I think the bureaucracy and costs of setting up a means tested system would outweigh any savings made.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I think the bureaucracy and costs of setting up a means tested system would outweigh any savings made.
True. It will make it harder for those who need to get to work to do so on the basis that presumably the buses will be fuller earlier meaning that people normally guaranteed a seat may have to stand or wait for the next one. If this is to help the U25s to college/work then it'll have to start before the OAP free buses do and as soon as that kicks in good luck getting a seat. Otherwise it's only really going to benefit those who start work after 10, which will be some but probably not the vast majority.
Local bus services should be returned, in part, to the local authorities. Around here it's terrible, whole parts of the town are cut off after 5pm at night because it's not economically viable for the bus companies to service those areas. Also there's very little choice, we have two major companies and they carve up the town between them. There is no choice between company A or company B anywhere as each route is only served by one company.
That would be a much better policy.
Met a man a while back who had to walk there and back to the library every day to do his JC instructed daily internet search for jobs. He didn’t have a computer of any kind at home. It was snowing that day and he arrived freezing cold, having only had a carrot for breakfast because that was the only food he had. The unemployed should be definitely given free travel imo.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...-the-jew-in-sussex-pub-row-with-a3814481.html
the sincerity of the antisemitism row never ceases to amaze
the sincerity of the antisemitism row never ceases to amaze
yes they would.
But you know what the answer to that is?
Ignore the twats and try and get it sorted anyway
It is a legitimate question.
But so is whether it's right to bomb Russia because of their involvement in Syria or Ukraine or elsewhere.
Or North Korea for their appalling humanitarian treatment of it's own citizens.
Or any other rogue state for that matter.
The difference with Assad is the use of chemical weapons which is a red line and has been since WWI.
Corbyn is a pacifist - always has been. As JRM says he should just declare that fact as he has the right to be one.
However, the upshot of that would rightly be his ability to run the country given that the first duty of any government is to protect it's citizens.
He knows this and that is why the messages he sends out are so flakey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Vietnamese_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26...rove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/
More a squiggle than a red line. And that's without getting into incendiaries that burn peope alive (napalm, white P)
Very well then.
How about when the Israelis used white phosphorus on the Palestinians? Or when the Yanks used depleted uranium in Fallujah, the effects of which are still being seen today in Iraqi newborn babies (which Raoul himself diligently said to ''get over it"). Or heck didn't the Russians allegedly use a chemical agent on British soil? Did the RAF line up their jets to to bomb Tel Aviv, DC or Moscow? Did they feck.
Let's be honest, this has nothing to do with chemical weapons and drawing lines.
Edit: Just noticed you started the clock at WWI. If that's the case you may be horrified to learn who's been the biggest users of chemical weaponry since.
Yes I agree. There have been all manner of uses of chemicals and nasty stuff. Because nothing was done before does not mean that nothing should be done now. The UN should be the place to sort this stuff but it's constitution makes it largely impotent. So what is to be done? Nothing? Do we just let these civil wars play out allowing whatever means a state or faction has at it's disposal to be deployed in order to win?
Maybe we need to wipe out a few million from time to time - like pruning roses.
So because there are precedents to back up your argument should we do nothing? People on here are real masters of finding reasons not do something. And real short of ideas of what should be done. Why don't some of you postulate some suggestions of what you reckon should be done about the various appalling situations that are found around this planet and let's scrutinise those.
Do you actually believe we've nullified Assads ability to use chemical weapons though??
May's reasoning on the motive and immediacy of the strikes just doesn't add up. Her claim that we didn't take orders from Trump even more so.
Ok lets look at it another way. We wait. Firstly we were unable to mount a UN sanctioned inspection team to establish what happened because the Russians vetoed it. So OPCW go in and they are immediately denied access on the grounds of security - but hey, the press were allowed in. The end result of all that will be - and I'll stake my eye teeth on it - inconclusive. Nothing then happens. No airstrikes. No message sent. No UN sanctions because Russia vetoes those. So the next time Assad meets a pocket of particularly stiff resistance in go a few more barrel bombs because chlorine gas will find them wherever they are hiding. And anyone else besides.
But if people think that is justified because nothing was done about Vietnam, Fallujah or whatever then say so. If not then suggest a response.
What happened in Vietnam and Fallujah shows that it is not chemical weapons, but the identity of the power using them which is the sole motivating factor behind this intervention.
I suggest the west does nothing, and especially not without formal proof- many recent interventions have unambiguously worsened whichever area they walked into, but this doesn't seem to have led to any introspection.
Kosovo being the exception. But non-intervention is at least a position that many people would take. It does then somewhat nullify arguments that World should have done something about Rwanda for example.
I don't blame any country for *not* intervening. In a hypothetical world where that's the default stance and simultaneously every government is massacring its people, yes. But not in the world, and especially not from the US (which AFAIK has an active bombing campaign in 7 countries right now)
That's not what i asked, i asked if you thought this nullified Assads ability to use chemical weapons? Because if it didn't then isn't it a bit pointless as the next time he meets stiff resistance he'll just use them again knowing the meek response.
Doing 'something' for the sake of not doing anything whilst raising global tensions might not be Corbyns pacifism but it is fecking stupid.
I don't know if the facilities hit were genuine factories or empty buildings. However, I would think that the US/France/UK do have 'assets' on the ground in the region. I do believe that CW have been and were used so they must have been made/stored somewhere. I also think that 'hotline' communications between the US and Russia would have gone some way to allow the West to underline of the unacceptability of CW usage whilst not escalating things too far.
Only when it's been beneficial for powerful countries to form a narrative. For instance, the US has used depleted uranium in both Iraq and Syria. That is a chemical weapon.
Without getting into the white phosphorus myth (and we can argue technically all day long), you can rest assured the Jeremy Corbyn would attack Israel without UN resolutions or demanding a Parliament recall. He'd have the biggest hard-on ever.
If an Israeli soldier farts he calls for sanctions yet I don't recall the same for Syria. Ever. Just a "political solution".
Even this bunch, under Corbyn's patronage, couldn't help themselves.
When has Corbyn ever demanded to go to war or attack any country, nevermind Israel?Without getting into the white phosphorus myth (and we can argue technically all day long), you can rest assured the Jeremy Corbyn would attack Israel without UN resolutions or demanding a Parliament recall. He'd have the biggest hard-on ever.
If an Israeli soldier farts he calls for sanctions yet I don't recall the same for Syria. Ever. Just a "political solution".
Even this bunch, under Corbyn's patronage, couldn't help themselves.
Never. He is a pacifist and therefore unfit to be PM because he is unable to fulfil the first duty of government. Nothing wrong with that he is entitled to that view. But he should resign and return to the backbenches.
Yes, we need murderers and warmongers.
It's must take special types of mental gymnastics to consider him a pacifist and terrorist sympathizer at the same time.
He would not press the nuclear button
Yes, we need murderers and warmongers.
I think he supported a UN force going into East Timor. There was also an article recently where he said he'd wanted intervention in Rwanda.
Good. I'd rather not die.
And Congo.
The deterrent works because there is an innate willingness to use it.
No it works on the grounds of mutually assured destruction. If used, retaliation is certain. It wouldn't even be in the UK's hands, the US would decide the outcome.
Peacekeeping forces. All very well but pretty useless - as the Belgian UN contingent in Rwanda found out.
If we have to use it, it isn't a deterrent. Hope that helps.
But retaliation would not be certain under Corbyn.
Useless because the major powers didn't put one hundredth of their focus into Congo as they did into starting proxy wars around the world. Corbyn wanted a far greater presence.
Yes it would. The UK has codes which go beyond government. Nuclear submarines stationed at various parts of the world continuously to deter threat. If the UK was attacked, those submarines would respond, but in compliance with the US who by that time would already be firing nuclear weapons. That's how NATO works.
So far it has worked don't you think? Or do you think that if Russia had them and nobody else then Hiroshima and Nagasaki would remain the only places where they were used. How long would North Korea take in the same circumstance? Compared to the US the UK and France's arsenal is fairly token but they send the message.
Who can forget the time we nuked Russia and North Korea.
It is Corbyns stance on the matter which is important here. As a nuclear power the UK must have a leader that is prepared to sanction a response.
Your ideal PM is someone who'll increase the sales of bomb shelters and gas masks.