekly column in the Mail FFS) - there was a decent reason for the restraint which I won't discuss here, but everything has its limits, and I don't think he should be a Labour MP.Tom said:
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
I agree that there are people among Corbyn's allies who are less amiable and tolerant, but in politics you do need some tough-minded allies, as you'll certainly have some tough-minded opponents.
Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
(1) Character i.e. a moral compass - what their default instinct is, what someone does when no-one is looking.
(2) Courage
(3) Judgment
(4) The ability to communicate and inspire others.
When I was training "strategic" leaders, the first question on day one was, "Why should your people follow you?" It never ceased to amaze me how few people had ever considered the question.0 -
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.0 -
Well, you're guaranteed a win.Tim_B said:
The nightmare is complete. It's Clemson v Alabama.Wanderer said:
Btw, what happened in your college football friendly fire match up?Tim_B said:I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.
Worst of all the game is on my birthday.0 -
Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest.Cyclefree said:
Someone who shows no loyalty to the party has no right to demand it of others by claiming that the party demands it. Corbyn appointed Benn. He gave him a free vote. But his definition of freedom seems a very Stalinist one: you are free to vote how you want but if you don't vote how I say, you're out.Speedy said:
Did they ever appoint Corbyn to the shadow cabinet?Cyclefree said:
Of course, no room for a conscience in the new kinder Labour Party. Unlike Corbyn who hawked his conscience round Parliament year after year with no regard whatever for what the party wanted.surbiton said:
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.RobD said:
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?surbiton said:
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !RobD said:
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?surbiton said:
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.Tom said:
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.Scott_P said:
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injuryTheScreamingEagles said:SNIP
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
No, because Corbyn disagreed with the party leadership on policy matters.
Ergo, Corbyn has the right to do the same, especially since some not only disagree with him but actively plotting against the Labour party.
Especially at charged moments that smell of gunpowder, Benn was seen flagging the knife on Corbyn's face at a time when everyone inside Labour knows that they are plotting and conspiring.
Corbyn was never in the shadow cabinet because of his disagreements with past leaders, so why should Benn?0 -
I've heard as much from Cooper as from most of the shadow cabinet. All we've had is:Speedy said:
Really?Wanderer said:
Yes, he will still get attention on the back benches. Most of Labour's talent is there after all.Speedy said:
Privilege.Wanderer said:
Why would they be scared? These are unpaid jobs on a sinking ship we're talking about.surbiton said:
The scared ones are pushing out stories to keep their jobs. Burnham does not need to do it because his job is safe.TheScreamingEagles said:@georgeeaton: Andy Burnham has not offered to swap jobs with Hilary Benn, source says in response to Times story. "No conversations/offers at all."
It comes with media interviews, party policy influence, seniority on the command chain, staff and other small perks.
To put it simply will anyone care what Benn had to say if he was not shadow foreign secretary?
The conspirators of course want to use their positions to fight Corbyn, not to fight the Tories.
Have you ever heard of Liz Kendall, or Chuka Ummuna, or even Yvette Cooper since Corbyn got elected?
No one bothers with them anymore, like they don't even exist.
The only backbencher widely heard was Danzcuk, and he was eaten alive by the same Tory press that gave him his regular columns.
Some clowning from McDonnell
Eloquent speech from Benn (you want him sacked for it)
Er, that's it
Oh, and Maria Eagle was upset about Ken. So there's that.0 -
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.0 -
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.HurstLlama said:
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.0 -
Alabama are 7 point favorites. We'll probably take them.Wanderer said:
Well, you're guaranteed a win.Tim_B said:
The nightmare is complete. It's Clemson v Alabama.Wanderer said:
Btw, what happened in your college football friendly fire match up?Tim_B said:I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.
Worst of all the game is on my birthday.
It's one of the reasons I don't play fantasy football.
I support my team, and don't want to watch and support other teams who happen to have players on my fantasy team.
Although DirecTV, as part of my NFL Sunday Ticket package, in addition to the truly awesome Red Zone Channel, now have a Fantasy Zone Channel which is interesting to watch, even though I don't really get the concept of 'fantasy points'. They will say stuff like "Ferd Berfle ran for 125 yards and two TDs and got 17.6 fantasy points".0 -
When faced with the choice between two unpleasant options:NickPalmer said:Anyway, Reggie didn't ask me particularly about Corbyn, but more generally what I look for in a leader. Let's widen the discussion beyond my personal opinion, which is neither here nor there. What, leaving aside the specific cases of the leaders we currently have, do you and others look for?
* the weak man will choose both
* the stupid man will choose the worst
* the good man will choose the best
* the great man will choose the third
It's all about choosing (which in turn speaks to character). Corbyn has made some poor choices: voting against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, backing the IRA and Hamas, pursuing a nuclear-free Middle-East policy and unilateral nuclear disarmament, allowing the Labour Party to turn into a civil war. You have listed some attributes he has which are admirable. Fair enough. But I think, given his choices, he simply should not be Prime Minister.
0 -
Dutch tourists seem to love the UK even more than Brits do, and find their way to bits of the country where the Chinese/Japanese/Indian tourist market hasn't really taken off.EPG said:
UK is a top holiday country
England for me particularly in the NW and the central bits around the Bristol-Oxford-Norwich axis (no offence to any others)
Oh and Scotland and Wales and NI
Incidentally, for a rural/urban split, here are the 30 largest (ceremonial) counties by area, and the biggest 30 cities (ok, technically Primary Urban Areas).
1 North Yorkshire / London
2 Lincolnshire / Birmingham
3 Cumbria / Manchester
4 Devon / Liverpool
5 Norfolk / Leeds
6 Northumberland / Sheffield
7 Somerset / Teesside
8 Suffolk / Bristol
9 Hampshire / Bournemouth and Poole
10 Kent / Stoke-on-Trent
11 Essex / Leicester
12 Cornwall / Wirral
13 Shropshire / Coventry
14 Wiltshire / Nottingham
15 Cambridgeshire / Bradford
16 Gloucestershire / Newcastle
17 Lancashire / Bolton
18 Durham / Brighton and Hove
19 Staffordshire / Plymouth
20 Dorset / Hull
21 Derbyshire / Preston
22 Oxfordshire / Derby
23 East Riding of Yorkshire / Aldershot and Farnborough
24 Northamptonshire / Southampton
25 Cheshire / Wigan
26 Herefordshire / Barnsley
27 Nottinghamshire / Portsmouth
28 Leicestershire / Luton
29 West Yorkshire / York
30 West Sussex / Northampton
I think it must be very rare to have explored, say, 20 of the top 30 from both lists.
PUAs 31-50 include places around the size of Milton Keynes, Southend, Ipswich, Reading, Oxford, Blackpool or Norwich, some of which are more worth a visit than places that made it into the top 30.0 -
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass.Speedy said:
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland?
Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.0 -
In the event of war with Poland, would all those plumbers be deported or interned?Wanderer said:
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.HurstLlama said:
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
From where would we source Kielbasa?
0 -
Of course we would honour it, by sending large amounts of slingshots, matchsticks and tweets to aid them.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
By the way, what Wehrmacht? That was dismantled in 1945.
Realistically though I think the russians will not invade a NATO country, they will simply invade countries that want to join NATO to cause a nasty security situation, in which NATO could never accept said country in it.
The baltic states though are a curious case, with very large ethnic russian populations that are segregated, those are easy tools to destabilize those states that are too small to ever be able to defend themselves from any of their neighbours.
Every russian government would have destabilizing plans high up their list, the baltic states are NATO's testicles which Russia can squeeze.
But enough with that, goodnight.0 -
All of the Unionist MPs were against the AIA, that was why there were 15 FIFTEEN by-elections in Northern Ireland in January 1986.viewcode said:Corbyn has made some poor choices: voting against the Anglo-Irish Agreement,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_by-elections,_19860 -
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?Wanderer said:
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.HurstLlama said:
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.0 -
Yes, I find that quite annoying - how fantasy invades discussion of the real game.Tim_B said:
Alabama are 7 point favorites. We'll probably take them.Wanderer said:
Well, you're guaranteed a win.Tim_B said:
The nightmare is complete. It's Clemson v Alabama.Wanderer said:
Btw, what happened in your college football friendly fire match up?Tim_B said:I happened to watch a few minutes of a soccer game the other day. I've no idea who was playing because it's hard to tell the teams from the sponsors.
The referee spray painted a line on the field during a pause in play. What's that all about? I've never seen that before.
Worst of all the game is on my birthday.
It's one of the reasons I don't play fantasy football.
I support my team, and don't want to watch and support other teams who happen to have players on my fantasy team.
Although DirecTV, as part of my NFL Sunday Ticket package, in addition to the truly awesome Red Zone Channel, now have a Fantasy Zone Channel which is interesting to watch, even though I don't really get the concept of 'fantasy points'. They will say stuff like "Ferd Berfle ran for 125 yards and two TDs and got 17.6 fantasy points".0 -
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.flightpath01 said:
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass.Speedy said:
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland?
Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.0 -
Talk loudly and carry a piddly little stick?HurstLlama said:
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?Wanderer said:
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.HurstLlama said:
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.0 -
ha ha ha. Priceless, oh my goodness gracious me. Labour are really stuffed aren't they.surbiton said:I think people like Benn and that Dugher chappie [ hadn't heard of him until this evening ] are now shitting yellow stuff. And, the right wing media are helping create stories which are simply not true.
Jeremy, whilst I did not vote for you. this is your chance. Sack all the 11 warmongers.
What an fool you are.
And how on earth did NPXXMP ever persuade the people of Broxtowe that he had the brains and judgement to be their representative.0 -
Trident?HurstLlama said:
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?Wanderer said:
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.HurstLlama said:
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
Horrifying thought!!!!0 -
"Kaliningrad is the testicle of Russia. When I want to make the Russians scream, I squeeze on Kaliningrad!"Speedy said:
Of course we would honour it, by sending large amounts of slingshots, matchsticks and tweets to aid them.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
By the way, what Wehrmacht? That was dismantled in 1945.
Realistically though I think the russians will not invade a NATO country, they will simply invade countries that want to join NATO to cause a nasty security situation, in which NATO could never accept said country in it.
The baltic states though are a curious case, with very large ethnic russian populations that are segregated, those are easy tools to destabilize those states that are too small to ever be able to defend themselves from any of their neighbours.
Every russian government would have destabilizing plans high up their list, the baltic states are NATO's testicles which Russia can squeeze.
But enough with that, goodnight.0 -
No I did not miss that. NATO troops are regular visitors to Poland as it is.HurstLlama said:
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.flightpath01 said:
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass.Speedy said:
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland?
Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
As for defending Poland - well the Poles can make a pretty good start on that for themselves. And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia. So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse. Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?0 -
It must be time to watch The Mouse That Roared.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Talk loudly and carry a piddly little stick?HurstLlama said:
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?Wanderer said:
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.HurstLlama said:
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.0 -
The last resort is the first response? Step forward James Hacker and the Chief Scientific advisor who won a DSO at Arnhem but spoke with an Austrian accent so was distrusted by the Civil Service.OldKingCole said:
Trident?HurstLlama said:
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?Wanderer said:
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.HurstLlama said:
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
Horrifying thought!!!!
But no, Mr. Cole I don't think so. Trident is there to do a job and that is not to protect Poland or anywhere other than the UK.0 -
Perhaps you should be talking the the Polish PM.flightpath01 said:
No I did not miss that. NATO troops are regular visitors to Poland as it is.HurstLlama said:
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.flightpath01 said:
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass.Speedy said:
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland?
Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
As for defending Poland - well the Poles can make a pretty good start on that for themselves. And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia. So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse. Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?0 -
Kaliningrad Oblast has land borders with both Poland and Lithuania.flightpath01 said:
No I did not miss that. NATO troops are regular visitors to Poland as it is.HurstLlama said:
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.flightpath01 said:
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass.Speedy said:
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland?
Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
As for defending Poland - well the Poles can make a pretty good start on that for themselves. And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia. So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse. Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?0 -
How many soldiers do Russia keep in Kaliningrad? I assume that the border is well defended at that point.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Kaliningrad Oblast has land borders with both Poland and Lithuania.flightpath01 said:
No I did not miss that. NATO troops are regular visitors to Poland as it is.HurstLlama said:
Well the discussion started because of the report that Poland has asked for permanent NATO bases in it territory. You might have missed that.flightpath01 said:
'that' as is being discussed is the Russian invasion of Poland (an EU country as well as a member of NATO). What kind of world do you think we would be living in in that eventuality. And bear in mind all the other countries standing in between Russia and Poland. To fatuously dismiss the event - if it happened - is crass.Speedy said:
It's very possible that if it ever came to that, Britain will give a strong worded statement, followed by a strong twitter campaign.HurstLlama said:
In the event of an armed attack on Poland I would expect the UK to comply with its obligations under Article 5. I think it very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the Uk would actually go to war. Furthermore I would expect France and the other Western European NATO nations to take exactly the same stance. You may want to refresh your memory on what Article 5 actually says.surbiton said:
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
Article 5 does not explicitly mention the kind of aid to be given to the country under attack, like in every legal document it can have loopholes.
But this 'event' as is being speculated ... why would Russia want to invade Poland?
Still its always amusing to see the PB isolationist hysterics in full flow.
As for defending Poland - well the Poles can make a pretty good start on that for themselves. And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia. So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse. Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?0 -
I was going to say.. The largest city in the UK is the City of Carlisle.MyBurningEars said:
Dutch tourists seem to love the UK even more than Brits do, and find their way to bits of the country where the Chinese/Japanese/Indian tourist market hasn't really taken off.EPG said:
UK is a top holiday country
England for me particularly in the NW and the central bits around the Bristol-Oxford-Norwich axis (no offence to any others)
Oh and Scotland and Wales and NI
Incidentally, for a rural/urban split, here are the 30 largest (ceremonial) counties by area, and the biggest 30 cities (ok, technically Primary Urban Areas).
1 North Yorkshire / London
2 Lincolnshire / Birmingham
3 Cumbria / Manchester
4 Devon / Liverpool
5 Norfolk / Leeds
6 Northumberland / Sheffield
7 Somerset / Teesside
8 Suffolk / Bristol
9 Hampshire / Bournemouth and Poole
10 Kent / Stoke-on-Trent
11 Essex / Leicester
12 Cornwall / Wirral
13 Shropshire / Coventry
14 Wiltshire / Nottingham
15 Cambridgeshire / Bradford
16 Gloucestershire / Newcastle
17 Lancashire / Bolton
18 Durham / Brighton and Hove
19 Staffordshire / Plymouth
20 Dorset / Hull
21 Derbyshire / Preston
22 Oxfordshire / Derby
23 East Riding of Yorkshire / Aldershot and Farnborough
24 Northamptonshire / Southampton
25 Cheshire / Wigan
26 Herefordshire / Barnsley
27 Nottinghamshire / Portsmouth
28 Leicestershire / Luton
29 West Yorkshire / York
30 West Sussex / Northampton
I think it must be very rare to have explored, say, 20 of the top 30 from both lists.
PUAs 31-50 include places around the size of Milton Keynes, Southend, Ipswich, Reading, Oxford, Blackpool or Norwich, some of which are more worth a visit than places that made it into the top 30.0 -
HurstLlama said:
I hardly think so, either Mr L but given that, as you rightly say we really haven't the manpower or hardware to fight a prolonged ground war. I suppose it is arguable that Poland is "a long way from Russie" given the existence of Belarus etc but I can't see that country as much more of a "problem" for them than say Luxemburg was in WW2.OldKingCole said:
The last resort is the first response? Step forward James Hacker and the Chief Scientific advisor who won a DSO at Arnhem but spoke with an Austrian accent so was distrusted by the Civil Service.HurstLlama said:
Trident?Wanderer said:
Really, this is getting silly. If the Russians could mount an attack on Poland, which in itself is bloody unlikely, with what could we fight a war and who would and with what be joining in on our side?HurstLlama said:
In the event of the invasion of Poland it might be a case of war this week or war next week.foxinsoxuk said:
I said we would honour our obligations under the NATO treaty. What we wouldn't do is go to war. I am not sure how many times I have to say this or how many different ways I can express the same point.HurstLlama said:
I think that we would honour it. If things ever came to pass that Russian tanks were rolling west across Poland, then the international situation would be going pear shaped in a big way.surbiton said:
Expanding NATO eastwards was a bloody silly idea because it basically broke NATO (which should anyway in my view have been wound up in the early 1990s, but that is a different discussion). Furthermore, as I said earlier, Western Europe has in effect disarmed and couldn't fight a major land war even if it wanted to.
It would be like 1914 or 1939 all over again. We could not stay out, just fight either immediately or when the tanks reached Germany and clashed with the Wehrmacht. The Russians are not up to it anymore though.
Incidentally the new spy thriller Deutschland 83 is well worth catching on Channel 4. Loads of cold war nostalgia, and great soundtrack too.
The UK is out of the major land war business, we don't have the kit or the people to fight in one and we are the best equipped nation in Western Europe. NATO save for the Septics is a hollow shell.
Horrifying thought!!!!
But no, Mr. Cole I don't think so. Trident is there to do a job and that is not to protect Poland or anywhere other than the UK.0 -
Well, it invaded the Ukraine for no particularly good reason except for Putin's idea of what Russia's reach and influence should be.flightpath01 said:why would Russia want to invade Poland?...And lets face reality Poland is a long way from Russia...So its hardly likely to be some surprise invasion if for whatever reason Russia made up some excuse...Does anyone have any grasp of the logistics of what it takes to invade a country?
The logistics of invading a country are well known. They involve armed forces with the range to invade and a supply train to supply them when they do. Russia has them.
Incidentally, Poland and Kaliningrad (a Russian exclave) border each other. So the distance between Poland and Russia is exactly zero. Conversely of course, the Russian troops could just go straight thru the Ukraine.
0 -
This is real Roy Of The Rovers stuff -
Denver Broncos are playing the San Diego Chargers on the final day of the season. At stake is winning their division, number 1 seed, first round bye, and home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
After half time, Denver are behind and QB Brock Osweiler has thrown a total of 5 turnovers.
At the half the coach asks the backup QB if he can go if needed and is told Yes.
A few minutes into the 3rd quarter coach pulls the Brockweiler and the backup QB, who has been injured and hasn't played for 6 weeks, takes over. When they see him walk onto the field, the crowd goes wild and gives him a standing ovation.
He leads the team driving down the field and for 3 scores. The team wins, crowd goes wild and stands again.
So the backup QB, who everyone thought had reached the end of his career, leads his team into the playoffs looking good.
The backup QB is of course Peyton Manning.
It was emotional stuff.0 -
It is amazing how much "Yes, Minister" continues to inform our thinking, even after 30 years. Yes, I thought of that scene as well, even down to the "Piccadilly Circus" punchline.HurstLlama said:The last resort is the first response? Step forward James Hacker and the Chief Scientific advisor who won a DSO at Arnhem but spoke with an Austrian accent so was distrusted by the Civil Service.
0 -
Off topic, and a bit further away, but what are the chances of actual, as opposed to verbal, hostilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Or will there continue to be various proxy wars (e.g. Yemen)?0 -
-
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.RobD said:
For source, see www.forces.tv/525142180 -
Given the price of oil - Brent Crude closed below West Texas Intermediate one day last week - and the state of the Russian economy, how long can they keep this up at $37 a barrel?viewcode said:
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.RobD said:
For source, see www.forces.tv/52514218
As an aside, what does $37 a barrel oil do for the Scottish economy?0 -
They can do this indefinitely. Guns, tanks, bullets, troops are cheap and already paid for. Ship and aircraft are expensive, but once they're built it's sunk costs. Russia could put its entire armed forces in Kaliningrad for no cost other than the petrol it would take to drive them there.Tim_B said:Given the price of oil - Brent Crude closed below West Texas Intermediate one day last week - and the state of the Russian economy, how long can they keep this up at $37 a barrel?
0 -
But housing the troops and impedimenta, paying them, fuel and replenishment are not cheap. Admittedly the replenishment would be after the fact.viewcode said:
They can do this indefinitely. Guns, tanks, bullets, troops are cheap and already paid for. Ship and aircraft are expensive, but once they're built it's sunk costs. Russia could put its entire armed forces in Kaliningrad for no cost other than the petrol it would take to drive them there.Tim_B said:Given the price of oil - Brent Crude closed below West Texas Intermediate one day last week - and the state of the Russian economy, how long can they keep this up at $37 a barrel?
0 -
Isn't that more than we've got overall?viewcode said:
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.RobD said:
For source, see www.forces.tv/525142180 -
You can't get to Kaliningrad (except by sea) without crossing EU territory.OldKingCole said:
Isn't that more than we've got overall?viewcode said:
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.RobD said:
For source, see www.forces.tv/52514218
In theory you could blockade it.0 -
Theory is all very well ...........Tim_B said:
You can't get to Kaliningrad (except by sea) without crossing EU territory.OldKingCole said:
Isn't that more than we've got overall?viewcode said:
Apologies. As of October 2015 the Russian military presence in Kaliningrad is 56 warships, two submarines, at least 3,500 sailors, about 10,500 soldiers. As part of the rather impressive Russian upgrade of its military, this presence is expanding to include 120 Iskanders (short-range nuclear missiles), 600 aircraft, 1,100 helicopters, 100 ships and 2,300 tanks.RobD said:
For source, see www.forces.tv/52514218
In theory you could blockade it.0 -
What an oikish oafMortimer said:
Is that the new name for Chicken Kiev?malcolmg said:
Sdaly I must depart the , scallopine di pollo con erbe is nearly ready and wine needs to be poured.Alanbrooke said:
Well that's cheered me up no end, paying for yet another of Ecks screw ups.malcolmg said:
It is in the supreme court so you are paying for itAlanbrooke said:
Which presumably means the FM is having to do the same. Real value for the taxpayer.malcolmg said:
He is employing plenty for sureAlanbrooke said:
Mostly with lawyers.malcolmg said:
He seems to be doing very well at present , and spending lots of cash in Scotland.Alanbrooke said:
Funny how Eck always managed to get him self photoed with rich men of dubious sanity.malcolmg said:
Alan , it is choc a block with bridges, these east coasters are just too used to getting it easy. We hav eto swim the crossings on the west coast. The teacakes are crap anyway, and old Tunnock is half daft by the sounds of it.Alanbrooke said:
I mean teacakes malc ? It's hardly founding a nation is itmalcolmg said:
Alan, surprised you are down with the frothers and fruitcakes, both the author and Scott are not the full shillingAlanbrooke said:
Oh FFS will they ever grow up ?Scott_P said:@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
The Nats should trying a bit of bridgebuilding for a change.
Start at the Firth of Forth.
How is the Donald these days ?0 -
Afraid not pretendy Italian, it is ScallopineMonikerDiCanio said:
Scallopinamalcolmg said:
Sdaly I must depart the , scallopine di pollo con erbe is nearly ready and wine needs to be poured.Alanbrooke said:
Well that's cheered me up no end, paying for yet another of Ecks screw ups.malcolmg said:
It is in the supreme court so you are paying for itAlanbrooke said:
Which presumably means the FM is having to do the same. Real value for the taxpayer.malcolmg said:
He is employing plenty for sureAlanbrooke said:
Mostly with lawyers.malcolmg said:
He seems to be doing very well at present , and spending lots of cash in Scotland.Alanbrooke said:
Funny how Eck always managed to get him self photoed with rich men of dubious sanity.malcolmg said:
Alan , it is choc a block with bridges, these east coasters are just too used to getting it easy. We hav eto swim the crossings on the west coast. The teacakes are crap anyway, and old Tunnock is half daft by the sounds of it.Alanbrooke said:
I mean teacakes malc ? It's hardly founding a nation is itmalcolmg said:
Alan, surprised you are down with the frothers and fruitcakes, both the author and Scott are not the full shillingAlanbrooke said:
Oh FFS will they ever grow up ?Scott_P said:@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
The Nats should trying a bit of bridgebuilding for a change.
Start at the Firth of Forth.
How is the Donald these days ?
scallopine - sauteed cutlets (usually veal or poultry) that have been pounded thin and coated with flour0
This discussion has been closed.