Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[Greebo]

 

[McBain]

Awesome. Then lets make it £400bn and get an extra submarine. That way we're getting even more value for our money!

Brilliant.

 

[Uther]

ah that is a pretty safe seat... well I guess your vote is only going to be signalling then... I'd still vote liberal tbh.. if there was a bit of an uptick then maybe they'd campaign there more in future elections and so one etc..

The only one we ever see is the Labour guy, who, although he lives 20 miles away gets more involved and helps people more in my village than the Conservative who lives here! I could see a collapse of the ukip vote here (that was for brexit I think) but where that vote goes remains to be seen.

 

[Jimmeh]

Germany - 30%
France - 33%

What's so bad about 27% here, that it will cause companies to leave? Other places in the EU have 25% ish. 20% here currently is really low in comparison.

France and Germany, along with the 'other places in the EU which have 25%' are just that, members of the EU.

I could be wrong, but it's likely to be the straw that breaks the camels back.

 

[FoxEye]

don't think they get the UK's nuclear deterrent - the retaliation use of it is done by our RN submarine commanders under the premise that the UK govt is wiped out

on the other hand the refusal over first use is worrying, if we got intelligence that an attack is inevitable then not to use it would be barmy

So not only do you *want* us to first-strike nuke somebody, but you want to do it based on so-called "intelligence" that an attack is coming?

Given that our intelligence told us there were WMDs in Iraq... you're essentially saying we should end the world if we *think* someone will attack us? Ie, before they actually do?

Bloomin' heck.

 

[dowie]

So not only do you *want* us to first-strike nuke somebody, but you want to do it based on so-called "intelligence" that an attack is coming?

Given that our intelligence told us there were WMDs in Iraq... you're essentially saying we should end the world if we *think* someone will attack us? Ie, before they actually do?

Bloomin' heck.

I wouldn't start conflating the dodgy dossier on Iraq with anything to do with what I'm discussing here..

what would you base a first strike on? A crystal ball?

 

[VincentHanna]

So not only do you *want* us to first-strike nuke somebody, but you want to do it based on so-called "intelligence" that an attack is coming?

Given that our intelligence told us there were WMDs in Iraq... you're essentially saying we should end the world if we *think* someone will attack us? Ie, before they actually do?

Bloomin' heck.

Which would make us terrorists, ironically.

 

[jimjamuk]

Germany - 30%
France - 33%

What's so bad about 27% here, that it will cause companies to leave? Other places in the EU have 25% ish. 20% here currently is really low in comparison.

Ireland? 12.5% I think.

 

[Greebo]

Ireland? 12.5% I think.

So you want us to become a tax haven then? Race to the bottom?

 

[FoxEye]

I wouldn't start conflating the dodgy dossier on Iraq with anything to do with what I'm discussing here..

what would you base a first strike on? A crystal ball?

You said we should first-strike nuke somebody if we had "intelligence that an attack was inevitable"...

Frankly, unless you can read (eg) Putin's mind, you don't have good enough intelligence that an attack is inevitable.

The only time you *know* an attack actually is *inevitable* is when the birds are flying.

Before then, you're actually talking about nuking someone on paranoid suspicion.

 

[dowie]

Before then, you're actually talking about nuking someone on paranoid suspicion.

I've not advocated nuking someone on that basis

do you believe there is never a situation where you could use nuclear weapons first?

 

[jimjamuk]

Awesome. Then lets make it £400bn and get an extra submarine. That way we're getting even more value for our money!

Let JC know and he can tag it at the bottom of his list

but unfortunately we have the minimum required to be able to have a sub out there at any one time - what you suggest is a flagrant waste of tax payers money

 

[FoxEye]

I've not advocated nuking someone on that basis

do you believe there is never a situation where you could use nuclear weapons first?

Using nuclear weapons at any time will result in our own total destruction.

Using them first is not something any sane person would do.

By issuing a first strike, you condemn both ourselves and whoever we're nuking to oblivion. When would that be a good idea?

 

[Greebo]

I've not advocated nuking someone on that basis

do you believe there is never a situation where you could use nuclear weapons first?

Yes.

 

[FuriousGeorge]

Corbyn should just say Nuke means Nuke and no one would question it tbh.

 

[Greebo]

Red, white and blue Nuke?

 

[jimjamuk]

So you want us to become a tax haven then? Race to the bottom?

Not really but its fairly balanced where it is - higher and the tax take goes down. But looking at Ireland they were is all sorts of financial trouble then magically attracted a lot of big companies to base themselves there - its no coincidence

 

[stewski]

I've not advocated nuking someone on that basis

do you believe there is never a situation where you could use nuclear weapons first?

I don't know what weapons world wat III are fought with but wwIV will be fought with sticks and stones.

 

[dowie]

By issuing a first strike, you condemn both ourselves and whoever we're nuking to oblivion. When would that be a good idea?

Well that is objectively untrue - for example Japan in WW2.

 

[jimjamuk]

Using nuclear weapons at any time will result in our own total destruction.

Using them first is not something any sane person would do.

By issuing a first strike, you condemn both ourselves and whoever we're nuking to oblivion. When would that be a good idea?

agree - no one launches first is the whole point. If someone is going to attack then they take the chance