What does this actually mean ?
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...nal-Cu-009.jpg
Printable View
What does this actually mean ?
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...nal-Cu-009.jpg
on the table for debate within the Labour Party – let alone up for a vote – into a positive as it shows his "dedication to democracy".
It almost leaves you wondering, if he's that deferential to the democratic process, why does he not accept that the majority of the country want a Tory government?
rivals are elitist, out-of-touch or have their heads in the clouds.
as you well know I meant
why am I listening to this? I am being told about something a party might do if they were in charge of the country.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
If you are not in charge then I can't be arsed to hear about you not at this point later on when it comes to election time.
It's like listening to Ian Wright telling me what he would do with the Arsenal team.
It has all the desperate pathos of a man whose wife is shagging everyone in sight trying to convince you they have an 'open marriage'. :hehe:
It's only the rental of an outdated system designed for a threat that stopped existing 25 years ago.
Although he is so widely laughed about that the TV crews don't even give him thechange to opine.
for about 5 secs before switching the radio off
I wouldn't have thought it takes a genius to recognise just how important and valuable a position that is and how several billion pounds is a price well worth paying for it.
Call me old fashioned but I'd much rather do something useful with the money.
can't see how that might be 'useful'. :rolleyes:
More conventional forces so we can invade more countries I'm struggling to remember when we last done anything with the UN security council for ourselves.
You get the French sending in mimes next
Yes, that's because the US is our key strategic ally. They tend not to vote against us and vice versa. Besides, if you have to use your veto, it's essentially an admission that your diplomacy has failed. For the most part, the diplomatic clout we have by virtue of being a UNSC member means things don't get to that stage.
I used to love them back in the day and still listen to the old stuff. I've never really been able to get into the newer stuff though, not sure why.
The radio jock said it was brilliant but he was lying.
As I say, it's far more important for the US that we have it than it actually is for us.
I mean, obviously we're dancing to our master's tune but seeing as they both started and perpetuated the whole arms race thing anyway (consistently having 3:1 advantage over the russians in terms of nuclear warheads for the entirity of the cold war) and given the fact we're all signitaries to the NPT, maybe they should actually pay for it.
It does seem like a bit of a Ponzi scheme on their part to me. Or to put it less charitably, like a protection racket.
gone from Blair's the people's princess, the people's NHS, the people's this the people's that to the real people's this and the real people's that now they understand that people won't vote for them their hope lies now with the real people