Some of us have been highlighting Corbyn's danger for a long time. It's amazing how long it takes for people to wake up to this. And then they forget about it when the crisis passes. In reality, democrats of left, right and centre need to stop this man ever getting in power. Western democracy is too important.
There's 4 years to get this message across.
I don't think enough people don't care / want to listen. Bit like Brexit, they want to turn over the apple cart and don't really care about the consequences.
Some of us have been highlighting Corbyn's danger for a long time. It's amazing how long it takes for people to wake up to this. And then they forget about it when the crisis passes. In reality, democrats of left, right and centre need to stop this man ever getting in power. Western democracy is too important.
There's 4 years to get this message across.
Part of the problem is many people under 30 get their news from social media and don't watch TV news or read the papers. Social media is utterly dominated by Corbyn supporters. On platforms like reddit they can actually bury the negative stories like this. Though I do wonder how many of those Corbyn supporters are actually Russian accounts.
Not only bury the news, just spread fake news. Sites like Sqwawkbox have been pushing all the Russian conspiracy stuff, even claiming Jo Johnson was being fed secret info on QT (when it was Siri that went off) and then followed it up with well it must have been because he was in the cabinet meeting discussing the military action (which he wasn't).
Infowars and Maomentum outrider sites are different cheeks of the same arse.
Some of us have been highlighting Corbyn's danger for a long time. It's amazing how long it takes for people to wake up to this. And then they forget about it when the crisis passes. In reality, democrats of left, right and centre need to stop this man ever getting in power. Western democracy is too important.
There's 4 years to get this message across.
Part of the problem is many people under 30 get their news from social media and don't watch TV news or read the papers. Social media is utterly dominated by Corbyn supporters. On platforms like reddit they can actually bury the negative stories like this. Though I do wonder how many of those Corbyn supporters are actually Russian accounts.
Not only bury the news, just spread fake news. Sites like Sqwawkbox have been pushing all the Russian conspiracy stuff, even claiming Jo Johnson was being fed secret info on QT (when it was Siri that went off) and then followed it up with well it must have been because he was in the cabinet meeting discussing the military action (which he wasn't).
Infowars and Maomentum outrider sites are different cheeks of the same arse.
Our democracies are under serious attack from these misinformation campaogns, which have a power like never before. We desperately need a government response to stop it, because Trump's US is not going to do anything.
Mr. Urquhart, nefarious states also benefit from the UK have free and open media, and from just spraying out endless conspiracy theories, to cater to every taste. It's harder to stick honestly to the truth because genuine mistakes and uncertainty are involved.
Not to mention the nefarious states have a useful idiot in Corbyn.
Diesels are killing everyone (And due implied big tax hikes down the line), and the electric infrastructure/offerings are't so mature as to attract anyone but the pioneers ! Which leaves petrol, but that's apparently killing the planet too.
I said this morning Labour (PLP) would be far more divided on the issue.
The Labour membership will be massively against the air strikes though, as is the country at large. The Tory membership will be in favour - and probably the only group as a whole in favour.
I said this morning Labour (PLP) would be far more divided on the issue.
The Labour membership will be massively against the air strikes though, as is the country at large. The Tory membership will be in favour - and probably the only group as a whole in favour.
This event cements BOTH May and Corbyn.
Country is now 49% in favour according to Skys data poll today
Diesels are killing everyone (And due implied big tax hikes down the line), and the electric infrastructure/offerings are't so mature as to attract anyone but the pioneers ! Which leaves petrol, but that's apparently killing the planet too.
Last month I upgraded my Toyota Hybrid admittedly getting one that was 12 months old
I said this morning Labour (PLP) would be far more divided on the issue.
The Labour membership will be massively against the air strikes though, as is the country at large. The Tory membership will be in favour - and probably the only group as a whole in favour.
This event cements BOTH May and Corbyn.
Country is now 49% in favour according to Skys data poll today
I am very surprised. I'd have figured 40% at most.
But the outcome of a vote is a waste of time, anyway - I've been out, but any interesting comments about the principle of parliamentary consent for action from anyone but the usual suspects?
I said this morning Labour (PLP) would be far more divided on the issue.
The Labour membership will be massively against the air strikes though, as is the country at large. The Tory membership will be in favour - and probably the only group as a whole in favour.
This event cements BOTH May and Corbyn.
Country is now 49% in favour according to Skys data poll today
Interesting, if that is indeed the case then May has basically swung the undecideds behind her. I still believe Labour voters will generally be against the move, the membership definitely will (Not just the diehard Corbynites), and with the structure of Labour's constitution that is what counts for Corbyn.
The deselection list is becoming very clear today. Perhaps they should resign the Labour whip now and form an independent labour grouping?
Threats of deselection gave the founding of the SDP huge momentum. Quite a few Labour MPs felt they had nothing to lose and so jumped ship. If the Labour hierarchy have any sense they will be damping down talk of deselections (except for perhaps one or two bellwethers).
The deselection list is becoming very clear today. Perhaps they should resign the Labour whip now and form an independent labour grouping?
Threats of deselection gave the founding of the SDP huge momentum. Quite a few Labour MPs felt they had nothing to lose and so jumped ship. If the Labour hierarchy have any sense they will be damping down talk of deselections (except for perhaps one or two bellwethers).
The Labour brand is remarkably strong and resilient though. I can't see Gapes being deselected myself, and when push comes to shove he'll support a Queen's speech for Corbyn if Corbyn has the essential 'left block' numbers.
The deselection list is becoming very clear today. Perhaps they should resign the Labour whip now and form an independent labour grouping?
If they are smart the leadership will rein in their supporters - it is very clear that unless they are pushed, the MPs won't go anywhere, so potential deselection forces their hands.
I said this morning Labour (PLP) would be far more divided on the issue.
The Labour membership will be massively against the air strikes though, as is the country at large. The Tory membership will be in favour - and probably the only group as a whole in favour.
This event cements BOTH May and Corbyn.
Country is now 49% in favour according to Skys data poll today
I am very surprised. I'd have figured 40% at most.
But the outcome of a vote is a waste of time, anyway - I've been out, but any interesting comments about the principle of parliamentary consent for action from anyone but the usual suspects?
There are a number of expressions for parliamentary consent but TM presentation today seems to have won the day with Corbyn utterly humilated
I said this morning Labour (PLP) would be far more divided on the issue.
The Labour membership will be massively against the air strikes though, as is the country at large. The Tory membership will be in favour - and probably the only group as a whole in favour.
This event cements BOTH May and Corbyn.
Country is now 49% in favour according to Skys data poll today
I am very surprised. I'd have figured 40% at most.
But the outcome of a vote is a waste of time, anyway - I've been out, but any interesting comments about the principle of parliamentary consent for action from anyone but the usual suspects?
There is a number of expressions for parliamentary consent but TM presentation today seems to bave won the day with Corbyn utterly humilated
He has been before, supposedly, on the issue, so I imagine he'll be fine, but interesting to know.
In the real world and outside of the Westminster bubble, no one is watching this debate and no one cares what Corbyn says about it.
Like it or not, his drubbing changes nothing.
If anything, the 'bubble' talking about him having bad days just makes his base more defensive. And in fairness his position, merited or not, will be more popular outside it than within.
Mr. Max, it may alter the views of some Labour MPs, though. *This* is the creature that leads them, and for whom a Labour victory means becoming Prime Minister.
In the real world and outside of the Westminster bubble, no one is watching this debate and no one cares what Corbyn says about it.
Like it or not, his drubbing changes nothing.
One can only hope that the left leaning media who initially piled in on him when he was elected leader, and have more recently been giving him the benefit of the doubt, will have come to their senses that he is a dangerous individual with dangerous ideas and is happy to push the likes of Putin's propaganda.
I'm very conflicted about Lammy. He can speak very eloquently and intelligently about certain topics, and obviously cares deeply about others. And then he says stuff that makes me thing "whaaaaat the f****k?"
Here's another point in favour of Lammy.
Lammy went to the trouble of finding out about the huge Oxbridge bias against, amongst other things, Welsh students.
In 2016, Cambridge accepted just 57 Welsh students. There are schools in London that -- alone -- sent more to Oxbridge than this.
The only reason data like this -- the overwhelming Oxbridge bias to London, the South and the East -- is more widely known is because of David Lammy.
Labour have tonnes of vacuous, space-wasting Welsh MPs.
None of them have ever managed to raise this issue, which has persisted for decades. It was left to David Lammy to make the running.
I'm very conflicted about Lammy. He can speak very eloquently and intelligently about certain topics, and obviously cares deeply about others. And then he says stuff that makes me thing "whaaaaat the f****k?"
Judging by the tone of the debate the PM would comfortably win a retrospective vote on the military action with consequent political advantage. Is it the case that she genuinely thinks that would be the wrong thing to do?
I'm very conflicted about Lammy. He can speak very eloquently and intelligently about certain topics, and obviously cares deeply about others. And then he says stuff that makes me thing "whaaaaat the f****k?"
Here's another point in favour of Lammy.
Lammy went to the trouble of finding out about the huge Oxbridge bias against, amongst other things, Welsh students.
In 2016, Cambridge accepted just 57 Welsh students. There are schools in London that -- alone -- sent more to Oxbridge than this.
The only reason data like this -- the overwhelming Oxbridge bias to London, the South and the East -- is more widely known is because of David Lammy.
Labour have tonnes of vacuous, space-wasting Welsh MPs.
None of them have ever managed to raise this issue, which has persisted for decades. It was left to David Lammy to make the running.
I've got a lot of time for David Lammy.
Thanks for that info - I hadn't heard of it.
Thanks also. What an extraordinary fact. I wasn't aware of it either.
Wales is now a very poor region, on a par with Cornwall and also with parts of eastern Europe. Probably students and schools both have low expectations too. If students don't apply to the top institutions, I don't blame Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial or Kings College (five of the best) for being unable to consider their application.
Judging by the tone of the debate the PM would comfortably win a retrospective vote on the military action with consequent political advantage. Is it the case that she genuinely thinks that would be the wrong thing to do?
I think she genuinely thinks it would have delayed matters, and/or been much closer, if they had been asked first. But that's just a blind guess.
I'm very conflicted about Lammy. He can speak very eloquently and intelligently about certain topics, and obviously cares deeply about others. And then he says stuff that makes me thing "whaaaaat the f****k?"
Here's another point in favour of Lammy.
Lammy went to the trouble of finding out about the huge Oxbridge bias against, amongst other things, Welsh students.
In 2016, Cambridge accepted just 57 Welsh students. There are schools in London that -- alone -- sent more to Oxbridge than this.
The only reason data like this -- the overwhelming Oxbridge bias to London, the South and the East -- is more widely known is because of David Lammy.
Labour have tonnes of vacuous, space-wasting Welsh MPs.
None of them have ever managed to raise this issue, which has persisted for decades. It was left to David Lammy to make the running.
I've got a lot of time for David Lammy.
Thanks for that info - I hadn't heard of it.
Thanks also. What an extraordinary fact. I wasn't aware of it either.
Wales is now a very poor region, on a par with Cornwall and also with parts of eastern Europe. Probably students and schools both have low expectations too. If students don't apply to the top institutions, I don't blame Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial or Kings College (five of the best) for being unable to consider their application.
Are you saying that the Labour run administration perhaps isn't doing a great job in terms of education, health, business investment...
It won't do any damage to Corbyn, nothing ever does.
That is also true.
Something will do eventually - every political career ends in failure.
Sure - the realities of government will dent his popularity.
Until there is a bog roll shortage people will find other people to blame, Thatcher, the Tories, Brexit, the bankers , the Illuminati, the Jews...
Oh, government's get by on 'the last government' excuse for a long time - Brown was still occasionally using it 13 years in, and this government is definitely still using it - but it won't be 100% effective, and he will lose ground.
Judging by the tone of the debate the PM would comfortably win a retrospective vote on the military action with consequent political advantage. Is it the case that she genuinely thinks that would be the wrong thing to do?
It's possible that she wants to return to the convention of royal prerogative for military action. Which is fair IMO. Parliamentary debates remove all element of decisive action, which is necessary for many military operations.
Judging by the tone of the debate the PM would comfortably win a retrospective vote on the military action with consequent political advantage. Is it the case that she genuinely thinks that would be the wrong thing to do?
It's possible that she wants to return to the convention of royal prerogative for military action. Which is fair IMO. Parliamentary debates remove all element of decisive action, which is necessary for many military operations.
Yes I agree. It's her not going for a retrospective vote that I'm curious about.
I'm sure their Chinese friends at Huawei and other state sponsored Chinese companies will be more than happy to lend a hand. At least the US understands this and have blocked these dodgy Chinese companies from their infrastructure. The UK and Europe needs to do the same.
Judging by the tone of the debate the PM would comfortably win a retrospective vote on the military action with consequent political advantage. Is it the case that she genuinely thinks that would be the wrong thing to do?
It's possible that she wants to return to the convention of royal prerogative for military action. Which is fair IMO. Parliamentary debates remove all element of decisive action, which is necessary for many military operations.
Yes I agree. It's her not going for a retrospective vote that I'm curious about.
Is there such a thing, and if so is it seriously an option to have one now? It would be a rubbish idea both as a precedent, and because of the asymmetry of the outcome - winning would be meaningless, losing would be tantamount to a no confidence vote.
A British delegation including Anglican vicars Andrew Ashdown and Giles Fraser and peers Baroness Cox and Lord Dykes have been holding meetings with the Assad regime.
And they have been tweeting pictures praising how pretty the city is and condemning the airstrikes launched by Britain, the US and France.
It's a pretty safe bet that the Pentagon and GCHQ are also building capability in this area (they'd be negligent not to). That in turn leads to the questions what that capability in practice is, and how do they practise in the wild? And, indeed, what are they doing now?
I'm sure their Chinese friends at Huawei and other state sponsored Chinese companies will be more than happy to lend a hand. At least the US understands this and have blocked these dodgy Chinese companies from their infrastructure. The UK and Europe needs to do the same.
It is bonkers that BT has partnered with one of the named Chinese companies, ZTE, whose equipment the spooks say 'poses risk to UK security'.
Judging by the tone of the debate the PM would comfortably win a retrospective vote on the military action with consequent political advantage. Is it the case that she genuinely thinks that would be the wrong thing to do?
It's possible that she wants to return to the convention of royal prerogative for military action. Which is fair IMO. Parliamentary debates remove all element of decisive action, which is necessary for many military operations.
Yes I agree. It's her not going for a retrospective vote that I'm curious about.
Is there such a thing, and if so is it seriously an option to have one now? It would be a rubbish idea both as a precedent, and because of the asymmetry of the outcome - winning would be meaningless, losing would be tantamount to a no confidence vote.
Cameron held a retrospective vote on Libya, did he not?
May has come out of this well. Those opposed will stay opposed those in favor will stay in favor but those on the fence or unsure I can see backing the PM on this.
Will be interesting to see how the public mood is/or changes if we intervene again.
I'm sure their Chinese friends at Huawei and other state sponsored Chinese companies will be more than happy to lend a hand. At least the US understands this and have blocked these dodgy Chinese companies from their infrastructure. The UK and Europe needs to do the same.
Judging by the tone of the debate the PM would comfortably win a retrospective vote on the military action with consequent political advantage. Is it the case that she genuinely thinks that would be the wrong thing to do?
It's possible that she wants to return to the convention of royal prerogative for military action. Which is fair IMO. Parliamentary debates remove all element of decisive action, which is necessary for many military operations.
Yes I agree. It's her not going for a retrospective vote that I'm curious about.
Is there such a thing, and if so is it seriously an option to have one now? It would be a rubbish idea both as a precedent, and because of the asymmetry of the outcome - winning would be meaningless, losing would be tantamount to a no confidence vote.
Cameron held a retrospective vote on Libya, did he not?
Not that google knows about. The 21/3/11 vote was 2 days after we went in, but it was about continuing with the operation, not retrospectively oking what had already happened. Of course it implies being ok with what has been done to date, but it isn't meaningless the way a vote which was expressly and only about the past would be.
I'm sure their Chinese friends at Huawei and other state sponsored Chinese companies will be more than happy to lend a hand. At least the US understands this and have blocked these dodgy Chinese companies from their infrastructure. The UK and Europe needs to do the same.
Agreed. Nuclear power stations as well.
There's an even better solution to nuclear power stations, don't bother.
So Corbyn is once again an embarrassment to his party and his MPs who line up to condemn him. First Salisbury then this. you’d like to think that Her Majesty’s Loyal opposition could not go on like this but the evidence is that it can and it will.
It is really sad what has happened to Labour but the members have no one to blame but themselves.
So Corbyn is once again an embarrassment to his party and his MPs who line up to condemn him. First Salisbury then this. you’d like to think that Her Majesty’s Loyal opposition could not go on like this but the evidence is that it can and it will.
It is really sad what has happened to Labour but the members have no one to blame but themselves.
The public are, so far, rewarding it, so we can be blamed too.
May has come out of this well. Those opposed will stay opposed those in favor will stay in favor but those on the fence or unsure I can see backing the PM on this.
Will be interesting to see how the public mood is/or changes if we intervene again.
If we need to intervene again, then the current intervention will have been a failure.
So Corbyn is once again an embarrassment to his party and his MPs who line up to condemn him. First Salisbury then this. you’d like to think that Her Majesty’s Loyal opposition could not go on like this but the evidence is that it can and it will.
It is really sad what has happened to Labour but the members have no one to blame but themselves.
AIUI, they're excited about what's happened to Labour and are extremely pleased with themselves,as well as with Mr Corbyn.
So Corbyn is once again an embarrassment to his party and his MPs who line up to condemn him. First Salisbury then this. you’d like to think that Her Majesty’s Loyal opposition could not go on like this but the evidence is that it can and it will.
It is really sad what has happened to Labour but the members have no one to blame but themselves.
The public are, so far, rewarding it, so we can be blamed too.
True. There is a desperate need to prioritise. First the safety of the nation and its citizens, then our national interest, then...., then free bus passes for under 25s. Maybe 20th on the list?
Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.
Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.
I'm not in favour of strikes as I don't see what it will achieve (though I hope to be proven wrong in that), but I hardly think what is going on here is so unique as to be setting a precedent. Nations act as it suits them all the time, if they can get away with it, I cannot see that we are setting something here.
Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.
Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.
Rowan Williams made much the same point over Iraq, which is where the precedent dates from.
The real story surrounding your point however is that the UN Security Council isn't fit for purpose. It would be far, far more effective as an organisation if there were a mechanism for overriding a permanent member's veto - say a two thirds majority of the full assembly.
Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.
I’m afraid that just recognises the reality, that international law is a chocolate fire guard which protects no one. Major powers will act in their interests as they perceive them. Pretending otherwise is childish and leaves others in control of the field.
The idea that these other countries need a precedent is naive.
Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.
Rowan Williams made much the same point over Iraq, which is where the precedent dates from.
The real story surrounding your point however is that the UN Security Council isn't fit for purpose. It would be far, far more effective as an organisation if there were a mechanism for overriding a permanent member's veto - say a two thirds majority of the full assembly.
I thought there was such a mechanism? Although clearly it is a high barrier.
And of course removing the veto altogether would require us to give up ours, so we aren't going to be the ones to propose that.
Facebook has banned the American white nationalist who popularised the term "alternative right".
Richard Spencer's page on the social network was removed on Friday along with two other pages he controlled: that of his National Policy Institute think tank, and one promoting his AltRight.com news analysis website.
Whilst I share the revulsion at the Syrian atrocities and the apparent complicity of Putin's despotic Russian regime, I do have difficulty in accepting that the effective impotence of the UN bestows an a priori authority on the US, UK and France to act as self-appointed international policemen when it suits them.These states had no more authority to intervene in this way than any of the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Portugal & Turkey.There is the potential for a dangerous precedent being set here - to be used in the future by other states with more malign intent.
I'm not in favour of strikes as I don't see what it will achieve (though I hope to be proven wrong in that), but I hardly think what is going on here is so unique as to be setting a precedent. Nations act as it suits them all the time, if they can get away with it, I cannot see that we are setting something here.
But the hypocrisy of it all is so striking - and deprives those states which embark on such action of moral authority. Whilst International Lawyers hold different opinions on these issues, it is not unreasonable for some to argue that Assad's breach of an international agreement has been followed by the US, Britain and France doing likewise by breaking the UN Charter.Many will seize on that to say such states are little better than Russia et al in that they ignore the rule of law when it suits them.
It's a pretty safe bet that the Pentagon and GCHQ are also building capability in this area (they'd be negligent not to). That in turn leads to the questions what that capability in practice is, and how do they practise in the wild? And, indeed, what are they doing now?
Judging by the tone of the debate the PM would comfortably win a retrospective vote on the military action with consequent political advantage. Is it the case that she genuinely thinks that would be the wrong thing to do?
It's possible that she wants to return to the convention of royal prerogative for military action. Which is fair IMO. Parliamentary debates remove all element of decisive action, which is necessary for many military operations.
Yes I agree. It's her not going for a retrospective vote that I'm curious about.
What happens if they vote no? May required to report herself to the Hague?
Comments
Infowars and Maomentum outrider sites are different cheeks of the same arse.
Vauxhall is terminating the contracts of all its 326 dealerships in Britain as the company battles to deal with plunging UK sales.
The marque is understood to be invoking a special clause in franchisees’ agreements that can only be used if the entire network is reorganised.
Dealers will be given two years’ notice from April 30 that the Vauxhall is ending its re
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/16/vauxhall-terminate-entire-dealership-network-sales-plunge/
https://twitter.com/scribblercat/status/985836138438021120
Labour cannot go on like this
Not to mention the nefarious states have a useful idiot in Corbyn.
Diesels are killing everyone (And due implied big tax hikes down the line), and the electric infrastructure/offerings are't so mature as to attract anyone but the pioneers !
Which leaves petrol, but that's apparently killing the planet too.
The Labour membership will be massively against the air strikes though, as is the country at large. The Tory membership will be in favour - and probably the only group as a whole in favour.
This event cements BOTH May and Corbyn.
But the outcome of a vote is a waste of time, anyway - I've been out, but any interesting comments about the principle of parliamentary consent for action from anyone but the usual suspects?
I still believe Labour voters will generally be against the move, the membership definitely will (Not just the diehard Corbynites), and with the structure of Labour's constitution that is what counts for Corbyn.
Like it or not, his drubbing changes nothing.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/985925261815439362
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, children.
They absolutely can.
Wales is now a very poor region, on a par with Cornwall and also with parts of eastern Europe. Probably students and schools both have low expectations too. If students don't apply to the top institutions, I don't blame Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial or Kings College (five of the best) for being unable to consider their application.
It certainly won't be this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43788338
And they have been tweeting pictures praising how pretty the city is and condemning the airstrikes launched by Britain, the US and France.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5620467/British-church-leaders-slammed-visiting-Syria-talks-Assad-regime.html
Will be interesting to see how the public mood is/or changes if we intervene again.
It is really sad what has happened to Labour but the members have no one to blame but themselves.
Good evening, everybody.
The real story surrounding your point however is that the UN Security Council isn't fit for purpose. It would be far, far more effective as an organisation if there were a mechanism for overriding a permanent member's veto - say a two thirds majority of the full assembly.
The idea that these other countries need a precedent is naive.
And of course removing the veto altogether would require us to give up ours, so we aren't going to be the ones to propose that.
Richard Spencer's page on the social network was removed on Friday along with two other pages he controlled: that of his National Policy Institute think tank, and one promoting his AltRight.com news analysis website.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43784982
Otherwise I assume it is wargamed.
That sounds flippant, but my question is serious.