Corbyn about to be sectioned methinks?

[drew]

the explosion would'nt but the radiation sickness would eventually

Try posting some evidence to support that assertion.

 

[drew]

Do you really think the funding issues around the NHS would be solved by clamping down on "health tourists"?. How ridiculous! You should educate yourself a bit before launching into an ignorant tirade.

It probably wouldn't but with a very conservative estimate of £2b it would go a little way to helping.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/to-defend-the-nhs-stop-health-tourism/

 

[drew]

Insane amounts of young people are getting behind Corbyn, along with returning Labour voters.

That may be the case but he will still likely to be unelectable as those in the middle will not vote for him.

 

[W.C.]

This is a ridiculous standpoint worthy of idiotic militant wishy washy left wing rubbish bullcrap rhetoric that you hear from uninformed students.

sorry, who's being childish?

 

[glasfryn]

Try posting some evidence to support that assertion.

www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Nuclear-attack
very basic but gives you an idea

 

[BeardyChops]

That shows the blast radius for 100,000 kt bomb but the biggest ever built was only 50,000kt, the so called Tsar Bomb and only one of those was ever actually built and detonated in Russia.

Yep, I just went for the worst case.
50,000kt reassuringly wipes out croydon but leaves Brighton clear.

I imagine the trains would be royally f'ked tho.

 

[Hastings gull]

Insane amounts of young people are getting behind Corbyn, along with returning Labour voters.

Are they? Where is your evidence for such an assertion? Or did you mean . . "amounts of insane young people" . .

 

[heathgate]

Nope....

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

No, because they are a member of Nato and protected by those of us that do have the deterrent. Out of interest, if everyone gave up their weapons voluntarily, except for Russia, would you trust Putin?

Surely that is the point? We would still be in NATO protected by the US's atomic missiles. We're not leaving NATO. Don't the US maintain ours anyway? It's unlikely we will stop being a US's poodle anytime soon and I am fairly sure they would never disarm so what difference does it make if we have them or not? Do you think you sleep better at night knowing somewhere under the Atlantic there is a submarine stuffed full of nuclear warheads ready to be shot off whenever David Cameron decides?

Your point about point Putin is void as no one is talking about the French, the US and whoever else has them getting rid of their atomic bombs. We are talking about the UK.

 

[sahel]

It probably wouldn't but with a very conservative estimate of £2b it would go a little way to helping.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/to-defend-the-nhs-stop-health-tourism/

I have read that article so to get a fair balance I suggest you read the guardian article at www.theguardian.com/politics/reality/health-tourists-costing-nhs-2bn

as always things are more complicated than you think and are spun to support a particular view. For myself I prefer the Guardian to the Spectator for my information.

 

[drew]

I have read that article so to get a fair balance I suggest you read the guardian article at www.theguardian.com/politics/reality/health-tourists-costing-nhs-2bn

as always things are more complicated than you think and are spun to support a particular view. For myself I prefer the Guardian to the Spectator for my information.

Link doesn't seem to work!

 

[drew]

www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Nuclear-attack
very basic but gives you an idea

Are you deliberately missing the point that was made earlier? What you have posted is about a nuclear war where there would be widespread attacks on mulitple targets. The scenario made previously was one bomb on London and the question was how much that would affect. Your response was that it would eventually kill everyone in the UK which is ill informed.

 

[alfredmizen]

Really good post. I see none of the Trident keepers have answered it. Who are we deterring, and how does Germany manage?

If Russia is the main deterent, if they wanted to invade why would they fire a nuclear bomb? Their conventional forces are better than ours. It would be us that would have to suggest we would have fire a nuke first. Which leads onto.

How independent is it. Could we really fire, without usa approval.

I think having Trident is all about supposed power and a saet on security council. We would be better off spending that money on ships that can protect the new aircraft carriers, plus reversing the other cuts to conventional forced. It is they that are used in defence.

This proves you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[drew]

I have read that article so to get a fair balance I suggest you read the guardian article at www.theguardian.com/politics/reality/health-tourists-costing-nhs-2bn

as always things are more complicated than you think and are spun to support a particular view. For myself I prefer the Guardian to the Spectator for my information.

.

Think I've found the article. It's a fair point but it seems nigh on impossible to get a definitive cost. The article refers to people travelling abroad for treatment but the question that would need to be answered is whether that treatment is covered by the NHS, ie is it cosmetic for example. Does it include patients sent abroad but paid for by the NHS? Does it include dental work as I have heard of people going abroad for that. As we know, most work you get done by a dentist seems to be outside of cover from the NHS!!!!

 

[glasfryn]

Are you deliberately missing the point that was made earlier? What you have posted is about a nuclear war where there would be widespread attacks on mulitple targets. The scenario made previously was one bomb on London and the question was how much that would affect. Your response was that it would eventually kill everyone in the UK which is ill informed.

OK lets say it just London then depending on the size of the warhead,you might survive the blast in Burgess Hill but the radiation will evetually get there, as will all those who survive the blast in London.
the radiation will be carried by them as well as in the water supply.
good luck with getting anyone to treat you in the hospitals or finding uncontaminated food

 

[drew]

OK lets say it just London then depending on the size of the warhead,you might survive the blast in Burgess Hill but the radiation will evetually get there, as will all those who survive the blast in London.
the radiation will be carried by them as well as in the water supply.
good luck with getting anyone to treat you in the hospitals or finding uncontaminated food

Absolute rubbish.

 

[The Clamp]

I think The Conservative party are the Ministerial dept of the country's wealthiest citizens. They exist to protect the elite's interest. It's the entire reason they were established. Corbyn, for all his faults wants a government that protects everybody in society and recognise the most vulnerable. There is merit in that but the country as a whole, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to see it, as 2/3 of the last century have seen Tory rule.

 

[heathgate]

Insane amounts of young people are getting behind Corbyn, along with returning Labour voters.

You cannot win an election by connecting only to the young labour voters,...his suggested additional connection to returning labour voters is far outweighed by the middle ground rejecting his extreme left policies.... he is a lame duck, soon to be outed by the party.

I actually think it's clever, stick this extreme duffer in the top labour role, let him stir the pot for a couple of years, then just before the next election campaign gets going, boot him out and bring in a more acceptable candidate ( Miliband, D? )..... The swingometer will be going mad.....

 

[Triggaaar]

I think The Conservative party are the Ministerial dept of the country's wealthiest citizens. They exist to protect the elite's interest. It's the entire reason they were established. Corbyn, for all his faults wants a government that protects everybody in society and recognise the most vulnerable. There is merit in that but the country as a whole, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to see it, as 2/3 of the last century have seen Tory rule.

I guess most of the country don't agree with your opinion on why the tory party exist or who they serve, otherwise they wouldn't get in power.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I think The Conservative party are the Ministerial dept of the country's wealthiest citizens. They exist to protect the elite's interest. It's the entire reason they were established. Corbyn, for all his faults wants a government that protects everybody in society and recognise the most vulnerable. There is merit in that but the country as a whole, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to see it, as 2/3 of the last century have seen Tory rule.

It is human nature for people's first instinct to be acting in their own interest.

Corbyn's vision for our country under a Labour government is transparently a decent one. He would no more desire to swill champagne and shag a pig than he would be able to fly to the moon...