Blah Blah

Yes he did. Half the problem is that the sands are always shifting (no pun intended) and it's hard for any party leader to navigate through that. That's why knee jerk reactions are never the right response. A lot of this also has to do with not letting Russia get a stronghold in the region as well. What frustrates me is that there are plenty of things that can be done to force the region to move towards stability. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are being allowed to do as they please, and in conflict to the wider pursuit of stability. But there is no political will to take either of those nations on. Turkey wants to become part of the EU as well - you have to be joking with the way they behave at present. I'd also like to know where a government that says welfare has to be cut by 12bn, suddenly finds 12bn to give to defence, on top of what will now be a higher bill for Trident. I think someone above did point that out, that we can find money to drop bombs, but we can't find money to keep the poorest and disabled away from destitution. That needs to be said more.

I know !

I'd add to that the conflict between those who think we must act now, and those who think we can act as it evolves. There's a clear split on action/ solutions by scientists themselves.

Yes I agree. People are more interested in reality shows than they are in the achievements of all the great scientists that have brought understanding to the world. Science has to find better and more effective ways to engage interest.

That's complete nonsense Louisa. The science isn't in dispute. The causes are where the debate is. Pumping millions of tons of greenhouse gas into our atmosphere, whilst deforesting and getting rid of things that absorb CO2 is only going to have one result. There are plenty of research papers on all aspects of climate change if you want to google and read them. As this extract from 'Ecological responses to recent climate change' says; 'There is now ample evidence of the ecological impacts of recent climate change, from polar terrestrial to tropical marine environments. The responses of both flora and fauna span an array of ecosystems and organizational hierarchies, from the species to the community levels. Despite continued uncertainty as to community and ecosystem trajectories under global change, our review exposes a coherent pattern of ecological change across systems. Although we are only at an early stage in the projected trends of global warming, ecological responses to recent climate change are already clearly visible.'

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah I bet your mum would have spelled > vaudeville correctly in the Good Old days of > proper educashon You could be right :D

They also make excellent salted fish snacks :)

'ETA: Oh and while I'm nitpicking, it's exercise, not exorcise (further up the thread)' :D Yes that's my typo. Completely changes the meaning of that sentence reading it back :D oops! I don't see how there can be suspicion around such a huge majority Uncle. Bradford as that article points out was a marginal seat. What UKIP were trying to say is that muslim and asian communities were being told who to vote for by their community leaders, as though that somehow denied them the 10,000 extra votes they needed to beat labour. We keep seeing this with UKIP. The media hype up their candidates, but when it comes to the actual elections, they fall flat. Constituencies don't want UKIP MPs. UKIP are just a bunch of cry babies.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do T.V. chefs have cameras in the backs of > their fridges. ? > They open the door and you can see them staring > at you.. > > Foxy Because the bacteria on the veg have eyes?

Yes I'd go for All Saints as they have Foodcycle there on Saturdays (today) making a free meal at 6pm. They will certainly be able to use it. www.foodcycle.org.uk/location/peckham-hub

When you have children, it starts when that advent calendar comes out.

:D

I remember my mum watching that when I was a young child. I'd love to see some vaudaville come back.

Iraq is relevant because that created this whole vacuum (the leaders of IS are former ba'ath party henchmen for Saddam Hussein) and if we don't learn the lessons of the aftermath of that one then we have no hope of fixing anything in this one, which by and large is far more widespread and complex than Iraq ever was. To dismiss that as irrelevant is naive. Bombing without ground forces will change little. That's the point. It's why Cameron stressed this notion of an army of 70,000 locals. But there is no evidence of that, let alone any evidence of a co-ordinated organisaton of that. It can also be argued that more ground troops were needed to invade Iraq (an army with one aim and an identifiable chain of command) and to think that just 70,000 rebel troops (troops engaged in other fights elsewhere between Trukey and Assad) can clear an area bigger in size is optimistic at best. None of this is easy to solve and there are valid arguments on both sides of the fence.

A good candidate and a good campaign. As much as the media likes to cry doom for the Labour Party, the only real test is election results. It should silence some of the inner party detractors for now. A free vote followed by a good election result. What do they have to complain about?

Vote breakdown shows an increase voting share for Labour, up to 65% from 55% for Meacher. LAB +7% Tories -10% UKIP +3 Libdems stay the same. So not quite the disaster that the media was suggesting might happen. Very good result for Corbyn.

Labour have won, with a sizeable (but reduced) majority of about 10,000. Turnout was 40%. UKIP candidate is moaning that Labour were advantaged by their postal votes from the asian community - typical UKIP response to cry foul because ethnic minorities exorcise their right to vote. Yet again, much media fuss about nothing, in the run up. Good result for Labour. On the point about distance and war. It's easy for leaders to give battle orders when they are only looking at a map. When Cameron orders RAF strikes, he only sees a warplane and IS fighters in his imagination. He doesn't see Raqqa for example as a town like any other, with schools, hospitals, families just tryng to get by from day to day. I'd even go further and say that it's all made easier because he doesn't see those people as being anything like us. This is why a terrorist act in Paris invokes such anger, and the murder of 153 university students by an Afican Islamic Jihadi group the day before doesn't even raise an eyebrow. We do prioritise who we fight for, and who we fight is also determined by our 'impression' of the enemy.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Almost every Labour MP with ministerial experience voted for. Yes that seems to be the case. There is an air of 'we must help out our mates' in all of this. And that we should keep the illusion of being a great super power going even if in reality we are not. I think both Cameron and Blair share this vanity. It's about the dream of being a great international statesmen over common sense sometimes. I think if we get a year down the line and little has changed (and esp if things are worse), Cameron will find himself under fire.

I think that's the conclusion the allies have come too. Deal with IS first, Assad after. Harriet Harman voted for.

There are ground forces in Iraq. There are none in ISIL held Syria. We keep hearing about the stronghold of Raqqa. Who is going to take back that city? Anyone who thinks that tirbes that hate each other can be brought together to get rid of ISIL and then live peacefully side by side in the aftermath is in cloud cuckoo land. That is precisely why Iraq and Afghanistan are in the mess that they are. It is also why, as heinous as it is, you often end up with totalitarian dictatorships in government in the region. Libya is the perfect example of what kind of aftermath could be expected. Bombing is just a first stage that could end up with something that demands a full scale western military invasion. Who in the region is going to deliver stability? From Saudi to Iran, they are all pretty awful regimes.

397 to 223. We go to war :( That's a huge majority.

Agreed Fox. They are voting now. Cameron said he wanted to win any vote by a good margin originally. Public support (which wasn't much over 40% anyway) has been dropping away too.

Agreed, and he seems unwilling to apologise.

Yes that's how I took Cameron's comment too, that anyone against bombing Syria is a terrorist sympathiser. I think it's a completely unacceptable statement from a Prime Minister.

I think there's a lot of truth in that Fox. It's not just one thing or another, but the cumulative effect of a whole process. And that's part of the problem with the debate, and why nothing seems to change very much. We tend to say well if we drive less cars (and let's remember electricity has to be made using fuel, so electric cars don't solve the problem) then we'll reduce carbon footprint, but then we ignore all the beef we consume (not me though being a vegetarian). We waste so many resources, and energy in extracting them and we are all guilty of buying into the consumerist economies that drive it. It all has to change if anything is to change, but we know it won't.