Thursday 3rd December 2015

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Apparently, overnight, we've been successfully bombing Isil's oilfields. Genuine question (I know next to nothing about military hardware and so on) -

Are oilfields so difficult to find and pinpoint? If they aren't, why couldn't somebody else have struck them earlier? There seems to be a lot of strutting peacock "our bombs and bombers are better than their (our "allies'") bombs and bombers" stuff going on.

Don't know the specifics of last night's op, what exactly was being targeted in those oil fields, so can't comment on why nobody tried it earlier. But the "our bombs & bombers are better" rhetoric is pretty much correct.

The main strike aircraft being used are Tornados (the Germans will be using the same when they join in) which is an old design but perfectly suited for this kind of warfare (to be fair, both the Americans and French have very capable aircraft too, but the doctrine behind the RAF's use of Tornado gives them an edge); way back in the days of Desert Storm the Tornado fleet got the job of attacking the Iraqi airfields & infrastructure because they were trained in the sort of low level missions needed - when an American pilot flies low level there is enough space underneath them for an RAF pilot to do aerobatics!!! Well, slight exaggeration, but the USAF don't fly below 250 feet and our guys go right down to the deck.

But it is the bombs that make the difference, and one in particular. The Tornados are armed with laser guided (and now GPS guided) smart bombs, which the Americans and French also have; they use the Storm Shadow cruise missile, a 'fire & forget' precision guided anti-runway and anti-bunker weapon, but the French also use that one; the jewel in the crown, so to speak, is Brimstone.

Brimstone is a small dual-mode 'fire and forget' weapon; "dual mode" means it has both laser guidance (so specific targets can be selected by a 'spotter') and millimetric wave active radar homing guidance. The principle is that the target is selected by the spotter (of which more later) and targeted by laser, the missile is fired and then continues to home in on the selected target using the radar; it makes it especially effective against vehicles as it can still track them at speeds of up to 70 mph. It uses a shaped warhead which makes it very effective against tanks and also creates a smaller blast area, which is the 'selling point' as far as OGRFG is concerned; that specific and contained blast radius means that the damage is done to the target itself, with little 'collateral damage' - note I say "little" because, however much Dave tries to pretend, it still isn't a perfect magic bullet.

Against fast moving vehicles, small specific targets and light armour Brimstone is the best weapon in the Allied armoury, no question; the Americans have been considering purchasing it for some time, as have the French (and Indians), but neither have thus far for domestic political considerations, "not invented here" syndrome.

Ok, 'spotters'. Laser guided weapons fly toward a target "painted" by a laser designator (best to think of this as the little red dot beloved of all writers of police procedurals), so obviously you need somebody to select and 'designate' your target for you. There are two ways of doing this, airborne designation (your laser marker is on another aircraft, the method predominantly used during Desert Storm & Desert Shield) or ground designation; the latter is obviously the most effective, somebody on the ground will be able to select and designate the target without the need to be looking around as his/her aircraft is hurtling around the sky (although modern targeting pods alleviate a lot of that), but ......

Well, the "but" is obvious. To ground designate you need somebody on the ground, so who is doing that for the RAF; is it these 70000 FSA troops Cameron claims are waiting to rush to the rescue, or are there special forces on the ground? Despite his claims of "no boots on the ground" in Libya, there were SAS and SBS troops doing exactly this job there, as they did in Iraq (think Bravo Two Zero) and Afghanistan. Still questions to be addressed here, and I don't think he'll be too forthcoming with the answers.

Thanks for that.

Didn't I hear that the Saudis also have Brimstone but can't use it? If I heard correctly, then that puzzles me. Do you know why or if that's correct? They've never struck me as being in the market for buying weaponry that they can't deploy.

They do have it, and they do use it. They have the same Tornado bombers as the RAF, updated to the same standards (the German ones are to a different standard) and have been using in Syria (and the Yemen) for some time, bunch of humanitarians that they are.

[Lonewolfie]

Hilary Benn: "I share the concerns about possible civilian casualties. But unlike Daesh, we don't act with the intent to harm them"

Isn't that casuistry ?

Yes, it is - OED: "The use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially with regard to moral questions; sophistry".

So he shares the concerns, is aware that there may be civilian casualties, but it's all fine and dandy because we mean well. FFS.

According to the rules of war, so does Israel. They just happen to kill hundreds of civilians because they are targeting fighters, which is fine apparently.

How can you possibly conflate the perfectly rational and understandable Israeli killing of civilians (as collateral damage) with Daesh terrorist atrocities killing civilians? There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the current (and past) actions of the Israeli state, the King David Hotel bombing, the subsequent rise to power of the Irgun, and killing innocent people to get your own way (or just because you can), and 'real' terrorists - absolutely none...I can't believe(TM) you could suggest such a thing

...and another thing...Beckett and others citing the French request to help in their 'struggle'...because they'd help us, wouldn't they?...anyone remember Exocet missiles?

http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/fal ... -our-ships

(Again - to be clear - I'm not posting this as an anti-French thing, more of a 'that's not a reason to bomb' thing)

[PorFavor]

Doesn't deselection happen when a term of office is coming to a close, and then you either get reselected or deselected? That is my understanding, it isnt the same as being sacked. If so then isn't it just saying, no matter how aggressive the tone, don't expect us to select you next time.

Reminds me of cybernat tactics, tbh. They use a lot of invective and rough language.

It's amazed me how many people I've come across over the last couple of months who think a party deselecting an MP in some way immediately negates the election that put the MP in parliament, "overides the voters" and removes the MP from parliament.

Once an MPs' elected they stay elected until either the next general election, they resign their seat, are 'elevated' to the Lords, found guilty of a sufficiently severe offence, become seriously mentally ill or they die, whichever comes first.

MPs have been expelled from their party and continued to sit and left their party and continued to sit. That so many people seem unaware of this is a sad reflection on the UK education system.

Thanks for posting on this question. I'd got about halfway there, hadn't considered mental health. I had forgotten they could be deselected and still sit, am I right in thinking they can also cross the house too?

Another question. Is there a removal process at constituency level at all? I rather thought not, because by the time they become an MP it is a matter for all constituents rather than a local party branch, my understanding on this that a candidate is nominated to stand for their party. If I've got this wrong I would like to know.

There are a lot of 'we need to get rid' statements today about the ones who voted with Cameron, even some which a bit stupidly say there will be blood on their hands, which strictly cannot be true as none of the Labour votes affected the outcome. But there are more about Cameron and they say a lot worse, the Teflon is starting to wear thin.

We vote for the individual and not for the party they purport to represent (and whose money and party machinery helped their campaign). So a candidate could win an election as an SWP bod and cross the floor to join the Conservatives the following week. And the following week they could decide to be a LibDem. Hope that helps.


Edited to remove a stray "that"

[PorFavor]

Don't know the specifics of last night's op, what exactly was being targeted in those oil fields, so can't comment on why nobody tried it earlier. But the "our bombs & bombers are better" rhetoric is pretty much correct.

The main strike aircraft being used are Tornados (the Germans will be using the same when they join in) which is an old design but perfectly suited for this kind of warfare (to be fair, both the Americans and French have very capable aircraft too, but the doctrine behind the RAF's use of Tornado gives them an edge); way back in the days of Desert Storm the Tornado fleet got the job of attacking the Iraqi airfields & infrastructure because they were trained in the sort of low level missions needed - when an American pilot flies low level there is enough space underneath them for an RAF pilot to do aerobatics!!! Well, slight exaggeration, but the USAF don't fly below 250 feet and our guys go right down to the deck.

But it is the bombs that make the difference, and one in particular. The Tornados are armed with laser guided (and now GPS guided) smart bombs, which the Americans and French also have; they use the Storm Shadow cruise missile, a 'fire & forget' precision guided anti-runway and anti-bunker weapon, but the French also use that one; the jewel in the crown, so to speak, is Brimstone.

Brimstone is a small dual-mode 'fire and forget' weapon; "dual mode" means it has both laser guidance (so specific targets can be selected by a 'spotter') and millimetric wave active radar homing guidance. The principle is that the target is selected by the spotter (of which more later) and targeted by laser, the missile is fired and then continues to home in on the selected target using the radar; it makes it especially effective against vehicles as it can still track them at speeds of up to 70 mph. It uses a shaped warhead which makes it very effective against tanks and also creates a smaller blast area, which is the 'selling point' as far as OGRFG is concerned; that specific and contained blast radius means that the damage is done to the target itself, with little 'collateral damage' - note I say "little" because, however much Dave tries to pretend, it still isn't a perfect magic bullet.

Against fast moving vehicles, small specific targets and light armour Brimstone is the best weapon in the Allied armoury, no question; the Americans have been considering purchasing it for some time, as have the French (and Indians), but neither have thus far for domestic political considerations, "not invented here" syndrome.

Ok, 'spotters'. Laser guided weapons fly toward a target "painted" by a laser designator (best to think of this as the little red dot beloved of all writers of police procedurals), so obviously you need somebody to select and 'designate' your target for you. There are two ways of doing this, airborne designation (your laser marker is on another aircraft, the method predominantly used during Desert Storm & Desert Shield) or ground designation; the latter is obviously the most effective, somebody on the ground will be able to select and designate the target without the need to be looking around as his/her aircraft is hurtling around the sky (although modern targeting pods alleviate a lot of that), but ......

Well, the "but" is obvious. To ground designate you need somebody on the ground, so who is doing that for the RAF; is it these 70000 FSA troops Cameron claims are waiting to rush to the rescue, or are there special forces on the ground? Despite his claims of "no boots on the ground" in Libya, there were SAS and SBS troops doing exactly this job there, as they did in Iraq (think Bravo Two Zero) and Afghanistan. Still questions to be addressed here, and I don't think he'll be too forthcoming with the answers.

Thanks for that.

Didn't I hear that the Saudis also have Brimstone but can't use it? If I heard correctly, then that puzzles me. Do you know why or if that's correct? They've never struck me as being in the market for buying weaponry that they can't deploy.

They do have it, and they do use it. They have the same Tornado bombers as the RAF, updated to the same standards (the German ones are to a different standard) and have been using in Syria (and the Yemen) for some time, bunch of humanitarians that they are.

Thanks for the response. Now, I'm 99.9% sure that we were told yesterday (in the debate) that they can't use it. Lie early for Christmas?

[PorFavor]

No Guardian Politics blog today?

[Lonewolfie]

Apparently, overnight, we've been successfully bombing Isil's oilfields. Genuine question (I know next to nothing about military hardware and so on) -

Are oilfields so difficult to find and pinpoint? If they aren't, why couldn't somebody else have struck them earlier? There seems to be a lot of strutting peacock "our bombs and bombers are better than their (our "allies'") bombs and bombers" stuff going on.

Don't know the specifics of last night's op, what exactly was being targeted in those oil fields, so can't comment on why nobody tried it earlier. But the "our bombs & bombers are better" rhetoric is pretty much correct.

The main strike aircraft being used are Tornados (the Germans will be using the same when they join in) which is an old design but perfectly suited for this kind of warfare (to be fair, both the Americans and French have very capable aircraft too, but the doctrine behind the RAF's use of Tornado gives them an edge); way back in the days of Desert Storm the Tornado fleet got the job of attacking the Iraqi airfields & infrastructure because they were trained in the sort of low level missions needed - when an American pilot flies low level there is enough space underneath them for an RAF pilot to do aerobatics!!! Well, slight exaggeration, but the USAF don't fly below 250 feet and our guys go right down to the deck.

But it is the bombs that make the difference, and one in particular. The Tornados are armed with laser guided (and now GPS guided) smart bombs, which the Americans and French also have; they use the Storm Shadow cruise missile, a 'fire & forget' precision guided anti-runway and anti-bunker weapon, but the French also use that one; the jewel in the crown, so to speak, is Brimstone.

Brimstone is a small dual-mode 'fire and forget' weapon; "dual mode" means it has both laser guidance (so specific targets can be selected by a 'spotter') and millimetric wave active radar homing guidance. The principle is that the target is selected by the spotter (of which more later) and targeted by laser, the missile is fired and then continues to home in on the selected target using the radar; it makes it especially effective against vehicles as it can still track them at speeds of up to 70 mph. It uses a shaped warhead which makes it very effective against tanks and also creates a smaller blast area, which is the 'selling point' as far as OGRFG is concerned; that specific and contained blast radius means that the damage is done to the target itself, with little 'collateral damage' - note I say "little" because, however much Dave tries to pretend, it still isn't a perfect magic bullet.

Against fast moving vehicles, small specific targets and light armour Brimstone is the best weapon in the Allied armoury, no question; the Americans have been considering purchasing it for some time, as have the French (and Indians), but neither have thus far for domestic political considerations, "not invented here" syndrome.

Ok, 'spotters'. Laser guided weapons fly toward a target "painted" by a laser designator (best to think of this as the little red dot beloved of all writers of police procedurals), so obviously you need somebody to select and 'designate' your target for you. There are two ways of doing this, airborne designation (your laser marker is on another aircraft, the method predominantly used during Desert Storm & Desert Shield) or ground designation; the latter is obviously the most effective, somebody on the ground will be able to select and designate the target without the need to be looking around as his/her aircraft is hurtling around the sky (although modern targeting pods alleviate a lot of that), but ......

Well, the "but" is obvious. To ground designate you need somebody on the ground, so who is doing that for the RAF; is it these 70000 FSA troops Cameron claims are waiting to rush to the rescue, or are there special forces on the ground? Despite his claims of "no boots on the ground" in Libya, there were SAS and SBS troops doing exactly this job there, as they did in Iraq (think Bravo Two Zero) and Afghanistan. Still questions to be addressed here, and I don't think he'll be too forthcoming with the answers.

Interesting - (extremely accurate) laser guidance has been around since 1981/2, when it was used with A10 Tankbusters and their 1,000lb bombs - not sure how this would be different if you still need a 'spotter' to 'light up' the target...and, as I opined the other day - if the Brimstone weighs in at 45Kg, how much of that is High Explosive? At 90% for propellant etc, that still leaves 4.5Kgs...which will make quite a big bang...and release a shock wave to dismantle any loose masonry etc...tbc, I'm not "'aving a pop" - I just can't quite see how anyone (not you, natch ) could think that 'blast area' could possibly be 'targeted' to not impact on civilians.

(...and 'spotters' used to be called Observation Post Assistants, and came from the Royal Artillery)

[RogerOThornhill]

No Guardian Politics blog today?

Might be starting late to take in the by-election result.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

A few things. Yes, the Tornados (and also Buccaneers, much better low-level aircraft than Tornados) started out flying at low level in Gulf War 1 but proved too vulnerable to small-arms fire, so they switched to medium-level, pretty much negating that advantage over the US forces etc. For low-level flying, the Swedish blow us into the weeds but we do OK, and it's not really done now anyway.

Yep, the Buccs were brought in to designate for the Tornados which did not, at that point, have the facility to designate themselves; and, by that time, they had gone up to medium level (although that may well still have been lower then the US 'low level' ). The Buccs showed their low level cred during Operation Pulsator, the UN peace keeping mission in the Lebanon, where two of them (almost literally) flew up the main road in Beirut as a show of force - no bombs were dropped, the point was very much made.

I also like the stories of the Vulcan bombers sent to Red Flag exercises in the States, which were flying along at 50 feet, casting the most massive shadow, but still untouchable by the USAF!!

Brimstone is a pretty impressive piece of kit, no question. It can tell the difference between an armoured vehicle and a civilian type of vehicle, but how many armoured vehicles does IS actually have? Also you mention foward air controllers spotting the targets, which I assume we don't have, or certainly not as reliably as we would with our own FACs on the ground. Perhaps we have a few special forces types there, but I can't imagine they are available in any numbers. Targeting pods are pretty smart, but they rely on the target they are fed being the right one.

Hence my "but". To get the "no civilian deaths" result Dave says he aiming for (so to speak) you need ground based FAC, but we aren't putting "boots on the ground" allegedly. I believe him implicitly.

I believe the air strike yesterday used Paveway 500 lbers, which US forces have, and probably others do too. I'd be interested to hear just how many IS targets require something of Brimstone's precision that can't be hit by anything else.

Hence proving, as we knew all along, that this was just a chance for Dave to get his rocks off.

[refitman]

No Guardian Politics blog today?

I think the Airstrikes Blog may have replaced it: http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2 ... ing-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[StephenDolan]

No Guardian Politics blog today?

I think the Airstrikes Blog may have replaced it: http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2 ... ing-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which is annoying, given the other news out there.

[refitman]

No Guardian Politics blog today?

Might be starting late to take in the by-election result.

Or this^.

[RogerOThornhill]

Meanwhile...

Midland Studio College schools in Hinckley and Nuneaton to close due to low pupil numbers

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/midland-studio ... l-numbers/

Two studio schools in the midlands will close next summer after their sponsor declared them “economically unviable” due to low pupil numbers.

The Midland Academies Trust has announced plans to close the Midland Studio Colleges in Hinckley and Nuneaton, and has begun the process of finding places at other institutions for their combined 157 pupils.

The trust, which admitted the schools were at around 25 per cent of their combined capacity, said student recruitment had fallen below a target to make the schools economically viable.

The Hinckley school, which opened in 2012, and the Nuneaton branch which followed a year later, can take 600 pupils between them, but Midland Academies Trust board chair Tim Render said “lower than forecast” pupil numbers meant the trust was unable to achieve a “high standard” of education.

That went well then...parents probably unwilling to take the chance of moving their kids when they're already settled in secondary school I would imagine.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Apparently, overnight, we've been successfully bombing Isil's oilfields. Genuine question (I know next to nothing about military hardware and so on) -

Are oilfields so difficult to find and pinpoint? If they aren't, why couldn't somebody else have struck them earlier? There seems to be a lot of strutting peacock "our bombs and bombers are better than their (our "allies'") bombs and bombers" stuff going on.

Don't know the specifics of last night's op, what exactly was being targeted in those oil fields, so can't comment on why nobody tried it earlier. But the "our bombs & bombers are better" rhetoric is pretty much correct.

The main strike aircraft being used are Tornados (the Germans will be using the same when they join in) which is an old design but perfectly suited for this kind of warfare (to be fair, both the Americans and French have very capable aircraft too, but the doctrine behind the RAF's use of Tornado gives them an edge); way back in the days of Desert Storm the Tornado fleet got the job of attacking the Iraqi airfields & infrastructure because they were trained in the sort of low level missions needed - when an American pilot flies low level there is enough space underneath them for an RAF pilot to do aerobatics!!! Well, slight exaggeration, but the USAF don't fly below 250 feet and our guys go right down to the deck.

But it is the bombs that make the difference, and one in particular. The Tornados are armed with laser guided (and now GPS guided) smart bombs, which the Americans and French also have; they use the Storm Shadow cruise missile, a 'fire & forget' precision guided anti-runway and anti-bunker weapon, but the French also use that one; the jewel in the crown, so to speak, is Brimstone.

Brimstone is a small dual-mode 'fire and forget' weapon; "dual mode" means it has both laser guidance (so specific targets can be selected by a 'spotter') and millimetric wave active radar homing guidance. The principle is that the target is selected by the spotter (of which more later) and targeted by laser, the missile is fired and then continues to home in on the selected target using the radar; it makes it especially effective against vehicles as it can still track them at speeds of up to 70 mph. It uses a shaped warhead which makes it very effective against tanks and also creates a smaller blast area, which is the 'selling point' as far as OGRFG is concerned; that specific and contained blast radius means that the damage is done to the target itself, with little 'collateral damage' - note I say "little" because, however much Dave tries to pretend, it still isn't a perfect magic bullet.

Against fast moving vehicles, small specific targets and light armour Brimstone is the best weapon in the Allied armoury, no question; the Americans have been considering purchasing it for some time, as have the French (and Indians), but neither have thus far for domestic political considerations, "not invented here" syndrome.

Ok, 'spotters'. Laser guided weapons fly toward a target "painted" by a laser designator (best to think of this as the little red dot beloved of all writers of police procedurals), so obviously you need somebody to select and 'designate' your target for you. There are two ways of doing this, airborne designation (your laser marker is on another aircraft, the method predominantly used during Desert Storm & Desert Shield) or ground designation; the latter is obviously the most effective, somebody on the ground will be able to select and designate the target without the need to be looking around as his/her aircraft is hurtling around the sky (although modern targeting pods alleviate a lot of that), but ......

Well, the "but" is obvious. To ground designate you need somebody on the ground, so who is doing that for the RAF; is it these 70000 FSA troops Cameron claims are waiting to rush to the rescue, or are there special forces on the ground? Despite his claims of "no boots on the ground" in Libya, there were SAS and SBS troops doing exactly this job there, as they did in Iraq (think Bravo Two Zero) and Afghanistan. Still questions to be addressed here, and I don't think he'll be too forthcoming with the answers.

Interesting - (extremely accurate) laser guidance has been around since 1981/2, when it was used with A10 Tankbusters and their 1,000lb bombs - not sure how this would be different if you still need a 'spotter' to 'light up' the target...and, as I opined the other day - if the Brimstone weighs in at 45Kg, how much of that is High Explosive? At 90% for propellant etc, that still leaves 4.5Kgs...which will make quite a big bang...and release a shock wave to dismantle any loose masonry etc...tbc, I'm not "'aving a pop" - I just can't quite see how anyone (not you, natch ) could think that 'blast area' could possibly be 'targeted' to not impact on civilians.

(...and 'spotters' used to be called Observation Post Assistants, and came from the Royal Artillery)

In a more primitive form laser marking has been used by the RAF since the early/mid 1970s; both the Harrier and Jaguar fleets were retrofitted with a laser ranger and target finder, enabling the aircraft to identify the selected target more effectively.

Re. Brimstone, the pertinent bit is the shaped warhead. Not easy to explain the technicalities but, simplistically, it means that the blast is channeled forward in a more controlled way so as to damage the target and not everything around; shaped warheads have been used against tanks for some time (Brimstone was originally designed for Cold War-style anti tank use) as they mean you can use a smaller warhead and achieve maximum effect - more bang for the buck, so to speak. The net result is that the blast radius is much smaller, minimizing damage to things surrounding the target but, as you so rightly suggest, not eliminating it to anywhere near the claims made by the jingoistic warmonger in Number 10.

[PorFavor]

Oh, super. Oscar Pistorius is in the news again.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Hilary Benn now favourite to be next leader

Looks to me like he's aiming to do what his father - because he had such high principles - never managed, and that's to be leader.

Not with my vote. And he's just lost Labour an awful lot of voters...

I wouldn't get too hung up on a betting figure.

People think Corbyn will go sooner rather than later and are betting on the basis of the last name they heard. I don't think Benn has leadership aspirations, he was just trying to argue why Labour should support action; which he did brilliantly.

Even if he were leader it would probably only be transitional while the mess was sorted out.

I take issue with the concept he has lost Labour voters, he has lost some, potentially gained more.

[ohsocynical]

Hilary Benn now favourite to be next leader

Looks to me like he's aiming to do what his father - because he had such high principles - never managed, and that's to be leader.

Not with my vote. And he's just lost Labour an awful lot of voters...

I wouldn't get too hung up on a betting figure.

People think Corbyn will go sooner rather than later and are betting on the basis of the last name they heard. I don't think Benn has leadership aspirations, he was just trying to argue why Labour should support action; which he did brilliantly.

Even if he were leader it would probably only be transitional while the mess was sorted out.

I take issue with the concept he has lost Labour voters, he has lost some, potentially gained more.

Sorry but that's not correct.

I spoke to quite a few people before the GE 2015 and was shocked when they said they still weren't going to return to voting for Labour because of Iraq.

Benn voting for bombing and then standing for leadership won't win them back....

[AnatolyKasparov]

Benn doesn't want to be leader.....OK then

Agree that people rushing to put money on him last night are mostly easily impressed mug punters, though.

[ohsocynical]

war2.png (46.53 KiB) Viewed 7908 times

RETWEETS
10,973
LIKES
8,387

[ohsocynical]

DailySunday Politics ‏@daily_politics 10 mins10 minutes ago

Socialist Party will urge Labour Party members to demand mandatory re-selection, says @NancyTaaffe #bbcdp

Ian Parsons ‏@IanLabour 6 mins6 minutes ago

@daily_politics @NancyTaaffe What has it got to do with her; she's not even IN our Party? Why is @daily_politics even mentioning this?

And so it goes on.

[ohsocynical]

Media Diversified ‏@WritersofColour Nov 30

4 newspapers tie Corbyn's name to airstrikes in Syria. Wasn't it Cameron's proposal? What exactly is going on here?

[TechnicalEphemera]

Hilary Benn now favourite to be next leader

Looks to me like he's aiming to do what his father - because he had such high principles - never managed, and that's to be leader.

Not with my vote. And he's just lost Labour an awful lot of voters...

I wouldn't get too hung up on a betting figure.

People think Corbyn will go sooner rather than later and are betting on the basis of the last name they heard. I don't think Benn has leadership aspirations, he was just trying to argue why Labour should support action; which he did brilliantly.

Even if he were leader it would probably only be transitional while the mess was sorted out.

I take issue with the concept he has lost Labour voters, he has lost some, potentially gained more.

Sorry but that's not correct.

I spoke to quite a few people before the GE 2015 and was shocked when they said they still weren't going to return to voting for Labour because of Iraq.

Benn voting for bombing and then standing for leadership won't win them back....

Yes, we aren't going to get those people back. They make up a small percentage of the electorate. What Benn has done is remind people Labour is not necessarily weak on security, and under different leadership (at some point) may be trusted again with defence. The group who need to be reminded of that are quite a large percentage of the electorate.

[ohsocynical]

Andy Slaughter MP ‏@hammersmithandy 22 mins22 minutes ago

The #SadiqSurge? Khan secures six point lead in race to be next Labour Mayor of London. #TogetherWeKhan

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 28986.html

I really hope he does.

[Willow904]

British defence secretary says air campaign, which began hours after MPs voted overwhelmingly for action in Syria, could last three years

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/d ... ael-fallon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three years. I assume that means they're not expecting to make any headway on a political solution to the Syrian civil war anytime soon. I mean, seriously, with Russia bombing along with the French and the Americans and now us, what will be left to bomb after 3 months, let alone 3 years? How is it the Americans have been bombing for 14 months and have made seemingly little progress and yet our bombing will miraculously make a difference beyond taking yet more money away from public services for people in the UK who actually pay the taxes that pay for 3 years of making another country impossible to live in?

[TechnicalEphemera]

Yep, the Buccs were brought in to designate for the Tornados which did not, at that point, have the facility to designate themselves; and, by that time, they had gone up to medium level (although that may well still have been lower then the US 'low level' ). The Buccs showed their low level cred during Operation Pulsator, the UN peace keeping mission in the Lebanon, where two of them (almost literally) flew up the main road in Beirut as a show of force - no bombs were dropped, the point was very much made.

I also like the stories of the Vulcan bombers sent to Red Flag exercises in the States, which were flying along at 50 feet, casting the most massive shadow, but still untouchable by the USAF!!

I think it was the first Red Flag appearances by the Vulcan that persuaded the RAF they needed to paint disruptive camouflage on the underside of the aircraft as the pale grey undersides showed up too starkly against the terrain. That story might be apocyphal, but at least one Red Flag Vulcan (XM607 of Black Buck fame IIRC) had 'desert camo' on its under surfaces. I believe those early 80s Red Flags had a lower height limit of 250 ft and 100 ft on the last day, which was as you say somewhat stretched by the Vulcans. (Buccs could happily fly at 30ft if not less depending on terrain).

Hence my "but". To get the "no civilian deaths" result Dave says he aiming for (so to speak) you need ground based FAC, but we aren't putting "boots on the ground" allegedly. I believe him implicitly.

Indeed. Either we do have boots on the ground that we aren't being told about, or we don't and we can't possibly hope to get the best from our much-vaunted precision weapons.

You only need boots on the ground if you are targeting specific things you can't identify from the air. In reality America is using Kurdish forces who are calling in airstrikes. I am not sure if the Kurds are directly targeting things themselves or if they have American advisors on hand. As far as I can tell Russia are using their own troops for ground/air communication and targeting.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Andy Slaughter MP ‏@hammersmithandy 22 mins22 minutes ago

The #SadiqSurge? Khan secures six point lead in race to be next Labour Mayor of London. #TogetherWeKhan

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 28986.html

I really hope he does.

Goldsmith was 53-47 ahead of Khan in a match-up this summer. Given the current Labour travails nationally, I am certainly not discouraged by this

[ohsocynical]

I wouldn't get too hung up on a betting figure.

People think Corbyn will go sooner rather than later and are betting on the basis of the last name they heard. I don't think Benn has leadership aspirations, he was just trying to argue why Labour should support action; which he did brilliantly.

Even if he were leader it would probably only be transitional while the mess was sorted out.

I take issue with the concept he has lost Labour voters, he has lost some, potentially gained more.

Sorry but that's not correct.

I spoke to quite a few people before the GE 2015 and was shocked when they said they still weren't going to return to voting for Labour because of Iraq.

Benn voting for bombing and then standing for leadership won't win them back....

Yes, we aren't going to get those people back. They make up a small percentage of the electorate. What Benn has done is remind people Labour is not necessarily weak on security, and under different leadership (at some point) may be trusted again with defence. The group who need to be reminded of that are quite a large percentage of the electorate.

Come on. Face it. It's been about Corbyn, not dropping bombs, and if any of those who've damaged what was a Labour surge have the brass nerve to try for leadership, they won't get my vote.
With every day that passes it becomes clearer it's not about us, the Syrians, the disabled or the starving and the homeless, it's about power. I'll not lend my name to, or dirty my conscience by supporting them. Nor I suspect, will a lot of other people.

[ohsocynical]

CVSSPpDW4AAz_oy.jpg (58.97 KiB) Viewed 7877 times

See what I mean when I complain about women MPs growing balls. What the f**k are their names doing on there?

[PorFavor]

CVSSPpDW4AAz_oy.jpg

See what I mean when I complain about women MPs growing balls. What the f**k are their names doing on there?

Yes - the Eagle sisters (although, obviously, Maria Eagle didn't come as a surprise). A hurtful night. Andy Burnham came good but Yvette Cooper (although not a great surprise) was a disappointment.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Jarvis, McGovern, Alexander and (of course) Creasy were some of the big disappointments for me.

[ohsocynical]

Scott Nelson ☭ ‏@TheMockneyRebel 4 mins4 minutes ago

Hilary Benn didn't always support bombing ISIS in Syria - and here's the proof

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk ... ar_twitter

[Willow904]

CVSSPpDW4AAz_oy.jpg

See what I mean when I complain about women MPs growing balls. What the f**k are their names doing on there?

Can I ask who is posting this? It's an aggressive attack on the Labour party, which essentially aids the Tories. I have to suspect the motives of anyone who so determinedly undermines the damage limitation Corbyn chose to undergo by offering a free vote. Whoever posted this is clearly no friend of Labour, or even Corbyn, and they are certainly no friend of mine.

Trying to persuade or influence before a vote which could potentially be stopped is one thing, but now it's happened, such attacks on Labour MPs can only come from people who would be happy to see the party split and no longer offer a genuine possibility of ousting the Tories from power.

[citizenJA]

Interesting that Hilary made a point of how and why the United Nations came into being.

His father made a much better point in his Iraq vote speech

[youtube]HfXmpJRZPYI[/youtube]

Corbyn sitting behind Tony Benn, listening

Good-afternoon, everyone.

[ohsocynical]

Chris Down ‏@PlingetheElder 15 mins15 minutes ago

Quietly trying to bury an embarrassing U turn in today's furore. Michael Gove scraps criminal courts charge

http://gu.com/p/4emn5/stw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

George Eaton has tweeted a LibDem "source" saying that Labour will win in Oldham - and maybe more comfortably "than expected" (whatever that means)

Hope this is right, we could all do with some good news........

[ohsocynical]

CVSSPpDW4AAz_oy.jpg

See what I mean when I complain about women MPs growing balls. What the f**k are their names doing on there?

Can I ask who is posting this? It's an aggressive attack on the Labour party, which essentially aids the Tories. I have to suspect the motives of anyone who so determinedly undermines the damage limitation Corbyn chose to undergo by offering a free vote. Whoever posted this is clearly no friend of Labour, or even Corbyn, and they are certainly no friend of mine.

Trying to persuade or influence before a vote which could potentially be stopped is one thing, but now it's happened, such attacks on Labour MPs can only come from people who would be happy to see the party split and no longer offer a genuine possibility of ousting the Tories from power.

So are we supposed to rely on the media to let us know how the various MPs voted? If it wasn't for social networking we wouldn't know a fraction of what goes on.

I don't consider it an attack. I consider it fair game. If an MP goes against what their constituents might want, then so be it. They've been stirring it ever since Corbyn won the leadership. Doing power struggles. What do they expect?

[RogerOThornhill]

Chris Down ‏@PlingetheElder 15 mins15 minutes ago

Quietly trying to bury an embarrassing U turn in today's furore. Michael Gove scraps criminal courts charge

http://gu.com/p/4emn5/stw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How on earth is Grayling in any government post - from a very long list he could be the most incompetent of the lot. Lansley at least knew what he was doing even if nobody else did.

[ohsocynical]

CVSSPpDW4AAz_oy.jpg

See what I mean when I complain about women MPs growing balls. What the f**k are their names doing on there?

Can I ask who is posting this? It's an aggressive attack on the Labour party, which essentially aids the Tories. I have to suspect the motives of anyone who so determinedly undermines the damage limitation Corbyn chose to undergo by offering a free vote. Whoever posted this is clearly no friend of Labour, or even Corbyn, and they are certainly no friend of mine.

Trying to persuade or influence before a vote which could potentially be stopped is one thing, but now it's happened, such attacks on Labour MPs can only come from people who would be happy to see the party split and no longer offer a genuine possibility of ousting the Tories from power.

And I'm glad to see how they voted. Because they'll never get mine.

[ohsocynical]

Now I'm seeing the effects of the NHS cuts.

Mr Ohso just rang. He's still in ICU because they haven't got a bed for him anywhere else.

[citizenJA]

British defence secretary says air campaign, which began hours after MPs voted overwhelmingly for action in Syria, could last three years

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/d ... ael-fallon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three years. I assume that means they're not expecting to make any headway on a political solution to the Syrian civil war anytime soon. I mean, seriously, with Russia bombing along with the French and the Americans and now us, what will be left to bomb after 3 months, let alone 3 years? How is it the Americans have been bombing for 14 months and have made seemingly little progress and yet our bombing will miraculously make a difference beyond taking yet more money away from public services for people in the UK who actually pay the taxes that pay for 3 years of making another country impossible to live in?

There's Tory government's longtermeverythingplan
Awful, dangerous, depressing as hell

[refitman]

CVSSPpDW4AAz_oy.jpg

See what I mean when I complain about women MPs growing balls. What the f**k are their names doing on there?

Can I ask who is posting this? It's an aggressive attack on the Labour party, which essentially aids the Tories. I have to suspect the motives of anyone who so determinedly undermines the damage limitation Corbyn chose to undergo by offering a free vote. Whoever posted this is clearly no friend of Labour, or even Corbyn, and they are certainly no friend of mine.

Trying to persuade or influence before a vote which could potentially be stopped is one thing, but now it's happened, such attacks on Labour MPs can only come from people who would be happy to see the party split and no longer offer a genuine possibility of ousting the Tories from power.

And I'm glad to see how they voted. Because they'll never get mine.

Seeing who voted is fine and the lists have been published on the BBC, the Graun and I'm sure many other places. Calling them "Warmongers" and for deselction is not helpful IMHO. We should be looking to persuade, not antagonise.

[Willow904]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993447" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham has called for a code of conduct to prevent bullying and intimidation of MPs.

He said social media was "in danger of poisoning our politics" and Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn had to take a "firm line" on it.

Mr Burnham, who voted against air strikes in Syria, said he was concerned about abuse and threats directed at colleagues who voted for action.

I seem to find myself agreeing with Andy Burnham again. I'm wary of media bias, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I assume the statement quoted in the article from Stop the War is accurate and as such I have to say I find it overly aggressive and just a little bit unpleasant:

But Campaign group Stop the War, which until recently was chaired by Mr Corbyn, said: "Stop the War condemns the whining complaints from those MPs who apparently do not like being lobbied.

"If an MP is not robust enough to withstand emails and tweets, they should really not be voting for bombing other people - those who wish to be alone with their consciences would do better to consider a life of religious contemplation.

"Stop the War will continue to hold to democratic account all those MPs who vote for war."

There is a fine line between "lobbying" and extortion and when threats are issued, such as deselection, for non-compliance with demands that definitely steps over the line into extortion. Corbyn can't distance himself from this organisation so I would respectfully suggest if they want to see him successful as the leader of the Labour party, they stop with the unnecessary hostility towards Labour's MPs and focus on the party and government that are primarily responsible for bringing about current bombing in Syria. It's about priorities and I can't get on board with anyone or any group that puts more energy into criticising the Labour party than it does into criticising the far worse Tory party.

[RogerOThornhill]

Wilshaw had a go at Bradford local authority for not doing enough to improve their schools to which they have now replied. This bit did make me smile...

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... sted-chief

Meanwhile a Local Government Association chief said Wilshaw’s claim that political will was failing to tackle poor school performance ignored structural changes that had put academies and free schools outside of local authority responsibility.

“Ranking the quality of schools by local authority areas disguises the fact that over 60% of secondary schools are now academies, leaving councils powerless to intervene,” said Roy Perry, chair of the LGA’s children and young people board.

“It is extremely worrying that over the last three years only 37% of secondary schools have actually improved their Ofsted rating after becoming academies.”

Asked to explain how councils could improve academies outside of their control, Wilshaw admitted they had no powers to intervene, but could “make a noise” and complain to Ofsted or the Department for Education if they felt an academy was failing.

OK, but how are they supposed to know? The way that it's now set up to work, they have no more information than anybody else.

At least he's admitting there's an accountability issue which is more than anyone in the DfE does.

[TechnicalEphemera]

George Eaton has tweeted a LibDem "source" saying that Labour will win in Oldham - and maybe more comfortably "than expected" (whatever that means)

Hope this is right, we could all do with some good news........

I think the bookies are excellent guides to by-elections, as they are localised and trends can be spotted by the punters. UKIPs odds have been lengthening, Labour's shortening.

1-2K majority was suggested by somebody yesterday (can't remember who).

[StephenDolan]

Jarvis, McGovern, Alexander and (of course) Creasy were some of the big disappointments for me.

Yes, these were the notable disappointments for me.

[citizenJA]

CVSSPpDW4AAz_oy.jpg

See what I mean when I complain about women MPs growing balls. What the f**k are their names doing on there?

Can I ask who is posting this? It's an aggressive attack on the Labour party, which essentially aids the Tories. I have to suspect the motives of anyone who so determinedly undermines the damage limitation Corbyn chose to undergo by offering a free vote. Whoever posted this is clearly no friend of Labour, or even Corbyn, and they are certainly no friend of mine.

Trying to persuade or influence before a vote which could potentially be stopped is one thing, but now it's happened, such attacks on Labour MPs can only come from people who would be happy to see the party split and no longer offer a genuine possibility of ousting the Tories from power.

So are we supposed to rely on the media to let us know how the various MPs voted? If it wasn't for social networking we wouldn't know a fraction of what goes on.

I don't consider it an attack. I consider it fair game. If an MP goes against what their constituents might want, then so be it. They've been stirring it ever since Corbyn won the leadership. Doing power struggles. What do they expect?

Please reconsider - someone posting this is wholly within their rights to send it, however, it's a hot-headed communication demanding 'deselection' for these Labour MPs. I will never, ever, trust messages from the ether like this one. We get nowhere together fast doing so.

[AngryAsWell]

Save Your Sanctimony and Threats of Deselection - Your Certainty Stinks

"I received hundred of emails. Many from thoughtful constituents with well thought out kind intelligent words. I thank each and everyone. To those who lectured me by email about "our party" and the values it holds, just FYI I have the membership lists and most of you aren't on it. I suggest you might not want to directly copy and paste in future. Also another tip from some of the pressure group emails: I have the electoral register, if you can't be bothered to register to take part in our democracy I suggest leaning on me with your wise words about my hard-earned democratic position looks a bit silly. Half of one of the batches of framed emails I received speaking of "our party" are not just not members of our party, but they are not members of the electorate either. Own goal."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jess-ph ... 05908.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

Where's the list of Tory MPs voting for war?

Deselection Now!

[seeingclearly]

British defence secretary says air campaign, which began hours after MPs voted overwhelmingly for action in Syria, could last three years

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/d ... ael-fallon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three years. I assume that means they're not expecting to make any headway on a political solution to the Syrian civil war anytime soon. I mean, seriously, with Russia bombing along with the French and the Americans and now us, what will be left to bomb after 3 months, let alone 3 years? How is it the Americans have been bombing for 14 months and have made seemingly little progress and yet our bombing will miraculously make a difference beyond taking yet more money away from public services for people in the UK who actually pay the taxes that pay for 3 years of making another country impossible to live in?

There's Tory government's longtermeverythingplan
Awful, dangerous, depressing as hell

On the Guardian live thing about the airstrikes it also had a long quote from someone who mentioned once Syria was sorted out then there was Egypt and Libya and Bangla Desh and South East Asia, and a couple more I can't remember. An armament manufacturers wet dream. And suddenly they are saying ISIS isn't an organisation it is an idea, and there are articles coming out about how to look for signs of extremism in your children.

[Temulkar]

Jarvis, McGovern, Alexander and (of course) Creasy were some of the big disappointments for me.

Whoever thought that tactically it would be a good idea to try and pressurise Stella Creasy doesnt know much about her. She should have been bombarded with charm and argument. Attacking her was only going to make her fight back. Softly softly catchy monkey as my grandpa used to say.

Dave has won a short term success in getting his war. Four years from now and however many deaths, it won't have the same gleam.

[Willow904]

CVSSPpDW4AAz_oy.jpg

See what I mean when I complain about women MPs growing balls. What the f**k are their names doing on there?

Can I ask who is posting this? It's an aggressive attack on the Labour party, which essentially aids the Tories. I have to suspect the motives of anyone who so determinedly undermines the damage limitation Corbyn chose to undergo by offering a free vote. Whoever posted this is clearly no friend of Labour, or even Corbyn, and they are certainly no friend of mine.

Trying to persuade or influence before a vote which could potentially be stopped is one thing, but now it's happened, such attacks on Labour MPs can only come from people who would be happy to see the party split and no longer offer a genuine possibility of ousting the Tories from power.

So are we supposed to rely on the media to let us know how the various MPs voted? If it wasn't for social networking we wouldn't know a fraction of what goes on.

I don't consider it an attack. I consider it fair game. If an MP goes against what their constituents might want, then so be it. They've been stirring it ever since Corbyn won the leadership. Doing power struggles. What do they expect?

I'm not criticising the posting of lists of how MPs voted. But in such circumstances a heading such as "Here's a list of Labour MPs who voted with the Government" is factual and informative and not hostile, leaving people to do with the information what they will. The heading of the list you posted is leading, hostile and basically links the idea of the Labour party to a negative idea. It's presented in a way that will work as anti-Labour propaganda. The threat to de-select shows the author is keen to split the Labour party asunder. Neither the left or right of Labour can win an election on their own. They need each other. People who post aggressive anti-Labour propaganda may be left wing, but they're not acting in the interests of the Labour party and as such can only help the Tories. I ask if you know who posted this, because I wanted to see if it is being posted by someone that may have obvious reason to harm the Labour party or whether it is just an individual with strong anti-war views who has given no thought to the harm it may cause the party and thus enable the main warmongerers, the Tories, to remain in power indefinitely. As I say, attempting to influence before the vote in the hope of stopping the strikes is one thing, to keep bashing at Labour retrospectively is another and I think it important to question where such material is coming from. As I say, if it's just an individual you know, who came up with the list and the wording on it themselves, then I apologise for any offense. It's an emotive issue and people are entitled to feel emotive about it. I only asked because I genuinely wanted to know where this list with this specific wording originated from.