General Election 2017

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, peterms said:

Having nuclear weapons means that if you are attacked, your enemies have a very strong incentive to seek total obliteration.  It's the converse of the deterrence argument - "they wouldn't dare attack us".  If they did attack, but did so without achieving complete destruction, that would be very risky.  This is why (as Michael Fallon pointed out) having nuclear weapons makes you more of a target.

Japan had a nuclear weapons development programme under way at the time.  I suppose part of the thinking was to beat them to it.

On the first point, it's arguable. There's something in it, but also something in the argument that having them also means your enemies are less likely to attack you, for fear of the consequences, as you concede in the second point. It's also the case that, as we know, the uk nuclear sub commanders have sealed instructions about what to do in the event of an attack on the uk that completely obliterates it. So even complete obliteration of the uk wouldn't remove the retaliation threat, again meaning strong incentive not to attack the uk.

i think these points, whether we agree with each other or not, don't get mentioned in the " would you press the button" rubbish from the election campaign. There are many other arguments to be made, too, both for and against uk nukes. That the debate is so dumbed down is a real shame.

[Awol]

The existence of nuclear weapons and the proven effects of their use is (imo) the single factor behind world wars numbering 2 and not 3. 

The likelyhood that the Cold War would have remained cold without the factor of Mutually Assured Destruction is remote - and even then it was a close run thing. 

Its not about whether nuclear weapons are good or bad, they just are and they are not going away. The Americans, the Russians, the Indians, Israelis, French, Pakistanis or North Koreans don't care whether Corbyn wants a nuclear free works or not. Multilateral disarmament is a well intentioned fantasy. 

So the choice is then to have them legally (which we do) or rely on the good will of others to shelter us under their nuclear umbrella - meaning the US or France. 

After the Cold War ended senior US officials admitted they would never have nuked Russia had it used a nuclear weapon against a NATO ally, despite their cast iron public policy pronouncements to the contrary in preceding decades. 

The possession of nuclear weapons is the ultimate deterrent and factor that prevents the major industrial states engaging in unrestricted warfare against each other. 

I understand why people want rid of them, but think the reasoning behind it is fundamentally flawed. 

[PaulC]

The question was stupid. Nobody is going to come out and say yes I would press the button. They would be slaughtered if they did. We need Trident but purely as a deterrernt. The one person I felt sorry for in the audience was the poor girl with mental health problems. Neither Labour or Conservative have ever treated mental illness as an equal with physical illness. Its part of the Tory manifesto but does that mean many of those taken off benefits will be put back on it. I trust neither party to do the right thing to be honest. Labour want a fairer society but they wont want to pay out billions more to those that are incapable of working. 

Edited June 3, 2017 by PaulC

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, PaulC said:

The question was stupid. Nobody is going to come out and say yes I would press the button. 

I believe both May and Fallon have eagerly said yes.

Fallon was keen to point out he was happy to strike first.

Absolute tool.

Unfortunately, there's a massive number of older men love the idea.

[Xela]

11 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

I watch TV shows like the Last Leg and Mock the Week and they all seem to be generally a lot more left leaning.

I see that most of social media seems to laugh at the Right and May more than any other party.

I work in Education and see first hand these cuts the Tories want to make and the lack of support for our current government.

I sit next to people at Villa who are deeply impacted by changes to Disability benefits.

My family, who work for the NHS, tell me the Tories are largely hated by the profession.

My mum is one of those effected by the pension change for those born in the 50s. My nan is concerned about the 'Dementia Tax'

Even on here, there seems to be a left leaning majority.

So where are all these Tory supporters? Are they all business people? Why are they all relatively silent? I genuinely don't understand why there is even a chance of a big Tory win when every part of society seems against them; the young, the disabled, the poor, the pensioners and those who work in Education, NHS or police particularly.

I'm not deluded enough to say it's a lie they are so popular and even the 'best' case scenario is a hung parliament, but I just don't understand why my life experiences indicate the complete opposite. I'm not overly political or scare people in to silence with my own views so why do Tory supporters generally stay so quiet?

If you're ashamed of who you're voting for, why are you voting for them?

I don't think people are ashamed of voting Conservative. Just because you don't plaster your views over social media doesn't mean you are ashamed. I would assume that tory voters are more silent due to a number of factors.

1) Possibly older on average and not as active on social media

2) Too busy eating babies, fox hunting and sipping champagne

3) Working all day in the 'City' doing jobs no one understands for absurd amounts of money

I jest, but you say you can't understand why they are likely to win as the whole of society is against them? Well, society isn't. England is generally a Conservative nation, the political map shows that. Traditionally the polls have always vastly underestimated 'the right' and have been left with egg on their faces. Whether the new polls have adjusted for that, who knows? 

[PompeyVillan]

Talk of nuking other nations is talk of taking us back into the past where we rightly needed to be worried about being obliterated by nukes.

We can accept that as our reality for ever more. It's an uneasy equilibrium, because only the big guys think they should have nukes. 

Or we can strive for a world without nuclear weapons designed to murder people.

That's not to say it will necessarily be achieved, it certainly won't in the length of one parliament. But without that dialogue, it can never happen. 

The sorry reality is that we probably do need nukes and I'm not sure disarmament is possible. But we have to try in my opinion. And it takes a brave politician to put their head above the parapet and say that knowing that the 'red button' doomsday scenario will be presented to them (unfairly in my opinion, it's not a yes or no issue).

[PaulC]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I believe both May and Fallon have eagerly said yes.

Fallon was keen to point out he was happy to strike first.

Absolute tool.

Unfortunately, there's a massive number of older men love the idea.

These older men that are probably younger than both Corbyn and May. I don't think its an age thing. 

[PompeyVillan]

Fallon and May at odds over income tax rises again. Fallon says no rises, May says she won't rule them out.

Expect income tax rises then. Dirty tactic, pretend that you won't raise taxes and then do it anyway. She'll claim it was a difficult choice, Jeremy Corbyn should concentrate on Brexit negotiations and Brexit means Brexit.

[PaulC]

8 minutes ago, Xela said:

I don't think people are ashamed of voting Conservative. Just because you don't plaster your views over social media doesn't mean you are ashamed. I would assume that tory voters are more silent due to a number of factors.

1) Possibly older on average and not as active on social media

2) Too busy eating babies, fox hunting and sipping champagne

3) Working all day in the 'City' doing jobs no one understands for absurd amounts of money

I jest, but you say you can't understand why they are likely to win as the whole of society is against them? Well, society isn't. England is generally a Conservative nation, the political map shows that. Traditionally the polls have always vastly underestimated 'the right' and have been left with egg on their faces. Whether the new polls have adjusted for that, who knows? 

From my experience most Tory voters are the ones who have most to loose from  a Labour govt. ie those with savings and want to pass that money onto their kids. Labour have already said they will reverse the inheritance tax threshold. 

[Awol]

Just now, PompeyVillan said:

Fallon and May at odds over income tax rises again. Fallon says no rises, May says she won't rule them out.

Expect income tax rises then. Dirty tactic, pretend that you won't raise taxes and then do it anyway. She'll claim it was a difficult choice, Jeremy Corbyn should concentrate on Brexit negotiations and Brexit means Brexit.

He's probably discovered he's getting binned after the election so causing the spitting image puppet some grief. 

I reckon Fallon, Hammond and Boris are all for the chop in a Cabinet reshuffle before the EU negotiations start. 

[darrenm]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I believe both May and Fallon have eagerly said yes.

Fallon was keen to point out he was happy to strike first.

Absolute tool.

Unfortunately, there's a massive number of older men love the idea.

Absolutely. May didn't even wait until Andrew Neil finished asking the question before she jumped in with an emphatic yes. It's really quite troubling that someone with a conscience so poor she would authorise a first strike nuclear attack is our prime minister but then that seems to be the required answer for the electorate so perhaps we deserve what we get

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Absolutely. May didn't even wait until Andrew Neil finished asking the question before she jumped in with an emphatic yes. It's really quite troubling that someone with a conscience so poor she would authorise a first strike nuclear attack is our prime minister but then that seems to be the required answer for the electorate so perhaps we deserve what we get

It's not about whether May would actually do it, it's about people believing she would or at least not being certain that she wouldn't.

Hence the phrase 'nuclear deterrent'. 

[Xela]

15 minutes ago, PaulC said:

From my experience most Tory voters are the ones who have most to loose from  a Labour govt. ie those with savings and want to pass that money onto their kids. Labour have already said they will reverse the inheritance tax threshold. 

Indeed the death tax is a very emotive subject. 

[chrisp65]

21 minutes ago, darrenm said:

 perhaps we deserve what we get

Yep, we're going to get a woman on a six figure salary that poses for Vogue in her £1,000 leather trousers and lectures nurses that there's no magic money tree.

 

 

[sexbelowsound]

Just did a survey on https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

Of the 150k surveys done across the UK they have Labour top with 26% and the Conservatives 5th with 15.2%

A lot of variables of course but still.

[wazzap24]

35 minutes ago, Xela said:

I don't think people are ashamed of voting Conservative. Just because you don't plaster your views over social media doesn't mean you are ashamed. I would assume that tory voters are more silent due to a number of factors.

1) Possibly older on average and not as active on social media

2) Too busy eating babies, fox hunting and sipping champagne

3) Working all day in the 'City' doing jobs no one understands for absurd amounts of money

I jest, but you say you can't understand why they are likely to win as the whole of society is against them? Well, society isn't. England is generally a Conservative nation, the political map shows that. Traditionally the polls have always vastly underestimated 'the right' and have been left with egg on their faces. Whether the new polls have adjusted for that, who knows? 

I kind of agree about the 'political map' point, but what it shows is the voting demographic (the people people that actually go out and do it), leans this way, not the country as a whole imo. 

If voting was mandatory, I think we would see a different story. The demographics that need to vote the most, don't and that's why we get what we get. 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/demographics-dividing-britain/

Quote

In fact, for every 10 years older a voter is, their chance of voting Tory increases by around 8% and the chance of them voting Labour decreases by 6%. This age divide could create further problems for Labour on 8 June. Age is also a big driver of turnout, with older people being far more likely to vote than young people. It’s currently too early to tell the exact impact this could have on the final result.

 The key link is the voting intention by age then the % that actually turnout. 

 Basically, people turn into words removed as they get older and when they do, only then do they bother to go out and vote! 

[ml1dch]

30 minutes ago, Awol said:

It's not about whether May would actually do it, it's about people believing she would or at least not being certain that she wouldn't.

Hence the phrase 'nuclear deterrent'. 

Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.

[wazzap24]

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I believe both May and Fallon have eagerly said yes.

Fallon was keen to point out he was happy to strike first.

Absolute tool.

Unfortunately, there's a massive number of older men love the idea.

Yeah, they have. They probably did so because it kind of shuts down any further questioning on the intricacies. Fallon in particular is indeed a rent-a-tool. If they answered trying to put some nuance into the question, it would just end up a mess. For example, if they said "That is an almost impossible question to actually answer fully and truthfully, because there are so many potentially horrific variables, so many things to be taken into consideration at the time of this hypothetical decision, none of which you've even started to expound. For example, if the UK had been attacked, and one of the almost unpopulated Scottish Islands had been hit by a small, localised nuclear weapon launched from an unconfirmed nation's submarine....or If the UK had been attacked, and (say) Whitehaven in Cumbria had been destroyed, and we have been told, as all the world has seen him do, that N.Korea's leader is, next week going to attack London in the same way., but we have the ability to target his location in a bunker in N.Korea and prevent the obliteration of London and the South of England, then...."

Those are stupid made up examples, with almost no context and no international response aspect included and ridiculous simplistic, but they're much more nuanced than "would you press the button, hur, hur, fnarr, Corbyn's weak isn't he?"

And maybe, just maybe, a part of those "older men" kind of contextualises the notion that Corbyn would never....as not altogether much better than Fallon's answer?