General Election 2024
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
- Status
At the risk of playing the straight card here….it is possible for someone’s position to change in 8 years isn’t it?
True. Although her view also happens to have changed at the exact moment the party leadership view has changed.
Also a bit concerning Rayner has gone from anti mass mega death to now pro mass mega death.
From 2015
I don’t think it’s an outlandish perspective to have a deterrent in a very real possible future of Trump in the WH and Putin attacking Europe.
And I’m not into mass killing…..I’m not even into a little killing
I think you and I finally agree on something…
This seems to be the plan. I guess the difference between you and I is that I still (perhaps foolishly) believe he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing in terms of how he’ll treat the rich.
Or… when fighting in an election as the potential deputy PM, you can’t possibly run under the message ‘We’re going to throw away our big boy guns’
It’s insane. I’d scrap Trident in a heartbeat. But, in her position I’d trot out the company line as the downside is massive.
Politics is shit.
If the Tories decided to scrap Trident, it would be politically acceptable. Labour would never be able to do so.
Probably. The tories are the party of the ruling class. If they decided to bin trident then it would mean the ruling class are in favour of also binning it. But over 20 points ahead is probably a good time to make the let’s not kill millions of people argument.
Although tbh this is less about Labour shite view on nukes and more about another example of labour politicians switching views for personal political gain.
Take this MRP polling with a pinch of salt. Corbyn for one will get at least 30% in his constituency so they have that forecast wrong by at least 22%.
Will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces if jezza loses substantially to labour.
You're right about Corbyn, these polls rarely account for individual constituency situations. But the overall picture could be accurate.
Jesus Christ these twitter users. Independent candidates don't carry all the same voters over. Polling also does struggle to model independents and whom they may steal votes from. It's not manufacturing consent because they don't like the result. Just disagree with the poll.
This is the way to keep pestering the fecker until he has a meltdown. The fecking Cnut.We all want to see the tories get a bloody good hiding but this is actually a very dangerous moment in British politics. How they react to a tory landslide will set their party agenda for decades. In the US after Obama swept to victory you saw the rise of the Tea Party, later MAGA, where they primaried out all RINOs and elected power-hungry divisive representatives who said anything to get power including backing a scumbag like Trump. That will happen here and Farage is positioning himself for the Trump role in two or three election cycles when inevitably the country will have tired of Labour.
Starmer needs to remain centred and attract the moderate tories and hopefully keep Reform and a tory party, where Braverman and co run riot, in check. He needs to address key Reform issues to nullify their attacks while implementing his own agenda, keeping ticking time bombs like Abbott under wraps and placating the right-wing media. Easy stuff, right?
Lets be honest, 18 year olds don't have a fecking clue. Society is dangling the carrot of good jobs and money if you go to university, but it's all bollocks.
Maybe but again what has their adult choices got to do with you?
Nukes are one of the dumbest parts of any election, politicians decide not only to abandon their morals but also become champions of nukes.
There's an easy position to take, be against nukes but say you'll only do it if advised by the military that it won't put the country at risk.
I mean we have somewhere between 200-300 nukes. We were supposed to be significantly reducing the number until Boris reversed that policy and decided we needed about one hundred more. Even If we accept the need for nukes, we don't need 300 of them!
Labour manifestos for both 2017 and 2019 included renewing trident, so the real dishonest thing yesterday was claiming it was some kind of changed position to support it.
But Labour are bad though, and they're apparently the only party who do bad things.
It is so dumb. Keeping the country and its people safe is obviously the first duty of any government, but this manufactured debate over nukes at every election takes the attention away from far more important security issues. But politicians don’t have any real answers to those questions so they’re happy to supply a soundbite where they get to act all tough and claim they’d push the button even quicker than the other guy.
Last edited:
Yeah but would Starmer kill millions eh? The key question we apparently all need to know
As with Rayner - 9 years and a war in Europe can't cause someone to change their position?
Yeah but would Starmer kill millions eh? The key question we apparently all need to know
Any serious talk of nuclear disarmament near actual power in the UK has ended for generations with Russia invading Ukraine unless there is a major unexpected paradigm shift, to the order of sanctions from current allies
Mr Putin isn’t going to nuke or invade Bourton-on-the-Water.
I don't think the case for nuclear disarmament/reduction was based off the assumption of prolonged world peace with zero conflicts. That's a wild take.
Russia can't even take Ukraine.
The public were not ready for disarmament before, they definitely aren't ready after a country that signed a treaty was invaded after giving up their nuclear deterrent.
Good luck getting elected if you make those own goals
The Ukraine/Russian war is going to be the gen x equivalent of boomers saying they lived through WW2.
In about decade time we will from a 67 year old Noel Gallagher about why cutting disability benefits to fund more nukes was because Putin
could have stolen his precious bodily fluids and invaded Stoke On Trent at any moment.
In about decade time we will from a 67 year old Noel Gallagher about why cutting disability benefits to fund more nukes was because Putin
could have stolen his precious bodily fluids and invaded Stoke On Trent at any moment.
He'd be more likely to nuke Stoke on Trent than invade it
It'd probably be classed as levelling up in that area.
As I said before, labour have been pro nuclear weapons in every manifesto for 60 years, including Corbyn's time.
But realistically, its worthless. The only real threat we face is a dirty bomb from terrorists, and not only does trident not deter that, our actions in supporting mas murder across the middle east, whether gaza or yemen, makes it more likely.
Russia have nearly 6000 niukes, some of which are large enough that just 3 would destroy the entire UK. The US has 5,000 or so.
If they get into a nuclear war, our 225 are completely irrelevant anyway.
But realistically, its worthless. The only real threat we face is a dirty bomb from terrorists, and not only does trident not deter that, our actions in supporting mas murder across the middle east, whether gaza or yemen, makes it more likely.
Russia have nearly 6000 niukes, some of which are large enough that just 3 would destroy the entire UK. The US has 5,000 or so.
If they get into a nuclear war, our 225 are completely irrelevant anyway.
That figure includes students.
If Nigel gets what he wants with net zero migration the UK should die out some time in the 22nd century.
He's trying to destroy the country yet again!!
- Status