No it doesn't, it involves putting money in students pockets! The University doesn't get anything extra, they just get their fees from government, rather than the government spending that money on something useful.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
No it doesn't, it involves putting money in students pockets! The University doesn't get anything extra, they just get their fees from government, rather than the government spending that money on something useful.
So conventional mass bombings with huge casualties aren't taking place all over the world right now as we speak? This notion that the world would police itself without the need for us to have a nuclear deterrent is beyond naive.
Nah.
No. As I said, EU membership rules and regulations are to blame. Theresa may understood migration concerns, but EU membership R & Rs gave her no hope of changing anything as home secretary.
She has the support of the British people that she's willing to crash the whole damn system if necessary.
Depends on how much electoral support she has.
USA maybe because he's a fecking lunatic?
Yeah, I would probably agree, although at times it felt like the opposite of the other night which was pretty pro-labour.
Well recent history suggests any strike we make, be it as the aggressor or in revenge, would go in the direction of Florida. So I wouldn't be so quick to rule the USA out.
But it's a lie. The government have had full and total control over non-Eu immigration over the last 7 years. It's gone up...it's over 250000 by itself. If they really wanted to it could be 0 tomorrow.
What boils my piss is that tories get to be the party of big business and anti immigration without being held to account on the later. You can't be both.
In which Case Theresa May will double down and order extra trident attacks on the north of England just to help Donny get the job done.
Completely disagree, it's a waste of time. I'd much sooner hear about ideas behind countering home terrorism than dick measuring over nucleur weapons. Each to their own.
Anyone watching him play dodgeball with that question could tell that he was non comital to using it regardless of the situation.
Russia is back on the front foot internationally, not respecting borders or conventions. Our closest ally elected a crypto-facist last year. Our nearest neighbour had a facist come second in their presidential election just last month. Did you somehow miss these events?
The world is more dangerous now than at any time since the end of the Cold War, in my opinion. Things can go wrong so quickly, I'm nowhere near as confident as you that nuclear weapons won't be used in the near future. If things go very wrong for Trump, I'd give it a reasonable chance of happening in the next four years.
Applauding was pretty even to both I thought.
I'm so confused about this nuclear bomb question.
Who the hell are these countries that are imminently about to nuke us exactly? North Korea? Iran with their non existent nukes? Really? Are you kidding me?
Its funny that that guy talked about some crazy in Iran launching a nuke at us. Yet it wouldn't be basically insane to drop a nuke on residential areas in ?Pyongyang/ Beijing/ Washington/ Paris apparently in response to one of them firing a nuke at us? In some weird alternate reality?
Canada, Germany, Japan and just about every major economy other than a very small handful manage to get by without nukes and without this weird discussion about whether you'd be willing to hypothetically slaughter millions of innocent people.
Rather than issues that are actually affecting us in the UK?
Who the hell are these countries that are imminently about to nuke us exactly? North Korea? Iran with their non existent nukes? Really? Are you kidding me?
Its funny that that guy talked about some crazy in Iran launching a nuke at us. Yet it wouldn't be basically insane to drop a nuke on residential areas in ?Pyongyang/ Beijing/ Washington/ Paris apparently in response to one of them firing a nuke at us? In some weird alternate reality?
Canada, Germany, Japan and just about every major economy other than a very small handful manage to get by without nukes and without this weird discussion about whether you'd be willing to hypothetically slaughter millions of innocent people.
Rather than issues that are actually affecting us in the UK?
Did you regard the Cold War as dick measuring?
Depends if they prevent Tory gains I reckon.
My problem with the nuclear question was partly because it all felt very hypothetical and based in fantasy. What if questions should only really be asked if they're viable. I'm not sure a nuclear attack is particularly likely or a pertinent threat, and it felt like people making up stuff that's almost certainly not going to happen to question Corbyn on instead of focusing on issues that are key to the election.
So give students from 'poorer' backgrounds (I hope that doesn't sound too condescending) a rebate, not everyone.
Yes, that's The Telegraph's Tim Stanley
Because its wasting money on people that are just going for the university experience and not for the actual education. If its free it should be means tested for the people who can't afford it and should remain free for those abide to a certain standard. I didn't, but got my grants.
Wow
I didn't live through it so no idea. Common sense and diplomacy ended it though.
fecking hell, if Tim Stanley's praising him I'm expecting an endorsement by Theresa May herself by the morning.
Holy shit. It's almost like international relations don't change, especially over the course of the next 5 years to 50 years.
Boris needs to get a grip. The Labour guy looks like he wants to smack him.
The trouble with Corbyn and the nuclear question is that he can't be fully honest on it. He wants to abandon the system so he can use the funds elsewhere - an idea with plenty of support, I'd say. But given he has to commit to renewing the subs (by the unions as much as anyone), he has to do the obfuscation which doesn't convince. But again, I think this may already be priced in anyway.
Well he should have just said yes, i agree to the contrived scenario but not sure what not committing changes.
You do realise that the British government is supplying these bombs right. Sorry to break this to you but you are not the good guys.
Blimey, that sounds awful. We need to find the countries supplying these bombs and threaten them with a nuke if they don't stop it.
He makes an unneccesary ordeal of his answers on the topic. All he needs to say is:
"As President Obama said, I believe we should be working to reduce nuclear stockpiles and ultimately to a world free of nuclear weapons. But I want to leave people in no doubt, should any country launch an attack on Britain I would use any means necessary to defend our country and people, including our nuclear deterrent."
One thing that annoys me is MPs have no experience in real work especially in the departments they represent. Minister of defence should have military experience, minister of health should have experience of working in health services.
If AI takes over that much, there will not be many jobs available for anyone. If a persons degree is useless upon graduation then they chose a worthless degree or the wrong degree and thats on them. If flexible skills are required then perhaps degrees are not the way forward seeing as they are specialised and take time to achieve, whilst being flexible in skills is usually dependent on the person.
This is how it was before, as fees were always means tested.
Can't tell you the amount of times i've said this in the last two years. I completely agree with you.
Holy shit indeed. Its almost like nobody has been nuked in the past 70 years, regardless of whether they have nukes or not! Incredible.
Its fine though. Because Trump's finger is going to slip soon. Or Xi will decide that he's had enough of peaceful growth and instead. Or Kim, who couldn't give two fecks about the UK, will suddenly decide to nuke London. Or Macron will decide the negotiations for Brexit are just too difficult. Or something. Right?
Again, what are the realistic scenarios that you forsee in the next 5 years where the UK is engaged in nuclear conflict with one of the aformentioned 8 countries?
Aye, unfortunately appointments tend to be more ideological, made to either placate certain MP's from within or even more cynically, to set them up for a fall. May likely put Boris in as foreign secretary to ensure he wasn't plotting against her from behind the scenes and to ensure his reputation would be ruined if he fecked up too badly; the fact he's got no relative competence to hold the position didn't seem to matter.
Likewise, Jeremy Hunt's awful as Health Secretary but is mostly a fall-guy, so that when the Tories do get rid of him attention is diverted his way, and the wider failings of the party are ignored.
You've jumped the shark there to be honest. No conventional bombing anywhere in the world has the potential to set off a chain reaction of similar launches that wipe out the human race.
Meant to say I liked this analysis.
Labour campaigns under Foot and Kinnock were beyond disastrous