What an unmitigated load of bollocks. Only a very strange and rather sad individual would actually believe those views. "A vision where the great unwashed must forever live in vain hope". "A place where the masses are viewed as nothing more than unthinking cattle."
I don't honestly think you believe a word of what you wrote. You cannot possibly.
Good grief.
I was in the forces for 22 years and an advocate of Trident. However, since the cold war ended I have become less so. Who are we deterring with this weapon? How many other countries feel the need to have such a weapon? It has nothing to do with hiding under the coat tails of others. Please tell me who we are deterring? Certainly not Russia any more. Anyone really think they have expansionist policies towards Europe?
It will never happen and both sides of the debate know it. By focusing on something as trivial as "would you press the button", they allowed Corbyn to ride the criticisms because every man and his dog knows his pacifist views prior to any debate.Not me, but even if they did, does anyone seriously think that in a face off with Russia, Trump would sacrifice Chicago and Boston to save Berlin and Hamburg?
It will never happen and both sides of the debate know it. By focusing on something as trivial as "would you press the button", they allowed Corbyn to ride the criticisms because every man and his dog knows his pacifist views prior to any debate.
It's exactly like a household budget. I make investments in my house which I am hoping give me a return, but other sorts of spending, like netflix (The comparison that the Guardian journalist used, not me) or eating out are for personal enjoyment that might enrich my life, but somewhere down the line might indirectly return to me if the company I work for secures a contract with that business but essentially that money has gone and I have no control over it. In my case i work in sales so the link might be even more direct I might sell to the business I have consumed from.
Governments face exactly the same spending choices. Some are infrastructure investments that provide a return, some like spending on consultants, spending on benefits, public sector salaries, extra police wages might flow back but some of it might be spent abroad, transferred home in the case of temporary migrants and disappear out of the country.
The fact is there is money coming in, and money coming out, too much of the latter over the former and there are massive negative consequences as we have seen in history. Countries can go bankrupt, as can people, it doesn't mean the end of the world but it means your credit rating goes down, borrowing becomes stupidly expensive and your ability to make best use of continued tax receipts is removed. Its selfish behaviour quite frankly putting the burden of your borrowing on following generations.
You really do believe in a magic money tree,..
Yep. They'd have been better off pressurising him on terrorism which is a direct threat to the country rather than this hypothetical nonsense. He's already said he is continuing with trident, he's already said he would only use military action as an absolute last resort and we all know, thankfully, that he's a man who will do everything in his power to bring peace through dialogue.
That's a bit nicer (posting election slogans), than being told your either a disgrace, selfish, or any one of a myriad of other names for daring to go against the left wing majority on here (obviously not by you).Oh and by the way, if you're just going to sit posting Tory election slogans then don't bother posting because you have literally nothing at all original to say
Fighting terrorism is not a point the Tories can be particularly strong either though. They've been in Government for seven years so Labour can just point to the reduction in police numbers for an easy out.
That's a bit nicer (posting election slogans), than being told your either a disgrace, selfish, or any one of a myriad of other names for daring to go against the left wing majority on here (obviously not by you).
Ditto. I put May on 5 out of 10 and Corbyn on perhaps 6. I certainly detect a marked difference in the right's acceptance of Tory shortcomings and the left's (wth one or two exceptions) flat denial of any on their side. As I say, due to desperation I guess.
no she wasn't, not even close. Your conclusion is just not close to rational, real or based on any of the evidence provided on the programme.
Don't be silly. Unless you want to resurrect the tired old PR debate, which we've done to death, Labour's figure is even less.
The country votes by constituency, not per head of population, The Conservatives, the Labour party and the general
populace all want to keep this system, the only ones who don't are the LibDems, Greens and UKIP, for obvious reasons.
That's utter nonsense and proves why many on the left do not possess any empathy whatsoever for opposing views.
An unbiased observer would put it around 50/50, personally, I'd say Corbyn edged it 51/49, but then I'm not partisan to the point of blindness.
So long as they continue to get many more than Labour, that'll do nicely thank-you.
Silly me, I was forgetting he doesn't even realise he's not a landlord.
I think emotion is starting to get the better of people on this thread. As for last night, it's very simple really. May sounds horrendous when she's talking to the public about pay stagnation, funding in public services, cuts to benefits etc. This is because her manifesto and Tory policies are miserable and offer no hope to people affected by these things. She is, however, the luckiest PM elect there's ever been because usually in these discussions or interviews 50% of the conversation is about Brexit and whether you agree with her stance on that or not she does sound strong and stable.
As for Corbyn, he's the opposite. His manifesto offers hope to millions and through his costings he can back it up even if many people think it's pie in the sky that he can actually achieve those things. Where he falls down is that he's actually too honest for his own good. It would have been very easy for him to say "look, as a very, very last resort I would press the button but I hope for all of our sakes that will never happen". But he's fought all of his life for peace and human rights so he sticks to his principles and despite it being the most hypothetical situation any PM could be asked about he won't lie just to win over an audience.
They really don't. And I can assure you we couldn't use our deterrent independently of the USA. I mean, technically we can as you know but not politically. The only way we would be able to fire independently is if the complete Command & Control Infrastructure was destroyed and it's too late by that time.Because one or more European members of NATO has to have Nukes to make sure the USA sticks to their treaty obligations and I wouldn't trust the French as far as I can throw them on that score.
I know the Guardian has pinned its colours to the Labour party mast, but i think this piece from this morning's online edition needs highlighting. Fake, manipulated, or "alternative" facts need to be highlighted (from whichever camp you are in) so people have the correct and accurate information on which to form their views.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...f-fake-news-over-video-of-corbyn-ira-comments