General Election June 8th

[depps]

Do you think Russia would have thought twice about annexing it if they (the Ukraine) were still the world’s third-largest atomic power?

Unless I'm missing something pretty significant here Ukraine was never a nuclear power at any point in time.

There were a load of nukes left on their territory after the break up of the USSR but they never actually had the ability to use them as Moscow still had the codes/big red button or whatever.

 

[Blue Hefner]

I'm in the "I don't particularly care if we renew but wouldn't be gutted if it went" camp.

In my most fantastic of imaginative scenarios, I can't see any time we'd use it or someone would use it against us. The Scotch idiot was talking about North Korea in the debate. North Korea! In terms of people they want to nuke, we're about 25th on the list and there's a very real idea that they couldn't hit us anyway due to the distances involved, defence shields and their total inability to aim.

I thought the same regarding distance when the bloke(he stated he was a Tory during May's Q&A) - if, and it is a big if, any of the 'rogue states' manage to build a bomb in the first place, I find it very unlikely that they could reach us anyway. Even if they wanted to, which I don't think anyone has stated they do

I understand the reasons we have it but I dont think this topic needs this sort of attention at the moment. There are far bigger and more practical concerns for the country

 

[BlueAnorak]

Who knows? more than likely they would have financed opposition within the country against the ukrainian government and tried to destabalise the country and encourage pro russian groups no matter if it was still full of nukes.

That is the modern method of Russian asymmetric warfare. They did it in Georgia and the Ukraine. Where next? Baltic States?
https://www.aspen.review/article/2017/the-new-generation-of-russian-warfare/

 

[CitizenTID]

Wondered how long that would take.

I'm adamantly in the Labour camp for this election but Abbott could be a white British male called Churchill and she'd (he'd?) still be getting the same stick.

For Balance:

Also this but I can't find the original source:

 

[Chippy_boy]

Well that all depends on whether he changes the standing orders as to retaliation if UK is destroyed or not. The question was never asked, so we don't know the answer.
All I know is if someone like Dan Jarvis was Labour leader, I wouldn't even have to think about asking the question. It's a trust issue and I don''t trust Corbyn on this at all.

More importantly, what messages is he sending out to Putin, Kim Jong-Um or even to ISIS*. If they think he wouldn't press a reliation button, that's all is required to render our entire nuclear deterrent impotent and worthless.

Whether a leader is *actually* prepared to do it or not, is not really the point. It's the message they send out that's important, and in that regard, he fails completely.

* Is it beyond the realms of possibility that ISIS would try to kill millions of Britains by putting Polonium in the Thames water supply, or some other such catastrophe? I am not sure it isn't.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I understand the reasons we have it but I dont think this topic needs this sort of attention at the moment. There are far bigger and more practical concerns for the country

Like what?

 

[Blue Whale]

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

You set yourself up there kidda. I'm sure you've looked at a book by Marx but I'm not convinced you've actually read it.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Like what?

Police cuts
Brexit
NHS
Social Care
Transport
Immigration
Wages
HS2
Security. I.e. Conventional terrorists to ISIS/Al Queda and cyber security

I would say they rank higher in terms of priorities rather than the hypothetical question of what would the PM do if North Korea tried to nuke us

 

[The perfect fumble]

I wonder how many offshore bank accounts Diane Abbott has.....

 

[BlueAnorak]

Unless I'm missing something pretty significant here Ukraine was never a nuclear power at any point in time.
There were a load of nukes left on their territory after the break up of the USSR but they never actually had the ability to use them as Moscow still had the codes/big red button or whatever.

No. They had the codes for neigh on 3 years till they negotiated them away for a useless piece of paper as Britain, France and the USA were not prepared to keep to their side of the bargain. Officially Ukraine supposidly didn't have have PAL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link ) codes to fire them but Leonid Kravchuk (1st President of the Ukraine) and others have stated that the Soviet Unions launch code control system was a mess and could have been bypassed (intitially, supposidly the leaders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine would have had to press the button for any missile to be launched fire).

 

[CitizenTID]

You would say that wouldn't you.

Yes because she has all the qualities of a disaster for the role she is lined up for.

Do you see Sadiq Khan coming in for the same type of criticism? No because he's not a dizzy idiot and has basic professional qualities Abbott lacks

 

[Chippy_boy]

Police cuts
Brexit
NHS
Social Care
Transport
Immigration
Wages
HS2
Security. I.e. Conventional terrorists to ISIS/Al Queda and cyber security

I would say they rank higher in terms of priorities rather than the hypothetical question of what would the PM do if North Korea tried to nuke us

Yes, but all of those things are being managed. It's not like we're shutting the NHS or pulling up the London to Manchester train line. People might have different views on what we should prioritise (apart from Jeremy who doesn't understand the word and just wants to spend everything on everything). But all of the things above are being managed.

And NO, we are not shutting the NHS, before anyone jumps in with a stupid comment.

 

[Blue Mooner]

No it's literally nothing at all like a household budget.

You control the amount of money coming in, you control the supply of money, you control the legislation, you control the issuing of bonds.

This isn't like deciding to get rid of Netflix. If you don't fund the NHS properly you don't save money, you lose it as the welfare bill goes up. If you don't fund the Police then consumer spending slows. If you don't fund education then Labour supply for high value jobs shrinks and wages are forced up which puts people out of business.

It's not a household budget. It doesn't work anything like it. It's the stupidest opinion on the right.

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

It is every bit like handling a household budget just with a lot more complexity. The principles are exactly the same, money coming in, options to borrow to spend or invest and money going out.

Spend more than you have coming in, over stretch and can't pay your debts you go bust. In country terms that means borrowing becomes prohibitively expensive and rampant on inflation ensues destroying the value of people's savings or a ratcheting up of interest rates causing people to default on loans which become unaffordable.

There is nothing good to come from spending more than you can afford over a considerable period of time (how much time depends on how much you overspend) whether as an individual or a country.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I wonder how many offshore bank accounts Diane Abbott has.....

What a total dick. If indeed the rich have all their money in offshore banks accounts in the Bahamas, how the fuck will increasing the tax rate, encourage them to bring it back to the UK. Tool.

It defies belief that anyone could be so utterly thick. How does he think it got into the offshore accounts, if indeed it's there. If it was money earned in this country and sent abroad to avoid tax, these people would be in jail. If it was earned abroad, it's got fuck all to do with the UK and they have no way of touching it. He's just a lefty propaganda merchant who hasn't got the brains to even make a convincing argument.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Yes, but all of those things are being managed. It's not like we're shutting the NHS or pulling up the London to Manchester train line. People might have different views on what we should prioritise (apart from Jeremy who doesn't understand the word and just wants to spend everything on everything). But all of the things above are being managed.

And NO, we are not shutting the NHS, before anyone jumps in with a stupid comment.

The nuclear isssue is also being managed, Trident will be renewed

 

[HelloCity]

 

[hilts]

Just finished an hr or two leafleting in Abbey Hey for Azfals campaign, people on the street very positive about labour with some asking if we had window posters to put up or stickers.

Tbf only leaflet recently has been a tory one this morning sent by post as you never see a tory on the doorstep in any election round here, suprised the lib dems have stopped coming round they were full of confidence of taking the seat a month ago.

Corbyn has done a very good job campaigning to labours core vote so if he loses which seems likely it shouldn't be the disaster that was previously predicted. What labour decide to do after the election if the result is similar to Millibands efforts will be quite interesting. Personally I think the country needs a new voting system at the very least.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Yes, but all of those things are being managed. It's not like we're shutting the NHS or pulling up the London to Manchester train line. People might have different views on what we should prioritise (apart from Jeremy who doesn't understand the word and just wants to spend everything on everything). But all of the things above are being managed.

And NO, we are not shutting the NHS, before anyone jumps in with a stupid comment.

Of course not.
Cunts are going to SELL it.

 

[cibaman]

The nuclear isssue is also being managed, Trident will be renewed

Will it? Its in the manifesto (allegedly because Watson brokered an agreement with the moderates that Corbyn could put whatever he wanted in the manifesto and they wouldnt publicly slag it off, on the sole condition that Trident renewal would also be included).

Hasn't Corbyn said there will be a defence review after the election and refused to rule out changing the policy on Trident at that stage?

I just can't see the programme to renew Trident starting on Corbyn's watch. As PM he would have to own the project. His cabinet would be responsible for pushing through any legislation, overseeing the programme, approving the major contracts etc. I just cannot see Corbyn allowing himself to go down in history as the PM that renewed Trident. If the defence review didn't scrap Trident renewal then I expect he would resign.

 

[Machiavelli]

Will it? Its in the manifesto (allegedly because Watson brokered an agreement with the moderates that Corbyn could put whatever he wanted in the manifesto and they wouldnt publicly slag it off, on the sole condition that Trident renewal would also be included).

Hasn't Corbyn said there will be a defence review after the election and refused to rule out changing the policy on Trident at that stage?

I just can't see the programme to renew Trident starting on Corbyn's watch. As PM he would have to own the project. His cabinet would be responsible for pushing through any legislation, overseeing the programme, approving the major contracts etc. I just cannot see Corbyn allowing himself to go down in history as the PM that renewed Trident. If the defence review didn't scrap Trident renewal then I expect he would resign.

And pass the baton to Diane Abbot. ;-)