It's all the 'Memsahib's fault: Yesterday was my wedding anniversary - yes, 51 years before the mast - God, I deserve a medal! - and so I took the 'Memsahib' over to the Poole Lighthouse Theatre to see a performance of an early Alan Ayckbourn play. His earlier plays tend to be very similar, being witty but ruthless dissections of middle-class marriage - so right for a wedding anniversary! I am a huge fan of Ayckbourn but, alas, we left at the interval of this disastrous production. I won't bore you with the details but this is the second theatrical production we have failed to sit through in its entirety - regulars may remember the callous 'murder' of Stoppard's masterpiece, "Arcadia" about which I spat blood and nails all over these distinguished columns. So two theatrical disasters in a row indicates to me that 'someone is to blame'! Obviously it can't be me so that leaves the 'Memsahib'. In a couple of weeks we are off to see Rattigan's "Flare Path", an absolute diamond of a play which I once had the great privilege of directing. If this forthcoming production turns out to be a stinker, too, then I will know who to blame and henceforth the 'Memsahib' will be left at home!
The 'splitters' will just have to, er, split: The 'Hefferlump' in today's Telegraph points out that even a total roasting of Labour at next year's Scottish and local elections may not be sufficient to unseat 'Jezza'. Under the dim, dumb and daft rules introduced by that intellectual genius, Ed 'Milipede', the 'Dave Spart Tendency' who now form the majority of the Labour party membership will support him to the death - and they have the numbers! Slowly, it will dawn on the, er, normal members of the Labour party, particularly the MPs, that their only option is to split away and form a new party, either on their own or in cahoots with the Lib-Dems or even the Left-wing of the Tory party.
Thank God I have my own Professor to teach me: You may have noticed a distinct lack of posts around here on the Middle East imbroglio in general, and the Russian intervention in particular. The explanation is simple - I haven't a clue! And where-of I know nothing I try, not always successfully, to say nothing. At those moments I reach for my very own Streetwise Professor who has a proper brain and explains everything with absolute clarity:
1: Russia is intervening to save Assad from imminent defeat, and to protect its ports in Syria.
2: Isis is not the most immediate threat to either Assad or the Russian facilities.
3: Therefore, Russia will focus on non-Isis targets, while claiming to be fighting Isis.
There you are, The Streetwise Professor, everybody should have one! If you're not convinced, read this masterly summary:
There are no good guys in Syria. Stop pretending there are: there is considerable reason to doubt there ever were. And any differences between Isis and the non-Isis Islamists the Russians are bombing are trivial. They do all pretty much look (and act) alike. And what’s more, pretty much everyone in the West looks the same to them: they all think your head would look just splendid mounted on a spike in the front yard.
Ben - who for President? When Gov. Scott Walker fell victim to DES (Duff Endorsement Syndrome) in which any candidate enthusiastically endorsed by yours truly almost always comes a cropper, I decided to treat the forthcoming Presidential election with its 178 (at the last count) candidates the same way I treat the Middle East - ignore it on the basis of my ignorance! But today I notice a report in the IJ Review claiming that far from 'The Donald' romping away with the GOP nomination, it is actually Dr. Ben Carson who is leading the race - and by a fairly decent margin, too! Also, it is claimed that based on actual results in elections since 2004, this particular polling organisation, IBD/TIPP, consistently came out on top for the accuracy of its predictions. Better start checking out this man who has one considerable advantage - he has never been a member of Congress which means that he can come into your house without being having to remove his shoes!
At last the dirty secret is oozing out: For some time now I have insisted on my belief that rugby is a dirty, drug-ridden game. There is no way, in my opinion, that some of those huge, bulging hulks could have reached the size they have without a little help from a laboratory or two! Today, on the radio, I understand there was an investigative programme on the subject. Truth will out!
No more rumbles today
"Slowly, it will dawn on the, er, normal members of the Labour party, particularly the MPs, that their only option is to split away and form a new party, either on their own or in cahoots with the Lib-Dems or even the Left-wing of the Tory party."
I agree, but the problem (apart from the name for the new party - Christian Democrats, perhaps?) is one that you have already alluded to. By then, the Tories might have moved so far to the left that there is no room remaining for this to happen. They will certainly have to pretend to move to the left, in order to head off this creation of a potentially appealing new opposition. And in addition, Cameron is in no sense socially conservative. He's OK with gay marriage, soft on drugs (well, he'd have to be, wouldn't he?) and doesn't seem to give a toss about law and order or educational standards. He's happy with the centre ground on most issues, especially if it keeps him in a job.
We could find ourself saddled with one-party government for a long time, and all our penetrating insights and keen intelligence will be focused upon the question of who is wielding influence and making leadership bids within the Tories. All else will be a sideshow. At the moment, the main determining factor is not Corbyn's ideology, but the fact that Cameron doesn't strongly believe in anything.
Posted by: Whyaxye | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 15:38
David, congrats on your anniversary. Fifty one years. The Memsahib is truly patient. She must be near saintly.
Posted by: Whitewall | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 15:41
Syria. May the Russian flies pay in blood to conquer the fly paper.
Posted by: Whitewall | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 15:45
Yes, 'W', that's a fair summary but, to quote that hoary old adage, nature abhors a vacuum, particularly when there is a surfeit of ambitious politicians waiting to take their turn in filling it. Actually, it's very difficult to see quite what will happen in the future - uncharted territories, and all that sort of thing!
Thank you, 'Whiters', an old friend once told me the reason for my long marriage is that my wife is deaf, dumb, blind and has no sense of smell!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 20:05
Dear sergeant Duffers. What has been puzzling me from the start has been why cameron and barry o'bama have been so keen to see the back of Assad.
I have no doubt that you worked it out ages ago but being a bit thick and usually under the influence, it has taken me rather longer .. The answer if course is that the western powers have been licking saudi arse ( rather an unpleasant image In must say) hence kuwait, iraq 2 and the rest.
This is merely an extension of that. Assad ran an essentially secular regime and would never have tolerated any sort of sunni extremism and was therefore a major obstacle to their quest for a bronze age hegemony in the middle east.
They wanted rid of him. They impinged on their western clients to assist. Both O'bama and Camoron are eseentially foreign policy lightweights and the CIA is proven to be utterly incapable of providing good advice and I doubt MI6 would deviate from the Langley line on anthing important.
Result a total clusterfuck in which the syrian people are paying a grievous price, so are we via this ridiculous refugee crisis and Merkels astonishly stupid policy.
As a unit the western powers emerge with no credit whatever having been gamed by the saudis and arse raped by Putin.
This is an epochal disaster.
Still, I'm sure you realised that.
Posted by: Cuffleyburgers | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 20:48
"sergeant Duffers"!!! Ooooh, you flatterer, you!
As for your analysis, alas, as I stated above, when it comes to the Middle East, I haven't a clue. I am still trying to work out the solution to the Schleswig-Holstein problem!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 20:54
Oh and by the way the fact that the saydis run one of the most disgusting regimes on the planet is just ignored ...
Posted by: Cuffleyburgers | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 20:56
But they di buy billions of arms.
Posted by: Cuffleyburgers | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 20:57
So not all bad, then!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 20:59
Plus, the natural gas pipeline issue.
Posted by: Cuffleyburgers | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 21:14
Cuffers, if Barry Obama is pro-Saudi, pro-Sunni, how come he's just signed up to the nuclear deal with Iran?
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-saudi-arabia-furious-with-iran-nuclear-deal-slams-us-europe-2104668
How come he allowed informal cooperation between coalition forces and Iranian backed militia in Iraq fighting IS?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11648182/How-the-US-is-helping-Iran-backed-militias-in-Iraq.html
Seems like he's backing two horses, but this isn't a race. It's a joust, and he wants both sides to give it all they've got.
SoD
Posted by: Lawrence Duff | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 23:06
Whitewall. I get your point about the fly paper. I remember it being stuck and hanging from the light shade.
Posted by: jimmy glesga | Sunday, 04 October 2015 at 23:49
Jimmy, bet there ain't no Russians stuck to it?
Posted by: Whitewall | Monday, 05 October 2015 at 03:20
I see that the Russians intercepted Israeli aircraft in Syrian airspace and chased them off. How long before the Russians declare a no-fly zone, except for them of course.
Posted by: backofanenvelope | Monday, 05 October 2015 at 09:32
A big happy anniversary :)
Posted by: Treacy Centre | Monday, 05 October 2015 at 23:48