Mike categorising himself as among the less well off rather than the affluent - and over 60!
Without a bus pass myself, good to see I am subsidising poor pensioners.
Apparently it is possible to cross the country for free on a bus pass, making local connections all the way - but it takes a long time (Note: bus passes don't apply on National routes)
ISTR they did apply to national routes at first, but some people were taking the p*ss with it.
Nah I think missile strikes on Syria will have next to no impact on British public opinion. Boots on the ground in significant numbers would have an impact - could be positive or negative depending on how it went.
A string of chemists with loyalty cards is deffo what Syria needs...
Well, he was an optician. I daresay the local Boots Opticians branch would interview him ...
"So, Mr Assad, what is your experience with patients?" "I'm very good with them. I've created hundreds of thousands."
He was a consultant ophthalmologist, wasn’t he?
Senior House Officer, at St Thomas's Hospital as I recall. Recalled to take up the family business after the premature death of his older brother.
Hastings Banda of Malawi was a GP in the UK before becoming president of Malawi. My profession does not have a great record in government!
Exactly. Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
False dichotomy.
Of course the West, and indeed all civilised countries, can and should support the principle of regime change, by military means if necessary, against any scumbag who uses chemical weapons. That doesn't mean that in any particular case of applying that principle we shouldn't consider whether it is practical to use military force, and whether it might have unacceptably disagreeable implications. You do what you can.
As for your last paragraph, it's whataboutery. Sure there are other nasty things, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol has been a spectacular success in almost eliminating one particular very nasty thing for nearly a century, including during some vicious wars and the total war of 1939-1945; there have been just a handful of serious violations in nearly a century. That is a very, very precious success, and one which no responsible government could simply shrug its shoulders over.
Sadly, this precious success took a big hit when we didn't respond to Assad's previous atrocities, when it could have been done without too much risk of Russian complications. Ed Miliband has a hell of a lot to answer for.
Could I remind you that the Great British Public does not agree:
A Sky Data poll this week had 36% backing British military action in response to Assad's chemical weapons attack with 37% opposed, just a 1% difference
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Realpolitik means recognising the uncomfortable reality that Assad is now just doing the endgame mopping up. It means pragmatism, not idealism.
What happens next? Is Syria to be cemented into a Russian Middle East Protectorate, with a side order of Iranian influence?
While we line up with the child bombing salafists of Saudi?
The use of chemical weapons against civilians is "mopping up"?
That's another point: those who think Assad's already 'won' are wrong, and the use of chemical weapons is an indication of the stress he is under. Large portions of his country are still under 'enemy' control, and the many years of fighting have denuded his forces. He doesn't have the manpower to wage enough conventional war.
He's going to win, but the victory is not yet his. The question is how he keeps the peace afterwards, given he's destroyed large parts of his own country. He can only rely on Hezbollah and the Iranians so much.
His prison camps and the use of chemical weapons against civilians gives a very clear signal as to his post-victory thinking.
Indeed, it will not be a pleasant "peace" afterwards if he wins.
Before all this I thought he was going to win, if America does take action and forces Russia to step away then I don't think that is guaranteed. This could have been a mistake like attacking Pearl Harbour but with Trump in charge I don't think it will be.
Exactly. Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
False dichotomy.
Of course the West, and indeed all civilised countries, can and should support the principle of regime change, by military means if necessary, against any scumbag who uses chemical weapons. That doesn't mean that in any particular case of applying that principle we shouldn't consider whether it is practical to use military force, and whether it might have unacceptably disagreeable implications. You do what you can.
As for your last paragraph, it's whataboutery. Sure there are other nasty things, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol has been a spectacular success in almost eliminating one particular very nasty thing for nearly a century, including during some vicious wars and the total war of 1939-1945; there have been just a handful of serious violations in nearly a century. That is a very, very precious success, and one which no responsible government could simply shrug its shoulders over.
Sadly, this precious success took a big hit when we didn't respond to Assad's previous atrocities, when it could have been done without too much risk of Russian complications. Ed Miliband has a hell of a lot to answer for.
Could I remind you that the Great British Public does not agree:
A Sky Data poll this week had 36% backing British military action in response to Assad's chemical weapons attack with 37% opposed, just a 1% difference
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
What is your solution? How would you put the chemical weapons genie back in its bottle?
If you want disarmament in the future, that will be done via treaties which all signatories can believe in. We have precious few such treaties, and the chemical and biological weapons ones have worked quite well, with a few obvious exceptions. They should act a model for the future.
If someone breaks such a treaty, then there should be repercussions - both morally and practically. Otherwise they're pointless.
So, what would you do?
Surely you have to first demonstrate that your action would help?
To my mind, the only effective deterrent message that could be sent is if we decide we want to overthrow Assad. But that brings its own horrendous problems.
Not really. Unlike Saddam, Assad is not mad. He uses chemical weapons because it is an effective military weapon for him: it clears areas for his troops and spreads terror amongst his enemies. If you make the military cost of using them greater than the advantage he gains from using them, then he won't.
The biggest issue I have with that is the fact that Assad's army is massively reduced, and he is relying on Hezbollah and the Iranians (and to a lesser extent Russia). Denuding Assad's military is now difficult - which is perhaps why the non-Russian Syrian airfields were attacked.
Nah I think missile strikes on Syria will have next to no impact on British public opinion. Boots on the ground in significant numbers would have an impact - could be positive or negative depending on how it went.
A string of chemists with loyalty cards is deffo what Syria needs...
Well, he was an optician. I daresay the local Boots Opticians branch would interview him ...
"So, Mr Assad, what is your experience with patients?" "I'm very good with them. I've created hundreds of thousands."
He was a consultant ophthalmologist, wasn’t he?
I worked as a software engineer and people would say I worked in I.T, a very different field. If that's the case, then I can call a 'consultant ophthalmologist' an 'optician'.
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 with their absolute support. It's probably true that Corbyn probably made greater gains with middle-class voters in 2017, and the Tories with working-class voters, but nonetheless, Labour still swept the board with the most economically downscale constituencies in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
I suspect some just like the idea that the Tories are on the side of the poor and the working class and so believe it to be true.
While Labour is still the party of the poor and working class as a percentage UKIP got more of its voters from that demographic while the LDs now get a higher percentage of their vote from the rich and upper middle class than the Tories do
As discussed, there are marginal changes but as @Danny565 rightly said, the absolute picture remains very much wealth aligned. That is clear to see simply by plotting the richest and poorest seats against their vote.
That all said, as you argued the toss the other day that West London "was largely Tory" when simply googling a parliamentary map of West London shows this to be utter tripe, I expect you will continue to argue the toss under everyone else is bored of arguing with you. I have work to do!
First paragraph is largely correct, the poshest voters are now LD Remainers and the most working in West London
So we have gone from "West London is largely Tory" to "Of London Assembly constituency Seats with the title 'West' in them both London West Central and London South West are held by the Tories"?
Exactly. Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
False dichotomy.
Of course the West, and indeed all civilised countries, can and should support the principle of regime change, by military means if necessary, against any scumbag who uses chemical weapons. That doesn't mean that in any particular case of applying that principle we shouldn't consider whether it is practical to use military force, and whether it might have unacceptably disagreeable implications. You do what you can.
As for your last paragraph, it's whataboutery. Sure there are other nasty things, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol has been a spectacular success in almost eliminating one particular very nasty thing for nearly a century, including during some vicious wars and the total war of 1939-1945; there have been just a handful of serious violations in nearly a century. That is a very, very precious success, and one which no responsible government could simply shrug its shoulders over.
Sadly, this precious success took a big hit when we didn't respond to Assad's previous atrocities, when it could have been done without too much risk of Russian complications. Ed Miliband has a hell of a lot to answer for.
Could I remind you that the Great British Public does not agree:
A Sky Data poll this week had 36% backing British military action in response to Assad's chemical weapons attack with 37% opposed, just a 1% difference
Indeed, it will not be a pleasant "peace" afterwards if he wins.
Before all this I thought he was going to win, if America does take action and forces Russia to step away then I don't think that is guaranteed. This could have been a mistake like attacking Pearl Harbour but with Trump in charge I don't think it will be.
The Russians are useful, but the victory is not theirs. It belongs to Hezbollah and the Iranians, who are the foreign forces who have really spent their blood and treasure Assad relies on them for force, and Russia for 'diplomacy'.
I fear those wishing an Assad victory as the 'least evil' are not thinking the situation through. Yes, Assad might be 'better' than ISIS (although that's like choosing between drowned or dropped from a plane), but he's not good, and his victory will not lead to peace.
Amongst other issues, there is the Kurdish situation. Assad will want that territory back - and especially the oilfields. Do we abandon the Kurds to their fate, and what effect will that have on neighbouring countries (especially Turkey, but also Iraq)? Then there are all the other groups and people who are against Assad - and not all are fighters.
I care little for Assad or the fighters. I care for the ordinary civilians, many of whom find themselves in a hideous situation. We need to work out how to protect them when Assad wins.
That Sky Data poll has a sample of only 508 people. I used to take their polls seriously, but if that’s what they do normally, I’ll read their polls with caution. For now, I think YouGov might be more reliable than their results on Syria on the issue of sampling alone.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
We are not at war with gangsters and terrorists, and different rules apply to war and to crime.
We aren't at war with Syria.
We are proposing to carry out acts of war against them.
Currently it is a civil war. Would our intervention make it an uncivil war?
Realpolitik means recognising the uncomfortable reality that Assad is now just doing the endgame mopping up. It means pragmatism, not idealism.
What happens next? Is Syria to be cemented into a Russian Middle East Protectorate, with a side order of Iranian influence?
While we line up with the child bombing salafists of Saudi?
The use of chemical weapons against civilians is "mopping up"?
That's another point: those who think Assad's already 'won' are wrong, and the use of chemical weapons is an indication of the stress he is under. Large portions of his country are still under 'enemy' control, and the many years of fighting have denuded his forces. He doesn't have the manpower to wage enough conventional war.
He's going to win, but the victory is not yet his. The question is how he keeps the peace afterwards, given he's destroyed large parts of his own country. He can only rely on Hezbollah and the Iranians so much.
His prison camps and the use of chemical weapons against civilians gives a very clear signal as to his post-victory thinking.
ISIL almost completely eliminated. The east of the country under control of the Kurds and for all practical purposes independent. The rebels holding onto a few besieged enclaves. The Turks having taken a nibble of the north, mainly to have a go at the Kurds but also to attack the US backed rebels who face destruction.
As a civil war it is really pretty much all over. A war with the Kurds looks unlikely in the short term unless Assad teams up with the Turks.
As we saw with the EU referendum question the other day, the exact phrasing of a poll question can make a big difference to the numbers.
If the international community does nothing, it empowers Assad to think his use of chemical weapons is acceptable - and repeatable.
That bridge was crossed many years ago - long before the Syrian Civil War.
No, it really was not. Those treaties are well worth protecting. We made mistakes in the past: we must not make them again, or think we cannot do what is right because we turned a blind eye in the past.
I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
The Nottingham trams are fab. But again they are a good idea poorly managed. Part of the cost of running the trams is raised by a car parking charge on companies and businesses within Nottingham. In the case of Boots the nearest tram stop is a 20 minute walk from the nearest entrance to the factory complex and the trams really only run into and out of Nottingham city centre. This means that for the vast majority of the 7500 employees they are of no use at all. And yet they are now paying an extra £200 each a year for their car parking spaces as the company cannot afford to cover the £1.3 million levy it has to pay each year.
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
Really. I mean, really?
Do you want to read that back?
I think you might be confusing Boots the US company (Very large profits) with BCM who are now French owned and made a £23 million operating loss in 2015.
Well you called it “Boots” in your original post - which is part of WBA. (It’s not a normal American company by the way. Stefano rules it with a charming rod of iron and he is training up Jacapo to take over from him)
That's because everyone in Nottingham still calls it Boots - as do all the maps. But as I say it is not a profitable company at the moment and a £1.3 Million levy for your employees to come to work is certainly not something you can sustain when you are already £23 million in debt.
The inherent sexist presumption about JW's relationship is unbelievable from this mob. As Ms. Hardman has pointed to many times about the abuse she gets.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Virtue Signalling is absolutely accurate for this if there is no other reason than to send a message.
Better to signal your virtue than to have no virtue to signal.
If you have to kill innocent people in order to signal your virtue then maybe you don't have any in the first place.
I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
The Nottingham trams are fab. But again they are a good idea poorly managed. Part of the cost of running the trams is raised by a car parking charge on companies and businesses within Nottingham. In the case of Boots the nearest tram stop is a 20 minute walk from the nearest entrance to the factory complex and the trams really only run into and out of Nottingham city centre. This means that for the vast majority of the 7500 employees they are of no use at all. And yet they are now paying an extra £200 each a year for their car parking spaces as the company cannot afford to cover the £1.3 million levy it has to pay each year.
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
Really. I mean, really?
Do you want to read that back?
I think you might be confusing Boots the US company (Very large profits) with BCM who are now French owned and made a £23 million operating loss in 2015.
Well you called it “Boots” in your original post - which is part of WBA. (It’s not a normal American company by the way. Stefano rules it with a charming rod of iron and he is training up Jacapo to take over from him)
That's because everyone in Nottingham still calls it Boots - as do all the maps. But as I say it is not a profitable company at the moment and a £1.3 Million levy for your employees to come to work is certainly not something you can sustain when you are already £23 million in debt.
Indeed. I suspect of 100 people on the Clapham Omnibus precisely 100 call it Boots.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
If the international community does nothing, it empowers Assad to think his use of chemical weapons is acceptable - and repeatable.
USA 90%, UK 9% and France the remaining 1% ?
Looks like Macron is leading the calls with his confirmation that the French have proof of the gassing in Syria and also now NATO are falling in line
Is Macron playing Blair to Trump's Bush? The articulate one who translates the President's thoughts for the rest of the world?
It is strange today how Macron has been front and centre on going for Syria but he, as well as the US, and no doubt TM are all saying they are still discussing the options.
Bringing in NATO seems as if this is part of co-ordinating action across the allies.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
If he'd said local metro I think it would be a huge vote winner. However, young people don't get buses.
Yeah, my rush hour bus ride is notable for it's lack of youngsters. I must be imagining the scores of schoolchildren and twentysomethings that populate it of a morning.
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
May will have persuaded Trump to take different action.
If working with an incontinent, best to be in the tent alongside p*ssing out.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
Not really. When I’ve been on the bus I just put on my headphones and stare out the windows. Most of the other people of my generation that I see are also glued to their phones in some way or another and just ignore everyone else. It’s basically what we do on the tube except it’s on a bus.
Realpolitik means recognising the uncomfortable reality that Assad is now just doing the endgame mopping up. It means pragmatism, not idealism.
What happens next? Is Syria to be cemented into a Russian Middle East Protectorate, with a side order of Iranian influence?
While we line up with the child bombing salafists of Saudi?
The use of chemical weapons against civilians is "mopping up"?
That's another point: those who think Assad's already 'won' are wrong, and the use of chemical weapons is an indication of the stress he is under. Large portions of his country are still under 'enemy' control, and the many years of fighting have denuded his forces. He doesn't have the manpower to wage enough conventional war.
He's going to win, but the victory is not yet his. The question is how he keeps the peace afterwards, given he's destroyed large parts of his own country. He can only rely on Hezbollah and the Iranians so much.
His prison camps and the use of chemical weapons against civilians gives a very clear signal as to his post-victory thinking.
ISIL almost completely eliminated. The east of the country under control of the Kurds and for all practical purposes independent. The rebels holding onto a few besieged enclaves. The Turks having taken a nibble of the north, mainly to have a go at the Kurds but also to attack the US backed rebels who face destruction.
As a civil war it is really pretty much all over. A war with the Kurds looks unlikely in the short term unless Assad teams up with the Turks.
Yet he uses chemical weapons. The reason? He doesn't have the troops. And that means that keeping the peace will also be incredibly difficult without similar means. Besides, that map shows large areas still not under his control.
The rumours are that the Turks and Assad are teamed up, at least for the moment - this war's already made some very weird bedfellows, with rebel groups fighting together in one area whilst fighting each other elsewhere. Likewise, Assad has been known to make some tactical alliances.
I'd also be very careful about pronouncing ISIL's destruction: I fear they're going to be like a balloon: squeeze them in one place, and they'll pop up somewhere else there's trouble. And there will be plenty of trouble to come in Syria.
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
Our closest ally is America. Ask that arch Europhile Tony Blair and see who he allied with over Iraq.
The inherent sexist presumption about JW's relationship is unbelievable from this mob. As Ms. Hardman has pointed to many times about the abuse she gets.
LOL yeah, because it's not like right-wing commentators (including on PB) make umpteen references to Corbyn and Abbott's relationship in completely irrelevant contexts.
If the international community does nothing, it empowers Assad to think his use of chemical weapons is acceptable - and repeatable.
USA 90%, UK 9% and France the remaining 1% ?
Looks like Macron is leading the calls with his confirmation that the French have proof of the gassing in Syria and also now NATO are falling in line
Is Macron playing Blair to Trump's Bush? The articulate one who translates the President's thoughts for the rest of the world?
It is strange today how Macron has been front and centre on going for Syria but he, as well as the US, and no doubt TM are all saying they are still discussing the options.
Bringing in NATO seems as if this is part of co-ordinating action across the allies.
Perhaps they are collectively worried that Russia is trying to draw them into a trap. I think this is more about Russia than Syria at this point.
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
You can put your own take as much as you like but our allies are the US, France, Germany, other members of the EU, NATO, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others.
But of course your hero Corbyn is pro Russia, Iran, Hamas and anti NATO
If I had to guess, I bet it has something to do with County Lines drug dealing which has expanded rapidly over the past few years...e.g. all along that M4 corridor. At the root cause, it is a London gang problem as they still have a safe base in which to coordinate the trafficking.
The gangs are known to be far more violent and ruthless than the local suppliers that have been running the drugs scenes in these smaller towns and of course if they decide not to listen to the bigger boys from London they get a sharp reminder they are to jog on.
As for Norfolk, as it is % change, it is probably 100% increase, as it has gone from 1 to 2.
As we saw with the EU referendum question the other day, the exact phrasing of a poll question can make a big difference to the numbers.
If the international community does nothing, it empowers Assad to think his use of chemical weapons is acceptable - and repeatable.
That bridge was crossed many years ago - long before the Syrian Civil War.
No, it really was not. Those treaties are well worth protecting. We made mistakes in the past: we must not make them again, or think we cannot do what is right because we turned a blind eye in the past.
Nothing that has been suggested so far will protect those treaties.
Besides the Russians will rightly refer to the US support for Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran to the extent that the US provided tactical information on the location of Iranian units which could then be targeted by Iraqi chemical munitions.
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
Our closest ally is America. Ask that arch Europhile Tony Blair and see who he allied with over Iraq.
He should have listened to that arch Europhile Ken Clarke.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Virtue Signalling is absolutely accurate for this if there is no other reason than to send a message.
Better to signal your virtue than to have no virtue to signal.
If you have to kill innocent people in order to signal your virtue then maybe you don't have any in the first place.
And your 'solution' will lead to more innocent people dying, in Syria and elsewhere.
Let's be clear: there is no 'good' solution. But I think that the relevant treaties are worth protecting. You do not. I think that's a incredibly dangerous position to take, not just for Syrians, but the world.
Yet he uses chemical weapons. The reason? He doesn't have the troops. And that means that keeping the peace will also be incredibly difficult without similar means. Besides, that map shows large areas still not under his control.
The rumours are that the Turks and Assad are teamed up, at least for the moment - this war's already made some very weird bedfellows, with rebel groups fighting together in one area whilst fighting each other elsewhere. Likewise, Assad has been known to make some tactical alliances.
I'd also be very careful about pronouncing ISIL's destruction: I fear they're going to be like a balloon: squeeze them in one place, and they'll pop up somewhere else there's trouble. And there will be plenty of trouble to come in Syria.
For the record I don't disagree with your analysis. I just disagree with your contention that bombing Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies will make things any better.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Virtue Signalling is absolutely accurate for this if there is no other reason than to send a message.
Better to signal your virtue than to have no virtue to signal.
If you have to kill innocent people in order to signal your virtue then maybe you don't have any in the first place.
And your 'solution' will lead to more innocent people dying, in Syria and elsewhere.
Let's be clear: there is no 'good' solution. But I think that the relevant treaties are worth protecting. You do not. I think that's a incredibly dangerous position to take, not just for Syrians, but the world.
No my solution will not lead to more people dying elsewhere. Short of a straight forward war in Syria with Russia and Iran as our direct opponents nothing we can do militarily is going to shift Assad. As such all we are doing is making matters worse and risking a direct conflict with Russia. Advocating such a course is really not a good place to find yourself.
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
Except Macron is pushing for military action against Assad even more than Trump
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
...and the French?
As a European leader Macron can make whatever choices he wants. He looks like a leader and can summon his EU allies to meet as and when he chooses. Mrs May is now at best a follower and she and we had better get used to it.
As we saw with the EU referendum question the other day, the exact phrasing of a poll question can make a big difference to the numbers.
If the international community does nothing, it empowers Assad to think his use of chemical weapons is acceptable - and repeatable.
That bridge was crossed many years ago - long before the Syrian Civil War.
No, it really was not. Those treaties are well worth protecting. We made mistakes in the past: we must not make them again, or think we cannot do what is right because we turned a blind eye in the past.
Nothing that has been suggested so far will protect those treaties.
Besides the Russians will rightly refer to the US support for Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran to the extent that the US provided tactical information on the location of Iranian units which could then be targeted by Iraqi chemical munitions.
And as I've said many times before: we did wrong then, and acknowledge it (I might also mention Agent Orange in Vietnam as being very borderline). But that does not mean we can't do the right thing now.
What's more, doing the right thing now makes it harder for us to do the wrong thing in the future, or that we might need to. It also discourages others from doing so.
I see this as an absolutely fundamental principle. If we let these treaties lapse, the world will be a much more dangerous place for everyone.
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 wites in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
I suspect some just like the idea that the Tories are on the side of the poor and the working class and so believe it to be true.
While Labour is still the party of the poor and working class as a percentage UKIP got more of its voters from that demographic while the LDs now get a higher percentage of their vote from the rich and upper middle class than the Tories do
As discussed, there are marginal changes but as @Danny565 rightly said, the absolute picture remains very much wealth aligned. That is clear to see simply by plotting the richest and poorest seats against their vote.
That all said, as you argued the toss the other day that West London "was largely Tory" when simply googling a parliamentary map of West London shows this to be utter tripe, I expect you will continue to argue the toss under everyone else is bored of arguing with you. I have work to do!
First paragraph is largely correct, the poshest voters are now LD Remainers and the most working in West London
So we have gone from "West London is largely Tory" to "Of London Assembly constituency Seats with the title 'West' in them both London West Central and London South West are held by the Tories"?
I'm glad we cleared that up.
FFS – I can imagine you on the doorstep.
"Can't I count on your vote?"
"No."
"Yes? I'll put you down as a yes."
"I said No."
"No. You said Yes."
"I didn't, I said No."
"I said Yes. So you said Yes."
"No."
"Do you want a poster for your window too?"
East London bar the Essex border and North London bar Barnet are majority Labour I will grant you as is South London bar the Kent border but West London with Tory controlled Richmond Park, Westminster, Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston Upon Thames and Hillingdon is not
Yet he uses chemical weapons. The reason? He doesn't have the troops. And that means that keeping the peace will also be incredibly difficult without similar means. Besides, that map shows large areas still not under his control.
The rumours are that the Turks and Assad are teamed up, at least for the moment - this war's already made some very weird bedfellows, with rebel groups fighting together in one area whilst fighting each other elsewhere. Likewise, Assad has been known to make some tactical alliances.
I'd also be very careful about pronouncing ISIL's destruction: I fear they're going to be like a balloon: squeeze them in one place, and they'll pop up somewhere else there's trouble. And there will be plenty of trouble to come in Syria.
For the record I don't disagree with your analysis. I just disagree with your contention that bombing Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies will make things any better.
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Yet he uses chemical weapons. The reason? He doesn't have the troops. And that means that keeping the peace will also be incredibly difficult without similar means. Besides, that map shows large areas still not under his control.
The rumours are that the Turks and Assad are teamed up, at least for the moment - this war's already made some very weird bedfellows, with rebel groups fighting together in one area whilst fighting each other elsewhere. Likewise, Assad has been known to make some tactical alliances.
I'd also be very careful about pronouncing ISIL's destruction: I fear they're going to be like a balloon: squeeze them in one place, and they'll pop up somewhere else there's trouble. And there will be plenty of trouble to come in Syria.
For the record I don't disagree with your analysis. I just disagree with your contention that bombing Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies will make things any better.
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
You'd think the country that led to the phrase pour encourager les autres would understand what it meant....
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Virtue Signalling is absolutely accurate for this if there is no other reason than to send a message.
Better to signal your virtue than to have no virtue to signal.
If you have to kill innocent people in order to signal your virtue then maybe you don't have any in the first place.
And your 'solution' will lead to more innocent people dying, in Syria and elsewhere.
Let's be clear: there is no 'good' solution. But I think that the relevant treaties are worth protecting. You do not. I think that's a incredibly dangerous position to take, not just for Syrians, but the world.
No my solution will not lead to more people dying elsewhere. Short of a straight forward war in Syria with Russia and Iran as our direct opponents nothing we can do militarily is going to shift Assad. As such all we are doing is making matters worse and risking a direct conflict with Russia. Advocating such a course is really not a good place to find yourself.
And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.
We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
...and the French?
As a European leader Macron can make whatever choices he wants. He looks like a leader and can summon his EU allies to meet as and when he chooses. Mrs May is now at best a follower and she and we had better get used to it.
Really ? Germany has already said no. care to list his EU backers?
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
...and the French?
As a European leader Macron can make whatever choices he wants. He looks like a leader and can summon his EU allies to meet as and when he chooses. Mrs May is now at best a follower and she and we had better get used to it.
The way May dealt with Salisbury where the duty to lead was obviously hers, was an absolute masterclass in diplomacy and coalition-building. You may very well have hoped and expected that brexit would modify the response of our European allies, but happily our European allies disagreed with you. Unlike Salisbury, Syria is not especially our problem, and it is clearly right that the leaders of the free world should consult before action. May is not displaying the overpowering urge to wrap her gums round the POTUS' plums exhibited by the last PM but two in slightly similar circumstances.
All horses are incontinent. The way wagons are designed means that it doesn't matter that they are.
2 questions: (1) How do you determine such responsibility? (2) Do you think those who have gone to join ISIS and have had British citizenship removed, including women,should have it restored? And if not, what distinguishes their case from that of Mrs Assad?
She's not gone to join a proscribed terrorist organisation has she?
One is taking action against someone for their own actions, the other for the actions of their spouse.
The Assad is a proscribed regime. That needs to mean practical consequences for those who are part of that regime.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If the UK gets away with using Brexit, then there is every chance we will get concessions if we threaten to leave too...get the referendum scheduled." Any action is not about the UK per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If the UK gets away with using Brexit, then there is every chance we will get concessions if we threaten to leave too...get the referendum scheduled." Any action is not about the UK per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Yet he uses chemical weapons. The reason? He doesn't have the troops. And that means that keeping the peace will also be incredibly difficult without similar means. Besides, that map shows large areas still not under his control.
The rumours are that the Turks and Assad are teamed up, at least for the moment - this war's already made some very weird bedfellows, with rebel groups fighting together in one area whilst fighting each other elsewhere. Likewise, Assad has been known to make some tactical alliances.
I'd also be very careful about pronouncing ISIL's destruction: I fear they're going to be like a balloon: squeeze them in one place, and they'll pop up somewhere else there's trouble. And there will be plenty of trouble to come in Syria.
For the record I don't disagree with your analysis. I just disagree with your contention that bombing Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies will make things any better.
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
You'd think the country that led to the phrase pour encourager les autres would understand what it meant....
I am baffled. Do you think we should shoot Assad for not using chemical weapons vigorously enough, or that we should not because we don't want to put others off using them?
Yet he uses chemical weapons. The reason? He doesn't have the troops. And that means that keeping the peace will also be incredibly difficult without similar means. Besides, that map shows large areas still not under his control.
The rumours are that the Turks and Assad are teamed up, at least for the moment - this war's already made some very weird bedfellows, with rebel groups fighting together in one area whilst fighting each other elsewhere. Likewise, Assad has been known to make some tactical alliances.
I'd also be very careful about pronouncing ISIL's destruction: I fear they're going to be like a balloon: squeeze them in one place, and they'll pop up somewhere else there's trouble. And there will be plenty of trouble to come in Syria.
For the record I don't disagree with your analysis. I just disagree with your contention that bombing Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies will make things any better.
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
It's more than that: countries will be looking at their neighbours and thinking: "Have they got a chemical weapons program? We can't be sure, so we'd better have one just in case."
Whereas now, there are international treaties that countries can be brought to book over if they develop such weapons, yet alone use them. Unfortunately Russia is doing its best to prevent that, for obvious reasons.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
Not really. When I’ve been on the bus I just put on my headphones and stare out the windows. Most of the other people of my generation that I see are also glued to their phones in some way or another and just ignore everyone else. It’s basically what we do on the tube except it’s on a bus.
Whether I am on a bus or tube and I use both I am almost invariably the only person reading a book.
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If the UK gets away with using Brexit, then there is every chance we will get concessions if we threaten to leave too...get the referendum scheduled." Any action is not about the UK per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
(*) Who's Pete?
Saint Peter.
It was a polite and less blasphemous way of saying 'For God's sake'
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Now you might argue, with justice, that there he doesn't say he's a pacifist. However, if he's gone from not being sure whether he's a pacifist, to not being a pacifist, he's clearly evolved his views.
Incidentally he's perfectly at liberty to do that. Just as, for the matter of that, I have no objection to principled pacifists. Indeed his current views on war and warfare seem pretty close to my own.
But it's a bit rich for him to then say he's a man of iron principle who stick rigidly to his views. even though many of his opponents and supporters seem to believe that.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Virtue Signalling is absolutely accurate for this if there is no other reason than to send a message.
Better to signal your virtue than to have no virtue to signal.
If you have to kill innocent people in order to signal your virtue then maybe you don't have any in the first place.
And your 'solution' will lead to more innocent people dying, in Syria and elsewhere.
Let's be clear: there is no 'good' solution. But I think that the relevant treaties are worth protecting. You do not. I think that's a incredibly dangerous position to take, not just for Syrians, but the world.
No my solution will not lead to more people dying elsewhere. Short of a straight forward war in Syria with Russia and Iran as our direct opponents nothing we can do militarily is going to shift Assad. As such all we are doing is making matters worse and risking a direct conflict with Russia. Advocating such a course is really not a good place to find yourself.
And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.
We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.
Interational treaties need to be enforced by international bodies, not vigilante nations. We are not the worlds policeman.
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If the UK gets away with using Brexit, then there is every chance we will get concessions if we threaten to leave too...get the referendum scheduled." Any action is not about the UK per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
(*) Who's Pete?
I think probably St Peter, as a substitute for 'God', which is of course blasphemy.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Virtue Signalling is absolutely accurate for this if there is no other reason than to send a message.
Better to signal your virtue than to have no virtue to signal.
If you have to kill innocent people in order to signal your virtue then maybe you don't have any in the first place.
And your 'solution' will lead to more innocent people dying, in Syria and elsewhere.
Let's be clear: there is no 'good' solution. But I think that the relevant treaties are worth protecting. You do not. I think that's a incredibly dangerous position to take, not just for Syrians, but the world.
No my solution will not lead to more people dying elsewhere. Short of a straight forward war in Syria with Russia and Iran as our direct opponents nothing we can do militarily is going to shift Assad. As such all we are doing is making matters worse and risking a direct conflict with Russia. Advocating such a course is really not a good place to find yourself.
And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.
We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.
Interational treaties need to be enforced by international bodies, not vigilante nations. We are not the worlds policeman.
The only reason such bodies have any teeth is the power of their members.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Wandering off-topic I know but the BBC reporter must have had his fingers crossed when typing the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Wandering off-topic I know but the BBC reporter must have had his fingers crossed when typing the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops.
Spain supported America over Iraq without committing troops.
Wilson's careful manoeuvring over Vietnam was definitely one of his more impressive pieces of nifty footwork.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Wandering off-topic I know but the BBC reporter must have had his fingers crossed when typing the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops.
According to Wikipedia, the UK didn’t commit troops.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Now you might argue, with justice, that there he doesn't say he's a pacifist. However, if he's gone from not being sure whether he's a pacifist, to not being a pacifist, he's clearly evolved his views.
Incidentally he's perfectly at liberty to do that. Just as, for the matter of that, I have no objection to principled pacifists. Indeed his current views on war and warfare seem pretty close to my own.
But it's a bit rich for him to then say he's a man of iron principle who stick rigidly to his views. even though many of his opponents and supporters seem to believe that.
It all depends whether you consider being a Pacifist to be all or nothing, when surely there are degrees of Pacifism.
"And this seems to be the point about Mr Corbyn's attitude to military action. He thinks it should only be done as a last resort - and only then if the United Nations agrees to it"
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Wandering off-topic I know but the BBC reporter must have had his fingers crossed when typing the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops.
According to Wikipedia, the UK didn’t commit troops.
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If the UK gets away with using Brexit, then there is every chance we will get concessions if we threaten to leave too...get the referendum scheduled." Any action is not about the UK per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
(*) Who's Pete?
not me but Mr Corbyn was victorious in the Battle of Wood Green down by Ducketts Common in 1977,a great victory against the NF,as the fascist numpties were called at that time.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Wandering off-topic I know but the BBC reporter must have had his fingers crossed when typing the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops.
According to Wikipedia, the UK didn’t commit troops.
Harold Wilson resosted pressure to send troops, the USA did press hard to get us to join in, and successfully pressed Australia and South Korea to send troops. Indeed a cousin of mine was poisoned with Agent Orange while serving with the Australian Army in Vietnam.
The beast itself has had its moments: https://youtu.be/yT9w27RTrAQ (I nearly copied a different video, but just in time noticed it was from Russia Today and Hightower it might be wiser to go with this one instead!)
It all depends whether you consider being a Pacifist to be all or nothing, when surely there are degrees of Pacifism.
"And this seems to be the point about Mr Corbyn's attitude to military action. He thinks it should only be done as a last resort - and only then if the United Nations agrees to it"
Yes, but that's not what he was saying in 2015, when he was saying he couldn't be definite about being an absolute (in his words, 'total') pacifist while giving the clear impression if forced into a choice that that is what he would say.
It may be of course that he was lying then.
(Incidentally there are no degrees of pacifism. A pacifist is somebody who is always opposed as a matter of conscience to violence and rejects it as an option. You are a pacifist, or you are not. If you espouse violence as an option, at any point, you are not or cease to be a pacifist. Otherwise it is like saying something is 'slightly morally wrong.')
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Now you might argue, with justice, that there he doesn't say he's a pacifist. However, if he's gone from not being sure whether he's a pacifist, to not being a pacifist, he's clearly evolved his views.
Incidentally he's perfectly at liberty to do that. Just as, for the matter of that, I have no objection to principled pacifists. Indeed his current views on war and warfare seem pretty close to my own.
But it's a bit rich for him to then say he's a man of iron principle who stick rigidly to his views. even though many of his opponents and supporters seem to believe that.
No time to watch it, but my recollection of what he says personally is that he thinks the Sierra Leone intervention was sensible and successful, and that he would have very strongly supported the effort against Hitler. Essentially he feels that war should be a last resort, and that the West has too often treated it as a good early option.
I used to disagree, which is why I voted for the Iraq war, but I've come to feel he's right. I think it'd be a fair criticism to say that he'd tend to be slow off the mark if swift intervention was required (as it was in Sierra Leone) - his instinct is to say "Hang on a minute, let's look all around the issue and consider the options", and occasionally that can be the wrong policy. It is, however, safer than a policy of shooting from the hip, or blindly following another power's interventions.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Now you might argue, with justice, that there he doesn't say he's a pacifist. However, if he's gone from not being sure whether he's a pacifist, to not being a pacifist, he's clearly evolved his views.
Incidentally he's perfectly at liberty to do that. Just as, for the matter of that, I have no objection to principled pacifists. Indeed his current views on war and warfare seem pretty close to my own.
But it's a bit rich for him to then say he's a man of iron principle who stick rigidly to his views. even though many of his opponents and supporters seem to believe that.
It all depends whether you consider being a Pacifist to be all or nothing, when surely there are degrees of Pacifism.
"And this seems to be the point about Mr Corbyn's attitude to military action. He thinks it should only be done as a last resort - and only then if the United Nations agrees to it"
Resolution 502 affirmed the right of the UK to invoke article 51 wrt the Falklands, basically approving military action. Corbyn should have been behind it then?
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If the UK gets away with using Brexit, then there is every chance we will get concessions if we threaten to leave too...get the referendum scheduled." Any action is not about the UK per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
(*) Who's Pete?
not me but Mr Corbyn was victorious in the Battle of Wood Green down by Ducketts Common in 1977,a great victory against the NF,as the fascist numpties were called at that time.
"Battle"? That doesn't sound like something a pacifist would take part in
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
(*) Who's Pete?
Saint Peter.
It was a polite way and less blasphemous way of saying 'For God's sake'
Nonsense. It is just more polite than using Pete's brother's name: the unfortunately titled 'Fuck'. Luckily the rise of social media and the term FFS means his legacy has been revitalised.
Interational treaties need to be enforced by international bodies, not vigilante nations. We are not the worlds policeman.
Chemical Weapons Convention
Article XII
...
3. In cases where serious damage to the object and purpose of this Convention may result from activities prohibited under this Convention, in particular by Article I, the Conference may recommend collective measures to States Parties in conformity with international law.
4. The Conference shall, in cases of particular gravity, bring the issue, including relevant information and conclusions, to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.
We have had 4, which however doesn't derogate from the power of the Conference under 3. So presumably we need the conference to tell us what to do.
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
(*) Who's Pete?
Saint Peter.
It was a polite way and less blasphemous way of saying 'For God's sake'
Nonsense. It is just more polite than using Pete's brother's name: the unfortunately titled 'Fuck'. Luckily the rise of social media and the term FFS means his legacy has been revitalised.
What about their other sibling Pity? Barely gets a mention these days.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Wandering off-topic I know but the BBC reporter must have had his fingers crossed when typing the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops.
According to Wikipedia, the UK didn’t commit troops.
Harold Wilson resosted pressure to send troops, the USA did press hard to get us to join in, and successfully pressed Australia and South Korea to send troops. Indeed a cousin of mine was poisoned with Agent Orange while serving with the Australian Army in Vietnam.
Yes, so I’m not sure why the journalist would need his fingers crossed.
2 questions: (1) How do you determine such responsibility? (2) Do you think those who have gone to join ISIS and have had British citizenship removed, including women,should have it restored? And if not, what distinguishes their case from that of Mrs Assad?
She's not gone to join a proscribed terrorist organisation has she?
One is taking action against someone for their own actions, the other for the actions of their spouse.
The Assad is a proscribed regime. That needs to mean practical consequences for those who are part of that regime.
But she isn't. Or do you feel that marrying someone automatically signs you up to whatever they're doing?
I know an animal welfare rep who was based in Syria into the early days of the civil war and who met the Assads from time to time. Her (obviously anecdotal) view was that Assad was an opportunist, his brother was a psychopath, but Mrs Assad was extremely unpolitical and more interested in shopping than national affairs,
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons, then there is no chance we will get bombed if we use them too...get the factories rolling." Any action is not about Syria per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
How many other countries are looking on and thinking "If the UK gets away with using Brexit, then there is every chance we will get concessions if we threaten to leave too...get the referendum scheduled." Any action is not about the UK per se. It is painting on a broader canvas - about civilised countries saying "Not on our watch you don't."
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
(*) Who's Pete?
not me but Mr Corbyn was victorious in the Battle of Wood Green down by Ducketts Common in 1977,a great victory against the NF,as the fascist numpties were called at that time.
"Battle"? That doesn't sound like something a pacifist would take part in
Here is a partial account of the preparations made by Jezza's side;
"Organisationally, testing of red smoke flares tool place on Tottenham Marsh and quantities of flour, eggs and fruit were prepared. Some activists have suggested that the preparation had a degree of gender specifity to it, which would be much less usual in the labour movement 25 years on. For example, women were responsible for flour and eggs, while men did the testing of the smoke flares. "
No time to watch it, but my recollection of what he says personally is that he thinks the Sierra Leone intervention was sensible and successful, and that he would have very strongly supported the effort against Hitler. Essentially he feels that war should be a last resort, and that the West has too often treated it as a good early option.
I used to disagree, which is why I voted for the Iraq war, but I've come to feel he's right. I think it'd be a fair criticism to say that he'd tend to be slow off the mark if swift intervention was required (as it was in Sierra Leone) - his instinct is to say "Hang on a minute, let's look all around the issue and consider the options", and occasionally that can be the wrong policy. It is, however, safer than a policy of shooting from the hip, or blindly following another power's interventions.
I don't know him personally of course as you do but according to the BBC article above he was opposed to Sierra Leone, and the implication of the video is that he criticised his father for taking a combat role in WWII.
As you may have noted from my comment, I actually think he's right on this and we do press for war too fast. He and I were on the same side over Iraq.
2 questions: (1) How do you determine such responsibility? (2) Do you think those who have gone to join ISIS and have had British citizenship removed, including women,should have it restored? And if not, what distinguishes their case from that of Mrs Assad?
She's not gone to join a proscribed terrorist organisation has she?
One is taking action against someone for their own actions, the other for the actions of their spouse.
The Assad is a proscribed regime. That needs to mean practical consequences for those who are part of that regime.
But she isn't. Or do you feel that marrying someone automatically signs you up to whatever they're doing?
I know an animal welfare rep who was based in Syria into the early days of the civil war and who met the Assads from time to time. Her (obviously anecdotal) view was that Assad was an opportunist, his brother was a psychopath, but Mrs Assad was extremely unpolitical and more interested in shopping than national affairs,
In some contexts, if not all, being "extremely unpolitical and more interested in shopping than national affairs" is itself a political position. And she is a KCL graduate and former banker, and according to wiki "As First Lady she played a major role in implementing governmental organisations involved with social and economic development throughout the country as part of a reform initiative under Bashar's governance which was halted due to the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War.[5]"
Comments
Hastings Banda of Malawi was a GP in the UK before becoming president of Malawi. My profession does not have a great record in government!
Before all this I thought he was going to win, if America does take action and forces Russia to step away then I don't think that is guaranteed. This could have been a mistake like attacking Pearl Harbour but with Trump in charge I don't think it will be.
If the international community does nothing, it empowers Assad to think his use of chemical weapons is acceptable - and repeatable.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
FFS – I can imagine you on the doorstep.
"Can't I count on your vote?"
"No."
"Yes? I'll put you down as a yes."
"I said No."
"No. You said Yes."
"I didn't, I said No."
"I said Yes. So you said Yes."
"No."
"Do you want a poster for your window too?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43700097
I fear those wishing an Assad victory as the 'least evil' are not thinking the situation through. Yes, Assad might be 'better' than ISIS (although that's like choosing between drowned or dropped from a plane), but he's not good, and his victory will not lead to peace.
Amongst other issues, there is the Kurdish situation. Assad will want that territory back - and especially the oilfields. Do we abandon the Kurds to their fate, and what effect will that have on neighbouring countries (especially Turkey, but also Iraq)? Then there are all the other groups and people who are against Assad - and not all are fighters.
I care little for Assad or the fighters. I care for the ordinary civilians, many of whom find themselves in a hideous situation. We need to work out how to protect them when Assad wins.
Interesting piece here: https://twitter.com/newstatesman/status/984459125693304834
Currently it is a civil war. Would our intervention make it an uncivil war?
ISIL almost completely eliminated. The east of the country under control of the Kurds and for all practical purposes independent. The rebels holding onto a few besieged enclaves. The Turks having taken a nibble of the north, mainly to have a go at the Kurds but also to attack the US backed rebels who face destruction.
As a civil war it is really pretty much all over. A war with the Kurds looks unlikely in the short term unless Assad teams up with the Turks.
https://twitter.com/JWoodcockMP/status/984437635266605057
Naturally leads to usual response from his 'fan' club... including this prolific Corbynite tweeter who responds thus:
https://twitter.com/TimeForceCop/status/984439368030085126
The inherent sexist presumption about JW's relationship is unbelievable from this mob. As Ms. Hardman has pointed to many times about the abuse she gets.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
https://twitter.com/duncanrobinson/status/984460492621172736
Bringing in NATO seems as if this is part of co-ordinating action across the allies.
If working with an incontinent, best to be in the tent alongside p*ssing out.
The rumours are that the Turks and Assad are teamed up, at least for the moment - this war's already made some very weird bedfellows, with rebel groups fighting together in one area whilst fighting each other elsewhere. Likewise, Assad has been known to make some tactical alliances.
I'd also be very careful about pronouncing ISIL's destruction: I fear they're going to be like a balloon: squeeze them in one place, and they'll pop up somewhere else there's trouble. And there will be plenty of trouble to come in Syria.
But of course your hero Corbyn is pro Russia, Iran, Hamas and anti NATO
The gangs are known to be far more violent and ruthless than the local suppliers that have been running the drugs scenes in these smaller towns and of course if they decide not to listen to the bigger boys from London they get a sharp reminder they are to jog on.
As for Norfolk, as it is % change, it is probably 100% increase, as it has gone from 1 to 2.
Besides the Russians will rightly refer to the US support for Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran to the extent that the US provided tactical information on the location of Iranian units which could then be targeted by Iraqi chemical munitions.
Let's be clear: there is no 'good' solution. But I think that the relevant treaties are worth protecting. You do not. I think that's a incredibly dangerous position to take, not just for Syrians, but the world.
What's more, doing the right thing now makes it harder for us to do the wrong thing in the future, or that we might need to. It also discourages others from doing so.
I see this as an absolutely fundamental principle. If we let these treaties lapse, the world will be a much more dangerous place for everyone.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that.
Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops.
Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43737547
We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/republican-congressman-unloads-motherfker-trump-furious-top-message-conservative-pundit/
All horses are incontinent. The way wagons are designed means that it doesn't matter that they are.
NB: A poor attempt at humour on my part.
(*) Who's Pete?
Whereas now, there are international treaties that countries can be brought to book over if they develop such weapons, yet alone use them. Unfortunately Russia is doing its best to prevent that, for obvious reasons.
It was a polite and less blasphemous way of saying 'For God's sake'
https://news.sky.com/video/are-you-a-pacifist-labour-leader-speaks-to-sky-10345100
Now you might argue, with justice, that there he doesn't say he's a pacifist. However, if he's gone from not being sure whether he's a pacifist, to not being a pacifist, he's clearly evolved his views.
Incidentally he's perfectly at liberty to do that. Just as, for the matter of that, I have no objection to principled pacifists. Indeed his current views on war and warfare seem pretty close to my own.
But it's a bit rich for him to then say he's a man of iron principle who stick rigidly to his views. even though many of his opponents and supporters seem to believe that.
https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/984467905071992832
Wilson's careful manoeuvring over Vietnam was definitely one of his more impressive pieces of nifty footwork.
"And this seems to be the point about Mr Corbyn's attitude to military action. He thinks it should only be done as a last resort - and only then if the United Nations agrees to it"
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43737547
https://youtu.be/yT9w27RTrAQ
(I nearly copied a different video, but just in time noticed it was from Russia Today and Hightower it might be wiser to go with this one instead!)
It may be of course that he was lying then.
(Incidentally there are no degrees of pacifism. A pacifist is somebody who is always opposed as a matter of conscience to violence and rejects it as an option. You are a pacifist, or you are not. If you espouse violence as an option, at any point, you are not or cease to be a pacifist. Otherwise it is like saying something is 'slightly morally wrong.')
I used to disagree, which is why I voted for the Iraq war, but I've come to feel he's right. I think it'd be a fair criticism to say that he'd tend to be slow off the mark if swift intervention was required (as it was in Sierra Leone) - his instinct is to say "Hang on a minute, let's look all around the issue and consider the options", and occasionally that can be the wrong policy. It is, however, safer than a policy of shooting from the hip, or blindly following another power's interventions.
Article XII
...
3. In cases where serious damage to the object and purpose of this Convention may result from activities prohibited under this Convention, in particular by Article I, the Conference may recommend collective measures to States Parties in conformity with international law.
4. The Conference shall, in cases of particular gravity, bring the issue, including relevant information and conclusions, to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.
We have had 4, which however doesn't derogate from the power of the Conference under 3. So presumably we need the conference to tell us what to do.
I know an animal welfare rep who was based in Syria into the early days of the civil war and who met the Assads from time to time. Her (obviously anecdotal) view was that Assad was an opportunist, his brother was a psychopath, but Mrs Assad was extremely unpolitical and more interested in shopping than national affairs,
"Organisationally, testing of red smoke flares tool place on Tottenham Marsh and quantities of flour, eggs and fruit were prepared. Some activists have suggested that the preparation had a degree of gender specifity to it, which would be much less usual in the labour movement 25 years on. For example, women were responsible for flour and eggs, while men did the testing of the smoke flares. "
https://kmflett.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/the-battle-of-wood-green-23rd-april-1977/
As you may have noted from my comment, I actually think he's right on this and we do press for war too fast. He and I were on the same side over Iraq.