Jeremy Corbyn.

[eman]

He says today Labour will employ a peace maker and use force as the last resort, I don't think there will be too many takers for the job, flying off to Syria to sit down with isis.

 

[Craiglxviii]

He says today Labour will employ a peace maker and use force as the last resort, I don't think there will be too many takers for the job, flying off to Syria to sit down with isis.

And that betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of having a professional armed forces, properly trained and equipped, and the political credibility to use them. They become their own peace makers. If the threat of force is real and understood, peace happens as long as the other side doesn't want or cannot afford open conflict.

A pacifist like our Jezza cannot comprehend that. Ask Mr. Putin how it works...

 

[Frontstep]

Jeremy is looking unlikely to win so surely there will be some tactical voting from the remoaners to get some dums (very apt) in.
48% of people who voted in the referendum wanted in so if they are all still committed surely we will be having some big upsets.

Only the great oxy-Morons the Liberal Democrats offer a remain agenda.
Mr Farron must surely hoover up a few votes he doesn't deserve, Jeremy and Tim yikes.
Jeremy will be leading, should he stay, a very disparate opposition a coalition of circumstance.


Teresa will look across the house see those two and be strutting around like the cat who got the cream,
surely a few more pairs of those shoes will be finding there way into her wardrobe.

 

[Xtractorfan]

Brilliant Teresa May and her ministers cannot even handle an IT cyber attack by Putin and you guys seem to think she is the one who should be in charge when there is a Security attack.
Admittedly the NHS is running an outdated computer system, and I'm sure she will find a way of blaming Jeremy for that.
Just wait for many more of these before the election is over...

 

[Craiglxviii]

Rumours abound though that her ministers can do basic arithmetic, so by that measure they're already light years ahead...

 

[Xtractorfan]

He says today Labour will employ a peace maker and use force as the last resort, I don't think there will be too many takers for the job, flying off to Syria to sit down with isis.

Nothing wrong with trying to get peaceful resolutions to conflict.
Sending in an army who tend to shoot first then ask questions is asking for generations of conflict and a reason for conflict to continue.
But some people seem to be hell bent on teaching other lesser mortals a lesson, when the lessons need to be learnt at home.

 

[Xtractorfan]

Rumours abound though that her ministers can do basic arithmetic, so by that measure they're already light years ahead...

You would be an ass et to them. They like to talk out of their donkeys rear ends.

 

[PovertySpec]

His utter self belief and total unwillingness to change

His utter willingness to change everyone else's beliefs but his own?

Demagogue.

 

[geraldrobins]

Nothing wrong with trying to get peaceful resolutions to conflict.
Sending in an army who tend to shoot first then ask questions is asking for generations of conflict and a reason for conflict to continue.
But some people seem to be hell bent on teaching other lesser mortals a lesson, when the lessons need to be learnt at home.

He also championed the UN for this peacemaking role.

 

[Craiglxviii]

You would be an ass et to them. They like to talk out of their donkeys rear ends.

Well I could say the same for you, you're living in the same continuum as their leader

 

[Craiglxviii]

Nothing wrong with trying to get peaceful resolutions to conflict.
Sending in an army who tend to shoot first then ask questions is asking for generations of conflict and a reason for conflict to continue.
But some people seem to be hell bent on teaching other lesser mortals a lesson, when the lessons need to be learnt at home.

The problem with that proposed solution is that to stop conflict between two warring sides, one must be able to command sufficient authority for them to be willing to listen. In this sense it doesn't matter if we are talking about two boys in a school playground or two warring nation states.

Where does that authority come from?

 

[Xtractorfan]

Authority always comes from the will to make things better. Warlords always like conflict this is where they get their power from.
Very similar to the war of words and chest thumping that is going on over brexit, most of it inflamed and heightened by elements within the press, as they tend to do.
No doubt peace talks always come after the battle, only then is there seen to be the need for a new way of thinking.
The Arab and Middle east situation is still too volatile and scattered for a peace envoy as yet.

 

[Craiglxviii]

That's an... interesting take on where authority comes from.

Two boys fighting at school and a master arrives to break it up. He does, they stop fighting. Where does his authority stem from?

Apply the same example to two lads fighting in the street and a police constable breaks it up. Where does the authority derive from there?

Here's another one. 1973, Yom Kippur War. The only open hot-war conflict between a nuclear and non nuclear power(s) with the exception of the Falklands, which was rather different. What stopped the Israeli Defence Force from launching tactical nuclear strikes on the advancing Arab forces? They certainly wanted to.

 

[C350Carl]

I view u-turns as the result of poor planning and not thinking things through correctly or indecisiveness.
Agility, flexibility and adaptation are when you change how to do something not change what you intend to be done.

But you're right - no one can ever know whether a decision was the best one or not.

You do understand that NO plan ever in existence in any form of it (commercial, government, military, industrial etc) has ever stayed at plan V1.0!

The whole point of a plan is to have an outline. You then adapt the plan to whatever comes that means it requires change.

If you stick to V1.0 rigidly you will at best muddle through with a unfavourable outcome. At worst and most likely your plan will fail!

Unless someone has a crystal ball then EVERY plan changes. Sometimes those changes mean scrapping the plan altogether.

 

[C350Carl]

Nothing wrong with trying to get peaceful resolutions to conflict.
Sending in an army who tend to shoot first then ask questions is asking for generations of conflict and a reason for conflict to continue.
But some people seem to be hell bent on teaching other lesser mortals a lesson, when the lessons need to be learnt at home.

So you think an Army shoots first then asks questions later? You can't ask questions from a dead enemy, Einstein! Do you honestly think soldiers just go out and shoot people?

I've been in an awful lot of contacts. Probably around 80% of them I didn't fire first. The ones I did were because I had to protect the life of a comrade or innocent civilian (yes we do that too!)

But you being an Armchair Google general will no doubt tell me you know best because you've read something on Wikileaks.

 

[C350Carl]

Brilliant Teresa May and her ministers cannot even handle an IT cyber attack by Putin and you guys seem to think she is the one who should be in charge when there is a Security attack.
Admittedly the NHS is running an outdated computer system, and I'm sure she will find a way of blaming Jeremy for that.
Just wait for many more of these before the election is over...

I've come to the conclusion you're sharing your login with PRW.

This particular attack affected 104 countries!

Renault were affected in France
Dacia were affected in Romania
Nissan in Sunderland were affected
NHS worse affected
Russian banks were affected (around 60% of the infected computers were in Russia)
Deutsche Bahn were affected

You have heard the saying 'it's better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt' haven't you?

 

[LostKiwi]

You do understand that NO plan ever in existence in any form of it (commercial, government, military, industrial etc) has ever stayed at plan V1.0!

The whole point of a plan is to have an outline. You then adapt the plan to whatever comes that means it requires change.

If you stick to V1.0 rigidly you will at best muddle through with a unfavourable outcome. At worst and most likely your plan will fail!

Unless someone has a crystal ball then EVERY plan changes. Sometimes those changes mean scrapping the plan altogether.

I'm quite aware there are few plans that make it to completion unchanged (every piece of work I do is planned and documented prior to approval). That said in the past 3 years I have only had to scrap 2 pieces of work and both were due to failures of external participants.
Similarly because we plan everything in great detail we rarely need to alter plans significantly. I'm in the midst of a complex piece of work currently that will almost certainly run to plan V1.0 as originally approved. I realise your own environment is somewhat different ( the old maxim "No plan survives first contact with the enemy" springs to mind) but your area of operations is filled with a significant number of variables, many of which can never be fully known beforehand.
Planning to implement a project such as Hinckley, NI increases, London airports, calculating immigration figures or taking in refugee children have far fewer variables than plans you may be familiar with. Proper planning and consultation of such projects should determine their viability before approval is granted and this is an area Theresa May could do better. It does seem to me she is more interested in political point scoring than doing the right thing especially if it's unpopular or might make her look bad (immigration figures anyone?).

Incidentally, is the Conservative party running for election? Looking at the advertising material it would seem almost like she is running as the Theresa May party, supported by the conservatives!

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Jeremy Corbyn either. For me this election is very like the choice between Trump and Clinton - the least worst will get my vote (maybe).

 

[C350Carl]

So you're telling me your plan hasn't had ONE single change? Any single change means it's no longer V1. If you're honest with yourself you'll probably accept none of your major plans have been V1.

Do you honestly think the government don't plan in great detail?

I don't just do planning for operations. But granted the bulk of my work is for that (probably around 90% at the moment).

However I have also in the recent planned for logistics, infrastructure changes and tech refreshes with civilian industry. These were major projects and they all used to say to me that the plan will change several times before and during implementation. We need to continue to remain flexible (which is something the military excel at).

 

[LostKiwi]

Once we start into piece of work any changes to a plan mean that piece of work needs to be reauthorised (and a new plan submitted) so changing a plan from the approved version is a last resort.
I would say 95% of my work is completed exactly to plan V1.0.

In my previous job it was pretty much the same. The company I worked for had rigorous standards and they were enforced.

There may be several iterations of a plan prior to approval but no work commences until approval is granted and few plans are changed from that point onwards.

I work in the large IT space (my previous job I was responsible for designing and implementing over 12 petabytes - 12000GB - of storage over a 7 year period). As my current boss is fond of saying "We are not home to Mr C*ck up" and we rigorously peer review every planned piece of work before and after submission.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Alastair and Carl, interesting points both and two diametrically opposed corners of the problem space you inhabit. As you both know my current employment ranges from the sterile- variables to high- variables environment. Some of it enjoys the attentions of national politics.

What we see there (and in every other case of engineering: national politics interface that I've experienced) is that the variables go wayyy out of the window. Important engineering decisions fall down the problem tree whilst almost meaningless ones (not least "what colour will it be?" In one case) climb recklessly upwards.

So Hinckley Point, from an engineering viewpoint was a relatively simple project. Buy, install and commission plant of a proven design. Business wise the case was made. The variables all came down to politics and the plant's optics in the nation's eyes. It simply wasn't important until someone started making noises about it for their own political capital.

The gubmint do really plan in great detail for very many eventualities. Each town and city has a detailed emergency plan for an accidental satellite or meteor strike, would you believe. That's not to say they are faultless (ha) but great effort is made to draft, and keep revised, contingencies for all sorts of situations. The key there is that those contingencies form a decision tree for both sides of each situation good/ bad. And the politics in many cases drives which decision is taken.