The Politics Thread 3.0

[Moggy]

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.

[captain red dog]

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.

[Winckle]

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.

[That]

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.

[BID0]

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 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!

[Squinty]

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

[Winckle]

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.

[captain red dog]

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 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!

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!

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.

[Squinty]

May actually said the same thing a while back.

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

[Moggy]

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.

[Errkal]

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.

[Moggy]

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.

[That]

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.

[captain red dog]

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.

[Moggy]

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.

You're arguing for disarmament, as I said that's a valid argument but is a completely different discussion.

If we are going to have nukes, then we have to say we are prepared to use them. Otherwise they are absolutely pointless. It's like having a burglar alarm but putting a sign next to it that reads "The alarm doesn't work, we're not at home and the keys are under the mat". You'd have been better off just not putting the alarm on the wall.

[Preezy]

Please stop talking about my house on the internet, Moggy.

[Moggy]

Please stop talking about my house on the internet, Moggy.

I didn't tell anybody that your alarm code is 54274.

[captain red dog]

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.

You're arguing for disarmament, as I said that's a valid argument but is a completely different discussion.

If we are going to have nukes, then we have to say we are prepared to use them. Otherwise they are absolutely pointless. It's like having a burglar alarm but putting a sign next to it that reads "The alarm doesn't work, we're not at home and the keys are under the mat".

Well Corbyn has been very clear that he wants to properly pursue disarmament and that's a stance I would tend to agree with.

However I don't think it's helpful for any world leader to be publicly declaring that they would use nuclear weapons. It isn't a yes or no question in my opinion as you would have to take an incredible hypothetical question to answer.

[Preezy]

Please stop talking about my house on the internet, Moggy.

I didn't tell anybody that your alarm code is 54274.

nice try, but I changed it to 12345

As for nukes, I'm right behind Moggy and Karl. No point having nukes if the baddies know you'll never use them.

[Moggy]

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.

Have you considered applying for Labour's Shadow Home Office position?

I passed the maths test and so I wasn't suitable.