Literally none of this post is in any way true.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Literally none of this post is in any way true.
I'm inclined to agree. His position ultimately defaults to being this anyway.
But he likes the preciseness of language, I suspect. And would feel that it contracts to undertaking to keep the weapons in some way, enmeshed in the semantics or somesuch. Ends up wibbling isn't it, basically.
Yes I am. You are correct. Although, I more blame the entire Labour party rather than just Jeremy.
But, I mean more in terms of, what the Labour manifesto would do for everyone individually. It's been said many times, but it's the same people who complain about the state of the NHS, the same people who say no politician is trying to help them, the same people who want the rich to pay more taxes that are going to vote Conservative because "strong and stable" and because "Brexit".
It's madness. I think the criticisms of Jeremy remain valid. He was extraordinarily weak at the start (watch the VICE documentary with him), and his background defending the IRA, and campaigning against Nuclear Weapons has put people off (not that I've ever given him criticism for that), and has been extremely lacklustre during PMQs, and he has been god-awful with the media.
But ever since the Labour Manifesto leaked, things have begun to improve. The right wing media said that Labour was going to bring us back to the 70's by nationalising everything... but maybe people want to go back to the 70's right now. After all, that's when the big voting generation grew up. We're certainly doing it with Brexit. Then the real Manifesto came out, and it was costed. Okay - some of the costings may not have been 100% accurate, and maybe Diane Abbott couldn't remember any numbers she came on to talk about... but it was costed. By and large, it added up (actually not, see the IFS criticism, but it's a start). Then the Tories made some epic mistakes, and Labour began to actually capitalise
Yeah, basically, if the forgotten classes don't vote Labour this time. I question democracy.
I probably won't be voting Labour. But I certainly won't be voting Tory
We should start a party . Honestly really annoys me they have a large say over an industry but have no understanding of it. Also think we should always have a government which includes all parties to get a balanced approach but will never happen as they would just argue.
Can you see a genuine scenario where we are engaged in a nuclear conflict with Russia in the next 5 years? Genuinely? And one in which Corbyn's decisions about nukes will play a big role? Our closest ally elected a crypto-fascist last year who is in love with us. Our nearest neighbour had a fascist come second who loves us and our recent political decisions.
I didn't miss these events no. But again, I don't see how you've made the leap there to decide that we're any closer to nuclear war with the USA or France than we were 3 years ago. Things go wrong for Trump in what way? Are you talking about an impeachment scenario? Or that Trump just decides to go a bit crazy and nuke China or something?
I'm happy that he is not willing to kill millions of kids.
A lot of what you are alluding to is that he's too honest, too frank about his views. It's refreshing, I think it's great, but at the end of the day it will fall on the deaf ears of the electorate. One can hope things will be different in the future.
The debate needed another 20 minutes on nuclear weapons. Dont think enough time was spent on it.
Corbyn is right - that we have lost if a nuke is headed in our direction.
but he will lose votes for not saying, 'ill wipe them out if they wipe us out, eye for an eye, millions for millions' or something.
May will be happier. Shes good at dodging questions with a standard buzz worthy answer especially if there are no follow up queries.
Corbyn is right - that we have lost if a nuke is headed in our direction.
but he will lose votes for not saying, 'ill wipe them out if they wipe us out, eye for an eye, millions for millions' or something.
May will be happier. Shes good at dodging questions with a standard buzz worthy answer especially if there are no follow up queries.
EU membership had nothing to do with immigration from outside the EU. This was one fundamental misunderstanding of Brexit.
It looks as if it will be a no deal anyway so if the UK crashes out, she will blame the EU and if that doesn't work, she'll blame the "will of the people"
As I said why does the EU care how much support she has from the British electorate, it doesn't influence whether she gets a deal or not, either she accepts the terms of what she's after or she doesn't.
Ok, I'll answer the question...
- Russia invades or fosters a coup attempt in Estonia, similar to Ukraine or Georgia. As a member of NATO, Estonia invokes Clause 5 (the collective defence of member states) and it escalates from there.
- A major terrorist attack on the United States (on the scale of 9/11) causes Trump to overreact and use a nuclear weapon against whichever country the US accuses of sponsoring the attack or harbouring the attackers. It escalates from there based on the alliances of the country attacked.
- There is a major attack on Israel, nukes are launched in response by Israel/US.
- The Korean ceasefire breaks down for any number of reasons (internal relations within North Korea). With Seoul under attack, the US and China are now on opposing sides of a hot military conflict.
- A global economic meltdown causes populist/facist revolution in one of the nuclear states and the whole of global political relations changes immediately.
Last edited:
Didn't see the programme but did anyone ask him whether he'd be prepared to launch a first strike ? If they didn't, I bet that question would have followed the Obama style answer.
Could we quote you on this in 5 year's time? Random stuff that will never happen.
I didnt ask that question.
One thing that annoys me is football managers who have no top level playing experience
The crossover in skillset between frontline health professional and secretary of state for health is essentially zero.
Crazy how the same little enclave in the audience were criticising him for supporting "murderers" like the IRA and Hamas one minute, then furious that he wouldn't commit to murdering millions of innocent people the next.
Realistic scenarios leading to nuclear war/ potential nuclear attack on UK?
If someone had told you 5 years ago that Europe's established borders would be changing again through armed conflict, would you have believed them?
What's this? To who? Would be great to see - lose Farron, gain Vauxhall please.
If we ever use Trident, I hope it's against ourselves.
Maybe they dont have the skillset but they certainly have the experience in that field/industry. Footy managers is a poor example as they come from the industry and are involved in the industry. The MP for department of energy will have never worked in the energy sector.One thing that annoys me is football managers who have no top level playing experience
The crossover in skillset between frontline health professional and minister for health is essentially zero.
You are asking people to make a choice at 18 on their specialism for life. To make a prediction on the nature of the job market in 15-20 years time, something that even those who study it cannot do given the imminent development of more capable AI.
And of course the response at the moment is STEM STEM STEM STEM, but we honestly have no idea if those skills will be particularly useful (as in job marketable, I think they are valuable and useful in and of themselves) in 20 years either.
The quote you posted wasnt mine but it had my name against it.
Yes. I would have, because in the mid 2000s Russia had already been involved in conflicts in South Ossetia and Chechnya and elsewhere. Russia invading the Crimean peninsula wasn't really a big surprise.
Thats true for any thing though. Any decision you make now could be the wrong one in 15-20 years.
It's that last bit he would always struggle with.
If we're not going to use nukes against them and are indeed likely to be pursuing a much less interventionist foreign policy under Corbyn, why would they specifically nuke us under these scenarios?
So...it escalates from there and then what happens? We launch a first strike on Russia, a nuclear superpower? And they what? Reduce the whole of the UK to rubble?
So there we're basically talking about Pakistan I'm guessing? So again, what? We're launching a first nuclear strike.
Why would we get involved in a conflict with Israel?
The last one is a possibility I guess. In that case, what's the purpose of one of those countries nuking the UK?
Do you think any of these scenarios are even mildly realistic?
And, its a wonder that countries like Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Austria or the other 171 countries manage to get by without these dilemmas about which country they may have to nuke in the next 5 years.
Ps it was me that asked these questions, not Jep, which may explain the confusion.
Apologies, no idea how that happened. Have corrected the quote.
How about Trump ? Some people were taking your line, that he has experience in the "real world". Business and polítics are totally different. Dr David Owen was Minister of Health but not one forever cited as an example.
We are all dead then. My corpse won't care if we've retaliated
He's right in the sense that the point of a nuclear deterrent is to deter a scenario that'd give rise to their use. But that kind of falls down when you admit you won't use them. They then stop becoming a deterrent because on what basis would they deter anyone?
Agree with this. I don't see how trident acts a deterrent. Someone nuke us, we nuke them back boom that's planet earth over and I wouldn't want to be alive to see the outcome.
Not from an eastern european perspective, with people entering simply because they can, are concerned.
Well let's be honest, "no deal" is not acceptable for us or the EU. No EU bureaucrat has stated that "no deal" is a possibility. It would be catastrophic for us and the EU, hence the reason why it won't happen. But if we aren't willing to walk away, it means we have a price where we will fold.
If the EU is aware of massive opposition in parliament, they can use it to their advantage, and of course we know they would.
I'll refer anyone chatting here about launching a first strike/retaliation to the movie Threads for how utterly, utterly pointless this discussion is.
If it gets to that point, we've already lost, all of us.
If it gets to that point, we've already lost, all of us.
Corbyn even if he wanted to obfuscate and not take the easy route of yes should have said in a raised voice -
"I hope in that scenario i am the first one to die, as if a nuke is launched at us i would have failed in my policies and so i wouldn't deserve to make such a decision"
...
"I hope in that scenario i am the first one to die, as if a nuke is launched at us i would have failed in my policies and so i wouldn't deserve to make such a decision"
...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/24/net-migration-uk-250000-a-year
Promise all she wants, she's personally failed on this very point for donkey's years.