[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

More scaremongering, there have been literally hundreds of nuclear explosions, and nobody has died

WTF are you talking about? Let me just check, but you do realise the difference between setting off hundreds of nuclear bombs over populated cities and isolated detonations in the middle of Siberia or the pacific ocean? Don't you?

@mattyfez: Corbyn is also well paid and has a (non-contributory?) gold-plated pension.
Both will receive substantial 're-settlement' payments when they leave parliament based on their length of service; all MPs receive these payments
Heavily subsidised restaurants and then expenses.

The whole issue of MPs benefits should be discussed - and challenged. Do they deserve the benefits they receive?

John McDonnell's pension pot is approx £1.5 million; I am not commenting about him specifically, just using publicly available information about him to make a point about MPs generally
There are many others with similar size - or larger - pension pots.

It would be interesting to know the total pension liability for the outgoing parliament and past MPs which we, the public, are paying for.

So @dazh, just to be clear, if in 5yrs time North Korea decided to nuke London, you'd be quite happy for our PM to pick up the phone and say 'i say old chap, that wasnt very sporting, would you like to pop over for tea to discuss things?'

@aracer - Imagine, a political party that is happy to drop a leader if they're not doing the job.

IMagine how different things might be this time next week if Labour had the balls to do that

The tories can't drop may though, the hour is too late, and she's not fit for office.

So @dazh, just to be clear, if in 5yrs time North Korea decided to nuke London

If that happens we've already lost. You do realise that don't you?

The whole issue of MPs benefits should be discussed - and challenged. Do they deserve the benefits they receive?

If they do a good job then arguably yes, being accountable for an entire nation and it's future is a heavy task.

May seems to be be treating the job like a short term contract. A stepping stone to retirement.

A real priminister would undoubtedly understand that thier choices would have long lasting effects long after they are out of office, and act accordingly.

May lacks vision. Infact she doesn't, she just doesn't care. Why would she?

If that happens we've already lost. You do realise that don't you?

How? Londons gone - what's to stop them then setting about Nuking Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on?

Unless you are willing to retaliate, you are nothing more than a compliant victim.

How, Londons gone - what's to stop them then setting about Nuking Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on?

Christ we're through the looking glass now. I can't even be bothered replying with anything sensible. It's like talking to a psychopathic simpleton.

Loses argument, resorts to abuse

Very momentum

@Poopscoop I've been on a similar journey regarding Corbyn's fitness. He's improved at the same rate that the opposition has seen things **** up.

PS I also agree with him about the nukes. Problem is that for the red faced fat men, they aren't very good thinking logically.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/leader-of-uk-must-be-prepared-to-kill-everyone-20151001102480 ]mash[/url]

ninfan - Member
Loses argument, resorts to abuse

Very momentum

You mean a bit like a retaliatory nuclear strike?

Interestingly talking to a couple of Labour activists today they are incredibly upbeat.
Right or wrong they think Labour are going to significantly out perform the polls.

It surprised me. And it seemed both genuine and considered.

John Major's letters of last resort to nuclear submarine captains in the event of a nuclear strike on the UK taking out the government:

in no circumstances should nuclear weapons be deployed against civilian targets - on the basis that to do so after an attack would be a futile act of vengeance that would wreak unacceptable levels of harm on a civilian population. And that any government that would launch such an attack on the UK would most likely be a dictatorship and it would be immoral to make their people suffer for the acts of an unaccountable leadership.

Loses argument, resorts to abuse

Ok, for argument's sake, if London, and the 10 million people (or whatever it is) living in it is destroyed and we manage to destroy the enemy before they can destroy any other cities (which will obviously never happen), it's all ok, we'll just carry on as before. 🙄

The nuke argument is absurd, and shouldn't be given any traction.

Yes we should have a couple of nukes, but the whole principle is that it's mutually assured destruction. They won't ever be used as all who have them know the consequences. That's the whole point.

Baiting someone about whether they'd push the button.. Well if you've got several ICBM's heading towards your country, then you don't have much to lose, you'll be dead in a few hours anyway.

It's a stupid hypothetical scenario.

Londons gone - what's to stop them then setting about Nuking Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on?

Because it is highly unlikely that we would get to take turns. If you go nuke you go big and hit them all at once.

Hence retaliation is revenge by a population, mostly from beyond the grave, and largely pointless in terms of trying to ensure the survival of humanity..... .

How? Londons gone - what's to stop them then setting about Nuking Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on?

nuking them back will guarantee that they will hit Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on.

rone - Member
They've been in every debate as the media wranglers know they inflame single cell organisms.

Why won´t you kill millions of people mr Corbyn..I mean come on..

Anyone with half a brain should see that Corbyn is miles away the better choice. Guess we'll find out soon enough just how many single cell organisms populate the electorate.

Hmm, I think a lot of Labour activists are getting a little carried away.
I still think we'll get beat, but not by as much as initially predicted.

Both looked tired tonight, but May seemed pretty composed for a change.

Corbyn didn't come across well on Trident, failed to make his point.

May was pretty weak on everything, but will have gone down well with the Mail readers.

I doubt it's made much difference, but it may have given Theresa a little of her confidence back.
😐

[quote=ninfan ]@aracer - Imagine, a political party that is happy to drop a leader if they're not doing the job.
IMagine how different things might be this time next week if Labour had the balls to do that

Yeah, there might still be a PM who couldn't do her job.

[quote=seosamh77 ]Guess we'll find out soon enough just how many single cell organisms populate the electorate.
About 51.89%

re - the red button question.

Surely the only sensible response is to bounce it back and to question the red-faced person asking, "Would you REALLY be happy to give that order and kill those [b]faceless[/b], [b]foreign[/b], innocent civilians?"

Ninfan, would you be happy to give that order?

i think you picked the wrong person to ask there

[quote=frankconway ]Neither May nor Corbyn 'smashed it'.
Both performed to a similar level - some direct answers, some evasion & some uncomfortable moments.
Can't see tonight's performance causing any elector to change their mind.
At the end I knew no more than I did at the beginning.

That seems to be pretty much how the BBC is summarising it (I have to admit I didn't watch, really CBA watching any more of them).

The thing is, given how how the Tories are trying to portray this election, isn't May supposed to completely smash JC in such situations?

[quote=Junkyard ]i think you picked the wrong person to ask there

In both cases - that would have been a stupid thing for Corbyn to do given the answer is obvious. Any alternative answer requires empathy...

Junkyard - lazarus
i think you picked the wrong person to ask there

Do I remember right that corbyn held Germany up as an example investing in youth vocational training... or something along those lines

Ninfan, would you be happy to give that order?

Hell Yes*

Deterrence only works if you are not just willing, but guarantee to, carry through with the threatened response

Nuclear deterrence works precisely because the outcome is so dreadful. The very inevitability of annihilation is exactly what saw us through the most peaceful period in Europe's history (while all the while Corbyns ilk told us it would drive us to war)

(* Or should that perhaps be 'Hell yes I'm tough enough?)

(* Or should that perhaps be 'Hell yes I'm tough enough?)

No, it should really be: "Hell yes, I'm stupid enough"

What is the ****ing point of nuclear weapons? You can't use Trident on military targets without massive collateral civilian casualties, and to think about using them on a city is a completely brain-dead notion.

There is no way to justify a first strike against a country, and a retaliatory second strike is even more stupid as the damage will already have been done so there's no way you can justify killing, maiming, and horrifically injuring millions of civilians just because their crack-pot leader launched an attack from their bunker. Why would you think the average civilian was responsible and deserved punishment?

You can skip to 7min for the comedy of the nuclear response scenario. It would seem that in 30 years we have managed to stand still.

The very inevitability of annihilation is exactly what saw us through the most peaceful period in Europe's history

#ninfact! 😆

Worth a watch for all the nukes saved us lot. The cost was very nearly much higher.
Diplomacy saved the world.

Forced institutionalisation of the disabled is the latest wheeze from Tory hq.
How can any right thinking person defend these murderous monsters

Forced institutionalisation of the disabled is the latest wheeze from Tory hq.
How can any right thinking person defend these murderous monsters

It very much appears to be a case of "I'm alright Jack"

Nuclear weapons.

Corbyn won't be able to get rid of them. We're not going to get nuked within the next 5-10 years. North Korea have a few targets to hit before they get to London.

There are far bigger issues we face over the next few years.

There is no way to justify a first strike against a country, and a retaliatory second strike is even more stupid as the damage will already have been done so there's no way you can justify killing, maiming, and horrifically injuring millions of civilians just because their crack-pot leader launched an attack from their bunker. Why would you think the average civilian was responsible and deserved punishment?

Because the other country is a danger and may strike us was the 'thinking' from some of the audience last night. We should clearly strike them first just in case.

So while it is wrong and causes national upset for a person to kill 20 people in the UK it is fine for the UK to kill many millions of innocent people in another country because we don't like that country.

So while it is wrong and causes national upset for a person to kill 20 people in the UK it is fine for the UK to kill many millions of innocent people in another country because we don't like that country.

We're British don't you know.

So while it is wrong and causes national upset for a person to kill 20 people in the UK it is fine for the UK to kill many millions of innocent people in another country because we don't like that country.

If we write 'love from manchester' on the side, that makes it ok.

As ever, nail on head even if a bit dated.

The very inevitability of annihilation is exactly what saw us through the most peaceful period in Europe's history

this is rubbish and not borne out by the historical record. The existence of these weapons has almost caused us to come to the brink of war several times.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov ]Russian system falsely detect weapons launch...[/url]

I can't believe that Corbyn isn't willing to rush headlong into nuclear war, what a tool

I can only imagine Ninfan and the Question Time arsehole never watched "Threads" or "When The Wind Blows"

Sooner or later, right wing mentally will carry the same scorn as drink driving, smoking, overt racism...

I always find the pro-nuclear argument a bit of a weird one and it surprises me that so many support it. Only 9 countries globally have nukes so i guess these guys who are shitting their pants about not having a deterrent are pretty limited on holiday destinations!

I see more risk in living in a country that has a deterrent. It paints a massive target on your back.

193 people in a room. 9 have guns but they aren't all mates. A couple are a bit unhinged but they hate the others with the guns the most. It kicks off between the dudes with guns. Who dies first?
I'd expect everyone with a gun to get shot pretty quickly with minimal casualties amongst everyone else.

I think Corbyn showed great restraint in not telling that audience member that he's an idiot. He knows that he has to placate the tin foil hat uk majority to an extent to stand any chance of getting a decent labour presence in commons.

ninfan - Member
Ninfan, would you be happy to give that order?
Hell Yes*

Deterrence only works if you are not just willing, but guarantee to, carry through with the threatened response

Nuclear deterrence works precisely because the outcome is so dreadful. The very inevitability of annihilation is exactly what saw us through the most peaceful period in Europe's history (while all the while Corbyns ilk told us it would drive us to war)

(* Or should that perhaps be 'Hell yes I'm tough enough?)

Thank you. The answer I expected. Clarifies a lot.

FWIW, being happy to remotely condemn thousands to death is not tough in any way. Could you do it if they were all in line in front of you and all you had was a knife?

Now imagine if all 193 folk had guns. No one would fire because they'd be mown down by the others.

If nukes are so good at preventing war then we should be handing them out to all other countries.

Now imagine if all 193 folk had guns. No one would fire because they'd be mown down by the others.

Indeed, this explains why the rate of death and injury, either accidental or intentional, in the US is so low. Oh wait

The thing is nukes are for people fighting yesterday's war - folk who are stuck in the past.

They ain't much use against suicide bombers (not cutting police by 20,000 might help a little) and if I was a general looking to take Britain out I'd use the internet to go after major infrastructure and possibly financial institutions (finance first to destabilise then infrastructure for the coup de grace). That way I leave the country reasonably intact but in a position I can do what I want with it.

Brexies seem to love them but like I said, stuck in the past.

[img] ?oh=fadbd1242e842058c2f1ae66e096e9af&oe=59DDD942[/img]

Is that Chatty Dead JHJ?

I think Corbyn showed great restraint in not telling that audience member that he's an idiot

I am completely biased towards Corbyn but the way he handled the questions (and actually answered some of them) was far more impressive than the contempt based responses that May was giving.

I don't think she actually answered any questions either and avoided every one of them. It is clear that someone has told her to stop saying Strong and Stable though as don't think she said it once in 45 minutes.

Is that Chatty Dead JHJ?

These days I'm not sure whether to give you a straight yes or no answer, or a rambling load of bollocks which furthers the interests of my financial backers and media chums.

kerley - Member
It is clear that someone has told her to stop saying Strong and Stable though as don't think she said it once in 45 minutes.

"Magic money tree" did make a few appearances though...

Song by the Beatles that was I think

"Magic money tree" did make a few appearances though...

How is a magic money tree any different from quantitative easing? Other than having a less hokey name.

"I'll make point clear on this........ it's Chatty Death, from Horrible Histories"

Ninfan is Adam Murgatroyd, and i claim my £5

It's horrible futures we should be more worried about...

Mummy...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-trump-manchester-attack-britains-declining-power-a7769811.html

I can only imagine Ninfan and the Question Time arsehole never watched "Threads" or "When The Wind Blows"

Not my proudest fap!

Ps. Yes, I have, and the War Game (which knocks Threads into a cocked hat) and even the entirety of Resan (The Journey) which you had probably never even heard of, so there!

I make you right Adam, I've never heard of Resan

For those who are critical of Jeremy Corbyn for his stance on using nuclear weapons, have you really thought through what this would actually mean? Have you thought through how the scenario would unfold or what the actual outcome would be?

For those who think it would be okay to use these weapons I would implore you to watch the very harrowing and realistic 1980’s drama “Threads”

[url=

The reality of a nuclear situation is more likely to escalate from a regional conflict, Syria for example, where a tactical battlefield weapon, a low yield nuclear tipped artillery round or a portable nuclear device, is used on an opposing military target. This would lead to a battlefield exchange of tactical weapons before any strategic ICBM are brought into play.

And let’s be clear about this, when the western coalition have had boots on the ground in the Middle East these units have been deployed.
The most scary thing is that tactical battlefield weapons are under the control of the senior military officer commanding the unit and they do not have to get Presidential or Governmental permission to use them if they are in a serious cluster**** situation.

We like to refer to our Nuclear arsenal as “The Deterrent” but I ask you, what has it ever deterred?
Did it stop Argentina invading British Sovereign soil? Did it ever stop the Korean war or Vietnam? Did it stop Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait? Did it stop aircraft being flown into the WTC?.. No! Conventional wars still rage all across our planet.

It deters nothing. In fact it does 2 things.. first the financial cost of these abominable systems causes all of our lives to be poorer, and secondly makes our world all the more dangerous as nation tries to outdo nation with their capability.

When the Manhattan Project was completed in 1945 and the US exploded Trinity, Oppenheimer remarked that it brought to mind words from the Bhagavad-Gita: "Now I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

So when you are critical of Mr Corbyn and his stance on nuclear weapons, take a step back and think for a minute and then be glad that there is someone who wants to be rational, who wants to be thoughtful, and who wants us, as humanity, to step away from the Brink from where there would be no return.

+1

The BBC aren't going to show any nuclear holocaust dramas for a while. They'll not even play the no. 1 single at the moment.

We like to refer to our Nuclear arsenal as “The Deterrent” but I ask you, what has it ever deterred?
Did it stop Argentina invading British Sovereign soil? Did it ever stop the Korean war or Vietnam? Did it stop Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait? Did it stop aircraft being flown into the WTC?.. No! Conventional wars still rage all across our planet.

Thats like saying that we should disband the police and prison system because there's still crime.

In case you hadn't noticed we don't 'just' have a nuclear deterrent, we have a wide variety of military specialities and capabilities, aimed at a vide variety of different threats, all work on the deterrent effect, all deterring against different things, and all capable of some pretty horrible and brutal effects if utilised to their full capability.

I'll give Corbyn his due, he's as committed to getting rid of all of them as he is nuclear weapons, however utterley bonkers, unrealistic and utopian that is.

The real hypocrisy is in those who think that somehow nuclear weapons are 'special' and any more terrible than conventional weapons

Thats like saying that we should disband the police and prison system because there's still crime.

Almost every country in the world has police and prisons. Almost none have nuclear weapons.

That's not a great analogy.

Brexies don't do thinking about things.

Almost every country in the world has police and prisons. Almost none have nuclear weapons.

Yet still they haven't successfully deterred all crime

Let's disband them, see where you are then!

You of course also forget that it's not just a few countries that have Nuclear weapons, because [b]all[/b] NATO countries live under the same shield of protection offered by three of them.

Of course ninfan less drastic penal regimes tend to lead to less crime don't they.
Death penalty correlating to more violent crime for example.
This analogy isn't going well for you is it?

This analogy isn't going well for you is it?

I suspect there'll be a change of subject coming up very shortly. It's not like ninfan has ever accepted he's wrong before, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

If no country in the World had nuclear weapons, would North Korea be developing them? I very much doubt it. The only reason they are is to prove they are a nuclear superpower, which is the standard the US, UK and Russia et al have set. Ergo, nuclear armament breeds nuclear armament.

the ninfan bot isn't about being right, just winding up 'lefties'

What about the countries that aren't in NATO and don't have nukes - shouldn't we be supplying them in order to ensure their security against attack?

The real hypocrisy is in those who think that somehow nuclear weapons are 'special' and any more terrible than conventional weapons

Of course ninfan less drastic penal regimes tend to lead to less crime don't they.
Death penalty correlating to more violent crime for example.

Correlation ? causation

I'll give Corbyn his due, he's as committed to getting rid of all of them as he is nuclear weapons, however utterley bonkers, unrealistic and utopian that is.

That's a lie.
Unless you'd like to provide evidence, of course.

Ninfan - I'll give you that. It's circumstantial evidence nothing more. But there is a good body of circumstantial evidence and at some point that becomes compelling.

Of course if you ninfan had nukes then no one would be safe because deterrents only work against rational enemies.

Personally I thought nukes were an excellent Cold War weapon. Rational for, unusable expensive weapon - stopped countries investing in weapons they could use to the degree they might have. But that's the aggressive pacifist in me.

Anyway I'll leave you to your twisted world view for now.

That's a lie.
Unless you'd like to provide evidence, of course.

[i]No more nuclear weapons. No more nuclear wars. No more wars. A world of peace.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every politician around the world instead of taking pride in the size of their Armed Forces did what Costa Rica have done and abolished their Army, and took pride in the fact they don't have an Army.
And that their country is near the top of the global peace index. Surely that is the way we should be going forward.[/i]

Will that do you?

So, like I said, yes, he is absolutely as committed to getting rid of them as he is to nuclear weapons

Of course, utopia must be a very nice place to live

Nah, not really.

As you say, it's a vision of his own personal utopia, not a policy commitment.

Still, crack on.