CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) I for one would feel safer with a PM who could happily write off a few million lives with the push of a button. Edited September 30, 2015 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) I think the public have a right to be clear that they vote for a PM. No, they don't. They vote to elect the MP for their particular constituency. The choice of leader of the legislative body depends upon the collective decision(s) of the already elected representatives. Edited September 30, 2015 by snowychap 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I think the public have a right to be clear that they vote for a PM. No, they don't. They vote to elect the MP for their particular constituency. The choice of leader of the legislative body depends upon the collective decision(s) of the already elected representatives. well yes ..but how many people do you think put their X elsewhere because they didn't like the idea of Ed as PM ?How many VT'ers put their X anywhere to get the Tories out etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 well yes ..but how many people do you think put their X elsewhere because they didn't like the idea of Ed as PM ? That we have an electorate acting that stupidly is the fault of lots of people (not least the electorate) but most especially politicians and those that describe politics in such crassly simplistic terms. It's also the kind of crap analysis that gives implicit support for an all too powerful executive at the expense of representative democracy. How many of the people who put an x aside their choice of Lib Dem candidate in the 2010 general election thought that they were voting for Clegg as PM? Or thought that they were voting for Cameron as PM? How many VT'ers put their X anywhere to get the Tories out That has nothing to do with 'voting for a PM'. That has to do with voting for candidates who are not trumpeting Tory tosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 well yes ..but how many people do you think put their X elsewhere because they didn't like the idea of Ed as PM ? That we have an electorate acting that stupidly is the fault of lots of people (not least the electorate) but most especially politicians and those that describe politics in such crassly simplistic terms. It's also the kind of crap analysis that gives implicit support for an all too powerful executive at the expense of representative democracy. How many of the people who put an x aside their choice of Lib Dem candidate in the 2010 general election thought that they were voting for Clegg as PM? Or thought that they were voting for Cameron as PM? How many VT'ers put their X anywhere to get the Tories out That has nothing to do with 'voting for a PM'. That has to do with voting for candidates who are not trumpeting Tory tosh. it was clearly trumpeted by Nicola Sturgeon ..perhaps she didn't get your memo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 it was clearly trumpeted by Nicola Sturgeon ..perhaps she didn't get your memo What on earth are you on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 it was clearly trumpeted by Nicola Sturgeon ..perhaps she didn't get your memo What on earth are you on about? loc's approach is known as the 'Holmes'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 30, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 30, 2015 Whether Corbyn would or wouldn't press the button is irrelevant. Trident is a Cold War weapon, it was out of date years ago, renewing it whether you agree with having a nuclear deterrent or not is stupid.If you think we should have one, you'll have to pay much much more. Which is why that option isn't on the tableRenewing Trident is just a hilarious stupid compromise and the fact that there are lots of politicians out there prepared to make that decision just shows how stupid most of them are. Give us honesty at least 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I'm afraid there's a bit more to it than that. His party are yet to have a policy discussion on Trident, in making this comment today he has undermined that discussion and said even if his party votes to retain trident he wont use it. I think even his Shadow Defence Secretary realises that as she said his comments were "unhelpful" No, that's exactly the same point.IF the whole party discusses it and decides their policy is not ever to press the button and to decommission, that's a different thing at that point and will probably lose them the next election - so it then remains a purely academic talking point anyway. But Corbyn reiterating that he himself would be against it and wouldn't press the button, but is happy to have a chat is what we all already knew.Corbyn personally not pressing the button in a fantasy future scenario does not automatically equate with us not fighting back in the 2023 nuclear holocaust. I think everything about Corbyn suggests that in a properly shitty massive war scenario with our cities and tens of millions of lives at stake he would declare his utter unsuitability as a war leader and step down. But its all just fantastical guessing of the future with a string of IF words in it.Meanwhile, on planet earth, er, bedroom tax! bastards! has come in whilst the rich are told they can keep more of their money. We've given £3,000,000 to China to promote amateur chinese football and a steel plant in Redcar with 1,700 jobs is closing.No you have missed the point spectacularly, whether you are aware of it or not. Several members of the shadow cabinet disagree with you and have come out and said so today, one Labour MP has said that Corbyn's words would make the "grotesque horror of a nuclear holocaust" more likely.. Corbyn also believes debate is just about making sure people come round to his point of view.It seems you are saying Corbyn will only be prime minister in certain times I think the public have a right to be clear that they vote for a PM. Thankfully he will never have the title Prime Minister so in that respect the point is moot we're going to have to agree to disagreeI might be reckless, but I do not personally feel the grotesque horror of a nuclear holocaust is any more likely now than it was three weeks ago. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted September 30, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 30, 2015 Who makes Trident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Who makes Trident? Matsui 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted September 30, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted September 30, 2015 Who is it that we think might attack us that we could then retaliate using trident?Russia? Surely we wouldn't be trading with and have the EU reliant on their fuel lines if we thought they'd nuke us?China? There is absolutely no way we can imagine China could be a nuclear threat - we are paying them billions to design nuclear sites in the west country.India? Not sure I've seen too much military threat from them yet.South Africa? Nah, can't see it.Israel? Nah, can't see it.Pakistan or North Korea? These are surely the only possibilities. Would us having trident stop Pakistan or North Korea nutjob death cults pressing a button? Don't think so.Who, realistically, is the threat?Why would this threat attack us and not attack Switzerland or Paraguay or Australia? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 He comes across like a nice bloke but I think he seems to have big ideas but not explaining how he intends to pay for them Agreed, it's all a bit 'aspirational' at the moment. But then, he's been in the job for less than 3 weeks and it's the best part of 5 years before the next election.Shadow Chancellor speech about getting Starbucks and Google and Amazon to pay tax is a great idea and the right thing to do and should be pursued. But implementation might be slightly trickier. Similarly, they've stated they want to slash the benefits culture which must be a good thing. There are too many benefits cheats and we need to start strangling off their supply of lifestyle subsidy and money for free. I'm a big fan of that idea. Benefit fraud is a miniscule problem. According to the DWP's own figures for 2014/15, benefit fraud accounted for 0.7% of the welfare budget. Nearly ten times more went unclaimed by people who were entitled to benefits but either never claimed them or never received them. On a national, governmental scale, it's a total non-issue. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 He comes across like a nice bloke but I think he seems to have big ideas but not explaining how he intends to pay for them There are too many benefits cheats and we need to start strangling off their supply of lifestyle subsidy and money for free. I'm a big fan of that idea. Benefit fraud is a miniscule problem. According to the DWP's own figures for 2014/15, benefit fraud accounted for 0.7% of the welfare budget. Nearly ten times more went unclaimed by people who were entitled to benefits but either never claimed them or never received them. On a national, governmental scale, it's a total non-issue. Yeah I was being a bit mischievous - by benefits cheats I was obviously referring to giant companies, some multinationals, making millions of profit and then having their wage bill subsidised by the tax payer. Companies that avoid tax then pay people so little the the government has to top up the pay of their employees to get them out of poverty. Companies that relocate and relocate, sucking up local enterprise grants.Tesco, Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury and Next had their employees wages topped up by a billion pounds by the government (i.e. my tax) last year.It's a mad cycle of state involvement in our everyday lives I'd have thought the average right winger would find abhorrent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Ah, sorry, completely misunderstood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 it was down to me being a cleverdick (very out of character!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 tbh having the ability to glass a capital city or sterilize an entire region probably does deter some would be attackers.It's not just nation states these days either.Just don't see the point of paying vast sums for something that only works if we go along with the bully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Its a ridiculous waste of money to spend billions on something we will never use to make a few hawks feel better. Its a pointless white elephant. We would never respond to a loan nuke from a nut job state or terrorist group by glassing the whole region and if one of the big nuclear nations decide to have a pop we're buggered anyway. Assuming the yanks even let us launch them in the first place. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 it was clearly trumpeted by Nicola Sturgeon ..perhaps she didn't get your memo What on earth are you on about? loc's approach is known as the 'Holmes'. You could have added something to the discussion I suppose ... did you sleep better knowing you'd got another sly dig in at a poster ? The discussion was about the fact that whilst, as snowy pointed out , we don't physically put an X in the box to vote for a Prime Minister , I was suggesting that people make decisions based on who they would like to see as PM .. the focus on the election was pretty much all about the leaders , I imagine many a voter went in the booth and thought I'm not voting for that clearing in the woods that cant eat a bacon sandwich . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts