May Vs Corbyn live on the telly,
Discussion
Trabi601 said:
The drone strikes have worked so well, haven't they? A massive waste of resources for what appears to be no gain at all.
The Falklands would be fecked under either party - we won't have the resource to defend them until we finish the new carriers and put some aircraft on them. Even then, we'd be so worried about losing a carrier, we'd be reluctant to deploy them anyway - and we don't have enough surface vessels to properly defend the islands without outside support.
In terms of nuclear weapons of our own - we don't need them. There's a NATO policy to defend non-nuclear states, so I'd happily let them go to spend the money where it's needed, not on a white elephant that will never get used in anger.
The Falkland Islands are now the largest carrier you could possibly imagine. Don't think it is currently defended by one small group of soldiers and a penguin, like it was when Argentina last visited. If they tried that now they would be decimated before they got off the beach of Argentina.The Falklands would be fecked under either party - we won't have the resource to defend them until we finish the new carriers and put some aircraft on them. Even then, we'd be so worried about losing a carrier, we'd be reluctant to deploy them anyway - and we don't have enough surface vessels to properly defend the islands without outside support.
In terms of nuclear weapons of our own - we don't need them. There's a NATO policy to defend non-nuclear states, so I'd happily let them go to spend the money where it's needed, not on a white elephant that will never get used in anger.
With regards to Nukes, what happens if NATO loses its nuclear states? We were very close to the USA pulling out just a few weeks ago. Trident is for the next 30 years, lots can change in that time.
Trabi601 said:
Dept as a % of GDP remained relatively stable, maybe a slight increase, but only to the same levels as the previous government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_natio...
The spike came as a result of the global financial crisis - but has continued to grow under Cameron and May.
The most sensible approach to government funding is to deficit spend in recession and cut back government spending during the boom times, that's how you develop an economy and spend when required, yet also pay down debt so you don't end up with a huge debt to service. This means you don't have unnecessary austerity when the cycle is on the down.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_natio...
The spike came as a result of the global financial crisis - but has continued to grow under Cameron and May.
What the Labour party did was deficit spend at massive levels during the boom times, that left them in serious s
t when the hard times hit. It was beyond stupid. The whole philosophy was that boom and bust had been abolished, Brown boasted about it. The man was a dork.What we have now is a lowering of deficit spending, but still deficit spending, to ensure the overall economy doesn't tank. Had Labour done their job properly, right now we wouldn't be in this position.
Halb said:
DMN said:
I've learn't one thing tonight: Corbyn isn't prepared to kill innocent woman and children, therefore he's worse than hitler.
If he wanted peace he'd talk to unionist and republican, he'd talk to hamas and Israel, except of course he doesn't. He talks to and for one side only, then he lies and/or dissembles when pulled up on it.
Trabi601 said:
jsf said:
The Falkland Islands are now the largest carrier you could possibly imagine. Don't think it is currently defended by one small group of soldiers and a penguin, like it was when Argentina last visited. If they tried that now they would be decimated before they got off the beach of Argentina.
With regards to Nukes, what happens if NATO loses its nuclear states? We were very close to the USA pulling out just a few weeks ago. Trident is for the next 30 years, lots can change in that time.
4 Typhoons and a couple of Chinooks appear to be our defences down there. Not a massive force - better, perhaps, than it was in the early 80s - but I'd not say they could 'decimate' any landing force!With regards to Nukes, what happens if NATO loses its nuclear states? We were very close to the USA pulling out just a few weeks ago. Trident is for the next 30 years, lots can change in that time.
Fair point on the nukes, but I'd prefer to get rid and take our chances.
I'd prefer not to leave our defence to chance, that's how wars start.
Trabi601 said:
jsf said:
The most sensible approach to government funding is to deficit spend in recession and cut back government spending during the boom times, that's how you develop an economy and spend when required, yet also pay down debt so you don't end up with a huge debt to service. This means you don't have unnecessary austerity when the cycle is on the down.
No governments have consistently done this, though! - it's not purely a Labour thing.What Brown did what utter vandalism that we are still paying the price for.
I take it you agree with my assessment of how badly Labour behaved, you haven't said I am wrong about what they did.
Trabi601 said:
The global financial crisis had a disproportionate effect on Brown's legacy. Doesn't matter which side of the fence you are on, wider scale issues had a massive impact on the country at that time.
Don't forget, he ran a surplus for 4 (5?) years.
Both sides of the fence have mismanaged the economy for short term gain - and this will not change until we change our voting system and everyone starts to look at their own personal and wider ranging social responsibilities. I'd suggest we are the most self centred population in Europe - nobody gives a toss about anyone else anymore.
According to PH, the poor are poor because they lack motivation or should have worked harder in school. Nurses shouldn't complain about pay - they should leave and get a better job, as an example.
Our issues are much bigger than voting red or blue - I never voted for Labour under Blair. But I'd be incredibly reluctant to vote Tory, too.
I'm tipping towards Corbyn, but may vote with the nationalists if I decide they'll deliver more to help the local community.
He ran a surplus for the period that he followed the previous conservative government plan, then ditched that and it was beer and champers for everyone paid for by wonga.Don't forget, he ran a surplus for 4 (5?) years.
Both sides of the fence have mismanaged the economy for short term gain - and this will not change until we change our voting system and everyone starts to look at their own personal and wider ranging social responsibilities. I'd suggest we are the most self centred population in Europe - nobody gives a toss about anyone else anymore.
According to PH, the poor are poor because they lack motivation or should have worked harder in school. Nurses shouldn't complain about pay - they should leave and get a better job, as an example.
Our issues are much bigger than voting red or blue - I never voted for Labour under Blair. But I'd be incredibly reluctant to vote Tory, too.
I'm tipping towards Corbyn, but may vote with the nationalists if I decide they'll deliver more to help the local community.
Happy that you support Maggies view on society though, maybe you have the same view on the good samaritan?
Slagathore said:
The problem with the audience questions on defence are they only seem to focus on Trident.
There's more to the military and defence other than Trident. They needed to push him more on the non nuclear stuff and just how he'll support our allies etc.
After his interview with Andrew Neil, it became pretty obvious he doesn't even support NATO. But what happens when they say they want 5000 troops for some ground action or contributions for air strikes, or just any other military intervention. He won't support them, and in return I suspect they'll resent us.
He'll offer up all our nukes and then alienate NATO and leave us where?
He's got such a hard-on for being admired by a small few, he's become completely deluded. That's why I don't trust him as much as anything.
He just wants admiration above all else.
Two big glaring examples which deserve a bright light on them over the next few days:There's more to the military and defence other than Trident. They needed to push him more on the non nuclear stuff and just how he'll support our allies etc.
After his interview with Andrew Neil, it became pretty obvious he doesn't even support NATO. But what happens when they say they want 5000 troops for some ground action or contributions for air strikes, or just any other military intervention. He won't support them, and in return I suspect they'll resent us.
He'll offer up all our nukes and then alienate NATO and leave us where?
He's got such a hard-on for being admired by a small few, he's become completely deluded. That's why I don't trust him as much as anything.
He just wants admiration above all else.
The Falklands - he opposed sending troops, called it a Tory plot and would have negotiated: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215676/Fa...
Gulf War 1: he would have let the Kuwaitis rot and despite UN approval did not want to intervene: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/3jmad...
The man's entitled to his views, but they are not views that are compatible with leading a nation.
Trabi601 said:
jsf said:
I never said they did, but that was certainly the path under the previous tory government after sorting out the previous mess Labour left us in.
What Brown did what utter vandalism that we are still paying the price for.
I take it you agree with my assessment of how badly Labour behaved, you haven't said I am wrong about what they did.
The global financial crisis had a disproportionate effect on Brown's legacy. Doesn't matter which side of the fence you are on, wider scale issues had a massive impact on the country at that time.What Brown did what utter vandalism that we are still paying the price for.
I take it you agree with my assessment of how badly Labour behaved, you haven't said I am wrong about what they did.
Don't forget, he ran a surplus for 4 (5?) years.
Both sides of the fence have mismanaged the economy for short term gain - and this will not change until we change our voting system and everyone starts to look at their own personal and wider ranging social responsibilities. I'd suggest we are the most self centred population in Europe - nobody gives a toss about anyone else anymore.
According to PH, the poor are poor because they lack motivation or should have worked harder in school. Nurses shouldn't complain about pay - they should leave and get a better job, as an example.
Our issues are much bigger than voting red or blue - I never voted for Labour under Blair. But I'd be incredibly reluctant to vote Tory, too.
I'm tipping towards Corbyn, but may vote with the nationalists if I decide they'll deliver more to help the local community.
For the first term, Labour followed the conservative policy, second term onwards they spunked it all up against the wall, they also robbed our pension funds which we will pay for hugely in 15 years time.
Corbyn is a very dangerous man, the invisible Mcdonell is even more so. If your voting enables those people into office it will set us back 30 years, it's a terrifying prospect.
Both my sisters are nurses, they have a great deal, plenty of career progression is available with good pay levels, they have a very good sick pay regime, great holiday allowance and have had a pay rise every year with no job insecurity. They are much better off than the headlines show. They will retire on a great pension and have not had to deal with the uncertainty and loss of earnings often experienced by the private sector. Yes they work hard, most people no matter what job they do also work hard too. Its a very rewarding career, its not the s
t deal often painted in these debates.The sad thing is, they both have large houses with large gardens compared to the majority in their area so will get hammered by the LVT, something they don't know anything about yet.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 3rd June 00:34
SpeedMattersNot said:
jsf said:
Because of the policies of Brown, we were the first into recession and the last to leave when the GFC hit, we were in a very poor position to manage the downturn that resulted from that.
For the first term, Labour followed the conservative policy, second term onwards they spunked it all up against the wall, they also robbed our pension funds which we will pay for hugely in 15 years time.
Corbyn is a very dangerous man, the invisible Mcdonell is even more so. If your voting enables those people into office it will set us back 30 years, it's a terrifying prospect.
...and the Conservatives are currently leading us into a stronger, modernised future? For the first term, Labour followed the conservative policy, second term onwards they spunked it all up against the wall, they also robbed our pension funds which we will pay for hugely in 15 years time.
Corbyn is a very dangerous man, the invisible Mcdonell is even more so. If your voting enables those people into office it will set us back 30 years, it's a terrifying prospect.
You're having a laugh!
SpeedMattersNot said:
jsf said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
jsf said:
Because of the policies of Brown, we were the first into recession and the last to leave when the GFC hit, we were in a very poor position to manage the downturn that resulted from that.
For the first term, Labour followed the conservative policy, second term onwards they spunked it all up against the wall, they also robbed our pension funds which we will pay for hugely in 15 years time.
Corbyn is a very dangerous man, the invisible Mcdonell is even more so. If your voting enables those people into office it will set us back 30 years, it's a terrifying prospect.
...and the Conservatives are currently leading us into a stronger, modernised future? For the first term, Labour followed the conservative policy, second term onwards they spunked it all up against the wall, they also robbed our pension funds which we will pay for hugely in 15 years time.
Corbyn is a very dangerous man, the invisible Mcdonell is even more so. If your voting enables those people into office it will set us back 30 years, it's a terrifying prospect.
You're having a laugh!
s3fella said:
How on earth has this tt got a chance of being PM next week? How the fk has May made such a mess of this?
We are in the same mess as USA was 12 months ago, having to chose between a couple of wkers
We most certainly are not, May is no Clinton or Trump, she is a competent politician who is serious about the job.t got a chance of being PM next week? How the fk has May made such a mess of this? We are in the same mess as USA was 12 months ago, having to chose between a couple of w
kersI don't care one jot that she is uncomfortable in front of the cameras and its hard work for her, that's not what is important.
Corbyn is far more worrying than Trump, because the people around him are equally bat s
t crazy and incompetent, the whole shebang are incompetents who will do the country serious harm.Boring_Chris said:
This place is weird.
Im not a Corbyn fan, but when someone hesitates when asked about the potential killing of thousands of people (i.e. nuclear strikes) I'm usually happy about it.
Who here watches Starship Troopers, punching the air at the call to war, on a regular basis?
I also don't understand the IRA thing. Can someone give me a TL;DR on it? (beyond "HE SUPPORTS THE IRA!!!" that I'm reading all over Facebook?)
The first job the PM has to do when they get into office, is send the rules of engagement to the nuclear submarines. Those are stored on-board and should the sIm not a Corbyn fan, but when someone hesitates when asked about the potential killing of thousands of people (i.e. nuclear strikes) I'm usually happy about it.
Who here watches Starship Troopers, punching the air at the call to war, on a regular basis?
I also don't understand the IRA thing. Can someone give me a TL;DR on it? (beyond "HE SUPPORTS THE IRA!!!" that I'm reading all over Facebook?)
t hit the fan the commander has to follow those.There is no room for negotiating if London and the government is wiped out, you cant have a rule of engagement of I'll get back to you when I've had a chat, it simply isn't an option. Corbyn cant answer the straight forward question on would he write in those rules that we retaliate should the worst happen.
That means we have no deterrent, which has been the corner stone of making sure the no one uses these weapons in anger. The man is a massive fool as he lets his politics get in the way of the reality of why deterrents work. That's why its more dangerous for us to have him in power.
jsf said:
The first job the PM has to do when they get into office, is send the rules of engagement to the nuclear submarines. Those are stored on-board and should the st hit the fan the commander has to follow those.
There is no room for negotiating if London and the government is wiped out, you cant have a rule of engagement of I'll get back to you when I've had a chat, it simply isn't an option. Corbyn cant answer the straight forward question on would he write in those rules that we retaliate should the worst happen.
That means we have no deterrent, which has been the corner stone of making sure the no one uses these weapons in anger. The man is a massive fool as he lets his politics get in the way of the reality of why deterrents work. That's why its more dangerous for us to have him in power.
Corbyn's letters will surely read:t hit the fan the commander has to follow those.There is no room for negotiating if London and the government is wiped out, you cant have a rule of engagement of I'll get back to you when I've had a chat, it simply isn't an option. Corbyn cant answer the straight forward question on would he write in those rules that we retaliate should the worst happen.
That means we have no deterrent, which has been the corner stone of making sure the no one uses these weapons in anger. The man is a massive fool as he lets his politics get in the way of the reality of why deterrents work. That's why its more dangerous for us to have him in power.
"Dear Captain
If you are reading this letter, the United Kingdom has been attacked, and quite possibly destroyed by a nuclear attack. Rest assured, I am safe in a bunker and will be commencing peace talks soon. I need to find my bicycle pump first.
I have no doubt that I will be able to negotiate a peaceful settlement with our aggressors. To that end, our nuclear arsenal is unnecessary. Please therefore, immediately:
1. Surface and send a distress call;
2. Take to the life boats;
3. Abandon and scuttle your vessel.
I do hope that you and your men return to the United Kingdom soon, as there will be an awful lot of tax for you to pay in order for my Government to invest in the future!
Yours
J Corbyn (Prime Minister)
PS: I hope I can rely on your vote at the next election"
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 3rd June 12:49
Boring_Chris said:
jsf said:
Boring_Chris said:
This place is weird.
Im not a Corbyn fan, but when someone hesitates when asked about the potential killing of thousands of people (i.e. nuclear strikes) I'm usually happy about it.
Who here watches Starship Troopers, punching the air at the call to war, on a regular basis?
I also don't understand the IRA thing. Can someone give me a TL;DR on it? (beyond "HE SUPPORTS THE IRA!!!" that I'm reading all over Facebook?)
The first job the PM has to do when they get into office, is send the rules of engagement to the nuclear submarines. Those are stored on-board and should the sIm not a Corbyn fan, but when someone hesitates when asked about the potential killing of thousands of people (i.e. nuclear strikes) I'm usually happy about it.
Who here watches Starship Troopers, punching the air at the call to war, on a regular basis?
I also don't understand the IRA thing. Can someone give me a TL;DR on it? (beyond "HE SUPPORTS THE IRA!!!" that I'm reading all over Facebook?)
t hit the fan the commander has to follow those.There is no room for negotiating if London and the government is wiped out, you cant have a rule of engagement of I'll get back to you when I've had a chat, it simply isn't an option. Corbyn cant answer the straight forward question on would he write in those rules that we retaliate should the worst happen.
That means we have no deterrent, which has been the corner stone of making sure the no one uses these weapons in anger. The man is a massive fool as he lets his politics get in the way of the reality of why deterrents work. That's why its more dangerous for us to have him in power.
Username888 said:
Recorded it, haven't yet watched it. Did anyone ask him about antisemitism?
Interesting cover of the Jewish News
http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2017/06/JN-10...
Yes, and he said he wasn't anti-Semitic, and that it was sufficient to have suspended rather than expelled Ken from the party to investigate the allegations against him. Interesting cover of the Jewish News
http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2017/06/JN-10...
pip t said:
I should point out I'm not a Labour voter and don't support Corbyn, so I'm not really in the business of making excuses for him (or indeed Diane Abbot).
I just don't understand why people seem to think he needs to say "I condemn all terrorism and the IRA," when "I condemn all terrorism," covers it just as well. It's frustrating, takes up a huge amount of air time, and there are other things I'd rather see him being pressed on.
Because when you read his views on the Falklands or Gulf War 1, it is obvious that he is a pacifist who condemns all killing, or anyone by anyone. I just don't understand why people seem to think he needs to say "I condemn all terrorism and the IRA," when "I condemn all terrorism," covers it just as well. It's frustrating, takes up a huge amount of air time, and there are other things I'd rather see him being pressed on.
So built into his "I condemn all terrorism" is "which includes killing by British Armed Forces who were occupying Northern Ireland at the time, and, in fact, by British Armed Forces anywhere, ever".
That is a perfectly respectable view for a pacifist to hold. It is not, however, a view this is compatible with the office of the Prime Minister of The United Kingdom.
He has had very good media training and has responded to it well in a very short period of time. However, it has left him lying about his true beliefs.
sidicks said:
No idea why you'd possibly try and defend him on this point.
He's been asked to be explicit about his support for the IRA (or otherwise) and he's repeatedly avoided answering a direct question. Why do you think that is?
Isn't our current government's connections to terrorist organisations are of more pressing concern.He's been asked to be explicit about his support for the IRA (or otherwise) and he's repeatedly avoided answering a direct question. Why do you think that is?
He's been pretty categoric in his rejection of terrorism I'd say.
rover 623gsi said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/l...
Labour has accused the Conservatives of creating “fake news” after a Tory attack video that went viral was edited to show Jeremy Corbyn refusing to condemn the IRA, when in fact the Labour leader said: “I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.”
The 85-second montage of Corbyn’s quotes has been circulating online for the last week and has been viewed 5.3m times, three times more than any other political campaign video. The Conservatives are also paying Facebook to insert it into people’s news feeds. It is subtitled: “On June 9th, this man could be Prime Minister. We can’t let that happen.”
It includes a clip from Corbyn’s appearance on Sky News last month when interviewer Sophy Ridge asked whether he could “condemn unequivocally the IRA”. The Labour leader said: “Look, bombing is wrong, all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it.” Ridge responded: “But you’re condemning all bombing, can you condemn the IRA without equating it to.” Corbyn said: “No.”
The clip was cut off there but the full quote was: “No, I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned and you have to bring about a peace process. Listen, in the 1980s Britain was looking for a military solution, it clearly was never going to work. Ask anyone in the British army at the time … I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.”
Don't see much wrong with the edit. The question was could he condemn without equating, and he answered no, then went on to equate. Labour has accused the Conservatives of creating “fake news” after a Tory attack video that went viral was edited to show Jeremy Corbyn refusing to condemn the IRA, when in fact the Labour leader said: “I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.”
The 85-second montage of Corbyn’s quotes has been circulating online for the last week and has been viewed 5.3m times, three times more than any other political campaign video. The Conservatives are also paying Facebook to insert it into people’s news feeds. It is subtitled: “On June 9th, this man could be Prime Minister. We can’t let that happen.”
It includes a clip from Corbyn’s appearance on Sky News last month when interviewer Sophy Ridge asked whether he could “condemn unequivocally the IRA”. The Labour leader said: “Look, bombing is wrong, all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it.” Ridge responded: “But you’re condemning all bombing, can you condemn the IRA without equating it to.” Corbyn said: “No.”
The clip was cut off there but the full quote was: “No, I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned and you have to bring about a peace process. Listen, in the 1980s Britain was looking for a military solution, it clearly was never going to work. Ask anyone in the British army at the time … I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.”
Halb said:
desolate said:
Isn't our current government's connection to terrorist organisations of more pressing concern?
He's been pretty categoric in his rejection of terrorism I'd say.
YOu logical wags. He's been pretty categoric in his rejection of terrorism I'd say.
Stop being contemporary, and balanced!
The more that comes out about our involvement in Libya and tacit support for certain Jihadi groups, the more this debate about Corbyn and the IRA seems like a tactic to deflect from the heart of the matter.
gooner1 said:
Greg66 said:
rover 623gsi said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/l...
Labour has accused the Conservatives of creating “fake news” after a Tory attack video that went viral was edited to show Jeremy Corbyn refusing to condemn the IRA, when in fact the Labour leader said: “I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.”
The 85-second montage of Corbyn’s quotes has been circulating online for the last week and has been viewed 5.3m times, three times more than any other political campaign video. The Conservatives are also paying Facebook to insert it into people’s news feeds. It is subtitled: “On June 9th, this man could be Prime Minister. We can’t let that happen.”
It includes a clip from Corbyn’s appearance on Sky News last month when interviewer Sophy Ridge asked whether he could “condemn unequivocally the IRA”. The Labour leader said: “Look, bombing is wrong, all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it.” Ridge responded: “But you’re condemning all bombing, can you condemn the IRA without equating it to.” Corbyn said: “No.”
The clip was cut off there but the full quote was: “No, I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned and you have to bring about a peace process. Listen, in the 1980s Britain was looking for a military solution, it clearly was never going to work. Ask anyone in the British army at the time … I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.”
Don't see much wrong with the answerLabour has accused the Conservatives of creating “fake news” after a Tory attack video that went viral was edited to show Jeremy Corbyn refusing to condemn the IRA, when in fact the Labour leader said: “I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.”
The 85-second montage of Corbyn’s quotes has been circulating online for the last week and has been viewed 5.3m times, three times more than any other political campaign video. The Conservatives are also paying Facebook to insert it into people’s news feeds. It is subtitled: “On June 9th, this man could be Prime Minister. We can’t let that happen.”
It includes a clip from Corbyn’s appearance on Sky News last month when interviewer Sophy Ridge asked whether he could “condemn unequivocally the IRA”. The Labour leader said: “Look, bombing is wrong, all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it.” Ridge responded: “But you’re condemning all bombing, can you condemn the IRA without equating it to.” Corbyn said: “No.”
The clip was cut off there but the full quote was: “No, I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned and you have to bring about a peace process. Listen, in the 1980s Britain was looking for a military solution, it clearly was never going to work. Ask anyone in the British army at the time … I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.”
Are you happy with my edit of your quote?
As for his answer, I've said at least twice already today that he is a pacifist who cannot condemn violence by the UK's enemies without also condemning violence by the UK's armed forces (see e.g., NI, Falklands, Gulf War 1). I have nothing against pacifists, but being a pacifist is not compatible with being PM of the UK and having charge of its armed forces.
ETA: to clarify further, if he were to run on a platform of disbanding the UK's armed forces, dismantling its arsenals and declaring internationally the UK a neutral country, I would have no problem with his integrity. But that's not his platform - he is instead trying to con people into believing that they would get a PM who would defend this country with its armed forces.
He is deceitful and dangerous.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 3rd June 16:57
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff