Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Indeed and any Visa cost would be meet by the same in return. Which is the sort of tit-for-tat BS that would be the first thing to avoid for all parties in a negotiation.
Quite frankly I have no idea what Mrs Rudd is doing tabling this when nothing is presently known. I suspect she not long for a reshuffle if she carries on like this after her recent comments on Education rocking the proverbial boat too..
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never paid for a visa to visit Japan. There is a mutual arrangement by which tourist visas valid for three or six months are pretty much automatically granted on application at the port of entry.
There's no reason why such arrangements could not be worked out between the UK and the EU.
My bad, I thought there was some token charge.
I agree that we could agree to waive it both ways, but I suspect both sides will want the costs of the additional checks to be covered (that's why we're doing this after all?)
Kilkrazy wrote: To deviate from Brexit, what do people think about the new Education shake-up plans?
The system is already 2-tier, if mandatory means-tested scholarships are part of it it might go a tiny way to addressing the issue.
I don't think streaming is a particularly strong argument, schools already stream internally anyway.
(I did start a conversation with this with my father when I visited the other week, as he's an education expert, but we didn't get any further than discussing the system already being broken, so I haven't got any good insight into why he thinks it's bad).
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
He's stood down as an MP, which means a snap by-election for the constituency of Witney... will probably still end up as Conservative I think.
Frees him up for years of after dinner speeches all the sooner. I'd love to attend one, I have some tomatoes ripening nicely and a box of elderly duck eggs in my shed.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
There is nothing for an ex-PM to do in the House of Commons. He probably will get knighted, and elevated to the Lords in a few years. Various well-remunerated private and public positions will help him to keep busy in the meantime.
He's stood down as an MP, which means a snap by-election for the constituency of Witney... will probably still end up as Conservative I think.
He wants to follow his idol Blair onto the speaking circuit to make a fortune. Have we ever had a more greedy, self serving Prime Minister?
Apparently the guy took notes and made audio tape logs all throughout his Premiership. Planning from day 1 for a multi million pound book deal no doubt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 17:08:15
He's stood down as an MP, which means a snap by-election for the constituency of Witney... will probably still end up as Conservative I think.
He wants to follow his idol Blair onto the speaking circuit to make a fortune. Have we ever had a more greedy, self serving Prime Minister?
Apparently the guy took notes and made audio tape logs all throughout his Premiership. Planning from day 1 for a multi million pound book deal no doubt.
It is co common now that I would be surprised if he hadn't. it's a great way to settle old scores and make a quick buck too. (I expect Boris to be in his sights).
Becoming a non exec at some big firm is par for the course too.
He's stood down as an MP, which means a snap by-election for the constituency of Witney... will probably still end up as Conservative I think.
Frees him up for years of after dinner speeches all the sooner. I'd love to attend one, I have some tomatoes ripening nicely and a box of elderly duck eggs in my shed.
.Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's seat in Parliament could be abolished under proposals from the Boundary Commission for England.
Mr Corbyn represents the Islington North constituency in London, and much of it is expected to form part of a new Finsbury Park and Stoke Newington seat.
Mr Corbyn would be entitled to seek selection as Labour's candidate.
A source close to the Labour leader said there was "every reason to believe Jeremy will have a seat to contest".
The total number of MPs is to be reduced from 650 to 600 under government plans.
The boundary commissions for England and Wales are drawing up plans for new constituencies, with proposed details being published on Tuesday.
The Labour Party is expected to be particularly hard hit by the changes.
Proposed changes to the boundaries in Northern Ireland have already been published.
The proposed changes in Scotland are set to be published next month.
of course ....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 18:07:56
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
The Labour Party is expected to be particularly hard hit by the changes.
of course ....
Isn't gerrymandering supposed to be illegal? fething Tories.
Labour did it themselves for years during the Labour government, to the point that an inbuilt bias for Labour developed. Thats not to excuse the Tories doing it themselves, but the constituencies certainly need to be rebalanced.
Also, I hear that Corbyn is facing losing his sea t/ seeing it merged with other constituencies, which is ironic. If this was deliberate Tory gerry mandering, you'd think they'd want to keep Corbyn around to make them look good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 20:10:03
The Labour Party is expected to be particularly hard hit by the changes.
of course ....
Isn't gerrymandering supposed to be illegal? fething Tories.
Labour did it themselves for years during the Labour government, to the point that an inbuilt bias for Labour developed. Thats not to excuse the Tories doing it themselves, but the constituencies certainly need to be rebalanced.....
I thought the same until I looked it up, seems pretty evenly spread out according to this..
Somewhere in the region of about 70k per constituency seems about right, bar the odd more sparsely place of about 40k, which are only a handful and hardly game breaking.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
If the House of Commons is to be reduced from 650 to 600 seats, clearly a significant redrawing of constituency boundaries will be required.
It is fair that each seat should represent more or less the same number of people. I don't think a range of 40,000 to 70,000 is fair. I believe also that it is important to make constituencies as near to optimum packing density as possible, to avoid the possibility of complex gerrymandering boundaries formed from many sided irregular polygons.
It should also be said that a good proportional representation system would eliminate the problem of gerrymandering entirely.
Did you look at the link? Out of the hundreds of constituencies there were 4 in Wales that were in the region of 40k. The rest are very evenly distributed and around the 70k mark with a few either side.
I would argue that on balance, that is quite acceptable.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Kilkrazy wrote: If the House of Commons is to be reduced from 650 to 600 seats, clearly a significant redrawing of constituency boundaries will be required.
It is fair that each seat should represent more or less the same number of people. I don't think a range of 40,000 to 70,000 is fair. I believe also that it is important to make constituencies as near to optimum packing density as possible, to avoid the possibility of complex gerrymandering boundaries formed from many sided irregular polygons.
It should also be said that a good proportional representation system would eliminate the problem of gerrymandering entirely.
There are some concerns that the way the numbers are going to be counted is not really going to be representative. If they use the electoral register then poor areas/high student number areas are likely to be under represented. But then these people generally don't vote Tory so I can't think why the Government would want to exclude them
The real test will be the next general election because I'm not sure individual poll stations are given stats for voting proportion. My concern is that we are going to see an even greater slide towards less people being able to vote in a majority.
As to DCs constituency it's going to be interesting to see who they actually put up for election there. Oxford is pretty pro-EU so do they go with a pro-EU candidate and upset the Wrexiters; alternatively do they put a Wrexiter in but risk losing lots of votes from those sore from what's going on. And as it's a by-election people are more likely to vote differently to express displeasure. That potentially gives Labour or Lib Dems (maybe Greens) the opportunity to really squeeze the vote (though it's so Tory I doubt they'll lose it).
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why a Welsh sheep farmer should have nearly twice the electoral power of an inner city dweller.
No offence is meant to Welsh sheep farmers.
Perhaps the Welsh sheep farmer needs twice the electoral representation in government because the Tower Hamlets resident is surrounded by quite a number of other London constituencies all voting in the interests of London?
Why should London have so many MPs to represent it? Shouldn't every town and city have an equal share in the country, and have an equal say in how it's run? Why should a city have more electoral say than an entire country?
London has 73 constituencies, Wales has only 40, Scotland had 59.
I would say, with that in mind, that the 4 constituencies in Wales, with these Welsh sheep farmers lording it over the people of Tower Hamlets, might actually have less say in how the Union is governed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/12 21:49:37
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
London should have so many constituencies because so many people live there. They don't all vote identically in the interests of London, whatever that may mean. (For various reasons... I want to avoid a digression about the size and power of the London economy and population.)
I advocate the system similar to the US Senate in which each county has two seats in the upper house regardless of population. This would balance population representation with special regional interests.
Kilkrazy wrote: There isn't much you can do about people not registering to vote, though.
The suggestion is to use the census data instead. You're legally required to complete it for each household and is a better capture of the population. The problem with the electoral role firstly is that the tories changed the system that you aren't automatically enrolled anymore based on census/council tax information (however long term residents wouldn't have to change anything, hmmm I wonder which party that benefits ). Whereas before the local councils asked you who was in the household now it's up to you to register. It's a massive change because it means a lot are missed off the system completely (or only updated at th last minute). Take a student for example - it is quite possible that whilst at university they will never need to vote, so there's no particular reason to register. However the number of people will remain roughly the same as that student will be replaced by another etc. In addition if you are a migratory worker within the uk then capture on self registration will be sketchy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: London should have so many constituencies because so many people live there. They don't all vote identically in the interests of London, whatever that may mean. (For various reasons... I want to avoid a digression about the size and power of the London economy and population.)
It is one problem with pr in that those areas not well populated can have an insignificant number of seats. NI would be a prime example, it has very few people relatively and by direct pr would probably have 1 mp that doesn't well reflect the population. I'd probably recommend what the EU does, where smaller regions get a slightly higher number of MEPs per population but not so many that it can bias heavily the overall results.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/12 22:14:57
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I guess it kinda comes down to the more fundamental question of. What do you personally believe MP's are for.
Me, personally, I like the system of, my MP represents mytown and various surrounding distances of farm land where my town is the central 'node' that those surrounding farmers use. Therefore, I like knowing that, if I actually cared more about politics than I really do, I could go up to him and whinge at him in his constituency office, which isn't too far away.
No! the 'point' is that these people (who i am starting to doubt their existence) are diminutising the opposition to such an extent that they ascribe stupidity like believing the 'determination of fruit/vegatable shape' thing to everyone who holds the opposite position to them. "because you'd have to be stupid to not think like i do" Those people can take a running jump of a bridge. if they actually exist that is.
I don't think everyone thinks that this is the case. The issue is that if enough people believe it then it can sway a result or further bias them. That's why Boris actively promoted it (and it was shown on the BBC/ITV without challenge) because it can be enough to sway some people. There was even a conversation in this very post many 10's of pages back where you could see enough people believed that the fruit/veg claims were 'true' and argued it. It's not the only piece of the puzzle by any stretch, but enough misinformation can change results. I suppose what should at least happen before a referendum is held that an independent body (as much as practical) prepares a report on the impacts and the opposing parties can then argue the semantics rather than both sides stating outlandish claims to a public that can't really understand the minutiae of the statements.
plan named “Khartoum Operation” to fund the RSF from the EU money and particularly from Germany besides providing it with logistical support from Italy.
Are you suggesting that international sanctions as a way to promote regime change should be avoided and that we should in fact fund the janjaweed militias because it will 'settle' after a while?
Propping up a regime makes you just as guilty of it's crimes as it is - the only people who don't think so are working at the clinton foundation. (who support the president of sudan)
There's no illusion that some of the money will go to acts of violence just as deplorable as what goes on around the world. The question is whether it can *eventually* improve the situation. Sanctions don't seem to work (North Korea is an example here). Invasions don't really work because of the opposition to it and a naïve hope that we'll go in beat the person we don't like and then leave (Iraq). Supplying arms to rebels doesn't work (Syria). Ignoring it doesn't work because they find funding from less scrupulous suppliers anyway. So trying to encourage a country to improve with cash injections seems just as feasible. Yes some of it goes in directions that are not the intent. However there is a difference in supplying arms to a regime that we know is causing civilian casualties vs providing funds that you can direct and hope at least some goes to improving the situation. Maybe the better route would be to provide specific equipment rather than cash (water filtration systems, equipment to generate electricity) but then there is still no guarantee that they will get to the people that need it. To re-iterate you can only use weapons to kill people, they are no good for farming, digging wells, providing electricity, building schools etc. At least cash can at least be used for these purposes if not all of it is.
As for whether sanctions work over other methods of persuasion is probably enough work for several tens of thesis's and probably not best discussed. Albeit to say that many sanctions don't work because there generally isn't a global will to act on them and usually one party or another ignores or blocks it. In addition many of these countries have large open ill defined borders so actually policing these will be an exercise in frustration (and you may only just end up angering and entrenching the regime further. On the other hand dialogue and financial incentives may eventually help to break the deadlock as peoples lives become more comfortable, lack of resources becomes less of an issue and employment becomes higher. Yes you might have to sacrifice some integrity in the short term and have to minimise unwanted use of the funds but with a bit of patience maybe a better world will result. A good example may be Cuba; perhaps one of Obama's greatest legacies will be the thawing of relations between the US and Cuba. Sanctions didn't work, yet dialogue did even if you don't approve of the country's methods.
Secrecy is a huge part of our our special forces members safety and nuclear deterrent's effectiveness - if an external threat knew where our subs were they would be almost useless. Don't even suggest something which could reveal their position because it will not get implemented, end of. Same goes for the SAS and SBS. Plus the way things stand, if you want training by the SAS etc then you have to pay for it. This arrangement assumes that the other nations have a right to the training, no mention of payment or funding.
They don't have to need it - the wording says that if you have a deficiency then the other states have to supply access to theirs via 'cooperation'.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower was the commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force and General Bernard Montgomery was the commander of the 21st Army Group, which comprised all the land forces involved in the invasion. we had more control than any other nation - we planned it, we prepared for it and we controlled our troops during and after it.
Just because they have shared command doesn't mean that they need to know the exact location of any of the forces. At that level it becomes about strategic decisions, rather than application of individual forces. That would be the decision of individual commanders. To have a deficiency you have to have a need for something, I fail to see how defending the EU would require the need for a nuke or two. Not unless you are proposing that they used the nukes on the EU
To quote wiki "By the end of 1944, Eisenhower, through SHAEF, commanded three powerful Allied army groups. In the north British 21st Army Group commanded by Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery ("Monty"), in the middle the American 12th Army Group commanded by General Omar N. Bradley, and in the South the American 6th Army Group commanded by Devers." He became over time the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Yes each command group was planned there own engagements but overall control was with the US.
Spoiler:
We only jumped into wars like you're making out when tony blair was in charge - he did the Kosovo War, the Sierra Leone Civil War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War.
The point being that recent history suggests that we are more aggressive than other EU countries (although that doesn't necessarily it mean it will be true in the future which I will concede).
Sorry, but thats a laughable assertion. When you're talking about the technical and tactical advancement the German military had available to them, teaming up to be shot in a group won't change anything.
On that principle then the Russians should have lost substantially. There is no denying casualties would have been high, but I'm talking way before the UK, French and Belgium got involved. In the (very) hypothetical situation where all the EU nation states had co-ordinated their actions immediately after Germany started showing aggressive tendencies then there was a higher probability that the domination of Europe wouldn't have happened. In reality by the time the above three woke up and did something it was by far too late. On the other hand if joint operations between French and British Navy could have easily blockaded Germany's ports simply because combined they were more than a match for what Germany had at the time when it started showing aggressive tendencies. The Bismark and the BF109K didn't sail get used until 1941 and 1943 respectively, way past the time I'm talking about. However it is all very hypothetical though and these changes would have affected how Germany would have reacted as well. The only point I am trying to make is that co-ordinated multinational response to threats can be more effective because you cover other nations weaknesses with your strengths and vice versa (in exactly the same way as you combining a Tau and SM army together would mean you can benefit from both their advantages and minimise each others weaknesses).
The only reason people donate anything is because they want "to feel good about doing something for someone" - most people don't examine the "i want to.." bit of the reply.
That's an absurd analogy to apply to nations - they aren't our 'family' and never will be - the EU was trying to push that line but it's just a drive to create a new super-power.
The notion of needing to group ourselves to a continent as defined by the olympic rings was a Nazi ideal to support their expansionist policy which is now kept alive in a star-trek style fantasy that after joining into one governance that we would drop money, use credits, gain warp travel, meet the aliens, join the galactic federation and explore the stars with replicators and bring peace throughout the galaxy.
But the feel good factor is an evolved response to being part of a family. It's the same with sex, caring for a baby, giving presents or donating. The body dopes us with a drug so we fell good and do it again. That's how we've evolved to work as family unit.
In actuality we are all family, we're all related to one single women; the genetic variation in the human race is actually tiny compared to what we expect from a species of our age. The general theory goes that the human species became almost extinct at some point and we're probably all related to one tribe that managed to survive. There's a lot of evidence to show that the more you get to know another group or person then more you see them as part of the family group. There was a program (I think channel 4) showed of people from Leicester where one person who was dead set against polish immigrants lived and worked with one and by the end of the series was acting to protect this person from an unscrupulous landlord who was exploiting her. The Nazi ideal was to create a super race dominant above others who were then effectively slaves; that's not what we are talking about here. We're talking about a large 'family' group that works together for the overall benefit of the family. The only barriers to this are the barriers we put up ourselves (again an evolved response).
Our national debt only rose above the ~40% mark was because of the massive financial crash of 2008 which nearly destroyed global finance and us bailing the financial system of the uk out.
Strictly speaking the Banks (or one particular one) was also responsible for Greece fiasco
In all honesty, it's made me feel like not bothering debating with you, because it leaves me feeling like I say X exists, and you jump in and go 'SO X+Y=Z EH?! LET ME TELL YOU A THING!' I've got too much writing to do in my real life to spend my days hammering out paragraphs that bounce off that sort of approach to debate!
Entirely your prerogative. I'll miss the conversations; thanks for all the fish
SHAEF was one of many formations commanded by the 'Combined Chiefs of Staff' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Chiefs_of_Staff comprising of 4 Americans and 4 Britons - it was a shared command from start to finish - involving more and more nations as the scope of the war broadened.
Although it was responsible to both the British and American governments, the CCS controlled forces from many different countries in all theaters, including the Pacific, India and North Africa. Representatives of allied nations were not members of the CCS but accepted procedure included consultation with "Military Representatives of Associated Powers" on strategic issues.[2] Much cooperation continued between the British and American militaries after the war including the Combined Chiefs of Staff structure, and it was used again during the Berlin Blockade of 1948 even as negotiations began that resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Look dude, when you're prepared to commit your opinion as fact it makes debating with you a waste of time.
I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post (the conversation appears to have moved on now anyway) and as far as i'm concerned you have to provide proof of what you claim (links to trustworthy sources minimum) before i'm going to take your word on something from hereon.
Sorry, but there it is.
Back on topic: i almost feel sorry for corbyn with the endless challenges in the media he's had since basically being nominated for as joke by one of his colleagues who didn't think he'd get the title anyway...
What a palava!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
Kilkrazy wrote: London should have so many constituencies because so many people live there. They don't all vote identically in the interests of London, whatever that may mean. (For various reasons... I want to avoid a digression about the size and power of the London economy and population.)
I advocate the system similar to the US Senate in which each county has two seats in the upper house regardless of population. This would balance population representation with special regional interests.
But the nub of the problem is that London does dominate politics in the UK. It took a nationwide referendum to overthrow the wishes of London for the first time in as long as I can remember. Because of the location of Westminster and it's hold over MPs , and the Tory and New Labour obsession with London, the rest of the country has been effectively left to stagnate.
The powerhouses of industry have been stripped from the region's, everywhere outside of the southeast has been strangled of infrastructure, and investment for so long, they've forgotten what it's like to not be dependent on the EU for bus services.
We cannot not talk about the role of London in the future shaping of the country, the southern centric view of the UK has dominated politics for decades, and the only way forward is to rebalance that by starting to invest outside of London, and to spread the load. Schemes like HS2 are only crutches that continue to support the capital whilst pupporting to reinvigorate the northern powerhouses. We all know that that is utter bollocks, it'll take more than a high speed rail link to restart the economy outside of the south east.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Personally, I'm not 100% sure of the whole London domination thing is gonna keep on going.
The management of my workplace is very much of the point of view of, "eff that London bollox, that's way too frigging expensive and we can't compete with that sort of money." - And like I said a few pages back, my IT workplace is REALLY looking for workers.
As such, they're very much looking for a case of, "anywhere but London."
Curiously enough, I actually do live in the "most powerful" voter constituency, Swansea West. Where I am apparently equal to 2 regular voters in London.
And we've been Labour since 1922, make of that what you will.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
I'd like to thank everybody above this post who have posted very good arguments in favour of a Federal Britain.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Compel wrote: Personally, I'm not 100% sure of the whole London domination thing is gonna keep on going.
The management of my workplace is very much of the point of view of, "eff that London bollox, that's way too frigging expensive and we can't compete with that sort of money." - And like I said a few pages back, my IT workplace is REALLY looking for workers.
As such, they're very much looking for a case of, "anywhere but London."
(the good bits of) Glasgow. We've got an endless stream of graduates to intern, a motorway that cuts right through the city, a working subway system and dozens of new build office towers on top of several rural communities in less than 10 miles distance.
This is not at all me promoting my nearby industrial centre because my (IT) contract was cancelled due to Brexit. Nope. Not at all.
Some people find the idea that other people can be happy offensive, and will prefer causing harm to self improvement.
Apparently Corbyn is going to establish Labour Organising Academies to train activists nationwide.
looking at the logo :
I cannot help but think that Marvel/Disney might, possibly, be a bit unhappy at certain similarities between this and a certain shield.
On the plus side I'm sure Uk politics would be much more interesting if we start using super serum enhanced people.
Bit of luck this'll lead to giant killer robots at PMQs
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Legion: Dark Angels 
