Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Jeremy Hunt betting

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited November 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Jeremy Hunt betting

Another story that hasn’t received the coverage it deserves is the problems Jeremy Hunt is having with junior doctors, but with the first junior doctors’ strike scheduled for this Tuesday, that will change.  But people like David Cameron and George Osborne are aware of how important the NHS is, a few days ago, The Spectator reported that

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,828
    First!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Second! On goal difference.
  • Hunt may have been helped by the Shapps business: to lose two looks like carelessness.
  • I'm glad I didn't get involved in the SPotY betting a couple of threads back -- two new contenders in one day.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,498

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    If they cut him off at the knees will he resort to homoeopathy?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299
    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    It really does show why Corbyn and his band of unmerry men have to go, and for us to get a sane opposition into power.

    In fact, the only two that do have it as headline are both nominally right-wing newspapers!
  • It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-bickley-ukip-candidate-for-oldham-by-election-poses-a-real-threat-to-labours-heartland-a6752266.html

    Looks like being very close, regardless of the outcome the chasm between London Labour and its traditional Northern base is there for all to see.
  • It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
  • It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    On the other hand if he wins this dispute and is responsible for a seven day service as desired by the vast majority of the public he may be a candidate for PM. You do seem to be biased and I am not sure but I think he recently required the NHS for his children at the weekend
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,470
    edited November 2015

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    This is one of those 'whatever' Westminster Bubble vs people who want more money/don't want to lose money until day 1 of the strike, when someone will die because of industrial action.

    Industrial action rarely works; but certainly not for highly paid professionals who already have little sympathy from Joe Bloggs.

    People may trust Doctors - but they, rightly, don't trust anyone when talking about their own pay.

    Not that Hunt has handled it particularly well. But the foolishness of the medical profession will get him off lightly.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-bickley-ukip-candidate-for-oldham-by-election-poses-a-real-threat-to-labours-heartland-a6752266.html

    Looks like being very close, regardless of the outcome the chasm between London Labour and its traditional Northern base is there for all to see.

    Do you still think UKIP will win more votes than they did in May?
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    ... and without having listened to a word Cameron and others said last week.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,086

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    Almost as good as the PM who can't take his party with him in a matter of War, but has to rely on opposition for support.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,470
    edited November 2015
    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    Indeed.

    What is interesting is that the NHS don't really seem to have Labour's backing on this. At least, even if they do the state of Labour is preventing any of their support from having any impact. If Cooper or Burnham (yes, even Burnham!) was leader right now, it would be gaining traction as an issue.

    Instead, the 30 or 40 Doctor friends of mine just get all enraged and excited amongst themselves. Won't make a blind bit of different to polls or actual elections.

    *Incidentally, has there been a Doctor's strike before? The generation between the boomers and the Ys wouldn't dream of striking (or so they say to me), but my fellow Ys seem to be indulging their sense of millennial 'right on' fervour and 'its my rights-ness' about it...

  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219
    OchEye said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    Almost as good as the PM who can't take his party with him in a matter of War, but has to rely on opposition for support.
    As I said before - this decision is not about party politics per se - it says a lot about you that you don't want to see it.
  • felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

  • Pong said:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-bickley-ukip-candidate-for-oldham-by-election-poses-a-real-threat-to-labours-heartland-a6752266.html

    Looks like being very close, regardless of the outcome the chasm between London Labour and its traditional Northern base is there for all to see.

    Do you still think UKIP will win more votes than they did in May?
    That article sounds like Labour are fighting apathy. If they can get the turnout up they should be OK.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    No - but all serious commentators know that in it's present form it is not sustainable. I live in Spain where the system is also under pressure but performs better - because pay levels are lower and also families are expected to assist the medical staff in looking after patients. The fact that most do is an indication of a weaker benefits culture and a stronger sense of social cohesion.
  • It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
  • It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?

    There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Sky gave the Shapps story about 3mins of coverage but set through the lens of Labour woes. Then they discussed Capol and the dangers of paracetamol.

    PB leads the way...

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
  • felix said:

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    No - but all serious commentators know that in it's present form it is not sustainable. I live in Spain where the system is also under pressure but performs better - because pay levels are lower and also families are expected to assist the medical staff in looking after patients. The fact that most do is an indication of a weaker benefits culture and a stronger sense of social cohesion.
    Spain, of course, is a Catholic country. Jung's distinction between Protestant and Catholic souls is relevant here: Protestantism, a precondition of capitalism itself, gives primacy to the individual, whilst Catholicism gives it to the family.

    You can pray for the reconversion of England, Felix, but it ain't practical politics.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,470

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?

    There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
    I think everyone knows a 'Corbyn' - the person who was wrong about x, but never admits it when even the initial proposer of x has given way. And if you don't know one; that is likely because you are one yourself....

    A bit like a poker game where there is always a mug - if you can't see the mug; it's you!
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    There was a YouGov in Times yesterday 45% supporting Drs, 37% against.
    Mortimer said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    This is one of those 'whatever' Westminster Bubble vs people who want more money/don't want to lose money until day 1 of the strike, when someone will die because of industrial action.

    Industrial action rarely works; but certainly not for highly paid professionals who already have little sympathy from Joe Bloggs.

    People may trust Doctors - but they, rightly, don't trust anyone when talking about their own pay.

    Not that Hunt has handled it particularly well. But the foolishness of the medical profession will get him off lightly.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,700
    edited November 2015

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?

    There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
    If you want it to remain above party politics, don't read the last several threads.

    Or the one on Wednesday as that nice Mr Cameron unaccountably wants the debate the day before the by-election.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    Yeah, cos private healthcare companies are never led by producer interests. They are famous for their altruism and public spiritedness.
  • It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?

    There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
    If you want it to remain above party politics, don't read the last several threads.

    Or the one on Wednesday as that nice Mr Cameron unaccountably wants the debate the day before the by-election.
    You think the government should delay the vote - while our allies are asking for our help - to spare the blushes of a dis functional Labour leadership?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,470

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
    That, of course, is how to get an extra 50-100 Labour MPs on side. Paint Corbo not only as anti bombing Syria, but anti the status quo. Can't get any more isolated than that.....

    Any Tory strategists out there listening?

  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,086
    felix said:

    OchEye said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    Almost as good as the PM who can't take his party with him in a matter of War, but has to rely on opposition for support.
    As I said before - this decision is not about party politics per se - it says a lot about you that you don't want to see it.
    In Westminster, everything is about party politics and the politics within the parties. That is what makes it so interesting, 650 odd involved in each playing their own individual games by their own rules.

    Ps: I do mean "odd", any one with any sense does not want to be personally involved. I suppose it is the variation of Bedlam where the insane were locked up to be viewed by tourists passing through. Keep the politicians in Westminster, at least we'll know where they are, and we can laugh at their antics.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219

    felix said:

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    No - but all serious commentators know that in it's present form it is not sustainable. I live in Spain where the system is also under pressure but performs better - because pay levels are lower and also families are expected to assist the medical staff in looking after patients. The fact that most do is an indication of a weaker benefits culture and a stronger sense of social cohesion.
    Spain, of course, is a Catholic country. Jung's distinction between Protestant and Catholic souls is relevant here: Protestantism, a precondition of capitalism itself, gives primacy to the individual, whilst Catholicism gives it to the family.

    You can pray for the reconversion of England, Felix, but it ain't practical politics.

    Agreed - therefore the English have to decide to pay a lot more one way or another. It is certainly ridiculous to provide free meals , eg in a hospital, and there are many other options to help control the taxpayer burden. BTW I'm not a Catholic!
  • Mortimer said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
    That, of course, is how to get an extra 50-100 Labour MPs on side. Paint Corbo not only as anti bombing Syria, but anti the status quo. Can't get any more isolated than that.....

    Any Tory strategists out there listening?

    It's also exactly what I put in his consultation. Not that I expect to be listened to...
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    Yeah, cos private healthcare companies are never led by producer interests. They are famous for their altruism and public spiritedness.
    Indeed - but you should be more honest about the status of doctors in the NHS who have always operated in a semi-detached capacity - and grown very rich in the process of so doing.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2015

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
    I would agree with that. It seems that Syria is the only country that we are not permitted to bomb.

    It would be worth discussing what we aim to achieve though. What are the objectives of bombing? Are they achievable without troops on the ground localising targets? Who are our allies and who are our enemies? Is it just IS or also other Islamist groups or even the Assad government? What does victory look like and can it last without a permanent military presence? Are we in for the long haul, with all the financial and human costs that come with it? Finally, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the IS moles and sympathisers in our own country before tackling those in another?
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?

    There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
    If you want it to remain above party politics, don't read the last several threads.

    Or the one on Wednesday as that nice Mr Cameron unaccountably wants the debate the day before the by-election.
    You think the government should delay the vote - while our allies are asking for our help - to spare the blushes of a dis functional Labour leadership?
    I suspect UKIP would be happy to delay the by-election vote for a week - could help to hoover up the thousand or so votes they need :)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    felix said:

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    Yeah, cos private healthcare companies are never led by producer interests. They are famous for their altruism and public spiritedness.
    Indeed - but you should be more honest about the status of doctors in the NHS who have always operated in a semi-detached capacity - and grown very rich in the process of so doing.
    I have never denied being an NHS doctor. If only politicians were as good at declaring their conflicts of interest:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/24/jeremy-hunt-calls-resign-bskyb
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    Pong said:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-bickley-ukip-candidate-for-oldham-by-election-poses-a-real-threat-to-labours-heartland-a6752266.html

    Looks like being very close, regardless of the outcome the chasm between London Labour and its traditional Northern base is there for all to see.

    Do you still think UKIP will win more votes than they did in May?
    That article sounds like Labour are fighting apathy. If they can get the turnout up they should be OK.
    Southern Asian tribal/religious politics aside, what is Labour offering the voters of Oldham to get them to turn out to vote on a dark December evening? Apart from the blood sport of internecine feuding that would have been worthy of the Coliseum, just what does the current Labour Party offer that competes with the Can't Be Arsed Party?
  • felix said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?

    There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
    If you want it to remain above party politics, don't read the last several threads.

    Or the one on Wednesday as that nice Mr Cameron unaccountably wants the debate the day before the by-election.
    You think the government should delay the vote - while our allies are asking for our help - to spare the blushes of a dis functional Labour leadership?
    I suspect UKIP would be happy to delay the by-election vote for a week - could help to hoover up the thousand or so votes they need :)
    I doubt it will make much odds - the Labour Asian postal votes are in......
  • felix said:

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    Yeah, cos private healthcare companies are never led by producer interests. They are famous for their altruism and public spiritedness.
    Indeed - but you should be more honest about the status of doctors in the NHS who have always operated in a semi-detached capacity - and grown very rich in the process of so doing.
    The government seems to think nurses should behave likewise.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?

    There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
    If you want it to remain above party politics, don't read the last several threads.

    Or the one on Wednesday as that nice Mr Cameron unaccountably wants the debate the day before the by-election.
    You've got some neck to suggest Cameron is playing politics over Syria after what Ed Miliband did last time they voted on it.....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,731

    felix said:

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    Yeah, cos private healthcare companies are never led by producer interests. They are famous for their altruism and public spiritedness.
    Indeed - but you should be more honest about the status of doctors in the NHS who have always operated in a semi-detached capacity - and grown very rich in the process of so doing.
    I have never denied being an NHS doctor. If only politicians were as good at declaring their conflicts of interest:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/24/jeremy-hunt-calls-resign-bskyb
    There’s a big difference between employees of the NHS, such as Dr f-i-s and GP’s, a few of whom have been able to manipulate their status as self-employed contractors to their considerable advantage.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Quidder, my view exactly. Both or neither are valid perspectives, but for us to bomb Daesh in Iraq but not Syria is just daft.

    Mr. Mark, also, that could prove a Pyrrhic victory. If Labour divides the WWC and Asian vote (for and against it, respectively) that'll put quite a few seats of theirs in danger of falling.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299

    I would agree with that. It seems that Syria is the only country that we are not permitted to bomb.

    It would be worth discussing what we aim to achieve though. What are the objectives of bombing? Are they achievable without troops on the ground localising targets? Who are our allies and who are our enemies? Is it just IS or also other Islamist groups or even the Assad government? What does victory look like and can it last without a permanent military presence? Are we in for the long haul, with all the financial and human costs that come with it? Finally, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the IS moles and sympathisers in our own country before tackling those in another?

    " Are they achievable without troops on the ground localising targets? "

    They are managing in Iraq. We *may* have special forces on the ground specifying targets or (more likely / as well) we have some UK/US/French-trained Iraqi officers designating targets and liaising, along with the usual airborne targeting.

    If you saw my post last night, it looks as though some of the fighters in Iraq are not keen on allied bombing during the final battles for cities such as Tikrit; perhaps because they have had experience of US/coalition bombing from the wrong side, perhaps because ISIS have wired entire cities with IEDs, or perhaps because house-to-house fighting makes even targeted bombing difficult. Or perhaps because they want to be seen to 'win' without US help.

    "Who are our allies and who are our enemies?"

    Currently, it looks as though it's the enemy-of-our-enemy (ISIS)-is-our-friend. I'm instinctively against this as such a policy always seems to backfire in the long term. We need to try to get as broad a coalition of groups together and signed up to a way forward. I proposed a possibility the other day which, whilst difficult and flawed, could be such a way forward. Certainly I haven't seen many other alternatives proposed on here.

    "What does victory look like and can it last without a permanent military presence?"

    The history of Iraq shows that even vast numbers of troops on the ground cannot squash Islamist insurgent groups. It has to be locals not allowing Islamists and their poison in their midst. Now that's been said, how can it be achieved? Since the Shia-Sunni split is a ripe feeding ground for ISIS, trying to reduce that pressure, giving local communities more autonomy, and liberal bribes *might* be a way forward.
  • Climate summit starts today in Paris. I hope they can make progress. It's cold, damp, windy and miserable. I want the Mediterranean climate we were promised, so hopefully we can agree to burn more coal.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,004
    edited November 2015
    Conservatives lobby Labour MPs and that is seen as fine, the Leader of the Labour Party asks the members what they think and that is not .
    Strange thing this democracy.

    Labour MPs must have a short memory, how Fallon treated Milliband in the election campaign regarding defence, he demeaned himself then as purely partisan politican in regard to defense issues.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429
    felix said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
    Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.

    The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
    I would start by strangling their economy (it is possible that bombing may help with this by destroying bridges, powerstations, government offices) by cutting off their funds from the Saudis and the Gulf states. This may need sanctions against these countries who fail to act against their own citizens.

    Internally I would act against Islamist agitators in this country. I would revoke residence permits for non-nationals at the discretion of the Home Secretary, require dual-nationals to choose a passport, and revise and refresh treason legislation so that those who advocate violence against British forces or institutions can suffer the full force of the law.
  • It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
    I would agree with that. It seems that Syria is the only country that we are not permitted to bomb.

    It would be worth discussing what we aim to achieve though. What are the objectives of bombing? Are they achievable without troops on the ground localising targets? Who are our allies and who are our enemies? Is it just IS or also other Islamist groups or even the Assad government? What does victory look like and can it last without a permanent military presence? Are we in for the long haul, with all the financial and human costs that come with it? Finally, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the IS moles and sympathisers in our own country before tackling those in another?
    I haven't yet had the chance to read Cameron's report to the select committee, so it's difficult to comment in detail - except that your last point looks like a classic false choice. Acting against Da'esh in Iraq and Syria doesn't damage our capabilities of acting against their sympathisers at home, as different agencies are involved.
  • Yorkcity said:

    Conservaives lobby Labour MPs and that is seen as fine, the Leader of the Labour Party asks the members what they think and that is not .
    Strange thing this democracy.

    Ask the Shadow Cabinet how they feel......

  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,086

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
    That is the real problem, there are too many governments already involved, each with totally differing required outcomes. Does anyone really think sending in some Typhoons and Tornadoes into an area already awash with fighter bombers, dropping expensive iron on an ever decreasing number of low value targets is sensible? And if one of the Tornadoes (already running on parts from other planes) goes down, then our special forces goes in on a rescue mission ...
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,498

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.

    Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).

    Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.

    It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles.
    They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?

    Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices.
    Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
  • felix said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
    Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.

    The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
    I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,004

    Yorkcity said:

    Conservaives lobby Labour MPs and that is seen as fine, the Leader of the Labour Party asks the members what they think and that is not .
    Strange thing this democracy.

    Ask the Shadow Cabinet how they feel......

    I see you missed any mention of my last paragraph says it all.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,731

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
    I would start by strangling their economy (it is possible that bombing may help with this by destroying bridges, powerstations, government offices) by cutting off their funds from the Saudis and the Gulf states. This may need sanctions against these countries who fail to act against their own citizens.

    Internally I would act against Islamist agitators in this country. I would revoke residence permits for non-nationals at the discretion of the Home Secretary, require dual-nationals to choose a passport, and revise and refresh treason legislation so that those who advocate violence against British forces or institutions can suffer the full force of the law.
    We are fighting two wars, one “conventional”, to try and destroy the so-called Islamic State, and one ideological where we are fighting a small sect of part of Islam. “Simply” attacking them gives credence to their claim that an unholy alliance of “crusaders” (the West plus Russia) and apostates (Shia states such as Iran) is trying to destroy the True Believers. It is therefore essential that we get on-side, and stop the flow of funds from, other Sunni states and, as Dr F says, ensure that those states take an active, and as far as possible a leading part, in any action in which we are involved.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    By-election in Oldham is going to be exciting for all us watchers this week.A few weeks, I trawled a few political sites to get the low down on vote shares. Putting together apples and oranges (gossip), it seems a Labour hold. The reds think they simply will not fall below 39% of votes. Their Postal votes are quite organised and a good ethnic voter base will get them over the line. UKIP are saying that they don't have the resources nor old gallivanting reputation like pre-GE.

    The Tories are quietly confident of a small up tick. I guess:

    Labour - 39%
    UKIP - 34%
    Tories - 14%

    Win for Labour

    However, for the major opposition party to get a swing against it in a by-election spells disaster for them.

    The only chance for UKIP is if Labour voters stay at home. Possible.

    We Tories need Corbyn to last long enough to destroy Labour. He's got at least 2 years to go, hopefully.
  • Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Conservaives lobby Labour MPs and that is seen as fine, the Leader of the Labour Party asks the members what they think and that is not .
    Strange thing this democracy.

    Ask the Shadow Cabinet how they feel......

    I see you missed any mention of my last paragraph says it all.
    I see you missed any response on current events - says it all!
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,086

    felix said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
    Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.

    The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
    I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
    And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
  • F1: final race kicks off at 1pm.

    My pre-race rambling is here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/abu-dhabi-pre-race.html

    Announcements yet to be made on Lotus-Renault and the BBC's coverage, or lack thereof, next year.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299
    edited November 2015

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
    I would start by strangling their economy (it is possible that bombing may help with this by destroying bridges, powerstations, government offices) by cutting off their funds from the Saudis and the Gulf states. This may need sanctions against these countries who fail to act against their own citizens.

    Internally I would act against Islamist agitators in this country. I would revoke residence permits for non-nationals at the discretion of the Home Secretary, require dual-nationals to choose a passport, and revise and refresh treason legislation so that those who advocate violence against British forces or institutions can suffer the full force of the law.
    We are fighting two wars, one “conventional”, to try and destroy the so-called Islamic State, and one ideological where we are fighting a small sect of part of Islam. “Simply” attacking them gives credence to their claim that an unholy alliance of “crusaders” (the West plus Russia) and apostates (Shia states such as Iran) is trying to destroy the True Believers. It is therefore essential that we get on-side, and stop the flow of funds from, other Sunni states and, as Dr F says, ensure that those states take an active, and as far as possible a leading part, in any action in which we are involved.
    Apparently ISIS refer to Iran and its fighters as 'Crusaders'. It is really a Sunni versus Shia battle, with the 'wrong' sort of Sunnis (i.e. ones who do not buy into ISIS) being apostates, and almost everyone else fighting them 'Crusaders'.
  • Climate summit starts today in Paris. I hope they can make progress. It's cold, damp, windy and miserable. I want the Mediterranean climate we were promised, so hopefully we can agree to burn more coal.

    Hear, hear! – We were promised a south coast hotter than the Riviera – and free owls…


    Life is full of disappointments.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299
    OchEye said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
    That is the real problem, there are too many governments already involved, each with totally differing required outcomes. Does anyone really think sending in some Typhoons and Tornadoes into an area already awash with fighter bombers, dropping expensive iron on an ever decreasing number of low value targets is sensible? And if one of the Tornadoes (already running on parts from other planes) goes down, then our special forces goes in on a rescue mission ...
    Another person belittling our armed forces to back up their political point, I see.

    As for our capabilities: the French (and I believe the US) have said that we have capabilities they cannot fully reproduce and which would be useful. If you believe that, then your argument somewhat falls on fallow ground.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Toms said:

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.



    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.

    It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles.
    They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?

    Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices.
    Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
    Of course diluting the homeopathy budget would vastly expand its efficacy!

    The governments "seven day NHS" plans are very ambiguous. They constantly muddle up emergency services and elective services. Every doctor that I know wants to improve the former, but the latter is quite a different beast.

    Politicians (and voters) are also very ambiguous about what is nessecary to deliver high quality 7 day emergency services. For example in order to run and staff seven day stroke services with instant access to MRI imaging and interventional radiology these services need to be organised on the basis of populations of well over a million. The same goes for many similar services, but means the closure or downgrading to minor injury units of many smaller casualty units. Try suggesting to the people of Northampton or Kettering that their hospitals should no longer take acute admissions and that their ambulances should go to Oxford or Leicester. That is before you get into geographical places like Cornwall or Isle of Wight, where arguably the right level of services are just not possible. 7 day services of nationally high quality have a lot of implications, including hospital closures and consolidation.

  • Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?
  • OchEye said:

    felix said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
    Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.

    The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
    I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
    And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
    I guess you'd have argued that the carnage of 1914 was a good reason to do nothing in 1939?
  • Mr. StClare, aye, but, to be fair, Labour didn't win the election and the evil Tories didn't have a free owl pledge in their manifesto.

    Mr. Foxinsox, the emergency/elective bit sounds almost akin to the deficit/debt confusion (sometimes deliberate, sometimes due to the usage of obsolete intellectual equipment).

    One agrees entirely on the mythical nonsense of homeopathy. It's not just unproven, it's actively unscientific.
  • Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?

    Because Da'esh don't stop at the border.
  • OchEye said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
    That is the real problem, there are too many governments already involved, each with totally differing required outcomes. Does anyone really think sending in some Typhoons and Tornadoes into an area already awash with fighter bombers, dropping expensive iron on an ever decreasing number of low value targets is sensible? And if one of the Tornadoes (already running on parts from other planes) goes down, then our special forces goes in on a rescue mission ...
    Another person belittling our armed forces to back up their political point, I see.

    As for our capabilities: the French (and I believe the US) have said that we have capabilities they cannot fully reproduce and which would be useful. If you believe that, then your argument somewhat falls on fallow ground.
    Genuine question -- is the proposal that new aircraft be sent to Syria, or merely the diversion of those currently fighting ISIL in Iraq?
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,498
    edited November 2015

    Toms said:

    felix said:

    It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.

    Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.



    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825

    Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
    The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.

    Or have I missed something?

    Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.

    It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles.
    They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?

    Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices.
    Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
    Of course diluting the homeopathy budget would vastly expand its efficacy!

    The governments "seven day NHS" plans are very ambiguous. They constantly muddle up emergency services and elective services. Every doctor that I know wants to improve the former, but the latter is quite a different beast.

    Politicians (and voters) are also very ambiguous about what is nessecary to deliver high quality 7 day emergency services. For example in order to run and staff seven day stroke services with instant access to MRI imaging and interventional radiology these services need to be organised on the basis of populations of well over a million. The same goes for many similar services, but means the closure or downgrading to minor injury units of many smaller casualty units. Try suggesting to the people of Northampton or Kettering that their hospitals should no longer take acute admissions and that their ambulances should go to Oxford or Leicester. That is before you get into geographical places like Cornwall or Isle of Wight, where arguably the right level of services are just not possible. 7 day services of nationally high quality have a lot of implications, including hospital closures and consolidation.

    Interesting. I wonder if public ignorance might be part of the problem. It's noteworthy that the public apparently puts trust in doctors' honesty. Anecdotally speaking I haven't come across even one article that goes into this complicated issue. But I do, and have, known several docs at close range, and respect their culture.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299

    Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?

    I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299

    OchEye said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
    That is the real problem, there are too many governments already involved, each with totally differing required outcomes. Does anyone really think sending in some Typhoons and Tornadoes into an area already awash with fighter bombers, dropping expensive iron on an ever decreasing number of low value targets is sensible? And if one of the Tornadoes (already running on parts from other planes) goes down, then our special forces goes in on a rescue mission ...
    Another person belittling our armed forces to back up their political point, I see.

    As for our capabilities: the French (and I believe the US) have said that we have capabilities they cannot fully reproduce and which would be useful. If you believe that, then your argument somewhat falls on fallow ground.
    Genuine question -- is the proposal that new aircraft be sent to Syria, or merely the diversion of those currently fighting ISIL in Iraq?
    Genuine answer: Maybe. maybe not. A few / no extra planes might be needed depending on how we're using the ones we've got. If we're essentially performing many dozens of missions a day, then yes, more will be needed. If we're performing a few targeted strikes, and with AAR support the planes we have can probably fill in, depending on how time-critical missions are.

    But IANAE. And if I was, I probably would not be able to answer you ...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?

    I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
    The other factor is that our planes are based in Cyprus. It takes several hours and refuelling to attack a target in Iraq. Mobile targets have often moved by that point. We would be more effective bombing Syria than Iraq, crowded airspace permitting!
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I know homeopathy is total nonsense, and bristle at the very notion of it being offered on the NHS as that bestows some legitimacy to it - however, I know placebos can be highly effective - even when the patient knows about it in advance.

    So - I'd be happy for the placebo effect to be used whenever it could *work*. There was a totally fascinating BBC4 prog about this a while ago - if it airs again, well worth watching - twice.

    EDIT - here it is Power of the Placebo http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1moo91_horizon-2013-2014-8-the-power-of-the-placebo_lifestyle

    Mr. StClare, aye, but, to be fair, Labour didn't win the election and the evil Tories didn't have a free owl pledge in their manifesto.

    Mr. Foxinsox, the emergency/elective bit sounds almost akin to the deficit/debt confusion (sometimes deliberate, sometimes due to the usage of obsolete intellectual equipment).

    One agrees entirely on the mythical nonsense of homeopathy. It's not just unproven, it's actively unscientific.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,429
    A sure :;) sign of falling school standards.. the guy/gal who wrote the Syria headline needs a month of detention.


    https://www.politicshome.com/
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,086

    OchEye said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
    That is the real problem, there are too many governments already involved, each with totally differing required outcomes. Does anyone really think sending in some Typhoons and Tornadoes into an area already awash with fighter bombers, dropping expensive iron on an ever decreasing number of low value targets is sensible? And if one of the Tornadoes (already running on parts from other planes) goes down, then our special forces goes in on a rescue mission ...
    Another person belittling our armed forces to back up their political point, I see.

    As for our capabilities: the French (and I believe the US) have said that we have capabilities they cannot fully reproduce and which would be useful. If you believe that, then your argument somewhat falls on fallow ground.
    Unfortunately, I am not denigrating our military. They will receive their orders, they will plan according to the resources available, and on confirmation from the politicians, will commit to action to achieve the required outcomes.

    My problem is that I do not believe that the politicians know what the best outcome is. Doing something because everyone else is, is not the cleverest way to proceed. Some times, just saying No is the best idea.

    There are many alternatives that supposedly have been considered, but some how, sending in planes is sexier for the media, and please don't tell me that politicians don't like sexy headlines.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299

    Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?

    I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
    The other factor is that our planes are based in Cyprus. It takes several hours and refuelling to attack a target in Iraq. Mobile targets have often moved by that point. We would be more effective bombing Syria than Iraq, crowded airspace permitting!
    It would be interesting to know how much loiter time the manned aircraft have over Iraq at the moment. The unmanned combat platforms should have much greater loiter times.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Best we do nowt about owt...safer that way...until the next plane,train,bus,disintegrates...along with all the passengers...then we can all have a hand wringing fest....
  • @britainelects: The monthly averages of Westminster voting intentions throughout the year.
    [Table] https://t.co/6Scnj4ulIj

    The Corbyn honeymoon discernible in September and October seems to have ended.
  • Miss Plato, my issue with that is that the NHS necessarily has more to do than it can ever afford, and spending money on magic beans when that money could be funding scientifically proven treatment is not something I can support, despite the placebo effect.
  • OchEye said:

    felix said:

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....

    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
    Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.

    The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
    I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
    And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
    The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya worked out fine. it was the post-war plans in each case that were deeply deficient. I'm far from convinced that that's not the case now in Syria.

    On the other hand, while Iraq was a stupid war from any number of angles, the idea that we (and, presumably the US and others) shouldn't have become involved in Afghanistan is silly: Al Qaida, ISIL and their ilk would have viewed such a decision as an expression of weakness and an invitation to strike more and strike harder. For all that Afghanistan is far from ideal now, Al Qaida no longer pose a threat.

    But they, like ISIL now, thrive in failed states. You are completely right to imply that not resolving those failed states cannot produce a permanent solution to the threat from Islamist terrorism. Where I disagree is in the inference that because we've not done that in the past, we shouldn't even get involved at all now. On the contrary: what's needed is a twin-track approach, not a zero-track one.
  • Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?

    I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
    I didn't see it, apologies. It would be interesting to explore what those are if you have time.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,086

    Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?

    I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
    Storm Shadow, 900 of them according to Wikipedia
  • OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.


    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
    That is the real problem, there are too many governments already involved, each with totally differing required outcomes. Does anyone really think sending in some Typhoons and Tornadoes into an area already awash with fighter bombers, dropping expensive iron on an ever decreasing number of low value targets is sensible? And if one of the Tornadoes (already running on parts from other planes) goes down, then our special forces goes in on a rescue mission ...
    Another person belittling our armed forces to back up their political point, I see.

    As for our capabilities: the French (and I believe the US) have said that we have capabilities they cannot fully reproduce and which would be useful. If you believe that, then your argument somewhat falls on fallow ground.
    Unfortunately, I am not denigrating our military. They will receive their orders, they will plan according to the resources available, and on confirmation from the politicians, will commit to action to achieve the required outcomes.

    My problem is that I do not believe that the politicians know what the best outcome is. Doing something because everyone else is, is not the cleverest way to proceed. Some times, just saying No is the best idea.

    There are many alternatives that supposedly have been considered, but some how, sending in planes is sexier for the media, and please don't tell me that politicians don't like sexy headlines.
    Your so called argument is empty. It has no foundation and is just speculation. 'sometimes'. Yes can be right.
    The reason for this is in the PMs statement and was set out by the security services to the shadow cabinet. I
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,182

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
    Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.

    A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.

    That may be so although I demur from your analysis.

    However to my mind another significant issue must also be factored in. Terrorists need to be aware that murdering British citizens is not a risk free option and that the UK has the will and ability to strike back in full measure.

    The alternative is that we sit back and accept the very significant human, economic and political damage to our nation and allow the cancer to spread and weaken us further.

    No liberal democracy can allow that disease to take hold.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299
    OchEye said:

    Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?

    I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
    Storm Shadow, 900 of them according to Wikipedia
    Brimstone and Raptor as well.

    http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/raptor.cfm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

    As and aside, I read somewhere (non-authoritative source) that RAPTOR is a reason we're keeping the Tornado in service: it is so useful, and no other planes can use it.

    In addition, extra aar and reconnaissance assets.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,149
    OchEye said:

    It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.

    In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
    Almost as good as the PM who can't take his party with him in a matter of War, but has to rely on opposition for support.
    I would be very disappointed in any MP who voted on a decision to go to war based on party political considerations
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,086
    edited November 2015



    So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable .
    That is the real problem, there are too many governments already involved, each with totally differing required outcomes. Does anyone really think sending in some Typhoons and Tornadoes into an area already awash with fighter bombers, dropping expensive iron on an ever decreasing number of low value targets is sensible? And if one of the Tornadoes (already running on parts from other planes) goes down, then our special forces goes in on a rescue mission ...

    Another person belittling our armed forces to back up their political point, I see.

    As for our capabilities: the French (and I believe the US) have said that we have capabilities they cannot fully reproduce and which would be useful. If you believe that, then your argument somewhat falls on fallow ground.

    Unfortunately, I am not denigrating our military. They will receive their orders, they will plan according to the resources available, and on confirmation from the politicians, will commit to action to achieve the required outcomes.

    My problem is that I do not believe that the politicians know what the best outcome is. Doing something because everyone else is, is not the cleverest way to proceed. Some times, just saying No is the best idea.

    There are many alternatives that supposedly have been considered, but some how, sending in planes is sexier for the media, and please don't tell me that politicians don't like sexy headlines.

    Your so called argument is empty. It has no foundation and is just speculation. 'sometimes'. Yes can be right.
    The reason for this is in the PMs statement and was set out by the security services to the shadow cabinet. I

    Er! You actually believe that our security services are infallible? I'm sure Blair believed that as well before committing our military into Iraq. Our security services are also political and know what their politician masters want if they want continued funding and reasons for their continued existence.

    As it stands, I would suggest that Israeli intellence is fully active in Syria. Unfortunately, the present Israeli government is not above manipulating or massaging information to benefit their own objectives.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    OchEye..That would be Blair then
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Jeremy Corbyn: "I wouldn't describe myself as a pacifist." #marr
  • On topic, I'd prefer to back the 2/7 than the 5/2. David Cameron has changed his cabinet minimally since becoming Prime Minister and shows loyalty to friends (he stuck by Jeremy Corbyn over the row about Sky, so we can infer that he's a friend). Michael Gove was moved as a prelude to the general election and one isn't due for years yet.

    The risk is that a home might need to be found for Boris Johnson after May. As part of a wider reshuffle for that purpose Jeremy Hunt might be moved.

    So, no bet.
  • Jez on Marr looking quite smart and dapper.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @ShippersUnbound: MPs and shadow cabinet will "have to listen" to party members says Corbyn. Mob rule now governs one of our great governing parties
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645

    Climate summit starts today in Paris. I hope they can make progress. It's cold, damp, windy and miserable. I want the Mediterranean climate we were promised, so hopefully we can agree to burn more coal.

    Climate change may increase global warming a few degrees but melting polar icecaps could reduce the impact of the gulfstream which could even make it colder in winter as well as leading to yet more flooding and rising sea levels and storms
  • Scott_P said:

    @ShippersUnbound: MPs and shadow cabinet will "have to listen" to party members says Corbyn. Mob rule now governs one of our great governing parties

    Presumably the phrase to employ will therefore be "I hear what you say ..."
This discussion has been closed.