General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
hilts said:
You have just said we don't know her or her circumstance but then say she is doing a good job, how do you know that, she could be a shit nurse.
Click to expand...

Sorry she may be a shit nurse but the job is a good one. One we have all used. But yes I will try harder to write my responses better.

Sorry if this one is not up to standard.
 
Machiavelli said:
So he's a bad guy for wanting dialogue leading to global nuclear disarmament?
Click to expand...
We've had that discussion, during the 80's and 90's we reduced the total of world nuclear weapons from 26,000 to around 18,000. It's been at that number ever since.
Everyone gets the sentiment about Trident and nuclear war skewed; no, nobody wants to suggest using Trident. YES, if possible we would want all nuclear weapons to be destroyed, however nobody is willing to get rid of ALL of them whilst their enemies in the world still possess the knowledge to make one and just one can do untold damage.

Knowing that if you use one on your "enemies" would result in the complete annihilation of your nation and people is a powerful defence tactic. It's why one hasn't been used although often threatened. Nukes come in many forms, not just ICBM or IRBM's. To use a simple analogy, you and your neighbour are having a dispute; you both know you both have guns. After years of fighting and threatening to shoot up each others houses you have dialogue to each get rid of your guns. You both agree, in front of a neutral party, to get rid of your guns one by one until they are all gone, yet after week 4 your neighbour hasn't gotten rid of some of his weapons, leaving with him having more than you.

Do you continue to get rid of yours as per the agreement in the hope your neighbour will get rid of theirs, or do you wait until they match your total of weapons?
What happens when you both get down to one gun each; who will be the first to get rid of theirs? How do you know that the moment you get rid of your gun, he won't pull a Dead Man's Spin on you? You don't, and the world isn't at that stage of total trust either, so if your kids ask you if you would use your guns to protect them from the neighbour next door, what would you say to them to give them confidence you can protect them? All he'd have to say is "i'd never use them offensively, but if our nation and citizens were being threatened, i'd have no hesitation in doing what is necessary to prevent such an eventuality." But he's not, he just keeps saying what we already know; nuclear weapons are bad, nuclear war is bad and we want to get rid of them. We know that, but we're not asking what he'd do about Trident in the future, we're asking if he'd be prepared to make the ultimate decision to utilise out ultimate deterrant in the face of the ultimate threat and so far his response has been ... we'd need to talk. Not exactly filling the public with confidence.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
And you're ignoring the fact that lower corporation tax rates have not resulted in investment either, which has impacted growth, as I've said about 3 times now. Companies are hoarding cash so if they won't invest it, the government may as well take it off them via increased tax rates and do that for them. Or it can give them the choice by incentivising investment via tax reliefs.

Then Labour come along, push up tax to 26% but give 100% relief for specified investment. So Company A still make £100m but invest £20m of that and pay 26% on £80m. That's a fraction less tax than they were paying under this government but that investment generates growth, which generates higher tax revenues.
Click to expand...

So you've embellished the Labour policy on corporation tax to make it sound more sensible. I still don't ascribe to the govt intervening in private enterprises far sooner charge them less at source and trust that they will use the extra cash to keep prices lower, allow them to be more competitive abroad and attract businesses from abroad to invest in UK plc as opposed to somewhere else.
 
Tanzeylee said:
Not slagging anyone off mate and not sure why you're trying to tug on heart strings by pointing out that she's a 'nurse who does a very good job' im on half the wage that a qualified nurse is on but live within my means
Click to expand...

Well she is being slagged off. Peggy Blue was at it straight away to use it as a political point he/she has. I chose to ask how anyone knows their circumstances.
 
mayo31 said:
Sorry she may be a shit nurse but the job is a good one. One we have all used. But yes I will try harder to write my responses better.

Sorry if this one is not up to standard.
Click to expand...

The standard of this post is much better and has my full approval
 
mayo31 said:
I find it uncomfortable watching mostly men on the programme simply spouting that we should nuke whoever threatens us as if it will mean we will win any nuclear war. Or is it so they can die with the knowledge that at last we took some out.
Click to expand...
You have a gun, someone who hates you has a gun. You threaten to shoot him in anger. The other says do that and i'll shoot you back. Ask yourself is it worth shooting the guy?

Mutual Assured Destruction, the ultimate deterrant and until all nukes are gone in the world (we one day hope) it's our best deterrant against nutcases who would threaten to use them against us. One of the main reasons why they haven't.
 
vonkeynotvenky said:
What makes you say that? Do you have information we don't have or is it just based on the hate of Tories and Trump by the left?
Click to expand...
Based on her record of relationship with Trump whether it be Paris agreement Or intelligence leaking after Manchester bombing or Russia connection defense. No way is she is standing up to Trump.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ther...r-leaking-intelligence-to-the-russians-2017-5

What makes you think she has what it takes to stand up to Trump ?
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
We've had that discussion, during the 80's and 90's we reduced the total of world nuclear weapons from 26,000 to around 18,000. It's been at that number ever since.
Everyone gets the sentiment about Trident and nuclear war skewed; no, nobody wants to suggest using Trident. YES, if possible we would want all nuclear weapons to be destroyed, however nobody is willing to get rid of ALL of them whilst their enemies in the world still possess the knowledge to make one and just one can do untold damage.

Knowing that if you use one on your "enemies" would result in the complete annihilation of your nation and people is a powerful defence tactic. It's why one hasn't been used although often threatened. Nukes come in many forms, not just ICBM or IRBM's. To use a simple analogy, you and your neighbour are having a dispute; you both know you both have guns. After years of fighting and threatening to shoot up each others houses you have dialogue to each get rid of your guns. You both agree, in front of a neutral party, to get rid of your guns one by one until they are all gone, yet after week 4 your neighbour hasn't gotten rid of some of his weapons, leaving with him having more than you.

Do you continue to get rid of yours as per the agreement in the hope your neighbour will get rid of theirs, or do you wait until they match your total of weapons?
What happens when you both get down to one gun each; who will be the first to get rid of theirs? How do you know that the moment you get rid of your gun, he won't pull a Dead Man's Spin on you? You don't, and the world isn't at that stage of total trust either, so if your kids ask you if you would use your guns to protect them from the neighbour next door, what would you say to them to give them confidence you can protect them? All he'd have to say is "i'd never use them offensively, but if our nation and citizens were being threatened, i'd have no hesitation in doing what is necessary to prevent such an eventuality." But he's not, he just keeps saying what we already know; nuclear weapons are bad, nuclear war is bad and we want to get rid of them. We know that, but we're not asking what he'd do about Trident in the future, we're asking if he'd be prepared to make the ultimate decision to utilise out ultimate deterrant in the face of the ultimate threat and so far his response has been ... we'd need to talk. Not exactly filling the public with confidence.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your well thought out reply but I think it's folly. We will not be attacked by nuclear weapons before 2022.
 
Mancityus said:
Based on her record of relationship with Trump whether it be Paris agreement Or intelligence leaking after Manchester bombing or Russia connection defense. No way is she is standing up to Trump.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ther...r-leaking-intelligence-to-the-russians-2017-5

What makes you think she has what it takes to stand up to Trump ?
Click to expand...

She made it quite clear she doesn't agree with Trump about the Paris agreement. And what do you want her to do about the intelligence leak, bomb him? She was clearer with her non support for trump about the Paris agreement than Corbyn was about his IRA and Hamas links.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top