An Asian friend of mine who lives in the states went back home to the UK and it struck me that I was genuinely worried about his safety for the first time.
Two lovely Asian lads in traditional dress were walking down the street today sharing their Cadbury's Milk Tray box with those passing by because they were celebrating Eid and breaking their fast. Reminds me A) how lucky I am to live in city like mine how far removed/unaware I am from the danger they may face.
Hey, good news, there's support for the idea that we shouldn't be using EU nationals as hostages when negotiating terms with the EU.
edit: caveat - this is only valid until we go to Nigel "the most electrifying man in British politics" Farage to find that he thinks we, in fact, should, and then the entire debate comes down to how badly we should treat them, or why do you hate your country.
Hey, good news, there's support for the idea that we shouldn't be using EU nationals as hostages when negotiating terms with the EU.
edit: caveat - this is only valid until we go to Nigel "the most electrifying man in British politics" Farage to find that he thinks we, in fact, should, and then the entire debate comes down to how badly we should treat them, or why do you hate your country.
Considering if there was a free vote in Parliament on the EU referendum we'd still be in it, I'm not surprised.
This is another example of how this should never have been a public simple majority vote.
+10
Options
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
edited July 2016
Whatever happens, our next PM is going to be a lady.
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
Hasn't May called for plans to drop the HR act to be dropped recently?
So we've got a woman up to be our next PM. Question: Why have the 'orrible old tories led to us getting two female Prime Ministers when the left wing parties are struggling to elect a women as their leaders? (I say that as a Liberal Democrat who supports Tim Farron but I'm not going to deny that there seems to be a bit of a historical issue in my party as well).
Hasn't May called for plans to drop the HR act to be dropped recently?
So we've got a woman up to be our next PM. Question: Why have the 'orrible old tories led to us getting two female Prime Ministers when the left wing parties are struggling to elect a women as their leaders? (I say that as a Liberal Democrat who supports Tim Farron but I'm not going to deny that there seems to be a bit of a historical issue in my party as well).
She's recently backed down from the EUHR issue, so that's something.
There are people within the party who would make for a good leader but nobody who is willing to be supported by the base, the TU's and the PLP, and really you need the PLP and at least one other.
Rare moment of relief. May & Leadsom both seem terrifying but, just, anyone but Gove. This is my entire life-philosophy at this point. If Gove's not involved the situation has to be better than it might have been.
There are people within the party who would make for a good leader but nobody who is willing to be supported by the base, the TU's and the PLP, and really you need the PLP and at least one other.
Tom Watson is my guy.
Lucy.
+2
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
Personally I'm torn because any small desire I'd ever have for Gove getting in was snuffed out by his hamhanded betrayal of Boris but I'm hearing some pretty scary stuff about Leadsom's personal politics
Rare moment of relief. May & Leadsom both seem terrifying but, just, anyone but Gove. This is my entire life-philosophy at this point. If Gove's not involved the situation has to be better than it might have been.
quite
+1
Options
GrogMy sword is only steelin a useful shape.Registered Userregular
Hasn't May called for plans to drop the HR act to be dropped recently?
So we've got a woman up to be our next PM. Question: Why have the 'orrible old tories led to us getting two female Prime Ministers when the left wing parties are struggling to elect a women as their leaders? (I say that as a Liberal Democrat who supports Tim Farron but I'm not going to deny that there seems to be a bit of a historical issue in my party as well).
Because they're pining for the good old days of Maggie.
Hasn't May called for plans to drop the HR act to be dropped recently?
So we've got a woman up to be our next PM. Question: Why have the 'orrible old tories led to us getting two female Prime Ministers when the left wing parties are struggling to elect a women as their leaders? (I say that as a Liberal Democrat who supports Tim Farron but I'm not going to deny that there seems to be a bit of a historical issue in my party as well).
Because they're pining for the good old days of Maggie.
Hasn't May called for plans to drop the HR act to be dropped recently?
So we've got a woman up to be our next PM. Question: Why have the 'orrible old tories led to us getting two female Prime Ministers when the left wing parties are struggling to elect a women as their leaders? (I say that as a Liberal Democrat who supports Tim Farron but I'm not going to deny that there seems to be a bit of a historical issue in my party as well).
Because they're pining for the good old days of Maggie.
Hasn't May called for plans to drop the HR act to be dropped recently?
So we've got a woman up to be our next PM. Question: Why have the 'orrible old tories led to us getting two female Prime Ministers when the left wing parties are struggling to elect a women as their leaders? (I say that as a Liberal Democrat who supports Tim Farron but I'm not going to deny that there seems to be a bit of a historical issue in my party as well).
Because they're pining for the good old days of Maggie.
yeah i dunno i have a hard time saying "well that's what they want so that's what they get" when the consequences are gonna hurt a ton of people, including people who don't even live in the country that held the vote
Yeah, because a representative democracy is supposed to prevent exactly this - mob rule. Just because a vocal but slim majority calls for something doesn't mean it should happen. I look to particular parts of the US where social issues are incredibly divisive as evidence for this.
"If complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
To provide context, NATO in general is terrified of the Russian doctrine of "de-escalatory nuclear strikes" that they've adopted as part of their war plans. NATO members started freaking out about the age and size of their nuclear arsenals after a Russian wargaming exercise in 2013 where Russia "ended" the conflict by nuking Warsaw.
To provide context, NATO in general is terrified of the Russian doctrine of "de-escalatory nuclear strikes" that they've adopted as part of their war plans. NATO members started freaking out about the age and size of their nuclear articles after a Russian wargaming exercise in 2013 where Russia "ended" the conflict by nuking Warsaw.
We're in for a pretty tense 21st century.
Canada is sending troops and material to Latvia to contribute to the tripwire forces there and that entire concept is truly fucking frightening
Angela Eagle is to announce a formal challenge against Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour party on Monday, after the deputy leader, Tom Watson, announced that union-backed peace talks over a compromise had collapsed.
Watson claimed in a statement that Corbyn had torpedoed any hope of talks progressing by publicly declaring his intention to stay on as leader “come what may”.
Torpedoed it or devastated it with a submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missile, separating into several independently targeted re-entry vehicles?
Angela Eagle is to announce a formal challenge against Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour party on Monday, after the deputy leader, Tom Watson, announced that union-backed peace talks over a compromise had collapsed.
Watson claimed in a statement that Corbyn had torpedoed any hope of talks progressing by publicly declaring his intention to stay on as leader “come what may”.
I think that the Labour rebels may have lost a bit of...
Angela Eagle is to announce a formal challenge against Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour party on Monday, after the deputy leader, Tom Watson, announced that union-backed peace talks over a compromise had collapsed.
Watson claimed in a statement that Corbyn had torpedoed any hope of talks progressing by publicly declaring his intention to stay on as leader “come what may”.
And May is probably coming.
0
Options
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
Angela Eagle is to announce a formal challenge against Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour party on Monday, after the deputy leader, Tom Watson, announced that union-backed peace talks over a compromise had collapsed.
Watson claimed in a statement that Corbyn had torpedoed any hope of talks progressing by publicly declaring his intention to stay on as leader “come what may”.
I think that the Labour rebels may have lost a bit of...
Angela Eagle is to announce a formal challenge against Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour party on Monday, after the deputy leader, Tom Watson, announced that union-backed peace talks over a compromise had collapsed.
Watson claimed in a statement that Corbyn had torpedoed any hope of talks progressing by publicly declaring his intention to stay on as leader “come what may”.
And May is probably coming.
Well ... that can be read in a different light indeed.
The hopes of more than 4.1 million people who signed a petition calling for a second referendum on the EU have faded, after a response from the government saying it was a “once in a generation vote”.
Parliament must consider all petitions that reach a threshold of 100,000 votes for a debate and, although the decision has yet to consider the motion for a debate, the Foreign Office responded to the signatories by email on Friday evening, pointing out that over 33 million have had their say.
Well, had dinner with my grand ma for her birthday. When the vote came up her reason was: "I voted leave because I don't want [my grand daughter] marrying a muslim. You've seen how they treat their women"
And everyone else at the table went very awkwardly quiet for a while.
It's not the submarines, it's the nukes. And the ridiculous cost of maintaining them.
I am conflicted on Trident.
On the one hand, I take a practical attitude towards foreign affairs and think that if you want to be part of the big boys club in the modern world, having nukes is amongst the entry requirements. I also think that Trident is a pretty reasonably small but credible nuclear defence policy. There's no need for that and traditional missile silos, for example.
On the other hand, Trident is really expensive and NATO doesn't really need lots of nukes. If the UK gave up it's nuke arsenal and spent that money on conventional defence assets then we'd have an RAF and Royal Navy which were much more capable and there's a lot much practical functionality to be got out of strike fighters, frigates and armoured brigades than there are from a bunch of missiles you'll never fire. However that would mean that essentially we'd be more reliant on the US for nuclear defence policy than ever before.
Although we already essentially are, given that they are shared munitions anyway. And I'd like the UK to have more of a credible role in actual NATO operations because it would 1) take some of the weight off the US, and really NATO should expect member nations to pull their weight and 2) it would allow NATO policy to be more influenced by non-US sources and I think that'd be a good thing.
So yeah, I think I'd be cool with scrapping Trident if we then spent that money on other defence assets. But we almost certainly wouldn't. I think we will vote to retain Trident, though, if it goes to Parliament.
+3
Options
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
It's not the submarines, it's the nukes. And the ridiculous cost of maintaining them.
I am conflicted on Trident.
On the one hand, I take a practical attitude towards foreign affairs and think that if you want to be part of the big boys club in the modern world, having nukes is amongst the entry requirements. I also think that Trident is a pretty reasonably small but credible nuclear defence policy. There's no need for that and traditional missile silos, for example.
On the other hand, Trident is really expensive and NATO doesn't really need lots of nukes. If the UK gave up it's nuke arsenal and spent that money on conventional defence assets then we'd have an RAF and Royal Navy which were much more capable and there's a lot much practical functionality to be got out of strike fighters, frigates and armoured brigades than there are from a bunch of missiles you'll never fire. However that would mean that essentially we'd be more reliant on the US for nuclear defence policy than ever before.
Although we already essentially are, given that they are shared munitions anyway. And I'd like the UK to have more of a credible role in actual NATO operations because it would 1) take some of the weight off the US, and really NATO should expect member nations to pull their weight and 2) it would allow NATO policy to be more influenced by non-US sources and I think that'd be a good thing.
So yeah, I think I'd be cool with scrapping Trident if we then spent that money on other defence assets. But we almost certainly wouldn't. I think we will vote to retain Trident, though, if it goes to Parliament.
Scrapping it and spending at least part of the saving on a couple more carriers would be where I'd start. Very flexible assets and perhaps more importantly, ones that are incredibly useful in a humanitarian role, given that they are a mobile self powered town with medical facilities and a small airport.
Posts
Seems like he forgot the next sentence: "no immigrants!"
Two lovely Asian lads in traditional dress were walking down the street today sharing their Cadbury's Milk Tray box with those passing by because they were celebrating Eid and breaking their fast. Reminds me A) how lucky I am to live in city like mine
Hey, good news, there's support for the idea that we shouldn't be using EU nationals as hostages when negotiating terms with the EU.
edit: caveat - this is only valid until we go to Nigel "the most electrifying man in British politics" Farage to find that he thinks we, in fact, should, and then the entire debate comes down to how badly we should treat them, or why do you hate your country.
Considering if there was a free vote in Parliament on the EU referendum we'd still be in it, I'm not surprised.
This is another example of how this should never have been a public simple majority vote.
Which is quite good on one level and excellent for team Anyone But Gove
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
But terrible when one thinks Cameron's Gay Marriage push was a mistake and the other has been calling to repeal the Human Rights Act for years
Gender is no barrier to awful opinions
So we've got a woman up to be our next PM. Question: Why have the 'orrible old tories led to us getting two female Prime Ministers when the left wing parties are struggling to elect a women as their leaders? (I say that as a Liberal Democrat who supports Tim Farron but I'm not going to deny that there seems to be a bit of a historical issue in my party as well).
She's recently backed down from the EUHR issue, so that's something.
Tom Watson is my guy.
Lucy.
quite
Because they're pining for the good old days of Maggie.
The north remembers.
It's interesting, because without the context of who that is, "finishes the job that Margaret Thatch started" sounds like a scathing criticism
Yeah, because a representative democracy is supposed to prevent exactly this - mob rule. Just because a vocal but slim majority calls for something doesn't mean it should happen. I look to particular parts of the US where social issues are incredibly divisive as evidence for this.
Not a single person bid on it
To provide context, NATO in general is terrified of the Russian doctrine of "de-escalatory nuclear strikes" that they've adopted as part of their war plans. NATO members started freaking out about the age and size of their nuclear arsenals after a Russian wargaming exercise in 2013 where Russia "ended" the conflict by nuking Warsaw.
We're in for a pretty tense 21st century.
I'd have bet at least a Euro on it
Then you could stand him up.
Or just send a person who needs a good feed in your place with some headphones.
Satans..... hints.....
I'd publicly give the breakfast away to Gove actually.
They look like they could use a nice brekkie to patch things up between them.
Canada is sending troops and material to Latvia to contribute to the tripwire forces there and that entire concept is truly fucking frightening
I think that the Labour rebels may have lost a bit of...
Momentum
And May is probably coming.
eyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Well ... that can be read in a different light indeed.
Brexit: government dashes hopes of second EU referendum in e-petition response
And everyone else at the table went very awkwardly quiet for a while.
I am conflicted on Trident.
On the one hand, I take a practical attitude towards foreign affairs and think that if you want to be part of the big boys club in the modern world, having nukes is amongst the entry requirements. I also think that Trident is a pretty reasonably small but credible nuclear defence policy. There's no need for that and traditional missile silos, for example.
On the other hand, Trident is really expensive and NATO doesn't really need lots of nukes. If the UK gave up it's nuke arsenal and spent that money on conventional defence assets then we'd have an RAF and Royal Navy which were much more capable and there's a lot much practical functionality to be got out of strike fighters, frigates and armoured brigades than there are from a bunch of missiles you'll never fire. However that would mean that essentially we'd be more reliant on the US for nuclear defence policy than ever before.
Although we already essentially are, given that they are shared munitions anyway. And I'd like the UK to have more of a credible role in actual NATO operations because it would 1) take some of the weight off the US, and really NATO should expect member nations to pull their weight and 2) it would allow NATO policy to be more influenced by non-US sources and I think that'd be a good thing.
So yeah, I think I'd be cool with scrapping Trident if we then spent that money on other defence assets. But we almost certainly wouldn't. I think we will vote to retain Trident, though, if it goes to Parliament.
Scrapping it and spending at least part of the saving on a couple more carriers would be where I'd start. Very flexible assets and perhaps more importantly, ones that are incredibly useful in a humanitarian role, given that they are a mobile self powered town with medical facilities and a small airport.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO