Trump could do that for any reason at any time. Doesn't this show the futility of spending a fortune on an "independent" nuclear deterrent that's dependent on American goodwill? And why is it always jobs in the arms industry that must be protected at all costs? Other industries don't get that.
Say they have intelligence that says IRGC leadership are meeting, and they blow up that site... Would that be defensive? According to US rhetoric the whole war is defensive... Where does the line get drawn?
Says the person who thinks bombers can be used as transport planes.
Do you imagine that the US is telling the UK its mission objectives, asking for permission?
No, they can't. They're not transport planes, they're bombers.
And schools.
They're bombers. The clue is in the name.
There's no point trying to appease the lunatic in the White House. If you give him what he wants he doesn't give anything in return, he just comes back for more.
What is the defensive function of a long range bomber?
Attacking the Greens has just made them look nasty. They need to outflank the Greens and attack Reform... At the moment, they seem to be doing the opposite.
Ha! Thank you. I didn't know that passage. But it does tend to support my theory. 😁
Anyway, my point is this is writing to be read aloud in a classroom, in a tutorial environment
The UEA course in the UK fulfilled a similar role... Again, subject to correction from someone who knows better.
AFAIK, he was a fiction editor at Esquire while teaching creative writing at Yale in the... 70s? I think he kind of invented creative writing as an academic subject as opposed to a practical craft. Happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong.
Masterpiece. A tiny social fracture on a remote island becomes emblematic of a nation at war with itself and the human soul torn between limitation and aspiration. A work of genius.
My theory about Lish is that his writing is primarily meant to be read aloud. It's frequently garbage on the page, but when you speak it, there's a kind of hypnotic beatnik rhythm. I think this is something to do with him being one of the first academic creative writing teachers.
Well, I'm convinced. "No true u-turns" happened. Whenever they announced one thing then did something else, it was because something happened, or the media objected, or they really meant to do the something else all along, or for some other reason. "True u-turns" only happen without any context.
I dont carefully avoid anything. How much do you expect in a single skeet? You want a list, but also all the context? This is just a point scoring game.
OK, some examples off the cuff: digital ID we've done already. Announcing the US couldn't use our bases for the war on Iran, then announcing they could. Defending the 2-child cap, then abolishing it. Cancelling elections then reinstating them. (I know they lost in court but they could have fought on
I know the context of those pledges-his campaign to be Labour leader. If you're telling me those were just performative empty gestures, not thought through or sincere, and therefore I can't take them into account in judging his performance as PM--I'll let you work out why I disagree.
Why did he make promises he had neither the ability nor the intention to keep?
I haven't answered this because I have to work and you are demanding a LIST (and also a second list of what they've achieved), which you will then set about no-true-Scotsmaning, and I don't have time. Is the purpose of this to persuade me I'm wrong, or to score points?
Promises, promises
If it's a sensible policy, why are they not pushing it through? They have a huge majority in the Commons. Why are they cowed by the media?
I've seen the measures they've introduced. I've seen the promises broken. I've heard the rhetoric on immigration. I've seen the announcements changing week by week. I've heard all the Labour supporters calling me stupid or brainwashed or uninformed or misogynist. And I've made a judgement on balance
Well, obviously that's not literally true. It was sort of a joke. Depending on which poll you look at, 18-20% of voters think he's doing a good job, and over 75% think he's doing a bad job. So he's rated marginally more competent than Liz Truss.
Corbyn was very popular in 2017. He was subjected to a campaign of vilification from the right wing press (and many within his own party), accused of antisemitism, and his popularity plummeted.
Would you say the digital ID policy was thought through?
If it's only an aspiration, why did Starmer promise it? What makes it impossible, and when might those circumstances change to make it possible?
