General Election 2017

[Hastings gull]

A couple of Tory plants in the audience brought up the nuclear question as that is the only thing left now to smear JC with and already people are horrified about the thoughts of incinerating millions of innocent people

Tory plants, as you put it, were fully entitled to be there, or do you think it should be entirely left wing, and anyone else should be banned? As to the only issue, presumably you were not there all the time, as JC's policies came under intense scrutiny on several fronts. In fact what people are thinking of is entirely the opposite -you will not incinerate millions, as you put it, if your potential adversary thinks you are serious about retaliating -the risk rises, life being as it is, if the North Koreas of this world think they can get away with it.

 

[TSB]

Pakistan is at constant risk of militant take over. Can you guarantee this will not happen ? These people cannot be negotiated away.
Being half the world away does not prevent nuclear attack in the future.
Russia would suddenly be more of a threat if we were not prepared to defend ourselves.

I don't need to guarantee it.
You can't say that with certainty.
And that seems extremely unlikely.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Tory boy can't afford to pay staff in his business if he has to pay a living wage.

Don't employ people if you can't afford to.

There's some dumb comments on here, but that's up there with them. Well thought out mate.

What the "Tory Boy" actually said was, they are struggling to pay wages now. Costs have gone up with the weak pound, pressures are on small/medium business.

If all of a sudden Labour get you to have pay an extra 9% corporation tax, then increase a lot of your work force pay from £7.20 an hour to £10, how are they going to afford it. Or will Labour open the gate to the money tree orchard for them to use.

You're right with your second sentence. Don't employ people then because you can't afford to. Result, your business goes under.

Labour loose the 19% corporation tax you was paying, on top of the tax from wages you were providing your staff.

So you end up with business going to the wall, and a lot of people paying tax, now all of a sudden, not paying tax, and claiming benefits. And they will drive tens of thousands of small business to the wall. They may as well raise VAT to 50% as well why they are at. I don't see it doing much more damage then their existing plans.

Another great idea from the Labour party!!

I am all for raising corporation tax to 50% for big multinationals like Amazon, ebay, the utility companies, who post billion pound profits and tax dodge, especially those that cannot run overseas and need and supply our nation, but labelling someone like that small business owner on question time, as a Tory Boy, is frankly pathetic.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I say again, a QUARTER, otherwise known as 25%, of the budget spent on writing off student loans. Go on then lefties, defend it..........not to me but to your own future, and your children's future, and your grandchildrens future, cos they are the ones who will be paying for it.

 

[Steve.S]

Whilst undedcided, I would like to think that my 'leader' would be clear and certain in the defence of our country.

If the Manifesto is clear and certain elsewhere, why not here too?

Like you I am also undecided and up to tonight I was leaning towards Labour. Nothing to do with he would push the button, I just thought he came across a bit smug tonight, he was put under a bit of pressure tonight from some of the audience and I thought he didn't always cope well with it. I'm still edging towards Labour.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TSB]

Beyond Parody...

Why?
They are referred to as an 'ally'.

 

[spring hall convert]

No, but nor did all of Japan die. I of course hate the idea of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does focus the mind of an enemy. As a leader of a country with nuclear potential you do not rule out anything, and if the worst happens then both sides will most likely be very keen to get to the negotiating table ASAP.

Tbh I think this whole debate is a red herring but the comparison is daft

- Modern nukes have destructive capabilities 1000x the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

- Proliferation of nukes across the world gives us a real danger of complete annihilation in the event of one being used.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Whatever floats your boat I would rather someone stand up and admit that the use of nuclear weapons was an unthinkable last resort than play to the gallery with Hollywood style tubthumping about launching nukes.

Besides is this really a topic that should be the centrepiece of an election campaign?

Well every leader who speaks has quoted that the Prime Ministers first job is to keep the people safe, and the first job a new Prime Minister has to do is write the last resort letters to our military leaders, so if one of the candidates is seriously lacking in this, then yes, it should be.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Quite astonishing.
In the hypothetical that a rogue nation attacks this country, destroying targets up and down the country with wave after wave Corbyn would just let it happen and not respond to try and protect his own people.
I dont know how any can defend this stance.

Maybe because it's, and this the important thing here, hypothetical. And if targets 'up and down the country' were destroyed we'd all be dead. But you know, let's keep this going because we all know hypothetical genocide is a more important topic than healthcare...

 

[glasfryn]

Boris down in Eastbourne eating a 99 yesterday didn't persuade you to vote Tory then ?

a nice young girl laying on my bed with come hither eyes would not persuede me to vote tory

Similar in Hastings, with plenty of Labour posters this time and very few Tory, when in 2015 there were Tory posters plastered everywhere.

sadly only one Labour poster

 

[spring hall convert]

The smart money is on a Tory majority in excess of 50 still. I'm not sure I understand why some of the Tories on here are getting so hot under the collar.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[TSB]

I say again, a QUARTER, otherwise known as 25%, of the budget spent on writing off student loans. Go on then lefties, defend it..........not to me but to your own future, and your children's future, and your grandchildrens future, cos they are the ones who will be paying for it.

It's for their future.

As it happens, I'm not a huge fan of this (it's one of those giveaways you can make when you won't have to be in power).
One 'blemish' on the manifesto compared to the Tories hilarious effort though.

And since when are 'lefties' all labour voters?
That'd be like me calling all right-wingers knuckle-dragging, elitist *****?

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I say again, a QUARTER, otherwise known as 25%, of the budget spent on writing off student loans. Go on then lefties, defend it..........not to me but to your own future, and your children's future, and your grandchildrens future, cos they are the ones who will be paying for it.

Good luck with someone defending that. Just a pure vote buyer. What's the odds that the first U-turn if they did win!! They are just exploiting simple young minds with that policy!!

 

[Hastings gull]

Whatever floats your boat I would rather someone stand up and admit that the use of nuclear weapons was an unthinkable last resort than play to the gallery with Hollywood style tubthumping about launching nukes.

Besides is this really a topic that should be the centrepiece of an election campaign?

Yes, it does seem odd, fully agreed. But it is only fair to assess the capabilities of a future PM, and how he/she would react in a variety of situations, and though the idea of nuclear bombs being thrown about, is highly unlikely, and other issues would indeed seem to be more pressing, it is nonetheless worth pursuing. The public wish to be reassured, and quite frankly, JC's responses were evasive.

 

[Is it PotG?]

 

[pb21]

Didn't watch the debate but it seems that the big talking point is Nuclear Bombs?!

 

[pastafarian]

Maybe because it's, and this the important thing here, hypothetical. And if targets 'up and down the country' were destroyed we'd all be dead. But you know, let's keep this going because we all know hypothetical genocide is a more important topic than healthcare...

Its a topic that has just as much right to be discussed as any other.
No wanting to discuss it because its a difficult or awkward subject should not be an option for a PM or a prospective PM

 

[wellquickwoody]

I would rather set light to my own eyes than vote for Jezza, note Jezza not the Labour party.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Russia, North Korea, potentially Pakistan in the future. Sticking our heads in the sand won't protect us. The world is not filled with nice gentlemen like JC.

Sticking your head in the sand involves not realising where our real vulnerabilities lie like cyber security and these are not hypothetical; just look at recent ransom-ware attacks. Nuclear remains an issue but NATO is hardly short of nuclear capability to provide an appropriate level of deterrence. If we really cared about security we would be investing in making our IT systems much more robust, anticipating future threats, intelligence gathering , overseas investment to prevent instability. This involves investment in infrastructure, research, education, diplomacy and all the stuff that the blowhards really resent.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Its a topic that has just as much right to be discussed as any other.
No wanting to discuss it because its a difficult or awkward subject should not be an option for a PM or a prospective PM

It's not difficult at all. If nukes are used everyone dies. They are there for posturing and that's it. The sooner the world is rid of them the better.