Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

Who will you vote for?

  • Total voters
    1,453
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lartyconshayo said:
He hasn't changed his mind - however once again he has LISTENED to what the party as whole wants and voted on and that was to keep the nuclear deterrent. He will continue to work towards multilateral disarmament as he always has done. I didn't get to see QT last night but it seems it was the usual sideshow of banging on about the usual smears - the immediate things affecting us for any new government will be environment, social care, housing, NHS, education -I wish that people were so passionate about these subjects and spoke at length to understand the minutiae between the parties instead of hounding people over baseless accusations.

At what point did we turn into society where we think someone's willingness to obliterate millions of civilians as the definition of 'sane'
Click to expand...
He is also working towards giving back Gibraltar and Falklands. I just don't trust he will tow the party line if in power.
 
So I'm forming the picture of what a strong and stable Brexit looks like, May walks away with no deal and then nukes Europe, Tory voters happy, May says Corbyn wouldn't have done that for you.
 
kitch9 said:
My biggest bug bear at the moment is the foreign aid budget when we have skint nurses and the schools need a few more quid. I also don't like the idea of an immigration system refusing access to doctors, engineers and academics whilst we let in the dregs of Eastern Europe uncontrollably.
Click to expand...

Now I clearly don't have the answer however, but a good start to getting the NHS back on track would be to address why consultancy firms have set up specific arms of their companies to cater for the NHS ( AKA bleed it dry) For example a friend of mine is part owner of one such firm and pays someone 60'000 GBP for 3 days works to buy bed sheets for an NHS trust! Another idea for people who are in overnight why not charge them for their food? They would be buying food anyway so make them pay for it?
 
Lartyconshayo said:
At what point did we turn into society where we think someone's willingness to obliterate millions of civilians as the definition of 'sane'
Click to expand...
Indeed. This is such an utter non-point it makes me feel that those pushing it have already decided they aren't going to vote labour and are actively looking to find additional reasons to convince others not to vote for them, which is now moving towards 'foaming at the mouth' levels of ridiculousness.

The threat of nuclear war is beyond slim today and it probably will be in the upcoming decades as well. We don't objectively NEED nukes (Germany seems to be doing quite nicely) and anybody would be cautious about deploying a nuke on any society for obvious reasons. Once a nuke had been deployed, global society could crumble. Nobody sane could possibly be 'willing' to use that option in anything other than the most absolute extreme of circumstances.... extreme circumstances that Corbyn himself is emphasising he wants to avoid. He is just being frank - he would be unwilling to press the button, saying diplomacy is more effective. That's true surely?! When has anyone last faced a shall we nuke them scenario.... Cold War maybe? What saved that... diplomacy. Nobody has gone the whole way and deployed a nuke since the Second World War. Does that mean that we should get rid of trident? Not necessarily - there clearly is a deterence value but 'would you push the red button?' is such a moronic question because the implications of this utterly unrealistic scenario are doomsday-esque.

AND... is this seriously more important to people than brexit, the economy and the NHS? Plenty of good reasons to not vote for labour but this nuclear one is just ridiculous and pretty much undermines anyone that is pushing it.
 
kitch9 said:
Clearly the problem with these debates is they tend to attract those who are far too engaged with day to day politics or who have an axe to grind.

So you get those who clap annoying and constantly at their politician of choice for just breathing and nuclear bomb guy.

Waste of time for those of us have lives to live and only run through their choice of vote in their mind 5 mins before entering the ballot box.

My biggest bug bear at the moment is the foreign aid budget when we have skint nurses and the schools need a few more quid. I also don't like the idea of an immigration system refusing access to doctors, engineers and academics whilst we let in the dregs of Eastern Europe uncontrollably.

New Zealand manages to farm its own land and brew its own coffee with a managed immigration system, I'm sure we can figure it out.
Click to expand...

I would worry more about the Naylor report and the fact that Cons will implement it if you have concerns about the NHS

 
also what a dignified response :

"Jeremy Corbyn's response to the news that Mackinlay has been charged was an incredibly restrained and dignified display of political integrity. Instead of using the case to score political points and boost his election campaign, this is what Corbyn said:
"Nobody should be commenting on the details of an ongoing case. The police must be allowed to act independently to investigate on the basis of any evidence they’ve got, and the Crown Prosecution Service must be allowed to make its decision on whether to proceed on a case.

It is a very bad road when democratically elected politicians start offering a running commentary on independent judicial processes. We have to have total separation of political and judicial powers in this country.

"All politicians need to be extremely careful – politicians are elected to parliament to be held to account by the public."Just think about it for a moment and imagine if the boot was on the other foot.
"
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/jeremy-corbyns-response-to-tory.html
 
Using Germany as an example as to why we don't need nukes is misunderstanding the purpose of them. Germany is well defended by the UK and US mostly. If this position was to change then Germany need to make themselves very unattractive for invasion. The US want Germany to pay for them to be there and putting pressure on them to spend more on defence which is pushing them towards being able to protect themselves. There is literally no armed force Germany could build that would stop a larger nation invading them. If the Russians move their border closer again then nukes are the only thing that will guarantee they won't be invaded.
 
People discussing nukes are focusing too much on one of the least relevant issues in this election...Jeremy corbyns answer, which is correct imo...but

Edit: My opinion, we should renew trident with enough subs for continuous at sea deterant, they serve a purpose and keep the peace etc

Nuclear weapons are for deterrent only and should never be used MAD etc

The only circumstances where they could be used would be similar to WW2 japan for example, where they or their allies are not nuclear powers and cannot strike back and it would prevent a greater loss vs if conventional forces were used.

Even vs say NK or Iran with only a handful of nukes, which we maybe able to first strike or shoot down or will fail and blow up on launch it would still probably be too much of a risk, unless you were willing to risk sacrificing say 5 uk/western cities to get the job done etc

Real nuclear war between real nuclear states russia vs usa for example is where MAD applies but any sane person would not fire first or fire second!

If for example russia launched everything they have that would obliterate the entire landmass of all western powers, 1/2 the world etc it would be insane to fire back and destroy the other 1/2 of the world and make the human race extinct or put it back to the stone age etc

By not firing second in retaliation at least the human race would be in a better position to survive and keep advancing and over time there politics would change and it wouldn't be letting your enemy survive it would be letting the human race survive etc

But for MAD to work they need to think there is at least a chance if not certainty you would fire back in retalition
 
Last edited:
delta0 said:
Using Germany as an example as to why we don't need nukes is misunderstanding the purpose of them. Germany is well defended by the UK and US mostly. If this position was to change then Germany need to make themselves very unattractive for invasion. The US want Germany to pay for them to be there and putting pressure on them to spend more on defence which is pushing them towards being able to protect themselves. There is literally no armed force Germany could build that would stop a larger nation invading them. If the Russians move their border closer again then nukes are the only thing that will guarantee they won't be invaded.
Click to expand...
You won't be surprised to hear I contemplated editing the reference to Germany out of my post before posting it for fear of someone deciding to ignore the thrust of my post and focussing on this irrelevant nuance :p
 
And still the Tories have nothing to offer policy-wise, so the personal attacks on Corbyn continue.

Can you May supporters not yet see that these pathetic tactics are strengthening his position?

Keep it up by all means, you might manage to fully throw the election!
 
Nitefly said:
You won't be surprised to hear I contemplated editing the reference to Germany out of my post before posting it for fear of someone deciding to ignore the thrust of my post and focussing on this irrelevant nuance :p
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised :p
The point is they are a defensive weapon. NK waving them around is unacceptable. Other countries invest in them as an insurance policy to prevent the atrocities of the past happening again.
 
Lartyconshayo said:
I would worry more about the Naylor report and the fact that Cons will implement it if you have concerns about the NHS

Click to expand...

I don't freak out over the word "privatisation," we're going to need to employ the worlds best private medical companies if we need to keep up with medical advancements. The NHS sells its bleeding edge services and research world wide, and in return in buys others in. This will only increase, and need to, as medicine gets more complex. The NHS cannot possiblly research and provide everything, its as simple as that. I wouldn't have my children today if it wasn't for the genetic forensic capabilities of a lab in America.

The front line staff need looking after, and we shouldn't be giving money to the likes if India whilst we have staff to pay. I just want one of them to say, look rest of the world, I'm sorry but we've our own problems to solve, we'll be back to help once we're back on our feet. Meantime we'll help where we can with the resources we have if you need it.
 
delta0 said:
I'm not surprised :p
The point is they are a defensive weapon. NK waving them around is unacceptable. Other countries invest in them as an insurance policy to prevent the atrocities of the past happening again.
Click to expand...
I do appreciate that argument. I can see why there is value in having them. My reason for getting rid of them would be so we can put money in other things.

Whether we should have the weapons or not is a different questions to should we press the buttton. The latter is a silly question because it will never come to that. I don't feel Corbyn has undermined our deferences by saying he wouldn't strike out enemies with a weapon first. I mean, could you imagine how we would stand policitally with everyone else if we decided to up and nuke Russia or Iran?! Could you imagine Russia or Iran deciding to unilaterally nuke us, without our allies stepping in to politically prevent this? Just totally ridiculous scenarios and quite irrelevant for the purpose of voting for labour or not, IMO.

At least the economic arguments against labour are of merit :p
 
kitch9 said:
The front line staff need looking after, and we shouldn't be giving money to the likes if India whilst we have staff to pay. I just want one of them to say, look rest of the world, I'm sorry but we've our own problems to solve, we'll be back to help once we're back on our feet. Meantime we'll help where we can with the resources we have if you need it.
Click to expand...

Haha good one :) You know the history of the UK right?

First you declare to the world that we're weak and vulnerable....then stick two fingers up at the likes of India and other ex-colonies that we bled dry at gunpoint.

We would get absolutely crucified. Not militarily these days, but economically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom