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.
mash

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.

Absolutely. It´s treating people like fools.

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.
😐

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

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 faceless, foreign, innocent civilians?”

Ninfan, would you be happy to give that order?

i think you picked the wrong person to ask there

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?

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

Yup, just (vainly) hoping for a straight answer for once…

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 **** 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.

Russian system falsely detect weapons launch…