General Election 2017

Seasider78 · Jun 2, 2017

General Election - New poll added 01/06/17

Hastings gull said:
Seasider78 said:

Of course it is important any leader knows when to make the right decisions around security but this was a ridiculous line of questioning as the conditions under what circumstances you would launch a nuclear weapon would be incredibly complex and he was right to avoid being drawn into what scenarios he would launch under. At times it felt like people would have been happier with a trump like character reassuring them he would not hesitate to hit the button.

I am by no means a Corbyn fan but was refreshing to see someone who actually showed an understanding of what pressing the button actually means. Would rather have someone with that mentality holding the trigger than a warmonger[/QUOTE]

Do you really think that Corbyn is the only one who understands what pressing the button would mean? Surely you don't think that he is the only one and no one else could possibly appreciate the consequences.. And your final comparison is very convenient - why does it have to be a so-called warmonger, as you put it. Which PMs with their hand on the proverbial button since 1945 have been warmongers?

Click to expand...

Twisting my words there I am merely pointing out it is a line of questioning that is ridiculous and there is no reason this is being directed at Corbyn and not May when any leader will have have the same dilemma to face if put in that situation. The warmonger point was related to the audience this evening who seemed intent on wanting someone to stand up and promise they would not hesitate to hit the button and I think he was right to refuse to portray himself in that way.

TSB · Jun 2, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
So writing off debt from 10 years ago will help your grandchildrens future? Cos that is what Jezza is promising. Feel free to regret at your leisure.

Whether you like it or not: free tuition is for children & grandchildren.
Regret what? I'm not voting for him.

Bodian · Jun 2, 2017

seagulls4ever said:
Incorrect, he isn't writing off debt for those who already owe tuition fees.

Your original post on tuition fees was factually incorrect as well. It isn't a quarter of the budget, which is obviously a great deal more substantial than 4x10bn. It'a 700bn+

It's interesting how we are told individual debt is bad and should be avoided, yet we're willing to start people off in life with 50k of debt, that they start paying massive amounts of interest on from their first year at university.

Further, the government has to pay for it anyway. They've just fiddled the books so it's owed to the Student Loans Company so it appears our deficit is less than it actually is.

Yes - I got the impression it was a quarter of the extra amount Labour say they will raise - not a quarter of the whole budget. However, Dimbleby got his maths wrong, he said it was £11bn, a quarter - but as the additional amount being bandied around is something like £48.6bn, it isn't as much as 25% https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/16/what-would-labours-manifesto-cost-pledges-money-guide-details

Tubby-McFat-Fuc · Jun 2, 2017

Bold Seagull said:
Hastings gull said:

Blair.

Click to expand...

Edited for you. I don't think defending British territory fairly labels a PM a warmonger! No matter how much you despise her.

midnight_rendezvous · Jun 2, 2017

pastafarian said:
Are you saying this is a completely implausible hypothetical scenario?

In for a penny and all that. If (and that's is a massive if) the hypothetical 'bad guys' decided to bomb us they wouldn't just use one bomb. I imagine they'd want total annihilation in order to reduce any chance of retaliation.

But we have both acknowledged, this genocide is completely and totally hypothetical. If we are going to talk about hypothetical scenarios it'd probably more useful (and more likely) to talk about the Albion winning the premier league.

pastafarian · Jun 2, 2017

cheshunt seagull said:
Something I don't get here and I may just be being naive is the notion of an individual nuclear strike on the UK in which the UK PM alone makes a decision on response. Where is NATO in all of this? If North Korea decided to nuke Copenhagen would NATO leaders just stand back and say 'well we'll miss the pastries and Elephant Beer' . Surely nuclear conflict and decisions on responses to it occur on a more multinational level.

Its possible you only have seconds to make a decision what to do, organising a NATO conference may not be practical

Neville's Breakfast · Jun 2, 2017

cheshunt seagull said:
Sticking your head in the sand involves not realising where our real vulnerabilities lie like cyber security and these are not hypothetical; just look at recent ransom-ware attacks. Nuclear remains an issue but NATO is hardly short of nuclear capability to provide an appropriate level of deterrence. If we really cared about security we would be investing in making our IT systems much more robust, anticipating future threats, intelligence gathering , overseas investment to prevent instability. This involves investment in infrastructure, research, education, diplomacy and all the stuff that the blowhards really resent.

Agree with all of these defense requirements. Those threats need to be countered. In addition the threat
of potential nuclear aggressors needs to be addressed. This has not gone away simply because other threats have multiplied.

seagulls4ever · Jun 2, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
Go check your facts, Jezza is talking of a 10 year write back. My 25%, a QUARTER, of the budget was based upon David Dimblebys question to Jezza which he did not contest.

It's not in the manifesto and no plans have been announced of a 10 year write back. You claiming it at fact doesn't make it a fact, unless you can find me a source, which you won't be able to, because it isn't true. You are wrong.

The 'quarter' was in relation to additional spending plans that would add to our current budget. Not 25% of what our budget currently is.

And the government still has to pay for the for the loans anyway - them fiddling the books so the money is owed to the Student Loans Company instead of the government (the SLC is the government) doesn't reduce our deficit. It just makes it appear as though our deficit is less than it actually is so they can say they've reduced the deficit by x.

KVLT · Jun 2, 2017

sparkie said:
And let's not forget the 1 country that gave up its entire nuclear arsenal was invaded and had a chunk of it's territory occupied and stolen by the thief in the kremlin.

That's not really analogous to the situation here though is it.

IF, there was an attempted invasion of the UK a nuclear strike here would not be a precursor to an invasion.

jonny.rainbow · Jun 2, 2017

Tubby-McFat-Fuc said:
He also did not confirm he was use them in retaliation.

So if North Korea's Ping Pong Plop sends one our way, he DID NOT confirm, despite being pressed quite hard on it, that he would be prepared to retaliate. Maybe he would after the 5th or 6th one comes our way, who knows.

You'll be disappointed with that racial slur.

Embarrassing.

ManOfSussex · Jun 2, 2017

Hastings gull said:
Yes, probably because they agreed with her. Had you thought of that? Presumably you are consistent - they are clapping for no obvious reason -you do agree with that too, don't you?

You're rather strange. I agree with you, what what.

Neville's Breakfast · Jun 2, 2017

Bold Seagull said:
It all got a bit Yes Prime Minister with the classic trident sketch. If someone launches a nuclear strike on us, Trident has failed, launching it doesn't change that, its failed it's primary purpose as a deterrent and is simply mutually assured destruction. Doesn't matter which leader says they wouldn't or would - we've still got a nuclear bomb landing on us because the deterrent failed vis-a-vis they weren't deterred!

The part you are missing is that by deterring by declaring we will use our weapons, the chances of that nuclear attack are reduced because the aggressor knows we would retaliate. By refusing to confirm willingness to retaliate the chances of attack increase ie people
die. It is reckless.

Kuipers Supporters Club · Jun 2, 2017

Gwylan said:
Ah, someone else who can't read.

As was pointed out a few pages back, it's a poll for how people will vote not what they think will happen.

A NSC prediction poll may be interesting however

The poll says - who will you got for?!

Enter that data set from the above question into the computer - it produced the above answer. Simply this NSC Opinion poll says labour with a 444 seat majority.

I can read - got two degrees to prove it. :wave:

Technohead · Jun 2, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
No, but nor did all of Japan die. I of course hate the idea of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does focus the mind of an enemy. As a leader of a country with nuclear potential you do not rule out anything, and if the worst happens then both sides will most likely be very keen to get to the negotiating table ASAP.

True, but times have changed. A single trident warhead is estimated to yield 100 kilotons compared to the 15 kilotons of Little Boy that was dropped on Hiroshama. And a single Trident submarine can carry up to 96 warheads. I dont think there will be much left if that lot landed on top of you.

Scotchegg · Jun 2, 2017

Talking about the DPRK as a threat to this country is moronic. The threats we face are from terrorist attacks from people like the daft prick who blew himself up in Manchester, not the Korean peninsula. That whole hypothetical was such a waste of time. If you think the DPRK are a genuine threat, then PM me and as someone that has researched and written a paper on the country, I'll be happy to put your mind at ease.

By the way, how much aid do we send there? Ask May, she'll know... Oh wait. I think that was the bigger story than all this nuke nonsense. Though I think neither are the most pressing matters for the country right now, when we're facing brexit in earnest in a few weeks.

pastafarian · Jun 2, 2017

midnight_rendezvous said:
In for a penny and all that. If (and that's is a massive if) the hypothetical 'bad guys' decided to bomb us they wouldn't just use one bomb. I imagine they'd want total annihilation in order to reduce any chance of retaliation.

But we have both acknowledged, this genocide is completely and totally hypothetical. If we are going to talk about hypothetical scenarios it'd probably more useful (and more likely) to talk about the Albion winning the premier league.

Multiple scenarios and multiple hypotheticals no doubt and all very complex.
Someone somewhere has probably done a hypothetical assessment of various scenarios.........any retaliation and protection measures break down though in the bloke in charge refuses to defend the nation.
With all the will in the world im thinking hypothetical scenarios about winning the PL will not be a massive talking point next season on NSC.........would love to be proven wrong on that account

Tubby-McFat-Fuc · Jun 2, 2017

jonny.rainbow said:
You'll be disappointed with that racial slur.

Embarrassing.

No I'm not.

I put that in to give you a get out to use. I'm nice like that. And you took the bait.

Also sums up people like you and the way you think.

You are okay to have a potential leader of our country rule out the use of using our main defence weapon in a worst case scenario, and you will let that pass and not comment on it, but call someone who kills and starves his own people for no reason whatsoever Ping Pong Plop, and you think its embarrassing.

You sir are embarrassing.

:tosser:

Eeyore · Jun 2, 2017

pastafarian said:
One nuke fired at Britain does not kill everyone. The following waves when the bad guys realise we will not defend ourselves will almost certainly wipe nearly everyone out

If it happened, which I can't see how, it would come from Russia. In which case a few hundred would be sent on their way. As an old history teacher said to me in 1984 "I suspect one would have Brighton written on it".

That said, no-one in their rightful mind (there's a narrative there) would do it. I don't live in fear. We would defend ourselves but it would be too late for both parties.

We don't have that many of them anyway. I think France has more. If anyone attacks us it wouldn't be in isolation so either way it's going to be paid back.

ManOfSussex · Jun 2, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
Go check your facts, Jezza is talking of a 10 year write back. My 25%, a QUARTER, of the budget was based upon David Dimblebys question to Jezza which he did not contest.

Weren't you the most anti-Brexit of the lot? Why are you still hanging around this moribund shithole? Go to Melbourne if its so wonderful, rather than hang about here like a Tory, rich toff telling us what to do spliter!

Is it PotG? · Jun 2, 2017

Brighton Lines said:
If it happened, which I can't see how, it would come from Russia. In which case a few hundred would be sent on their way. As an old history teacher said to me in 1984 "I suspect one would have Brighton written on it".

That said, no-one in their rightful mind (there's a narrative there) would do it. I don't live in fear. We would defend ourselves but it would be too late for both parties.

We don't have that many of them anyway. I think France has more. If anyone attacks us it wouldn't be in isolation so either way it's going to be paid back.

This teacher, was he of advanced years, an 'ex' History teacher or simply an educator of Ancient stuff? Just wondering like. A lot of History is 'old'.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

General Election 2017

Well-known member

Captain Hindsight

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

We wunt be druv

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

We wunt be druv

Thrifty non-licker

Share this page