General Election 2017

[JC Footy Genius]

Oh dear, that's a chunk of truth that won't go down well with some on here! It is old news, though; they had since last November to assimilate it, but the fact that it hasn't sunk into their brains yet suggests it never will.

The blinding light from Jezza's halo combined with being offered loads of free stuff means facts aren't that important anymore.

 

[Ernest]

The magic money tree been found

[tweet]870910280888463360[/tweet]

 

[JC Footy Genius]

So, what hadn't happened when this article was written??

Can you rephrase your question?

 

[spring hall convert]

Just pressed the red button at home. Not sure what the fuss is about - am missing the Lions match though.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Hit the brakes chaps, screeeeechhhhhh, got to do another U Turn whilst all the idiots worry about Corbyn not pressing the red button

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-housing-policy-u-turn-affordable-homes-general-election-2017-manifesto-a7769866.html

U-turns, tax cuts for the rich, welfare cuts for the poor, falling standards in the NHS, housing crisis, underfunded schools and hospitals, food banks, child poverty, declining wage worth but Corbyn won't agree to commit hypothetical mass genocide.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Hit the brakes chaps, screeeeechhhhhh, got to do another U Turn whilst all the idiots worry about Corbyn not pressing the red button

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-housing-policy-u-turn-affordable-homes-general-election-2017-manifesto-a7769866.html

Speaking of u - turns .. can you clarify your current view on Jezza? Chosen one or useless idiot?

 

[Is it PotG?]

.........Corbyn won't agree to commit hypothetical mass genocide.

Or even suggest he might keep folks safe in their beds at night.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Or even suggest he might keep folks safe in their beds at night.

Whilst Theresa May is CURRENTLY not keeping folks safe in their beds at night. But you know ignore what IS happening and focus on a hypothetical scenario.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

U-turns, tax cuts for the rich, welfare cuts for the poor, falling standards in the NHS, housing crisis, underfunded schools and hospitals, food banks, child poverty, declining wage worth but Corbyn won't agree to commit hypothetical mass genocide.

But he will agree to lead a party/Government that keeps a nuclear deterrent he would never use and has committed to upgrading it which will cost tens of billions that could be spent on the poor, needy, NHS etc etc.

Principled

 

[Hugo Rune]

U-turns, tax cuts for the rich, welfare cuts for the poor, falling standards in the NHS, housing crisis, underfunded schools and hospitals, food banks, child poverty, declining wage worth but Corbyn won't agree to commit hypothetical mass genocide.

The Tories want the election fought on Brexit & Security. If the media keep on message with those issues, the Tories will be fine.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

So, what hadn't happened when this article was written??

Presumably you mean triggering of Article 50 ? So it's right to be critical of the U.K. stance of waiting for the negotiations but the identical position taken by the EU is fine ? Not aimed at you by the way but at other posters who seem to take this
position.

 

[GT49er]

So, what hadn't happened when this article was written??

Many, many things - including the Albion getting promotion - none of which invalidate the article, or change the facts contained therein.


Article 50, which I presume is what you're getting at, has indeed been triggered, but Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk have not budged on their intransigence, still not accepting the UK's reasonable offer and deliberately causing continuing anxiety for British ex-pats and EU migrants in the UK. Nice people, eh?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

U-turns, tax cuts for the rich, welfare cuts for the poor, falling standards in the NHS, housing crisis, underfunded schools and hospitals, food banks, child poverty, declining wage worth but Corbyn won't agree to commit hypothetical mass genocide.

And that's the frustrating thing about JC and friends. All of his good intention is undermined by his stance on issues such as defence. Why not put forward a leader who wants all the things you list and is prepared to defend this country at last resort ?
It doesn't matter that this is a hypothetical scenario. Government involves constantly running hypothetical models of the economy, our defence etc etc. Same everywhere and if the U.K. will not use its deterrent you can bet this will appear in the hypothetical calculations of countries that wish us harm.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Agree with all of these defense requirements. Those threats need to be countered. In addition the threat
of potential nuclear aggressors needs to be addressed. This has not gone away simply because other threats have multiplied.

I agree that there will be a continuing need for a nuclear deterrent as long as other states have access to this technology. What I don't understand (and this is a genuine question for me as I admit that my knowledge in this area is limited) is the role of a unilateral deterrent and the scenarios in which it could be used as opposed to collective action within the NATO alliance. My understanding is that, simply put, an attack on a single NATO state is an attack on all and I am assuming that a strategy has been agreed as to the armaments needed to do this and a command and control process for making decisions, if needed within narrow timeframes, for responses. What would a credible scenario be that would see the UK and the UK alone be in receipt of a threat or an attack that just focussed on us that would not require an alliance-wide response? A more relevant line of questioning for Corbyn might have been his view on our role within the NATO strategy and command structure (obviously not the fine detail).

My comments about other forms of threat are that I see a real danger in directing so much funding to the macro threat of a nuclear attack and not enough on micro and heavily targetted acts such as cyber attacks and other forms of technology-based attack such as drone attacks. The NHS systems were so vulnerable due to a lack of investment; we should have seen this as a defence and security issue not just a healthcare issue. For our potential enemies the entry cost for this technology is much lower than nuclear and therefore it is far more likely to be used against us by the type of organisations that pose a genuine threat now. The technology is developing fast and we need to keep up.

 

[studio150]

Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk on Tuesday united to block Theresa May's attempt to fast-track a deal which would have created an amnesty for British ex-pats and EU migrants in the UK post-Brexit.

Mrs May had proposed that EU workers currently living in the UK be allowed to remain in exchange for an agreement which gives British expats in the European Union the same rights.

She had hoped to announce a deal within weeks but while more than 20 EU nations have signalled they are prepared to agree to a reciprocal arrangement, Mrs Merkel has rebuffed Mrs May's attempts to come to an agreement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ritish-voters-backed-brexit-creating-anxiety/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-angela-merkel-eu-migrants-deal-a7445261.html

Oh dear, that's a chunk of truth that won't go down well with some on here! It is old news, though; they had since last November to assimilate it, but the fact that it hasn't sunk into their brains yet suggests it never will.

All discussed at length on the EU but for balance

https://www.ft.com/content/7c008997-e2a9-360d-89a3-1646dcbdae0f

It's not as straight forward as just saying yes there are issues of healthcare etc

 

[Ernest]

Now they've lost the magic money tree

[tweet]870919126608478208[/tweet]

 

[Grizz]

And that's the frustrating thing about JC and friends. All of his good intention is undermined by his stance on issues such as defence. Why not put forward a leader who wants all the things you list and is prepared to defend this country at last resort ?
It doesn't matter that this is a hypothetical scenario. Government involves constantly running hypothetical models of the economy, our defence etc etc. Same everywhere and if the U.K. will not use its deterrent you can bet this will appear in the hypothetical calculations of countries that wish us harm.

And as soon as he does do that he'll be set upon by his opponents and the right wing sections of the media saying "see you can't trust him, he won't even stick to his own principles". It's a no win situation for him and I think he's done pretty well in answering the questions put forward to him the best he can. He said to Paxman or Neil, can't remember which now, that the manifesto was a party led set of policies and that as Leader he'll respect them, which included renewal of Trident. Now I know he had a get out clause of the Defense Review they'd go through, but every incoming government does that I'm sure.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

And that's the frustrating thing about JC and friends. All of his good intention is undermined by his stance on issues such as defence. Why not put forward a leader who wants all the things you list and is prepared to defend this country at last resort ?

It is frustrating. But it depends on your view of 'defending'. Personally, I see preemptive diplomacy and dialogue as defence. He has pledged to spend of cyber defence and he has continued to promote diplomacy and dialogue. The prospect of nuclear war is a hypothetical scenario, the likelihood of which is incredibly small.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Presumably you mean triggering of Article 50 ? So it's right to be critical of the U.K. stance of waiting for the negotiations but the identical position taken by the EU is fine ? Not aimed at you by the way but at other posters who seem to take this
position.

'We' chose to leave, not them. I think holding off on their position is fine. They didn't want us to leave. Us saying we are buggering off and then listin demands early doors is a bit arrogant isn't it?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

He should have just said he would press the button as a very last, last, last resort. Even if secretly he wouldn't in any circumstances. We would be all dead anyway, so he wouldn't receive any backlash.

Its an odd thing, isn't it. A political leader who finds it distasteful to bluster about rediculous hypotheticals in order to win cheap political points.

A cynic may say of course he realises that all your Sun and Mail readers, Loonies etc., are not suddenly going to vote Team Jeremy just because he vows to avenge their smoking bodies by nuking someone.

Or maybe he's just more comfortable with the truth

I say all that still wishing that Andy Burnham was labour leader . . . . . . if he were labour would have a double digit lead by now . . . .