The Politics Thread 3.0

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by KK » Mon May 08, 2017 11:24 pm

BBC News pays Rupert Murdoch a visit in New York as he's getting into his car...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-3984984 ... t-fox-news

'Nothing is happening at Fox News.'
'You should be worried about the BBC yourselves.'

Oooooh.

Image
User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Hyperion » Mon May 08, 2017 11:31 pm

Is anyone expecting Corbyn to say he'd step down if he lost the election? Seriously? It's not what you say during the run-up. See Cameron and the EU ref.
Also applies to talking about coalitions

Image Image Image
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by KK » Mon May 08, 2017 11:36 pm

Corbyn's New Politics. He wouldn't be like dirty Dave and say he's definitely not leaving and then immediately leave. That's old politics, maaaaan. That's passé politics.

Image
User avatar
Dinoric
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: RE: Re: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Dinoric » Mon May 08, 2017 11:47 pm

Garth wrote:
Jeremy Corbyn Says He Won't Quit Even If He Loses The General Election

"I was elected leader of this party and I’ll stay leader of this party," Corbyn told BuzzFeed News, taking a few minutes out from campaigning in the Warwickshire town of Leamington Spa.

No matter what happens on 8 June, he said, he would be "carrying on". And he insisted that the constant criticism and poor poll ratings were not getting to him. "Monsieur Zen is fine," he said.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/th ... .hrwVwMXWl

*screams internally*

He's got a point though. He was elected by the members of the party and he feels an obligation to them to stay and do this job until the party members decide other wise. If people are not happy then challenge him to a leadership election and let the party members decide. Of course they might vote him in again but if there really not happy with him then they can vote for someone else.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Tue May 09, 2017 9:45 am

All this talk about Corbyn quitting is daft. He isn't going to entertain the idea during a general election campaign so don't get too caught up in whether he will quit or not after the election as he isn't going to say he will as it would just look defeatist.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue May 09, 2017 9:54 am

captain red dog wrote:All this talk about Corbyn quitting is daft. He isn't going to entertain the idea during a general election campaign so don't get too caught up in whether he will quit or not after the election as he isn't going to say he will as it would just look defeatist.


Agreed. It's the same when they are asked about coalitions, neither the Tories or Labour would ever start a general election campaign by telling people that they are looking at joining in a coalition.

I wouldn't mind betting though that Corbyn actually means it and will not leave when he is defeated, unless Labour are absolutely annihilated.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Tue May 09, 2017 10:17 am

Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:All this talk about Corbyn quitting is daft. He isn't going to entertain the idea during a general election campaign so don't get too caught up in whether he will quit or not after the election as he isn't going to say he will as it would just look defeatist.


Agreed. It's the same when they are asked about coalitions, neither the Tories or Labour would ever start a general election campaign by telling people that they are looking at joining in a coalition.

I wouldn't mind betting though that Corbyn actually means it and will not leave when he is defeated, unless Labour are absolutely annihilated.

I am disappointed though that Labour and Lib Dems couldn't agree some kind of coalition at the start of the campaign. Their only hope and primary concern is to stop a huge Tory majority and they won't get that by not working together. It was the one thing where I feel neither side have really put the national interest first.

Don't get me wrong, I know why they havent done it for the reasons you say, but without it I feel it makes a Tory landslide inevitable.

User avatar
Winckle
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Winckle » Tue May 09, 2017 11:22 am

captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:All this talk about Corbyn quitting is daft. He isn't going to entertain the idea during a general election campaign so don't get too caught up in whether he will quit or not after the election as he isn't going to say he will as it would just look defeatist.


Agreed. It's the same when they are asked about coalitions, neither the Tories or Labour would ever start a general election campaign by telling people that they are looking at joining in a coalition.

I wouldn't mind betting though that Corbyn actually means it and will not leave when he is defeated, unless Labour are absolutely annihilated.

I am disappointed though that Labour and Lib Dems couldn't agree some kind of coalition at the start of the campaign. Their only hope and primary concern is to stop a huge Tory majority and they won't get that by not working together. It was the one thing where I feel neither side have really put the national interest first.

Don't get me wrong, I know why they havent done it for the reasons you say, but without it I feel it makes a Tory landslide inevitable.

I'm trying not to post in these threads, but I will say that it is not the fault of the parties, I absolutely blame the FPTP voting system. It's creating some really horrible problems for our democracy.

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Karl » Tue May 09, 2017 11:33 am

Winckle wrote:I'm trying not to post in these threads, but I will say that it is not the fault of the parties, I absolutely blame the FPTP voting system. It's creating some really horrible problems for our democracy.


Agreed, FPTP is an absolutely terrible system.

User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by BID0 » Tue May 09, 2017 12:37 pm

captain red dog wrote:All this talk about Corbyn quitting is daft. He isn't going to entertain the idea during a general election campaign so don't get too caught up in whether he will quit or not after the election as he isn't going to say he will as it would just look defeatist.

The media are desperate to derail his train :lol: all the questions I ever see asked seem to be leading questions to get a headline/soundbite for him to hang himself

I watched the full Andrew Marr interview on YouTube last night and the questions were just borderline stupid



But you have to nuke someone, you HAVE TO! :lol:

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Squinty » Tue May 09, 2017 1:09 pm

I guess we need strong and stable politicians who wouldn't hesitate on dropping a nuclear weapon on a populated area.

I find this question so ridiculous. Nuclear Weapons = Bad

User avatar
Winckle
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Winckle » Tue May 09, 2017 1:25 pm

Karl wrote:
Winckle wrote:I'm trying not to post in these threads, but I will say that it is not the fault of the parties, I absolutely blame the FPTP voting system. It's creating some really horrible problems for our democracy.


Agreed, FPTP is an absolutely terrible system.

I was thinking about this more and it really is crazy. One of the criticisms of Corbyn and his faction of the Labour Party is that they are too far to the left to appeal to the electorate, and that the Labour Party should be more centrist. Well if the electorate desires to vote for a more centrist party then they could vote for the Liberal Democrats, except they don't. So are Corbyn's critics wrong? Do the electorate want a centrist party, but simply can't vote for them because it will split the non-Tory vote? Who strawberry floating knows. What an awful mockery of democracy we have.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Tue May 09, 2017 1:40 pm

BID0 wrote:
captain red dog wrote:All this talk about Corbyn quitting is daft. He isn't going to entertain the idea during a general election campaign so don't get too caught up in whether he will quit or not after the election as he isn't going to say he will as it would just look defeatist.

The media are desperate to derail his train :lol: all the questions I ever see asked seem to be leading questions to get a headline/soundbite for him to hang himself

I watched the full Andrew Marr interview on YouTube last night and the questions were just borderline stupid



But you have to nuke someone, you HAVE TO! :lol:

The nuke question is an absolute farce. I'm genuinely not interested in whether he would use nukes, because if we got to that point it would be after a monumental failure of the current administration and it's highly likely we would already be dead! :lol:

One of the more shocking comments I can remember from a sitting PM was Cameron saying quite calmly that he would use nuclear weapons and the press and media didn't bat an eyelid. :dread:

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Squinty » Tue May 09, 2017 1:55 pm

May actually said the same thing a while back.

And if that shows strength, then I'm the Queen of Sri Lanka.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue May 09, 2017 2:53 pm

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to your enemies. Only crazies like Kim Jong-Un have them to use as an offensive weapon (and I'm not convinced he is that crazy), they are actually a defensive weapon, nobody can use them without inviting their own destruction.

With that in mind, you absolutely have to say that you would use nuclear weapons if you are asked. There's no deterrent if you say you wouldn't use them. Even if you would never ever use them, you still say you would as it stops other powerful nations messing around with you too much.

When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.

User avatar
Errkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Errkal » Tue May 09, 2017 3:01 pm

But then her would be lying, which is not his bag.

Personally I don't have a problem with someone saying they wouldn't use them, they are a gooseberry fool heap waste of money so that in the event of a nutter you get to die knowing they died too.

Pointless and pretty useless if there is a nutter willing to use that they will regardless of whether you have them or not, so you may as well say I wouldn't use them as it is a pointless hyperthetical and one that anyone using them is already doomed to strawberry float anyway so it doesn't make a difference if you do.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue May 09, 2017 3:07 pm

Errkal wrote:But then her would be lying, which is not his bag.

Personally I don't have a problem with someone saying they wouldn't use them, they are a gooseberry fool heap waste of money so that in the event of a nutter you get to die knowing they died too.

Pointless and pretty useless if there is a nutter willing to use that they will regardless of whether you have them or not, so you may as well say I wouldn't use them as it is a pointless hyperthetical and one that anyone using them is already doomed to strawberry float anyway so it doesn't make a difference if you do.


He lied about supporting Remain. ;)

My point wasn't to do with a nutter, my point was it is a deterrent against hostility from other nations and it actually stops tense situations from going too far. The deterrent that stopped the US and USSR from fighting was the guarantee that they would annihilate each other if things got too hot.

With people like Putin in the world, it's therefore important to make clear that you would retaliate if he attacked you.

If you are going to say that you would never use them, then you need to get rid of them as they are utterly pointless to have if you wouldn't use the threat of them to protect your country. That's a valid argument but is different to the question that Corbyn was asked.

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Karl » Tue May 09, 2017 3:17 pm

If an aggressor were to launch a first strike against the UK, I think I would consider using our second strike capability targeted primarily at military infrastructure in the hopes that it might limit further action by that aggressor -- be it more nukes (fired at us or others), or an invasion, or whatever.

If you got shot but (somehow) had the opportunity to stab them through the hand then you probably should - even if you thought you were dying anyway - to prevent that person from shooting you more or shooting other people.

I think it's fairly important our leaders hold a similar view, or at least appear to, for the reasons Moggy outlined.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Tue May 09, 2017 3:25 pm

Moggy wrote:The whole point of having nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to your enemies. Only crazies like Kim Jong-Un have them to use as an offensive weapon (and I'm not convinced he is that crazy), they are actually a defensive weapon, nobody can use them without inviting their own destruction.

With that in mind, you absolutely have to say that you would use nuclear weapons if you are asked. There's no deterrent if you say you wouldn't use them. Even if you would never ever use them, you still say you would as it stops other powerful nations messing around with you too much.

When people like Corbyn are asked the "would you use nuclear weapons?" question, all they have to do is answer "only as a last resort or as a retaliation". Job done.

But the scenario that Russia would use them on us is so unlikely that it isn't worth considering. If a superpower like the USSR didn't use them at the height of the cold war, there is no benefit in issuing a statement of mutually assured destruction against them today. It's counter productive if anything.

States like North Korea will not give a strawberry float either way.

User avatar
Lucien
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Lucien » Tue May 09, 2017 3:32 pm

I wonder how the people of Ukraine feel about giving up their nukes.


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BAKA, Google [Bot], KK, Snowcannon, Tragic Magic and 43 guests