General Election June 8th

[i kne albert davy]

You've never been involved have you ?

What in WW2 no I'm afraid not, but my old fella was an air gunner.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Some lunatics in that crowd.
There's a million more important issues than a nuclear war that won't happen

Name them.

 

[hilts]

I like you. I feel I can learn so much.

Do me a favour tell Tanzylee to piss off, boring me as we no doubt are you

I'm too nice for such behaviour

 

[RandomJ]

Last 15 minutes were eye opening but not because of Corbyn but how many batshit insane people we have living in this country. "fucking nuke them". The Daily Mail has won.

 

[1.618034]

You mean it sympathised with self determination for the Irish then bemoaned the compromise of a divided country that led to a civil war between those who accepted that and those that didn't? Sorry I don't want to divert the thread back onto Irish history but I can't recall the film taking a particular "side" in its point of view.





That would be a dead disabled strawman you typical Tory.

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/maximus-admits-using-brutal-and-dangerous-suicide-questions/

What utter cunts.

Any idea how much that policy saved vs how much it cost to implement and employ...?

EDIT: Found it. Take your pick of sources...

The policy is expected to have saved about £1.3Bn by 2020. Initial estimates were around £4.4Bn, but apparently there aren't as many malingerers as they thought. Funny that eh?

But the cost over 3 years to pay these contractors, to ask people why they haven't just killed themselves yet, is £1.6Bn...???

I'll let everyone do the maths on that themselves...

This is Tory ideology laid bare.


Interestingly that £1.3Bn is about the same figure that the, Publicly owned, East Coast mainline have made and put into the treasury in the last 4 years. That's just one franchise. A franchise that two previous private companies had failed to run well, or at a profit!?

Austerity is an ideological choice, not an inevitability, and back in 2010 it seemed to most to be the best route out of the "crash", if it was only going to be a short time, and if it was going to save money. It's done neither and IMO it's time for a radically different approach.

Take back control of and invest in our country.

 

[Damocles]

Just to be clear here, if the UK were hit by a first strike can somebody explain what are the benefits to retaliation that will kill millions?

I've never understood this. It can't be to prevent us getting hit, because we've already been hit. It can't be to stop a war because a nuclear war by definition won't last long enough to matter.

Why? Why are people so desperate for It? Petty revenge? You want to slaughter millions and risk a global climate change event on the scale of the dinosaurs mass extinction because some maniac bombed us?

Somebody has to explain this. It makes no sense at all. I can only presume people haven't thought this through.

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

What in WW2 no I'm afraid not, but my old fella was an air gunner.

Tell me truthfully how he described the war ?

 

[Damocles]

By the way, if some of you don't stop with the attacks and general twattery I'll just pull the thread

 

[MCFC1993]

I admire pacifism mate I really do, they are braver people than I am. Where Trident is concerned the question needed complete clarity and it wasn't there.

Listen I'm someone who thinks trident is necessary whilst there are still nuclear bombs in this world. I just think it's mental that a candidate would lose out for not wanting to kill millions especially in a hypothetical scenario that will just never happen. I was someone learning Tory at the start of this election (completely the opposite), there are just much bigger problems in this country than Nuclear issues.

 

[hilts]

You haven't got a fucking clue. That is the single most uninformed, disgusting thing I've seen written in this thread. Go do some research on the Tory change from DLA to PIP and see the blood on their hands.

This is the reason I cannot vote for the Tories, their treatment of the disabled and people with mental health issues is beyond a disgrace.

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Just to be clear here, if the UK were hit by a first strike can somebody explain what are the benefits to retaliation that will kill millions?

I've never understood this. It can't be to prevent us getting hit, because we've already been hit. It can't be to stop a war because a nuclear war by definition won't last long enough to matter.

Why? Why are people so desperate for It? Petty revenge? You want to slaughter millions and risk a global climate change event on the scale of the dinosaurs mass extinction because some maniac bombed us?

Somebody has to explain this. It makes no sense at all. I can only presume people haven't thought this through.

There isn't an explanation, that bloke from Yorkshire saying "Hit 'em first" was a prize fucking weapon. Nuclear deterrent is a spin word for protection racket. Sooner people cotton on the better. If we have no planet left to inhabit what are we fighting for ?

 

[Chippy_boy]

There are no neutrals, but the audience is mixed and not biased. Corbyn's supporters are just much, much more passionate than the Tory dinosaurs, sitting in silence.

I don't buy it. Last night the audience was equally vocal regards all parties. Tonight, absolute whooping and cheering, even when Jeremy just walked on. More so when he actually spoke. That was a bent audience.

 

[Pie]

Just to be clear here, if the UK were hit by a first strike can somebody explain what are the benefits to retaliation that will kill millions?

I've never understood this. It can't be to prevent us getting hit, because we've already been hit. It can't be to stop a war because a nuclear war by definition won't last long enough to matter.

Why? Why are people so desperate for It? Petty revenge? You want to slaughter millions and risk a global climate change event on the scale of the dinosaurs mass extinction because some maniac bombed us?

Somebody has to explain this. It makes no sense at all. I can only presume people haven't thought this through.

The "benefit" is more of the deterrence that the leader would opt for mutually assured destruction and the baddies wouldn't want to start shit with us.

 

[Tanzeylee]

You are both slagging her off but I stated that Peggy Blue was at is straight away. You have now done it at least twice.

I am not sure what you want from me. I think you are both wrong to do that to her.

You do not know her actual salary, her family, what she may have faced in her life but mention she could be on about 28K and now nearly 30k. A 2k jump in two posts.

Peggy Blue said no nurses are going to food banks, how is that known? Its not.

Say she had a partner and children, said partner becomes ill and is off work sick. Mortgage payments and other bills grow. Savings are spent. One month they do not have enough money to buy food so go to a food bank.

Is that feckless and stupid. It can happen. I heard once we could all be one months salary from being homeless. It was a statistic thrown out once.

Twice? Saying she should live within her means is not slagging someone off it's common sense, I'll give you the other one tho ;-) I've at times in my live for various reasons been on me absolute arse money wise and still had to pay all me bills but made sure I cut all the shite out to feed me and my kids

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

Just to be clear here, if the UK were hit by a first strike can somebody explain what are the benefits to retaliation that will kill millions?

I've never understood this. It can't be to prevent us getting hit, because we've already been hit. It can't be to stop a war because a nuclear war by definition won't last long enough to matter.

Why? Why are people so desperate for It? Petty revenge? You want to slaughter millions and risk a global climate change event on the scale of the dinosaurs mass extinction because some maniac bombed us?

Somebody has to explain this. It makes no sense at all. I can only presume people haven't thought this through.

The theory is the actual deterent works because whoever is thinking of nuking you will be thinking are you going to nuke them. Corbyn made his opinion clear that having Trident with him in charge tells anyone who wants to nuke us that they will have a free hand. For what it's worth I don't believe anyone other than a cultish rogue leader would do this to us.

 

[MCFC1993]

You have such a misunderstanding on the issue that I'm struggling to believe you are serious

No I just don't think hypothetical nuclear scenarios are the biggest problem this country faces right now but will play a much bigger part in this election than they should.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

In this instance the question to Corbyn was "If someone fired a nuclear weapon at us" not we bomb them first. And he still wouldn't do it, he can't be allowed near power with that mindset.

But we're told that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and that we need them to stop other people nuking us. So if someone nukes us without us carrying out the first strike, then they clearly aren't that much of a deterrent are they, So they'll have failed in that case and there's little point in using them.

 

[Peggy's a blue]

hilarious. Really. Laugh out loud material. You should do stand up.

I feell sorry for you, I really do. Try reading instead of pulling your small dick in front of the glamour boys

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

The theory is the actual deterent works because whoever is thinking of nuking you will be thinking are you going to nuke them. Corbyn made his opinion clear that having Trident with him in charge tells anyone who wants to nuke us that they will have a free hand. For what it's worth I don't believe anyone other than a cultish rogue leader would do this to us.

So most forward thinking people would think it better to disarm him surely ?

 

[Damocles]

The "benefit" is more of the deterrence that the leader would opt for mutually assured destruction and the baddies wouldn't want to start shit with us.

So the problem is not that he wouldn't bomb people but that he wouldn't say he would bomb people?

He also didnt say he wouldn't bomb someone, for the record

 

[BlueAnorak]

Just to be clear here, if the UK were hit by a first strike can somebody explain what are the benefits to retaliation that will kill millions?

I've never understood this. It can't be to prevent us getting hit, because we've already been hit. It can't be to stop a war because a nuclear war by definition won't last long enough to matter.

Why? Why are people so desperate for It? Petty revenge? You want to slaughter millions and risk a global climate change event on the scale of the dinosaurs mass extinction because some maniac bombed us?

Somebody has to explain this. It makes no sense at all. I can only presume people haven't thought this through.

It's called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). You take us out and you also die. Even loonies like Stalin had problems with that.
Incidentally current standing orders would result in retaliation if we were wiped out. Clearly Corbyn would change them.