What a difference a day made

Oops! - Fiasco of the day.

What a joke.

Opens mouth first and threatens war - thinks, listens to experienced people and backs down.

Anyone would think we were being ruled over by a silly public school boy with zero experience of the real world let alone being in government.

It's a great time to laugh at the tories.

Is there really a tendency for UK to "sort it all out"? Ultimately, it is the people protesting out there in Libya who are trying to make a difference.

Nick, you seem to imply a certain degree of backpeddling taking place in the PM's stance.

I fail to see where you get this. He said military force will not be ruled out the other day, and yesterday his aides didn't rule out military force.

I fail to see where the conflict is. I think "not ruling something out" is quite a clear, unambiguous statement. It doesn't mean the action in question is your Plan A; it means you're going to wait and see how the climate changes.

Of course, if journalists like you didn't obfuscate on the idea of "not ruling it out" by entitling blogs "Cameron's First War?", perhaps you wouldn't struggle so much with the concept. I struggle to find a better answer, in the midst of a volatile situation, than refusing to rule anything out.

Not sure what your problem with it is.

What happened to Cameron's Communications Director - was he skiing with the hapless Clegg? Is it suggested that the media misunderstood our Dave and his message was much more subtle - what a shock. The media is fairly predictable and if Cameron merely suggests or hints at an intervention what do people think will be their response.

This is yet another example where we have a government that is not accident prone but congenitally accident infected.

Too right what a difference a day makes.

Seems I was right yesterday, the left is desperate for the coalition and especially the tories to have it's own 'Iraq' so they can duck the blame for their own personal fiasco.

Not so fast, boys.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown may have felt at ease glad handing with tin pot dictators like Gadaffi and preaching the gospel of 'regime change' and 'liberal interventionism' but that school is as outdated as the social democratic consensus that brought us bankrupt state finances, broken education systems and bloated welfare services.

It's quite incredible that the left turned out to be more blood thirsty than the right when in government. Tony Blair has more blood on his hands than any peacetime prime minister in history. But then again, is it such a surprise after what Stalin, Pol Pot and their ilk brought upon their fellow countrymen in the name of social equality?

It's a great time to be a tory...

Sabre rattling? Cameron is about to lay down our national sabre. He's playing a dangerous game and to be honest, his oratory is beginning to show lack of consistency and frankly, school boy exuberance. I am now more concerned about Cameron than ever. I am also questioning why I voted for him, as will many traditional Tory voters at this time. The idea that you can try to act big on the world stage, whilst all the time slashing your armed forces and signing redundancy notices to those on the front line. Cuts to our armed forces before cuts to Europe? The spending priorities are all wrong. This is not what I voted for.

DP

Well, what did you vote for DP? What exactly did you vote for?

Well, I suppose thats what you get, considering the way the lobby works these days at Westminster, isnt it? You yourself, Nick admit "my provocatively-titled blog post"; What is it about you lobby guys trying to out-sensationalise each other? A ratings war between the dead tree press and the 24 hour news channels? When you've all essentially got the same sources anyway?

"On Tuesday Downing Street stressed that, far from military action, all that was being talked about was contingency planning for a military no-fly zone IF there was a humanitarian disaster in Libya and IF our allies agrees."

This is obviously what should have been stressed in the beginning. And, curiously enough, considering you journalists are meant to be intelligent, you would have thought that before scurrying off to submit your copy that maybe, just maybe, you'd have asked these types of clarification questions before you rushed off to out-sensationalise each other.

"So, what changed? Cameron's aides say very little. They blame a mixture of journalistic hype and their own failure to brief more carefully for stories which, they say, failed to reflect the prime minister's own words of caution about the potential difficulties of a no-fly zone."

Newbie Government Spin Doctor In Poor Briefing Shocker. Hold the front page.... What the hell is the story here? Libya and its unfolding insurrection or the blasted British press lobby?

"However, there is no doubt the prime minister was sabre rattling. There is also no doubt that that caused real concern in parts of the cabinet, anger in parts of the military, diplomatic fears that Colonel Gaddafi could use talk of military action to rally his country against the countries that bombed Tripoli in 1986 and warnings from the US defence secretary about the dangers of using the military in "another country in the Middle East".

Precisely the points a number of us made yesterday. You would have thought that (if it is to be believed) if Cameron has taken a more active personal interest in running with this, that the likes of the MOD, FCO, etc would have been told that this is the way it is going to be, this is the government line and that is that. These government departments are not meant to function independently of each other, certainly not in cases like this. They are not the personal fiefdoms of the incumbent ministers. As such, MOD & FCO at least should have been singing from the same hymnsheet. DC, consequently shouldnt be briefing anybody on what is going to happen until there is agreement across the departments leading any action, certainly at Ministerial level. Strictly speaking, the Chief Of The Defence Staff should be represented at Cabinet level to be able to brief Cabinet directly as to what the options are, straight from the horses mouth. However, this hasnt been the case for quite some considerable time, probably pre-1979.

You're saying he risked sounding Blair like. He paints himself as the heir to Blair. It might be a pertinent question to ask "well, what the hell else did you expect?" So far as Major was concerned, lets not forget that the NFZ's in Iraq following Gulf War 1 had a UN mandate, if I recall correctly. So far as Bosnia was concerned, that initially was also a UN operation, but only succeeded in showing the UN's shortcomings; it took NATO action, (instead of the UN) and Clinton's efforts at Dayton to finally bring that to a conclusion. The UN is fine enough at mandating something and giving a "moral" political authority for action, but it is not capable of running an operation. It is a political body, not a military organisation. Hence, aberrations like Srebrenica and what happened in Southern Lebanon a few years ago. Rwanda on the other hand was a French problem and I'm afraid as much as they may deny it, the French were up to their necks in that. Not to mention that at the time, again if I recall correctly, wasnt there quite a political atmosphere of "the old colonial powers have intervened in Africa too often and shouldnt get involved"?? Wasnt the African Union expected to take more of a lead?

There are key differences in these conflicts. The current north African situation is being brought about through internal uprisings against repressive regimes where the peoples are demanding change. There is no outward religious, tribal or racial element to their demands for change, viz the Iranian revolution in 79. Nor is there a suppressed mutual antipathy or hatred towards those who they must live alongside as was the case in Rwanda, Bosnia and to a degree Iraq. And, if I recall correctly, so far as the likes of Libya, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, the UAE etc are concerned, these uprisings do not have their roots in abitrary lines drawn on a map following previous World Wars between the old colonial powers.

I've said it before and no doubt I'm going to have to say it again and again and again.

Just sticking to the facts instead of wandering off into idle personal agenda-driven speculation about who may or may not feel one way about or the other about something or nothing, would help a great deal. That would allow the public to make their own minds up.

And that applies as much to the dead tree press as it does to the Broadcasters and the bloggers. Quite simple really.

Reply to DHWilko from previous blog:

The F35B was originally ordered, approx 130 of them. This programme has been seriously delayed and has suffered high cost over-runs in the US, and the British Government's decision was to cancel the order for 130 F35B's and replace it with approx 60-70 F35C's which were originally designed, as you say for US Navy CATOBAR operations.

The UK carrier design spec allows the physical space necessary in the infrastructure to be able to add a CATOBAR system to these vessels, which will, it is thought, be an emergent design using electromagnets as against the old traditional steam driven catapults. This allows greater interoperability with other partner nations such as the US, France and others, who do not use STOVL/VTOL technology across the wider parts of their carrier fleets. FWIW, thats the decision we should have taken in the first place, but arguably, better value for money for the British would have been the purchase of the F18 Super Hornet, which is proven, fully supported and available now at a significantly lower price than the F35 and would still provide full interoperability with the US & other NATO and partner nations.

Whether a nation that is engineering its forces either financially or strategically towards defence of the homeland/EU operations really needs a 5th generation/stealth multirole aicraft, given the current and emergent threats it is likely to face is highly debatable. This is what the Australians chose and there are significant enough parallels between the stances of the two nations for the decision to have worked in the UK's favour as well. The only difference is that the British defence industry would not have got the kickbacks and additional industrial/jobs benefits that being involved in the F35 programme is supposed to be bringing, because you'd be buying an off the shelf US product, as against being involved from the ground floor upwards on an emergent programme. Another case of the military/industrial complex not necessarily acting in the interests of the poor saps who have to use the kit, but definitely in the interests of the politicos and the lobbyists.

#5 you forgot Mao and Mugagbee

Social Equality seems to be a cover for glensing the population of
people that do not fit their views.

Oh dear I here Sagamix people knocking at the door to take me to a gholag.

Why don't we just step back and let other people sort it out for a change? Our colonial interventionism is getting a little boring, and not a little expensive. Let the Italians take the lead.

rockRobin7 @ 5

Tony Blair has more blood on his hands than any peacetime prime minister in history. But then again, is it such a surprise after what Stalin, Pol Pot and their ilk brought upon their fellow countrymen in the name of social equality?

>>

I remember well the stirring speech in Parliament near the end of 2002, prior to the invasion of Iraq:

"Those who refuse to contemplate military action at any price must ask themselves how are we to force Saddam to comply with UN resolutions that he has flouted for a decade? They must also ask themselves why only now, under threat of military intervention, has he talked about letting the UN inspectors back. History is littered with the desire of decent people to give the likes of Saddam Hussein a second chance. He has had ten years of second chances. Now surely is the time to act."

That was Iain Duncan Smith, Conservative leader.

Look out, Robin! Moral high ground caving in!

It is surely a good idea to look at possibilities of no fly zones and other activist strategies given that no-one knows what may happen in Libya over coming weeks. David did go a bit over the top with his statement to parliament. That was in large part driven by a desire to put the previous week of bumbling and fumbling behind him.

I did not vote for Cameron but I admit he has not done a bad job as PM. There are, however, a number of things that worry me about this government:

1. They are trying to do too much too quickly. Not only are they cutting public spending but they are endeavouring to introduce generational reform in health, education, social security etc. etc.

2. Their ambitious agenda would be a challenge for an experienced and united team. This team is incredibly inexperienced and is drawn from a very narrow social group. To survive the government needs to juggle at least 3 factions - Lib Dems, the Cameroons and the old style right wing Tories.

3. Maybe the economy will turn around quickly and I hope it does. My fear is that we are in for a long period of slow growth, high unemployment and falling living standards within the bottom 80% of society. Meanwhile those at the top will continue to do well and our big UK companies will continue to structure their affairs to pay the minimum amount of tax. Not a good basis for a happy and united society.

4. We still do not appear to have any defined strategy for restructuring/rebalancing the economy and for creating economic growth.

In short I do not believe this a bad government but I do think they are massively over estimating what it is that they can achieve in the real world. They remind me of a bunch of public school boys given a class challenge - they look good for a bit but then it all falls apart at an ever increasing speed as their limitations and inexperience are revealed.

That said you could hardly say Labour is ready to return to office. Seems to me Miliband and Balls want to have an each way bet.

They want to recast Labour in a new image for a new time. Hence you get all this talk about learning lessons from the past, the death of new Labour and the "blank piece of paper" policy review.

At the same time Miliband and Balls know Labour did not get wiped out at the last election and remain within striking for the next election. As a result we are getting some pretty stock standard pragmatic politics - attack the least popular aspects of the cuts without setting out the detail of an alternative strategy, employ and News International journo as your spin doctor and suck up to Murdoch, use Chukka as your populist bank basher so you can pick up some credibility in the right circles without actually committing yourself etc. etc.

It is actually quite a depressing picture.

11. At 09:49am on 02 Mar 2011, RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:

"Why don't we just step back and let other people sort it out for a change?"

Yes, let's stand back whilst people get massacred. Let those oppressed people bring knives to a gun fight.

Here's why, in my opinion: it's immoral to let people die for the "virtue" of not being involved. Have the testicular fortitude to make a moral judgement, stand by it, and follow it through.

Good, the chest beating is over till the next time. Maybe he wanted to look hard yesterday. If so, did it work? Did he look quite tough? Or did he more come over as very excitable? And if the latter, how can he make sure it doesn’t keep happening? Strategies for staying calm are required. This is where ‘hinterland’ is so important, where it really comes into its own. Is there something in his recent past which he can draw on? An incident at school, for example, that he recalls he handled particularly well. Perhaps his triumphant debut at the tuck shop - the first purchase going without a hitch. Or something of that nature, doesn't matter exactly what, the point is he needs to leverage it.

#9 they should have had a naval EFA from the start, it was designed with an arresttor hook in the first place. ALmost took a job on the design in that area , but did different parts instead.

We need to be independant of the USA for many reasons. We have to have our own base of talent as more often than not its our brains that win over the USA pots of money.

Harriers would have done a very good job and should have been continially improved.

We should have worked more closely with countries like the Aussies
Just like with TSR2 until the USA did things with the F1-11 and look what happened their.

USA is not always our best friend consider Suez 1956 and Aramco in Suadia Arabia.

#11 they did with mussolini before WW2 and look at the mess they created then.

#12 he was talking about doing it for the right reason not producing a phoney document to back action up, which is why people question the lefts going to war in iraq.

pdavies...

So I was right.. the left are desperate to duck responsibility for their own personal fiasco.

Attempting to blame Iain Duncan Smith for Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq is weak, even by your standards.

Whatever next? Shirley Williams wasn't to blame for the fiasco of comprehensive education?

Gordon Brown wasn't to blame for the fiasco of PFI contracts with 17% returns?

One the you can't fault the left for - buck passing.

It's a great time to be a tory...

13#

Fair summary Cass, although I think Chukka is going to have his work seriously cut out before he stumbles on credibility, let alone gravitas...

No5 RockingRobin,
'The social democratic consensus' I am sure that the B-movie star and the Grantham spam hoarder along with their academic gurus will be delighted that their 30 year crusade has led to the outcome you describe.
Don't be so ridiculous.

"It's quite incredible that the left turned out to be more blood thirsty than the right" - rr7 @ 5

Because the right are notoriously violent and brutal, you mean?

Anyway, whatever, not why I'm writing to you. Why I'm writing is to point out that you talking about the failed 'social democratic consensus' in the immediate aftermath of the biggest failure of unfettered capitalism in living memory is, as regards the Absurdity Stakes, eight lengths clear and cruising with just half a furlong to go. No such thing as a racing certainty - I've found that to my cost once or twice - but I don't expect it to be beaten.

You're blaming what you don't like, Robin, rather than the clear culprit.

Nick asks "So, what changed?"

I posit the answer is nothing, unless we have access to some way other than the use of military assets to enforce a 'no fly zone'; hypnosis perhaps?

Nick, don't confuse the frantic rush for copy and circulation by the MSM with Government. An ungenerous person could infer you're just a big old gossip and not a serious political editor.

As for NATO and the UN, be prepared for a rerun of previous similar events. The hands of our International leaders will be red raw from a sustained period of "wringing".

And as for the 'lefties' on this site, be prepared for collective amnesia. You will not see a single reference from them to NuLab's dealings with Muammar al-Gaddafi.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Only fools want war. Only the naive and stupid suck up to the likes of Gaddafi. That sums up the two recent New Labour Prime Ministers.

Cameron's problem is that he remains by instinct a PR man which means he finds thinking things through rather challenging. The Libya business is truly awful but, as we found out last week, there are those jingoes in the media and the population at large who like the idea of sending gunboats to sunnier climes in order to be unpleasant to the natives. Then they go onto complain that people in other countries don't like us.

The way to manage this sort of affair is to stand back and endeavour to influence the outcome in subtle ways. The only people who can liberate the Libyan people are the Libyan people. This is what has been wrong with our interventions into Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan: gnerally speaking people don't like foreigners interfering in affairs they consider their own. If you are not sure about this then go and speak to anyone in the High Street nearest to you.

Cassandra @13:

"It is actually quite a depressing picture."

Well yes, but you expressed it ever so well. Anyway, I think if we start to see some good news coming out of the economy soon, peoples' feelings may well change. The problem is what is meant by "soon". Unfortunately, quarters are probably the best measures of things in economics, and we'll have to wait with baited breath for the Q1 results for another couple of months until they've been released and adjusted (what is it, two adjustments now I think?).

We'll see how things are then. Apart from that, yes Labour's not ready and the coalition is probably taking on a little too much. Might as well get it our of the way early though.

Whatever is said, I'm not content standing by while Gaddafi uses brutality purely to keep hold of power. We may well have supported him in the past in a variety of ways, right or wrong. However, it's about time we dealt with the present and stood up for those people who will be subjected to violence in a nation we have had considerable dealings with.

Cameron would like to be seen as a new Blair, taking a lead on the world stage. However,unlike Blair, he is a 'hothead', making ill-considered suggestions that no-one will support. He would do well to take his lead from the more measured responses of the heads of government in Europe. Sabre-rattling rarely works against dictators, but can make the rattler look very foolish. Blair was a very popular figure around the world - Cameron isn't. Major? Nice chap with glasses, as I remember him.

16#

Not sure it would have worked. The EFA sits very nose high, which is an angle you dont really want when you're trying to slam the thing into the deck of a carrier trying to recover from flying the thing around. Take a look at the underside of the Typhoon; the whole central/underside would need to be redesigned and strengthened to cope with carrier landings. First bounce on deck and you'd lose half the tail, the main gear doors, any payload you've brought back and not used - weapons, drop tanks, etc. Compared to that, the design of the Rafale and the F18 has from the beginning incorporated a carrier/strike requirement. As I said in a post yesterday, India are looking at it, but in all honesty, arent likely to pursue it, particularly if the russians offer them a favourable deal on the Naval version of the Flanker. I know which I'd take, given the choice...

Foot in Mouth disease rearing it's head again.. whatever happened to quiet diplomacy?

'Provocative', Nick? Ooh You Are Awful...



Morning jon, here's an article that may interest you.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/02/mps-britain-policy-afghanistan

Although I suspect you'd agree with Willie Haig's comment in the last para.

IR35 @ 18
But Tory support for the war did not stem from that dossier - IDS's speech which I quoted above makes that clear.

I'm not sure what it is about politicians but they do have a tendency to speak and act before they think.

They never seem to think through the consequences of their plans and are often found wanting when unexpected negative side-effects are discovered that most ordinary people would have spotted in a flash.

I do feel that much of his behaviour is based on his intention to portray an image of himself as a decisive man of action. Unfortunately the ideas and plans on which this behaviour is based are not well thought out and as a result he is portrayed more as disorganised and indecisive.

That's not a good image to have when you are the Prime Minister.

I think before he sets out to interfere in the politics of other countries he not only has to successfully address the issues and problems in our own country but also needs an clear awareness of the situation in that country and of the realistic help options available to him.

Failing to do this means that he might actually make the situation worse.

12. pdavies65 wrote:

'Look out, Robin! Moral high ground caving in!'

At last pd, some recognition that Blair, IDS and your good self (and unwittingly, rR) have taken the moral low ground. :)

6 DP

I am also questioning why I voted for him, as will many traditional Tory voters at this time. The idea that you can try to act big on the world stage, whilst all the time slashing your armed forces and signing redundancy notices to those on the front line.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I tend to agree.

The Armed Forces must be given the resources that they require to do the job that is asked of them. Either the ambitions and rhetoric have to be scaled back or the funding has to increase.

Recent events in North Africa offer an opportunity for the Government to reopen the Defence Review and conduct it in a proper strategic manner.

Robin @ 19
Since I supported the invasion of Iraq, I am not 'blaming' anyone. Just trying to counterbalance your hysterical rant about Pol Pot and Stalin (bit early in the day to bring out the big guns, isn't it?) with the dull but true observation that the British parliament as a whole supported action in Iraq. There was more dissent on the Labour benches, in fact. So it isn't something you can make party political capital out of. That was my point, as most other people probably realised. Do try to keep up.

BTW your 'Come on Plato, say something interesting' comment on the last thread did make me smile.

Can we please all stop this left and right thing? There was nothing leftist about Pol Pot, Stalin, and any of the other names thrown out by rabid Tories.

That's coming from someone who voted for them and feels they're doing a decent but by no means perfect job.

Labour are not on the left. There is no major party on the left in this country. Labour are only on the left if you consider spending a load of money in irresponsible ways to be the definition of socialism (here's a clue: it's not).

All the regimes generally classed as socialist in popular speech, you'll find, were not. They were authoritarian, oppressive systems. The point of the left wing was to produce equality, by putting the ownership and control of the means of production in the hands of the workers.

When you take tax money from people, that isn't the people owning the money collectively. When you spend it for them as a cabinet, you're not putting them in control, either.

Half-hearted socialists like the Labour party don't have a clue what constitutes the left wing; they just define their position as left. Sorry, we've already got a definition, and Labour doesn't fit it - they don't get to label themselves whatever they want.

So please, stop laying the blame at socialism because it has never been attempted. Again, that's coming from someone who voted Conservative this time around.

We don't all need ideological biases.

Interesting to see the big boys at work in contrast to the boy cameron.

The US re-deploys an aircraft carrier - sending a bigger message than any hot air from lord snooty. Remember, that's an aircraft carrier like snooty reckons we don't need but will have anyway but it won't have any planes unless the french lend us them.

Experienced military commander after experienced military commander comes on TV to tell us:

a) No fly zone incredibly expensive to operate
b) Dependent on state of ground to air, air defences potentially risk/big job to suppress
c) In any event of no real consequence to libyans being shot by mercenaries with AK47s

This 'government' really is a shoddy embarassment.

If snooty wants to cut us down to the same sort of status as belgium then he should at least stop embarassing us on the international arena.

Message to lord snooty - leave it to the big boys.

"Have the testicular fortitude to make a moral judgement, stand by it, and follow it through." - marnip @ 14

Yes - if there's an international effort to prevent a humanitarian disaster, Britain ought to be an integral part of it. But what we should avoid is anything unilateral, or military action in tandem with the Americans and virtually no-one else.

sagamix...

such is your delusion that you can only blame the crisis of the last three years on the banks and not on the model that turned on the spending spigots courtesy of the taxes paid by the financial sector.

The social democratic consensus is discredited across Europe. It has ruined education in this country, lowered productivity in the NHS, given us a bloated welfare state and created inumerable social tensions with its dogmatic fostering of multiculturalism.

In Sweden and Denmark it has been dumped as unaffordable and replaced with centre right politics; Denmark has even petitioned for Euro membership such are its over spending woes. Sweden is a well documented nineties social democratic failure replaced with an altogether more dynamic and efficient right wing dominated government that manged to both improve living standards and avoid the financial crisis.

Discuss... at your leisure.

It's a great time to be a tory...when the social democratic consensus has drowned in it's own puddle of delusion.

25. At 10:29am on 02 Mar 2011, stanilic wrote:

"gnerally speaking people don't like foreigners interfering in affairs they consider their own. If you are not sure about this then go and speak to anyone in the High Street nearest to you."

I'll do just that, if you agree to go to a high street where people are being shot by government forces. I have this funny feeling that in that state of mortal panic - where your life and possibly the lives of your friends and family are under real, definitive threat - then suddenly you stop caring who's firing the bullets to protect you.

I'm not sure a random high street "near to you" is a good test case for the situation in Libya. Not that I've been; I just doubt I can walk down the street there at the moment and the worst I encounter being a chugger.

Better effort today, Nick. If at first you don't succeed try, try and ... You've got rr7 nicely worked up and about to go into hyper(bole)drive.
Dave's still doing o.k. all in all. Nice touch to blame a possible misinterpretation of his earlier comments on a failure to spin their meaning correctly by his ... well spinners. Not forgetting that PR and spinning is his profession.
Wonder what our attention is being deflected from? Can't see them wasting a golden opportunity.

#11 - we have aid agencies helping out, I've said before we should send advisors to help set up a new government. But to just bulldoze through with our military when other options are available is ridiculous.

IR35 @ 18

It's not accurate to say 'the left' went to war in Iraq. Nothing left-wing about the Bush Cheney gang and, as regards the UK, it was largely driven by Tony Blair personally and he drummed up (a touch nefariously in the opinion of many, including me) a fair amount of cross-party support; more in Tory quarters than Labour, in fact.

@5 "It's quite incredible that the left turned out to be more blood thirsty than the right when in government. Tony Blair has more blood on his hands than any peacetime prime minister in history. But then again, is it such a surprise after what Stalin, Pol Pot and their ilk brought upon their fellow countrymen in the name of social equality?"

Robin - this was a stupid and ignorant comparison to make a petty political point - just like the Teabaggers in the US who compare Obama to Hitler.

On my mother's side, members of my family were imprisoned and executed under both Stalin and Hitler. Your cheap and inaccurate comparisons insult people who really suffered. If Britain really had had a regime of that sort, YOU would have disappeared a number of years ago. As it is, I'm glad to say, you're still here and free to spout your nonsense.

Sagamix...

Seeing as you are so intent on trumpeting the social democratic consensus why don;t you name a sustainably successful left-wing country?

Germany is run by the Christian Democrats.. conservatives

Sweden chucked out the social democrats because they bankrupted the country..

Denmark likewise...

Then Ireland..

Eustern Europe went bust under soviet models...

Which brings us to China... the world's biggest most succesful totalitarian left wing regime. Is that your model? Not much chance of you expressing an opinion there though, is there?

It's a great time to be a tory...

Cameron's problem is actually not just his, but it is a bit of a British disease, with regard to other Nations. Especially those that do not share Britain's ideas of what a democracy should look like. It is all very black and white to these people, no grey allowed. Therefore, what Britain believes is right must be right. They do not see that to Arabs, for instance, Britain has a kind of freedom, however, they also believe Britain has what they consider a very disrespectful society, towards old people for instance, a very violent society, where criminals have more rights than the ordinary individual and many more issues. China is of a similar mindset, with regard to Britain. Actually I have been to other Countries which are classed by Britain as not particularly democratic and have felt more free.

Cameron is also very inexperienced with regard to World issues and other cultures. He is finding it difficult to come to terms with the fact that Britain is not a great force in Global terms anymore. Thus many other Governments around the World are just not listening. The mistake of Iraq cost Britain much more than just the war itself. It lost Britain respect in the World order. The Labour leader Miliband has much the same problem, they are career politicians who do not have the knowledge necessary to be PM of Britain, especially at this time. Actually a John Major type would be very suitable for PM at this time of Coalition. A calm and steady influence, with a much lower profile.

Cameron has already done damage to relations in the Middle East, it will be remembered that he was prepared to interfer in ways the Arabs did not want. They will now be suspicious of Britains motives in the future.

Britain and its PM need to remember they no longer have the ability to control Global issues. Cameron needs to concentrate on British problems now and nothing else, leaving other bodies to sort out World problems. The reason is, I share Kings belief that Britain will most probably never see living standards return to normal again, for its people. Cameron needs to be finding a way to make the British public understand the need to rebalance the economy and accept much less help from the state in future years. That is if he understands how serious Britains problems are himself.

37. At 10:48am on 02 Mar 2011, sagamix wrote:

"Yes - if there's an international effort to prevent a humanitarian disaster, Britain ought to be an integral part of it. But what we should avoid is anything unilateral, or military action in tandem with the Americans and virtually no-one else."

It would be great if we got support from the UN and independently from other allies of ours. But if it doesn't come, is that a reason - or an excuse - to do nothing?

There are always people who disagree, but the time comes where someone has to lead. I feel every "free" nation with the resources at their disposal has a moral duty to prevent a massacre of people who want precisely what we have - a degree of freedom and control over the happenings of the country. If we respect and appreciate our freedom from oppression, we should stand up for it and help those unable to match the Libyan military's arsenal.

If the UN or individual national leaders choose not to get involved, I submit that they are avoiding their moral duty, and that is not an example we should follow. I'd love their support and we should do whatever we can to get it, but failing that doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to back out of a moral duty when there's no debate about whose side we're on.

"The EFA sits very nose high, which is an angle you don't really want when you're trying to slam the thing into the deck of a carrier trying to recover from flying the thing around." - fubar @ 28

Spot on. Saved me having to point out the exact same thing.

What a difference a day makes, twenty-four little hours.

Skies above {Libya} can't be stormy ... because the RAF have no more kit or pilots.

How quickly Cameron seems to have succumbed to the intoxication of power, in what Dr. David Owen has identified as clinical hubris.

One thing is very clear, the EU needs to work as a co-ordinated entity, to leverage its considerable military assets to assist EU politicians in achieving geopolitical objectives.

41. At 10:52am on 02 Mar 2011, RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:

"we have aid agencies helping out, I've said before we should send advisors to help set up a new government. But to just bulldoze through with our military when other options are available is ridiculous."

I wonder whether people like you think before engaging your mouth (or fingers in this case). Gaddafi is killing his own people. To anyone in the real world, aid agencies don't fix mass murder.

Secondly, twice now the PM has said military action is not being ruled out. Now, how you read that and decide he means bulldozing through is our first option, is beyond me. The government has been pretty clear in the past few days that it is there as an option, but not if we can avoid it.

Is it fun to make up what other people say, then argue against that point which didn't exist beforehand? I heard it was called a strawman fallacy or something.

And if the left wants the real evidence for its failings it should read what Joanna Lumley and Jamie Oliver had to say about teenagers in this country.

'Unemployable softies' just about covers the impact if thriteen years of Gordon Brown handing out taxx credits and housing benefits like confetti.

IF you nanny people for long enough they won't be able to survive in the real world.. and this is what the left is really responsible for .. a generation of unemployable softies.

Clearing up labour's mess...

Maybe it took Cameron a while to remember that we haven't got an aircraft carrier any more. Not only that but the French one, the Carles de Gaule, that we are supposed to be sharing spends most of its time in dry dock being fixed following yet another serious breakdown. No fly zone? Only if somebody else feels like doing it, unlikely. To even suggest it seems a tad detached from reality. A product of always having somebody 'fag' for him perhaps?
Regards, etc.

#42 the left had 460+ MP's at the time they could have scuppered Blair
and hand a general election BUT they bottled it as they wanted pwoer at any cost

48. At 11:12am on 02 Mar 2011, JohnConstable wrote:

How quickly Cameron seems to have succumbed to the intoxication of power, in what Dr. David Owen has identified as clinical hubris.
------------------------------------------------------------------
'A week in politics is a long time.'

Day 1: Cameron elected as Conservative leader.
Day 2: He picks a fight with Conservative MEPs.

24.
Moderators - Further consideration. It's pathetic!!

In amongst the usual tit-for-tat left/right slanging match that this blog has become, I have to say it's refreshing to see a post like Cassandra's at number #13

Regarding the Libyan situation though, I have to say that my impression seems to be that there's too much focus in the media and amongst all parties in simply trying to control the narrative. In fact, I'd say that's probably my main gripe regarding politics in general for the past decade or more.

All the analysis is about who said what, what they meant when they said it, what their aides said to clarify it, how they backtracked on what they said to start with, whether they're saying what they mean or not, what someone else says about what they think someone meant when they backtracked, etc etc ad infinitum.

It kind of reminds me about the panel of "experts" you get on TV before a football match, who speculate at great length about what they think will happen, what everyone needs to do, and why they need to do it. 98% of the time this has no bearing on the game itself and in the greater scheme of things is utterly pointless.

The truth is that the Libyan situation isn't for us to sort out. Not on our own, anyway. So I'd rather Cameron and co spent their time trying to reach international consensus (via NATO or the UN or such) regarding a response rather than worrying about pandering to the needs of journalists who just want to write something sensational every day.

39 Marnip

In my experience of having bullets fired in my direction in a High Street was that I wished matters had not come to that pass. I then went and argued the point with the various political wings including that of `government forces' and failed to persuade any of them to come out from behind their fixed positions. In the end fatigue drove all parties to adopt more sensible positions.

The solution to conflict lies in its origin and in the people on the ground coming together to identify and build the solution. Foreigners are just not able to do this however well intentioned they might consider themselves. This does not mean external mediators cannot facilitate confidence building among all parties.

28. Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"Not sure it would have worked. The EFA sits very nose high, which is an angle you dont really want when you're trying to slam the thing into the deck of a carrier trying to recover from flying the thing around. Take a look at the underside of the Typhoon; the whole central/underside would need to be redesigned and strengthened to cope with carrier landings."
Etc.


Yes, but does it have a cup holder?

55#

Which kinda makes you wonder why the security council has been so quiet over the last few weeks on the subject...

56. At 11:29am on 02 Mar 2011, stanilic wrote:

"In the end fatigue drove all parties to adopt more sensible positions."

Are you even vaguely serious? How can anyone listen to Gaddafi over the past few days and think he's going to tire out? I'm sorry, you simply don't live in reality. You seem to be under the illusion that it's possible to leave the situation, and no one will be killed unnecessarily.

"The solution to conflict lies in its origin"

Correct - leaders like Gaddafi using the military to oppress any disagreement. The conflict here involves the military of Libya. By your reckoning, the solution should lie with stopping that military oppression.

That requires an opposing military force. Thank you for agreeing.

Major's inaction in response to the Rwandan genocide was utterly shameful and revealed the UK's true priorities. Helping innocent black Africans just wasn't profitable enough. Cameron is only interested in Libya because of oil, not the suffering of its people or the brutality of Blair's best-mate Gaddafi...

re #55 and #13
Am with you there on content of #13.

@Fubar #58 Indeed! Perhaps they've started their summer recess early?

9 & 28 Fubar..
Have you been watching Spaced? Mike Watt.

We should be less dependant on the United States and retain our own aviation industry and expertise realistically that involves collaboration with Europe. The US has an unfair advantage as it spends so much government money subsidising the military aviation industry. I also think maybe we should have more cheaper, simpler UK designed aircraft types as well as the Lightning and Typhoons. Bae Hawks maybe? probably naive I know. I'm not into that much detail.

Robin, do you remember a few years ago, that party you were at and you’d brought a £7 bottle of merlot and hidden it? Thought you’d hidden it, rather – since a few people were watching, as it turns out, and the whole thing got swigged and discarded by 9 pm. So then we found you (didn’t we?) at a few minutes to midnight, scrabbling around your (not so) secret place and finding nothing to satisfy. Said your goodbyes there and then, didn’t you?

Similar thing here – at 38 and 44. You’re desperately searching for something which isn’t there. Pretending to find it, in fact, although this time it’s never been there. The trend is more prosaic. It’s for governments presiding over the financial crash to get their chips electorally. Ireland’s ‘crony capitalist’ administration being the latest. Whether left or right or centre, whether big tax & spenders or not, this is the (deeply unsurprising) story.

Post 32 describes you as saying something ‘unwittingly’ and I think with that we pretty much have it.

Shouldn't the people and armed forces of this country be toppling Cameron as he appears to be 'dellusional' as well!

Unfortunately right across the board, from armed forces to NHS, public sercices to 'Beg society'.

I am impressed there has actually been informed debate on this blog, Cassandra has the current political situation in a nutshell. Current Government blundering around without addressing the real cause of the crisis and in the meantime delivering unthought through changes to the NHS and Local Government etc etc. The main opposition behaving tactically opposing all the most unpopular cuts without articulating a policy of their own and stuck with the demons of past failure.

Fubar really does appear to have specialist knowledge on military aircraft, shame about the politics!

Only one person is consistent in unthought through politically partisan nonsense, our good friend Rocky Robin. In answer to your point about the death of the Social Democratric consensus, I should point out that Blair/Brown were happy to be part of the light regulation, free market consensus that dominates the Anglo Saxon world and was largely responsible for the economic crisis. Whatever party is in power in Germany, France and Scandinavia they are playing tunes around the Social Democrat consensus and are not pulling it to pieces, there is more hope in getting a European response to the current still unresolved banking crisis than a Anglo Saxon response. Our beloved Tory party obviously believe this is true as they are not in Alliance with this sensible parties in the European Parliament. Also if we use your approach to politics of whatever is working at the moment is correct I suspect the Chinese model would take some beating, however I might have a few objections around personal freedom

36. jon112dk:

"Interesting to see the big boys at work in contrast to the boy cameron.
Message to lord snooty - leave it to the big boys."


jon, you don't like bankers and oilmen, do you? The people who get filthy rich at the expense of others. You stick up for the little guy. All good stuff.

But who profits from war? Who profited from Iraq and profits from Afghanistan?

How exactly do you think the "big boys" operate?

The cluelessness on display from Lord Snooty and his pals trancends belief. The hurried gear change from squalid arms dealing to statesmanship DC attemted as the Middle East order collapsed around him was ghastly to behold. The mess made of the rescue of UK citizens from Libya was beyond parody, and was only really resolved when it eventually occured to the Gov't to call in the professional - the RAF and the Royal Navy, with SAS/SBS support.

Of course, the Gov't is very busy undermining and betraying the rescuers as we speak. The armed forces are being cut to ribbons, and careers are being terminated. Every other British Government breached the trust of the military, so this comes as little surprise. I think the Gov't should think again about cutting police pay - they are going to need a loyal police force if they carry on like this.

I'll declare an interest, my deceased father was a soldier, my som is a policed officer, and my son in law serves in the RAF. Members of the armed forces and the police both have a right to be looked after by us - they look after us, after all.

sagamix...

What are you blithering on about?

If ever there was an example of someone who has lost it it is that particualrly disjointed entry.

Clearing up labour's mess...

"Shouldn't the people and armed forces of this country be toppling Cameron as he appears to be 'dellusional' as well!"

Yeh! Because he's commanding the military to kill the opposition, just like Libya!

Grow up. Conservatives won the election. Part of the democratic process is to deal with it when you lose. You didn't get that memo, apparently.

Before any more is said - The EFA / Typhoon was never intended for carrier use, it's airframe was never going to have the capability as it would have had to be beefed up so much it would have been more cost effective to design a bespoke aircraft than try and adapt it.

As for the Harrier upgrade and maintenance contract that was woefully undervalued and was expected to come in closer to the billion rather than the £77 million. Not good value for money we could have leased aircraft from the US at much less with non of the hassle.

We have the capability in the UK it is just that the companies supporting the defence contractors are sticking their arm in...

That is why the MoD are so far over budget along with the fact that they have proved themselves incapable or running a major procurement programme even with the help of the vast amount of support they pay through the nose for from the consultants.

Sagamix...

You just need to own up and admit the social democratic consensus has been a costly mistake.

Multiculturalism has been divisive.

Education standards have fallen.

Productivity in the NHS has gone down.

The welfare budget ballooned.

And you left us with a generation of unemployable youths.

There's no point protesting; everyone knows it's easy to be a leftie promising sweets and treats for all but it can never be delivered on a sustainable basis.

You bankrupted the country.

We are back to reality now....

Clearing up labour's mess....

Marnip @ 46

Yes, circumstances may develop (although let's hope not) which mean that outside military intervention comes to be justifiable for compelling humanitarian reasons. Britain ought to be a part of that. And what if (you ask) it's only us who wants, or is prepared, to act? Well then we should be asking ourselves why that is? Does it mean, for example, that we have a more highly developed 'moral compass' than, say, the Italians and the French and the Germans and the Chinese etc etc? If we can truly answer 'yes' to that, then sure - go for it. But if we answer 'no, hardly' - as I would - then it's problematical.

As from the quote from Machiavelli - Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Is this what we should have been doing, is this in fact what we have been doing, should we be doing more of this.......

Cameron and Hague are inexperienced amateurs.

The media like to portray politicians as skilled in what they do but NONE of them are actually much better than the average man in the street (I say 'man' as the vast majority are men). They are self opinionated amateurs why haven't held down a real job in their lives. Why do the media keep telling us that they are all so good at everything?

David Cameron should take a rest and realise if he is worried about the Libyan people, as most of us are, the only way to help is though a combined European approach or United Nation's action. Get real David and cut out the swaggering - it ill becomes a bankrupt military and political mouse!

Yawn! Yet another non-story being hyped up by Nick Robinson. Slow day at the office is it?

"we do not in any way rule out the use of military assets. We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people".

"...was contingency planning for a military no-fly zone IF there was a humanitarian disaster in Libya and IF our allies agrees."

How do these statements differ? Presumably if a no-fly zone was designated by the UK and allies then it would have to be enforced by the military. So neither statement contradicts the other. The rest of Nick's blog is just hearsay and speculation.

73. At 12:07pm on 02 Mar 2011, sagamix

You've expressed the thought process quite correctly in my opinion. If we're the only ones willing to do anything, we should indeed ask cautiously whether there's something wrong with us rather than everyone else.

In the end, morality can be thrown out the window quite quickly by governments when it comes to money, oil, political losses as military personal are killed on duty, etc etc.

Whilst I don't expect many countries to be rushing to help out, their reasons really have no impact on the morality of the situation from our point of view. I don't believe we're any more or less moral than any other nation as I don't consider morality to be objective - but if you have a set of beliefs which say we shouldn't stand by and do nothing whilst a vile dictator violently oppresses all opposition, when you have the ability to help - well then, it's about time someone was a trend-setter.

If it weren't for the few speaking up/acting out against the general concensus, women wouldn't be able to vote still. Being in the minority doesn't imply you're wrong, to sum it up. But I think you already alluded to that.

59. Marnip wrote:

"Correct - leaders like Gaddafi using the military to oppress any disagreement. The conflict here involves the military of Libya. By your reckoning, the solution should lie with stopping that military oppression.

That requires an opposing military force. Thank you for agreeing."

I think what stanilic has in mind is more along the lines of what's happening in Egypt and shows signs of happening in Libya. Where military personnel recognise the groundswell of popular public opinion, the support from the international community and what may happen to them if the 'uprising' succeeds. This is largely contingent on the numbers on the opposing sides.

rockRobin - you really are naive. How can you really call Stalin left-wing? He was in charge of a FAILED attempt at communism. The USSR was NOT REAL communism. Likewise with China - China is nothing like true left-wing. These are just state capitalism, with countries doing what's best for the few in charge. In what way is that the proletariat running a country aiming to do what is best for the masses?

Karl Marx will be turning in his grave at these regimes being compared with him in any way.

It's not just idle banter on here you know.

The unrest in north Africa is having a REAL impact. Petroceltic (a gas exploration company in Algeria) has seen a fall is sp despite a reasonably good drilling update.

Spare a thought for investors, for whom this isn't just a matter of petty point-scoring on an inconsequential BBC blog.

"77. At 12:18pm on 02 Mar 2011, Marnip wrote:
73. At 12:07pm on 02 Mar 2011, sagamix

You've expressed the thought process quite correctly in my opinion. If we're the only ones willing to do anything, we should indeed ask cautiously whether there's something wrong with us rather than everyone else."

Wise words Marnip and ones that can be applied to the wider world. If you're the only one with outlandish and unworkable ideas about state only education or state banks you really should be asking "is there something wrong with me".

Marnip 59

The only thing you have said which is correct, in my opinion, is that Gaddafi will not go without a struggle. The rest has simply been manipulating others posts to suit your own argument.

Intervention of any kind in the Middle East by Britain and America, would unite the Arab World against them, I Can assure you. It would also give Iran another stick to beat Britains and its allies with.

Stanilic is exactly right in his post at 56.

Robin (72), it may well be you're doing this unwittingly but it's nevertheless v poor. Also you're being way too intense - too 'campaign mode' - when the next General Election is a year to 18 months away. Leaving yourself nowhere to go bar accident & emergency.

This is the problem when people with no military knowledge or experience are given command of the military:

The no-fly zone over Iraq could be imposed because after Gulf War 1 we had bombed flat just about every radar site, flak gun & SAM Saddam had. His airforce had been destroyed on the ground or run to Iran.

Libya on the other hand has a pretty decent anti-aircraft setup and thousands of light flak guns & shoulder launched missiles.

If we just sent 4 Eurofighters to cruise around the skies over Libya they will be shot down. In order to carry out a no fly zone, the US navy (using its carriers... which have planes on them....) will have to bomb dozens of Libyan radar & missile sites first.

63#

Perhaps so, but this (the international projects) is where the big cost over-runs come in and where things are extremely susceptible to political interference - not just from the UK, but from the other partners. This is one of the reason that the unit costs of the Typhoon went through the roof, as they did with the bomber version of the Tornado and as they will with the A400M. If one partner decides to put off a part of the project, or demands change then the per unit price goes up for the remaining orders for the rest of the partners. So, whilst the development costs may appear to be shared, theres a very much a downside that comes with it, as well as an upside. Very rarely do these projects deliver good value for money; good technology often results, but at a hell of a price.

Unfortunately because our domestic defence industry ended up eating itself, with a little help following the nationalisation of British Aerospace in the 1970s and now less than 10%'s of BAE's workforce is in the UK, despite us appearing to be totally dependent on them.

I personally think the manufacturers should take it upon themselves to develop the products and then those nations that need them can buy them or not, depending on their requirements. The US still effectively has this, although most requirements are still stated by the DoD in the beginning. That compared to the development costs being met as much by the state requiring the kit as it is by the firms developing it.

Again, I would argue that the point of the military is not to provide job creation schemes for politicians constituencies, a la Gordon Brown & the execrable aircraft carrier contract, which is not only pretty watertight, but also guarantees BAe income even if the workers are doing nothing. That is utterly ridiculous. You need to decide what stance your forces are going to adopt and fund them and kit them out accordingly with kit that meets thier requirement and delivers best value to the tax payer. If that means buying off the shelf from the Russians, the Americans or the Italians or whoever, then so be it. It is not in the interests of anyone for a government to be beholden to the likes of BAe who have been royally extracting the urine for years.

59 Marnip

Your manner and attitude is quite insulting.

I am have just given you the benefit of my experience at being shot at and my attempts at the time to try to resolve the connected issues.

I repeat the solution to the Libyan crisis lies with the people of Libya not a foreign invasion force sent to `help' them.

Hardly a surprise. Cameron is whole unconvincing on foreign policy - from his gaffe in the Leaders' Debate about nuking China, to his alliance with racists and fringe lunatics in the European Parliament, to his remarkably poor press conferences with other world leaders, to his vague statements in Parliament. Couple this with William Hague's dangerous tendency to put the army on the table - as he did with the Ivory Coast - and this Coalition, rhetorically at least, is making a pretty botched job of diplomacy. Truly, he is "the heir to Blair".

59. At 11:41am on 02 Mar 2011, Marnip wrote:

"Correct - leaders like Gaddafi using the military to oppress any disagreement. The conflict here involves the military of Libya. By your reckoning, the solution should lie with stopping that military oppression."

Actually in this case it doesn't really. The Libyan army has been intentionally kept weak by Gadafi to prevent a repeat of the military coup that brought him to power. Its a mix of army units, foreign mercenaries & paramilitaries supporting Gadafi, not the Libyan army as such.

# 183. At 7:15pm on 01 Mar 2011, nautonier wrote:

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

................

I'd just like to state for the record, that the so called offending post was actually a copy of someone else's previous post that had not been moderated by the BBC ... and which continues to make my point that the BBC is biased and is politically censoring my posts and which is blatant discrimination.

Cheers!

70. Marnip:
'Grow up. Conservatives won the election. Part of the democratic process is to deal with it when you lose. You didn't get that memo, apparently.'


Clearly Cameron didn't get the memo either. Otherwise he wouldn't have formed a coalition.

65#

Dream on, son. Half term ended last Friday.

"83. At 12:30pm on 02 Mar 2011, sagamix wrote:
Robin (72), it may well be you're doing this unwittingly but it's nevertheless v poor. Also you're being way too intense - too 'campaign mode' - when the next General Election is a year to 18 months away"

At least this time you can't be faulted for inconsistency. Last May ater the election you said the next election would be a year to 18 months away.

If you keep saying it, then by late 2013 you'll start being right.

andy @ 81

I was having a sober, on-topic and modestly constructive exchange of thoughts and ideas with 'marnip', so no real need for your intervention. Intervening, in any event, is best done through cross-blog consensus and I don't see that you have anything remotely close to this. If you go charging in alone - or, worse, backed only by Robin - you need to be fully cogniscent of the consequences. Which could be dire.

'There is no dobt that the Prime Miniister is sabre rattling'?

I think that there is doubt ... sounds like the BBC are doing the 'sabre rattling' and/or is confusing two related but distinct issues ... Holding despots to account for their presonal actions - v - improperly or properly waging war against a sovereign foreign country

David Cameron had put together an early proposal that is backed by others e.g. Paddy Ashdown (i.e. a no fly zone) and which e.g. Douglas 'Alexander The Great' has also put forward similar language and policy.

Douglas Alexander was also wanting a British aircraft carrier to be stationed off the Libyan coast (he obviously must be suffering from post Iraqi stress disorder or soemthing) as ready to start and escalate a new major war in Libya.

The obvious political bias of the BBC towards mischief making for David Cameron at a very sensitive and difficult time for him when there are still British citizens who are lost and stranded in Libya ... is appalling and I hope that No 10 Downing Street will be making very strong objections to the language and tactics being used by Alexander, elements of the British Press, the BBC and be making appropriate representations to the relevant disciplinary bodies as including the Parliamentary standards committee and the Press and Communications Regulators.

David Cameron is not looking to create a war -- he is trying to prevent one or more wars ... and using language to provoke a crisis of govt difficulty for David Cameron, at the present time, is highly irresponsible and very dangerous.

I don't write stuff about Gaddaffi that I would like to write ... those who know better should show that in what they are writing and not keep trying to score cheap political points at a time of looming great danger in the world.

After the Iraq saga and the Chilcott inquiry yet to report ... has Douglas Alexander himself actually learned anything from the numerous mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan by his Labour govt?

When is Alexander going to apologise? It will obviously be a long, long speech.

I think that the BBC needs to be clear what it is saying here.

Fubar, agreed on the idea of a Typhoon Naval, the time to adapt a design for carrier use is in the design stage, not later.
Not a happy history with this either, never mind a very complex entity like the Typhoon, Spitfire to Seafire was not brilliant either.

I think a combination of a lukewarm US and possibly Service Chiefs pointing out stuff the PM might not want to hear might have changed the tone,
Such as a NFZ means suppressing air defences, the RAF has ALARM missiles on Tornados to do this, as they did plenty of times over Iraq, they home on to the radar that guides the missiles, watch Gaddafi place them right next to schools, hospitals, mosques, Saddam did.

What happens if a pilot/crew, for whatever reason, has to eject, not like those planned for days rescues in the desert, this would be a fast moving, volatile situation.

What if Malta does not allow RAF fast jets to operate there, what if the Italians are lukewarm? That leaves Cyprus, no access problem but a lot of air to air refuelling, resources already stretched with the Afghan air bridge.

Maybe the PM has heard from Michael Winner....'calm down dear....'

Really, the situation would have to get very much worse, an Anglo-US effort is not politically feasible, what about France with it's much vaunted 'Union Of The Med' and former colonial power Italy too?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Yet another case of a politician opening his mouth and inserting both feet without thinking things through. Maybe they might eventually get the message that sometimes it's better to think before they speak, but then again they're politicians and just love the sound of their own voice.

"Again, I would argue that the point of the military is not to provide job creation schemes for politicians constituencies, a la Gordon Brown & the execrable aircraft carrier contract, which is not only pretty watertight, but also guarantees BAe income even if the workers are doing nothing."

American defence is there to create wealth for corporations and employment for its people. Why should it be different here? Kind of agree with the Taking the mickey point when it comes to the Nimrod2000 ordered by Michael portillo. Why a new plane based on the ancient Comet 4c Airliner? I don't know If you are IR35 have the answer. Actually I do know you haven't. Thank heavens for google.

#49 - but why OUR military? Why not assist the opposition in deposing these war criminals in other ways such as providing the equipment but not British men and women? Cameron's response was, I admit, vague, and so could be interpreted in many different ways.

The world refused to back David Cameron ... what will happen now.

There will be blooodshed in Libya which may or may not remove Gaddaffi and his murderous regime.

The UN/Nato ... other friends of the Libyan people will get there too late to stop Gaddafi's reprisal against his own people.

Gaddaffi will go on trial eventually, if he survives the last days of his regime, and this will take many many years.

The free world's delay in helping the Libyan people with e.g. a no fly zone and related support will create a dangerous political vacuum that may just be the opportunity for another dangerous regime to take hold.

This is not a matter of whether Britain should have another aircraft carrier that it cannot now afford and does not even need here ... it is about the costly delay by the international community that may lead to something much, much worse.