I fucking love you Bam.
not my finest hour!
i think corbyn needs to stop saying the UN are the ones who get to decide, 'cos everybody knows russia has that veto and it looks like the boy is passing the buck (plus he doesn’t believe it himself). what he should say is the truth: that bombing is syria is utterly futile, and he should ask, “who wants to die in a potential nuclear war for the sake of may, macron and trump’s poll ratings?”
also, we were right not to intervene overtly (we’ve been involved in syria covertly since the beginning) in 2013 and we’re right not to intervene now. fire anybody saying otherwise out of a cannon and into the sea.
Nothing the UK does will influence the US in any way whatever, so all Corbyn, May and any other UK politician has to play for is domestic optics (I guess May might feel she has the potential for brownie points with Trump, but I doubt it). So you’re right he should just keep playing to the gallery.
No way is Putin getting sucked into any sort of war (let alone a nuclear one) with the US by anything short of a direct attack on Russian territory. You don’t start wars you know you can’t win unless you have no choice. Everything going on in Syria by the foreign powers is all about strategic positioning after Assad’s finished his mission to turn the country into the flattest and least densely populated country on earth.
aye, this is why the tory idea of a retroactive vote on bombing is a semi-smart move on their part. when the opposition return “no” votes they can carp on about how irrelevant us daft lefties are. force that vote and engineer a bad result for the tories. show how weak and despised they are.
it needs to be hammered home to the UK public that all of this is built on the foundational lie that we haven’t been deeply involved in the syrian bloodbath since at least 2012. we also need to forcefully challenge the gathering consensus that MPs were “wrong” to vote nay on bombing in 2013. we need to make the point that this isn’t about chemical weapons, it’s about a crumbling government with no authority trying to force a make-or-break falklands moment to retain power. who really benefits from a bombing campaign both in syria and here at home, what could we do with the money we’ll waste on this, etc.
To be honest I think there is a smidgen of validity to the chemical weapons angle, by which I mean I think it probably is just about technically possible for the US to locate and destroy a part of Assad’s stockpile that would make a tangible difference to his ability to gas his own people. But the plan would have massive risks attached, on just about every level, and as you imply, being gassed en masse in front of international media is just one of the many ways those lucky Syrians can meet their end at the moment. It’s not like destroying a load of chlorine tanks is going to make any Syrian kids any safer.
this, this, this.
plus i always wonder, how certain can we be that we’re even hitting the right target? or where these factories are? how do we know we’re not blowing up the only bread warehouse in town X or Y? and if we do hit a chemical weapons factory, what happens to all the toxic fumes the bombs will release? surely we’ve then just ended up gassing the people we were supposed to be protecting. (genuine question, idk much about how missiles work). i understand bombing a potential nuke facility is reasonably “safe” because nukes need a particular kind of trigger to detonate, but all a barrel full of chlorine needs to “work” is someone to crack it open.
this is long and good
Second, what if, instead of waiting to see whether the reforms, once bedded in, were giving the NHS some room for manoeuvre, the government and local NHS managers banked gains in advance, and ‘transformation’ became a euphemism for ‘cuts’?
the whole article is great but this especially resonates with me. I’ve seen so many departments announce sweeping changes to working processes without staff consultation and then, when they prove unworkable and/or impossible to implement, the staff get absolutely skull-fucked by a craven and stats obsessed managerial tier.
I’d have like to have seen more in there about the pressures on local authority funding - the article almost treats the NHS as a self-contained entity.
This bit rang very true, however:
The response of modern British manufacturers to efficiency gains is seldom to increase wages, because they can always find cheaper workers abroad: the reward of efficiency isn’t a wage hike but the fact that you get to keep your job. Except that often you don’t.
And, right on cue:
“Theresa May is set to mount an unprecedented legal challenge at the UK Supreme Court next week to stop Nicola Sturgeon’s own Brexit Bill from becoming law.”
“Lawyers for the Prime Minister have been examining the Continuity Bills of both the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which seek to protect the devolved settlement in the event there is no agreement between London, Edinburgh and Cardiff on the UK Government’s flagship EU Withdrawal Bill.”
What a ruddy gruddy United Great British Kingdom.
OECD not known to advocate progressive policies. Welcome aboard
Tony Blair is Wenger
did we discuss this?
It’s getting a bit of an airing in the ’is BBC racist now father’ thread in the context of the Enoch Powell Rivers of Blood anniversary show
But otherwise not much
Jim Murphy is Graeme Souness. The reds have never properly recovered since he was in charge.
temporary moment of sanity on trump’s part here, maybe we’ll live to see brexit after all