If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.
It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.
Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
Not true. The French have them to. The rest of Europe relies upon ourselves, the French and the US to provide the deterrent.
Your definition of Europe obviously doesn't include Moscow or St Petersburg.
Since I was using the same definition as Foxinsox whose point I was answering, no it did not.
May 7/10. Good strong start but stuttered a little on social care. Struggled on NHS bits but most people probably see 'a nurse' and her husband as partisan union reps. Concern about 'partially sighted' young lady, if she is genuine then that's May's worst moment. Strong finish.
Corbyn 6/10. Good start, great at promising free owls and not really questioned about how it would be paid for. Terrible on defence, security and terrorism, the question remains how far this cuts through to the average Joe watching (personal this is completely disqualifying). Difficult exchange with young student supporting 'zero hours' contracts as he wants to be in control of when he works.
If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.
It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.
Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
Trident is nothing but a giant military industrial complex psychological blackmail. You do not need trident to maintain nuclear capability.
The rest of the world also goes to sleep at night without having trident to defend them.
Ukraine gave up their nukes - If they still had them do you think that Putin would have been quite so brazen?
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
That's wrong.
France, China, Israel (cruise missiles), and India all have sub launched nuclear weapons. Pakistan is developing them. So it is believed is North Korea.
France have an air delivered nuclear deterrent, much cheaper than ours iirc.
France has both, but the SLBMs are the bulk of the French nuclear arsenal.
If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.
It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.
Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
Trident is nothing but a giant military industrial complex psychological blackmail. You do not need trident to maintain nuclear capability.
The rest of the world also goes to sleep at night without having trident to defend them.
+1
It's hardly independent, anyway. I suspect those secret letters to the submarine commanders all contain a p.s. 'Make sure you phone the Americans first'
My only hope is that, because the Tories and the media cried wolf so much over the past week with that IRA nonsense, the public will be tuning out everything they hear about Corbyn on security/defence, and don't even listen to the mess he made of the Trident question.
Why is that your hope?
This is a serious question.
Because we want Labour to win !!!!
And me
never mind Clive Lewis is safe
and you could have got 8/15 a couple of weeks back.
winnings will buy many pints in the Golden Triangle
If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.
It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.
Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
LOL - go and look at all the weapon systems Corbyn wants to ban
Then remind yourself senior members of his cabinet want to disarm police and shut down MI5.
What about all the people who will be thrown out of work at defence orientated exporters? Surely it is not just Barrow where concentrations of hundreds if not thousands of workers will be thrown on the scrapheap due to the pacifist dogma of Corbyn's Labour party.
I've said that about places like Filton in Bristol. Lots of defence jobs.
If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.
It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.
Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
France has nuclear ballistic missile subs. OK wise boy. The Triomphant Class. The last of 4 boats entered service in 2010. 2010 geddit? They do whilst you new friend the anti semite Corbyn is getting ready to feck us over. I'll make you a deal. You stick to diagnosing measles and leave the wise words on international affairs to me.
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
big debates corbyn - hes man enough not to say he could never kill millions of people. may - please find someone new. boris gove or even rees mogg got mentioned
But will still spend money on a system he will not use.
Typical Labour approach re spending money.
We will all spend £100bn we will never use. We do not even know if it even works.
So to be PM you basically have to be OK with a bit of genocide or at the very least be prepared to lie about it.
Not sure what to make of that.
Yes because that plays the crucial part of no-one getting nuked at all. It isn't that complex.
The point is if they attack us and we get incinerated they do in return. Otherwise Corbyn is saying its alright for us to be killed but we should not kill them. He is not fit to be LOTO never mind PM.
My only hope is that, because the Tories and the media cried wolf so much over the past week with that IRA nonsense, the public will be tuning out everything they hear about Corbyn on security/defence, and don't even listen to the mess he made of the Trident question.
Why is that your hope?
This is a serious question.
Because I like his policies on most things much more than I dislike his policies on security/defence.
Worth saying also that, even if Corbyn does become PM, the "deterrence" effect of Trident would still be in force IMO -- the likes of N Korea would know that, even if Corbyn himself wouldn't "push the button", there'd be other Labour MPs (most likely including people in his Cabinet) who would push the button and could replace him at any moment, and would still have a renewed Trident ready to use at any time if they wished to do so.
May 7/10. Good strong start but stuttered a little on social care. Struggled on NHS bits but most people probably see 'a nurse' and her husband as partisan union reps. Concern about 'partially sighted' young lady, if she is genuine then that's May's worst moment. Strong finish.
Corbyn 6/10. Good start, great at promising free owls and not really questioned about how it would be paid for. Terrible on defence, security and terrorism, the question remains how far this cuts through to the average Joe watching (personal this is completely disqualifying). Difficult exchange with young student supporting 'zero hours' contracts as he wants to be in control of when he works.
Unless the owl comes with a supply of food, I don't want one.
'I didn't know Jeremy Corbyn dislikes nuclear weapons. I'd never have imagined it possible. I'd better change my vote.'
..Things people never say #456
The step change fallacy, curiously beloved by PBers. There are not two sets of people, those who know what JC's stance on nukes is and those who do not: there is a continuum all the way from people who have written PhDs and presented documentaries on JC and nuclear disarmament, to people who have never heard of Jeremy Corbyn. Somewhere on that continuum it is highly probable that there are voters who will have been nudged just enough in the right direction for their vote to be affected. It doesn't even have to be a lot of people because - again - things tend to happen in tiny increments, not in macro changes.
My only hope is that, because the Tories and the media cried wolf so much over the past week with that IRA nonsense, the public will be tuning out everything they hear about Corbyn on security/defence, and don't even listen to the mess he made of the Trident question.
Why is that your hope?
This is a serious question.
Because I like his policies on most things much more than I dislike his policies on security/defence.
Worth saying also that, even if Corbyn does become PM, the "deterrence" effect of Trident would still be in force IMO -- the likes of N Korea would know that, even if Corbyn himself wouldn't "push the button", there'd be other Labour MPs (most likely including people in his Cabinet) who would push the button and could replace him at any moment, and would still have a renewed Trident ready to use at any time if they wished to do so.
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
No, a system that pressures people into voting for someone or something they don't want is silly.
If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.
It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.
Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
Trident is nothing but a giant military industrial complex psychological blackmail. You do not need trident to maintain nuclear capability.
The rest of the world also goes to sleep at night without having trident to defend them.
Ukraine gave up their nukes - If they still had them do you think that Putin would have been quite so brazen?
Just like Gaddafi you mean. And Saddam's chemical weapon. Sadly, the madman in Pyongyang has watched all that.
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about, Corbyn's views are well known. He's always been unelectable. The campaign has strengthened my suspicions about May - she's lightweight.
Corbyn brilliant - giving nothing to nuclear war fanatics; nothing to low paying small business people. And utterly connected w audience"
I do love reading Paul Mason's bigoted Marxist rants and then remembering all those defending the BBC as being neutral when he was the BBC's economics editor.
So to be PM you basically have to be OK with a bit of genocide or at the very least be prepared to lie about it.
Not sure what to make of that.
Yes because that plays the crucial part of no-one getting nuked at all. It isn't that complex.
The point is if they attack us and we get incinerated they do in return. Otherwise Corbyn is saying its alright for us to be killed but we should not kill them. He is not fit to be LOTO never mind PM.
It must be terrifying for people to live in countries that don't have nuclear weapons. Knowing that they could be blown up at any moment with impunity.
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
Its the only good thing Trump has done. But its not a Chinese hoax. It was started by NASA (James Hansen). And followed up by anybody who could get a grant out of it.
We seem to have learned two things tonight , Corbyn is the most prime ministerial of the two and the Conservatives do not value nurses .
The Conservatives value nurses very highly. We made atleast two MPs for Guildford and Mid Beds. How many nurse MPs do the Liberals have Mark?
Given we have nine mps we cannot be representative of society. Take a look at our candidates in so called marginal seats and you will see a different picture. But it is a two party race neither of which to me is attractive life goes on and whilst the political elites believe they are best served by FPTP then that is what we have. Apparentltly we are to thick to vote 1 2 3 on a ballot paper then we will have to live with what they think is best for us
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
No, a system that pressures people into voting for someone or something they don't want is silly.
Hillary wasn't perfect by any means, but ideaological purists are never going to get what they want because ideological purity is not realistic. You have to be pragmatic at some stage.
Corbyn brilliant - giving nothing to nuclear war fanatics; nothing to low paying small business people. And utterly connected w audience"
I do love reading Paul Mason's bigoted Marxist rants and then remembering all those defending the BBC as being neutral when he was the BBC's economics editor.
Don't worry. You have Kuenssberg now giving the Tory side of things.
Worth saying also that, even if Corbyn does become PM, the "deterrence" effect of Trident would still be in force IMO -- the likes of N Korea would know that, even if Corbyn himself wouldn't "push the button", there'd be other Labour MPs (most likely including people in his Cabinet) who would push the button and could replace him at any moment, and would still have a renewed Trident ready to use at any time if they wished to do so.
That would be f*cking good in a crisis! "Don't worry, the Labour Party will defend us just as soon as a leadership election can be arranged."
If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.
It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.
Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
Trident is nothing but a giant military industrial complex psychological blackmail. You do not need trident to maintain nuclear capability.
The rest of the world also goes to sleep at night without having trident to defend them.
+1
It's hardly independent, anyway. I suspect those secret letters to the submarine commanders all contain a p.s. 'Make sure you phone the Americans first'
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
No, a system that pressures people into voting for someone or something they don't want is silly.
Hillary wasn't perfect by any means, but ideaological purists are never going to get what they want because ideological purity is not realistic. You have to be pragmatic at some stage.
Hillary was fine tbh - I think I'd have gone to a few Trump rallies in the US as they looked like good fun, stuck the X next to Clinton.
big debates corbyn - hes man enough not to say he could never kill millions of people. may - please find someone new. boris gove or even rees mogg got mentioned
But will still spend money on a system he will not use.
Typical Labour approach re spending money.
We will all spend £100bn we will never use. We do not even know if it even works.
Your "leader" will never use it, he doesn't want it.
He has other priorities and we have a limited pot of money.
So the one party that says we will not use it, spend money on replacing it.
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
No, a system that pressures people into voting for someone or something they don't want is silly.
Hillary wasn't perfect by any means, but ideaological purists are never going to get what they want because ideological purity is not realistic. You have to be pragmatic at some stage.
If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.
It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.
Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
Trident is nothing but a giant military industrial complex psychological blackmail. You do not need trident to maintain nuclear capability.
The rest of the world also goes to sleep at night without having trident to defend them.
+1
It's hardly independent, anyway. I suspect those secret letters to the submarine commanders all contain a p.s. 'Make sure you phone the Americans first'
Corbyn's duty on his first day in office would be to write his own version of "those secret letters". We, and the rest of the world, would know for certain what the gist of his letters would be, and there wouldn't be anything about phoning the Donald in them.
I think true multi-lateral disarmament is a fine ideal. I find the unilateralist almost pacifist stance of some Labour people incomprehensible. Pacifism is a reasonable stance for an individual, but not when you are responsible for the defence of others.
Corbyn brilliant - giving nothing to nuclear war fanatics; nothing to low paying small business people. And utterly connected w audience"
I do love reading Paul Mason's bigoted Marxist rants and then remembering all those defending the BBC as being neutral when he was the BBC's economics editor.
Don't worry. You have Kuenssberg now giving the Tory side of things.
Well, to the Corbynites if we don't agree with them we are all just tories.
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
No, a system that pressures people into voting for someone or something they don't want is silly.
Hillary wasn't perfect by any means, but ideaological purists are never going to get what they want because ideological purity is not realistic. You have to be pragmatic at some stage.
If Tory press has any sense they drop the IRA bollocks but go big on Corbyn NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER being prepared to press the button.
The silly old Tosser
YEP,the last week,the press and the tories campaign must go big on that.
Got to agree, got to go heavy on Trident. I know the nation is pretty much split on trident but at the very least it might galvanize the Conservative base especially the over 65's, some perhaps not entirely happy with May but feel like Corbyn is a danger to the nation.
This is more likely to cut through than the IRA issue as it's more relevant now.
Corbyn brilliant - giving nothing to nuclear war fanatics; nothing to low paying small business people. And utterly connected w audience"
No bloody idea of exactly how many small business owners there are in this country. Divot.
Its quite handy to read PB in conjunction with my Twitter feed, where all the people I follow who are creatives/musicians can't understand people asking questions about lesser considerations like defence and NMW.
Anyway, Twitter thinks its nailed on for Corbyn, so given my experience of Indyref and EURef, I'll go for TMay majority of >50 seats.
If Tory press has any sense they drop the IRA bollocks but go big on Corbyn NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER being prepared to press the button.
The silly old Tosser
YEP,the last week,the press and the tories campaign must go big on that.
My slight worry is that it won't resonate as much as it should because our press like to "go big" on trivia like Ed Miliband not being able to eat a bacon sarnie quite correctly.
Corbyn brilliant - giving nothing to nuclear war fanatics; nothing to low paying small business people. And utterly connected w audience"
I do love reading Paul Mason's bigoted Marxist rants and then remembering all those defending the BBC as being neutral when he was the BBC's economics editor.
Don't worry. You have Kuenssberg now giving the Tory side of things.
I have nobody. I dislike Kuenssberg for the same reason. Journalists should be scrupulously neutral in these matters. Mason is just one of the most extreme examples.
But you don't get the impression that Laura K hates the left in the way Mason seems to hate anyone who isn't a Marxist. He really is a disgrace.
We seem to have learned two things tonight , Corbyn is the most prime ministerial of the two and the Conservatives do not value nurses .
The Conservatives value nurses very highly. We made atleast two MPs for Guildford and Mid Beds. How many nurse MPs do the Liberals have Mark?
Given we have nine mps we cannot be representative of society. Take a look at our candidates in so called marginal seats and you will see a different picture. But it is a two party race neither of which to me is attractive life goes on and whilst the political elites believe they are best served by FPTP then that is what we have. Apparentltly we are to thick to vote 1 2 3 on a ballot paper then we will have to live with what they think is best for us
In your whole history the Lib Dems have had exactly 1 ethnic minority MP and he was for only 1 year.
Pick up your stones, you have already broken all the glass in your greenhouse.
So to be PM you basically have to be OK with a bit of genocide or at the very least be prepared to lie about it.
Not sure what to make of that.
Yes because that plays the crucial part of no-one getting nuked at all. It isn't that complex.
The point is if they attack us and we get incinerated they do in return. Otherwise Corbyn is saying its alright for us to be killed but we should not kill them. He is not fit to be LOTO never mind PM.
It must be terrifying for people to live in countries that don't have nuclear weapons. Knowing that they could be blown up at any moment with impunity.
Not the point is it Lab agreed a Manifesto which ruled out scrapping Trident.
Then the fookin bearded genius blows it out the water by refusing to blow a fookin dung beetle out of the water so to speak
Messages coming through, one Corbynite not impressed by his answers on Trident, he's young so he didn't know the stance beforehand. A Tory who was relieved. Two floating voters who are off the fence in favour of May, both of them thought she was much better than the media were making out she was. A couple of mainstream Labour types who were reminded why they dislike Corbyn and will continue to oppose him even if he manages to do better than Ed.
Whisper it, but I think this is a turning point for the Tories. I think the Corbyn surge will begin to peter out and some of those Lab -> UKIP -> Con will come back after those comments on defence. More than anything else they are patriots and those Trident answers were very poor.
Corbyn brilliant - giving nothing to nuclear war fanatics; nothing to low paying small business people. And utterly connected w audience"
I do love reading Paul Mason's bigoted Marxist rants and then remembering all those defending the BBC as being neutral when he was the BBC's economics editor.
Don't worry. You have Kuenssberg now giving the Tory side of things.
I have nobody. I dislike Kuenssberg for the same reason. Journalists should be scrupulously neutral in these matters. Mason is just one of the most extreme examples.
But you don't get the impression that Laura K hates the left in the way Mason seems to hate anyone who isn't a Marxist. He really is a disgrace.
I thought his coverage of the Greek crisis in 2015 was quite good. It was was this more than anything which turned me against the EU.
Since then he seems to have gone mad and displays a strange mixture of delusion and malice.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
That's wrong.
France, China, Israel (cruise missiles), and India all have sub launched nuclear weapons. Pakistan is developing them. So it is believed is North Korea.
France have an air delivered nuclear deterrent, much cheaper than ours iirc.
France has both, but the SLBMs are the bulk of the French nuclear arsenal.
Correct. The bollox people talk is incredible. They also did have land based missile silos and the french ... who value their place in the world - unlike the nasty lying fecker Corbyn and hia pea brained supporters ... seemed content with it. I think the missile boats, which are onto their second generation , last one completed as recently as 2010, have replaced them.
But hey lets pay fealty to the french to protect us eh?
Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?
PBers completely missing the point here. The questions and replies were entirely predictable and known beforehand. The question is how they came over as people and how could the electorate empathise with them. I don't support either Party but I believe that voters will warm far more to JC than TM. She seems cold and withdrawn. He seems warm and intreracts well with the audience. Fundamentally he just seems a nicer person. If either of them gains anything form this very sterile form of debate it will be JC.
The whole point of a nuclear deterrent is to deter warmaking from any other nation who possess overwhelming conventional force against a smaller nation that does not, and to stop nuclear blackmail.
It levels the playing field.
And, yes, in very extreme cases you might use them. I'd argue Hiroshima was defendable, if nasty.
You have to be prepared to use them, and believed that you might use them.
And you, yourself, in very extreme cases, might. Just.
With a £100bn bill. Great politics. Cut 15000 Army jobs, 20000 police officers but we will keep trident to boost the profits of the military industrial complex.
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
That's wrong.
France, China, Israel (cruise missiles), and India all have sub launched nuclear weapons. Pakistan is developing them. So it is believed is North Korea.
France have an air delivered nuclear deterrent, much cheaper than ours iirc.
France has both, but the SLBMs are the bulk of the French nuclear arsenal.
Correct. The bollox people talk is incredible. They also did have land based missile silos and the french ... who value their place in the world - unlike the nasty lying fecker Corbyn and hia pea brained supporters ... seemed content with it. I think the missile boats, which are onto their second generation , last one completed as recently as 2010, have replaced them.
But hey lets pay fealty to the french to protect us eh?
OK. How much did they spend on them ? I bet much less than £100bn. Our Military Industrial Complex and Len McCluskey is bleeding us dry !
So to be PM you basically have to be OK with a bit of genocide or at the very least be prepared to lie about it.
Not sure what to make of that.
I forget the exact quote but there is a famous description of the PM as "the man we chose to do the things that we know must be done but don't want to do ourselves"
Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
That's wrong.
France, China, Israel (cruise missiles), and India all have sub launched nuclear weapons. Pakistan is developing them. So it is believed is North Korea.
France have an air delivered nuclear deterrent, much cheaper than ours iirc.
France has both, but the SLBMs are the bulk of the French nuclear arsenal.
Correct. The bollox people talk is incredible. They also did have land based missile silos and the french ... who value their place in the world - unlike the nasty lying fecker Corbyn and hia pea brained supporters ... seemed content with it. I think the missile boats, which are onto their second generation , last one completed as recently as 2010, have replaced them.
But hey lets pay fealty to the french to protect us eh?
OK. How much did they spend on them ? I bet much less than £100bn. Our Military Industrial Complex and Len McCluskey is bleeding us dry !
Given that £100bn is CNDs estimate of how much the system will cost over its 30 year lifespan, yes I suspect the French have, so far, paid less than £100bn. But then again we won't have paid the full 30 year cost until the end of the 30 years, will we?
Please god tell me that you're not one of the numptys who thinks that the full cost of a 30 year project is paid in year one?
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
Its the only good thing Trump has done. But its not a Chinese hoax. It was started by NASA (James Hansen). And followed up by anybody who could get a grant out of it.
The idea of global warming (whether true or otherwise) goes back a long way before James Hansen.
Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?
It's a consequence of the weird self-hating nature of the British left.
LAB will be lucky to get 27 after that interview ☺
Yes should be a great evening!
"Where's the Revolution?"
You've been kept down You've been pushed 'round You've been lied to You've been fed truths Who's making your decisions You or your religion Your government, your countries You patriotic junkies
Where's the revolution Come on people You're letting me down Where's the revolution Come on people You're letting me down
You've been pissed on For too long Your rights abused Your views refused They manipulate and threaten With terror as a weapon Scare you till you're stupefied Wear you down until you're on their side
Where's the revolution Come on people You're letting me down Where's the revolution Come on people You're letting me down
The train is coming The train is coming So get on board Get on board
The engine's humming The engine's humming So get on board Get on board
Comments
You remember most the last thing you heard - and for floaters that will be the Corbyn nuclear weapons answer.
May 7/10. Good strong start but stuttered a little on social care. Struggled on NHS bits but most people probably see 'a nurse' and her husband as partisan union reps. Concern about 'partially sighted' young lady, if she is genuine then that's May's worst moment. Strong finish.
Corbyn 6/10. Good start, great at promising free owls and not really questioned about how it would be paid for. Terrible on defence, security and terrorism, the question remains how far this cuts through to the average Joe watching (personal this is completely disqualifying). Difficult exchange with young student supporting 'zero hours' contracts as he wants to be in control of when he works.
The silly old Tosser
Corbyn brilliant - giving nothing to nuclear war fanatics; nothing to low paying small business people. And utterly connected w audience"
It's hardly independent, anyway. I suspect those secret letters to the submarine commanders all contain a p.s. 'Make sure you phone the Americans first'
and you could have got 8/15 a couple of weeks back.
winnings will buy many pints in the Golden Triangle
I'll make you a deal. You stick to diagnosing measles and leave the wise words on international affairs to me.
Worth saying also that, even if Corbyn does become PM, the "deterrence" effect of Trident would still be in force IMO -- the likes of N Korea would know that, even if Corbyn himself wouldn't "push the button", there'd be other Labour MPs (most likely including people in his Cabinet) who would push the button and could replace him at any moment, and would still have a renewed Trident ready to use at any time if they wished to do so.
But Corbyn is a rodent who has devoted his life to siding with anyone who hates Britain. He is surrounded by worse. Dangerous people.
There is only one sensible choice next week.
Trident.
Game over.
But then I'm a NOTA, so it doesn't really matter.
They just don't get deterrence do they?
LAB will be lucky to get 27 after that interview ☺
He has other priorities and we have a limited pot of money.
So the one party that says we will not use it, spend money on replacing it.
Utter madness whichever way you look at it.
It was all going so well then he just couldnt bring himself to kill a fookin dung beetle FFS
I think true multi-lateral disarmament is a fine ideal. I find the unilateralist almost pacifist stance of some Labour people incomprehensible. Pacifism is a reasonable stance for an individual, but not when you are responsible for the defence of others.
Again, we are back to what the hell are the Tories doing with this campaign?
This is more likely to cut through than the IRA issue as it's more relevant now.
Its quite handy to read PB in conjunction with my Twitter feed, where all the people I follow who are creatives/musicians can't understand people asking questions about lesser considerations like defence and NMW.
Anyway, Twitter thinks its nailed on for Corbyn, so given my experience of Indyref and EURef, I'll go for TMay majority of >50 seats.
But you don't get the impression that Laura K hates the left in the way Mason seems to hate anyone who isn't a Marxist. He really is a disgrace.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/870745616133103616
Totally. Who does he think powers the economy? It isn't left-wing economists and social workers.
He's probably into collectivisation anyway.
Pick up your stones, you have already broken all the glass in your greenhouse.
Election Result
Con maj 1.24 1.25
NOM 6 6.2
Lab maj 28 29.
Other maj back 1000
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.119040708
Then the fookin bearded genius blows it out the water by refusing to blow a fookin dung beetle out of the water so to speak
Who is next leader this man is not suitable
NEW THREAD
Whisper it, but I think this is a turning point for the Tories. I think the Corbyn surge will begin to peter out and some of those Lab -> UKIP -> Con will come back after those comments on defence. More than anything else they are patriots and those Trident answers were very poor.
Plus Theresa promise of 4 year stint and a new tory leader election.
Since then he seems to have gone mad and displays a strange mixture of delusion and malice.
I think the missile boats, which are onto their second generation , last one completed as recently as 2010, have replaced them.
But hey lets pay fealty to the french to protect us eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH9F-1guiyE
The question is how they came over as people and how could the electorate empathise with them. I don't support either Party but I believe that voters will warm far more to JC than TM. She seems cold and withdrawn. He seems warm and intreracts well with the audience. Fundamentally he just seems a nicer person. If either of them gains anything form this very sterile form of debate it will be JC.
It levels the playing field.
And, yes, in very extreme cases you might use them. I'd argue Hiroshima was defendable, if nasty.
You have to be prepared to use them, and believed that you might use them.
And you, yourself, in very extreme cases, might. Just.
What a perfect blackmail.
Please god tell me that you're not one of the numptys who thinks that the full cost of a 30 year project is paid in year one?
WillS
WillS.
"Where's the Revolution?"
You've been kept down
You've been pushed 'round
You've been lied to
You've been fed truths
Who's making your decisions
You or your religion
Your government, your countries
You patriotic junkies
Where's the revolution
Come on people
You're letting me down
Where's the revolution
Come on people
You're letting me down
You've been pissed on
For too long
Your rights abused
Your views refused
They manipulate and threaten
With terror as a weapon
Scare you till you're stupefied
Wear you down until you're on their side
Where's the revolution
Come on people
You're letting me down
Where's the revolution
Come on people
You're letting me down
The train is coming
The train is coming
So get on board
Get on board
The engine's humming
The engine's humming
So get on board
Get on board