Seriously don't waste your breath, poeple in this thread are intentionally pretending to miss the point.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
He pretty much said he wants access to single market as his biggest priority in negotiations. Considering that why would he commit to cutting down on numbers ?
It's Soft Brexit vs Hard.
I'd agree on arbitrary gifting of fees to certain subjects being unwise, but I think with 10bn to spend you could do a lot more good with different schemes of grants and bursaries than just abolishing fees for all.
That said, it's obviously a good vote winner and motivator.
Tell that to the people who can't go to uni because they are to poor.
We have them & the possibility of using them.
All you're asking for is different presentation of the threat.
This is ridiculous sleight of hand
You claimed it's ridiculous that he won't say he will retaliate in the event that we are attacked with a nuclear weapon
Now you're claiming the question is about deterrence, but in your story we are already under attack, so how does retaliating help?
You've just pivoted the question and are now claiming 'gotcha'
If someone nukes us, it's failed. Miserably and expensively. The fact people talk so freely about wiping innocent people off the face of the earth is startling. The fact you follow it up by talking about other countries with nuclear capabilities being 'insane' beggars belief.
Because a huge portion of the leave vote was for curbing EU immigration. It's his job to carry out the will of the people. May, like it or not, question her motives as to why or not, has repeatedly committed to this.
The vast majority of the world doesn't have them and is at no risk of getting nuked. We're not at the height of the Cold War anymore.You really think thats one of the reasons
Whilst I agree with your point, I do think core subjects are always going to be required. But to prevent becoming over stocked in engineers etc, then a scoring system could be introduced to see where shortages are appearing or being predicted. However this would never work as governments are useless at planning long term or maintaining something introduced by a different party.
Aye, could be argued that a fee system wherein you're only paying back once you're earning a very comfortable amount would work better: ensures people are able to go to uni and achieve, but they're also giving back once they make a success of themselves.
Not a problem we've got up here, mind...
What? Saying you wouldn't retaliate against any strike takes any deterrent away. It defeats the purpose of us having a god damn nuclear deterrent in the first place.
Was that before or after David Davis went on Question Time to admit the 2022 reduction target was an aim rather than a guarantee last night?
I'm afraid I don't agree with you there. International events move quickly and the risk is real.
Sounds representative of the average british middle aged man to me.
If we see education as a good thing, what's the problem? As those who want it will then go to university?
At least those who wouldn't have wanted it so much can reap the rewards, should they choose.
What? Is this for real? All you need is for a single nuclear power to launch at us.
I'd probably be too busy being dead to give a shit to be honest. I do love this hilariously contrived scenario where the rest of the world watches one nation use nukes on another and looks the other way.
By whom?
Might not be an awful idea actually, but aye, as you say no doubt a government would find a way to feck it up.
I think one of the problems we face with university education is that the whole fundamental approach to who goes has changed. We've seen an increased number of people go, as opposed to wealthy elites who can afford it due to their parents, but the thing about that is that it means people who go now (for the most part) are expected to go in order to achieve employment by the end. That's probably a fairly new approach in certain respects for many universities, where employment has to become key over the whole general learning experience.
At least there's an aim. Corbin just admitted that there won't be a meaningful reduction. Good luck appeasing the millions and millions that voted on just that issue. It's how you alienate a large part of society that's always felt ignored by the political class.
This is incredibly naive. No one has a clear idea of what the job market will look like in 20 years thanks to the inevitable rise of AI. In fact flexibility in skills is going to be very important. We should be making sure (1) that students are not overly financially burdened by their choice of study, a choice which may turn out to be a lot less useful than anticipated, and (2) that retraining or changing careers is financially viable, something that it currently is not - second degrees are ££££
Any of the nuclear armed states.
Will of the people as per ballot right now is Brexit. And the hard brexiters are not gonna vote for him anyway.
You are being too black and white about it. 48% voted for remaining as well and even out of the rest 52% not all would favor a hard brexit. So nothing is set in stone regards to migration question especially when it is confronted with choice of remaining in single market or not.
Reasonable to say that this audience was move favorable to May?
There is no risk, it's just scaremongering. Whoever decides to launch the first missile would get instantly wiped out by the rest and its gameover Planet Earth.
It's absurd given the state of our country that we're actively sat here discussing use of Nucleur Weapons. I mean seriously what the feck.
''Ah, this lot... they say they ain't ever using their bombs, we can proper get stuck in here...''
''Oh shit!''
The deterrent exists anyway, outside of the posturing about one's intent to use them.
''Oh shit!''
The deterrent exists anyway, outside of the posturing about one's intent to use them.
You mean like how the whole world doesn't look away right now as many countries bomb the living hell out of each other?
Psst. It's the same aim the idiot in charge of the party has had for the last 7 years, including when she was in control of that exact issue.
I'm a Labour member and wet liberal lefty, but this dismissal of the nuclear question is crazy to me. It's one of the biggest issues facing humanity, along with climate change, it could literally be the end of the world. It should be one of the first discussions in any election.There is no risk, it's just scaremongering. Whoever decides to launch the first missile would get instantly wiped out by the rest and its gameover Planet Earth.
It's absurd given the state of our country that we're actively sat here discussing use of Nucleur Weapons. I mean seriously what the feck.
Which one?
Which one of:
-USA
-Russia
-France
-China
-Israel
-India
-Pakistan
Do you think are likely to nuke us in the next 5-10 years?
Some of their half had been well coached for me, & were well augmented by the feckwits.
May wins on points for me.
That's then more an issue linked with maintenance loans and bursaries.
No not at all. But there was a very vocal, very pro-nuclear weapons contingent and Dimbleby let them spend an unreasonable amount of time on the topic
Oh so now nukes are no different to regular bombs. Christ, I can't keep up with these goalposts.
Aye, a fair point which was partly what I was getting at. Due to the fact that markets and demands are constantly changing it's difficult to predict what's needed and what isn't. STEM degrees are typically valued higher than most others but with their increasing prevalence I've heard of people doing them and finding it harder to get ideal employment than what they'd have expected.
The cold war ended a long time ago, if there is another moment in time where there's a real risk of it happening I'm sure PM Corbyn will be booted by the other MPs. But as it stands, this is just a paranoid line of thinking with no basis in reality.
It actually felt mildly even tonight. A good few really did seem against Corbyn towards the end but could've been due to the nature of the questions/responses etc.
Firstly he didn;t say he wouldn't use them but that he will decide at the time.
And 2ndly their are other countries in the world too who won't look the other way in such a contrived scenario. For example japan and sout korea don't have nukes despite having the capability to produce them and they are at far greater threat from North Korea than UK.