Charl91 Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Eurgh. I thought he did well up untill the nuke questions, rattled him, and killed his positive mood. Actually think May got the upper hand on this one (and she wasn't great either). Not a good performance from Jezza. He should just say "Yes, I'll use them if we need to". Let's face it, the situation will almost never arise, and if it does, we're all buggered anyway.
Guest MattP Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 17 minutes ago, toddybad said: Bollocks. Against who? They're useless against terrorists and we ain't gonna be taking on russia. It's complete and utter claptrap. Who knows? The World changes rapidly, we have no idea what it we be like. I'm amazed anyone can have the arrogance to think no one would ever use a weapon on us and be certain of it. 15 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said: "I run a small business but ****ed if I'm paying someone on minimum wage a bit more" A bit more? It's about a 5k per person increase for a small business - that means a lot wouldn't survive. You blame someone who runs a tea shop for being concerned about that.
LiberalFox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 I think what's annoying is people mostly want Labour to come in and reverse austerity, they don't really care about Trident and certainly wouldn't risk a Tory government to campaign against it. The chances of needing to use the deterrent in the next 5 years are so slim.
Guest MattP Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Delighted with that, the nuclear question will be the headline grabber and that's a perfect result. Despite the WHOOPING! for Jezza at the end I think May won overall.
Bryn Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 He never said he wouldn't use them. His answers were actually far more evocative if a sense that he knows he'd have to use them in that context and that we'd all be ****ed as a consequence.
Guest Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: Who knows? The World changes rapidly, we have no idea what it we be like. I'm amazed anyone can have the arrogance to think no one would ever use a weapon on us and be certain of it. A bit more? It's about a 5k per person increase for a small business - that means a lot wouldn't survive. You blame someone who runs a tea shop for being concerned about that. The 2nd bit - if they have to pay £5k more for their employee to be able toc survive without the taxpayer (you and me) topping then up, they should pay the extra £5k.
Dr The Singh Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Duracell bunny will be out in force for May tonight
Guest Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Just now, Bryn said: He never said he wouldn't use them. His answers were actually far more evocative if a sense that he knows he'd have to use them in that context and that we'd all be ****ed as a consequence. I agree with him and want him to win bit he did everything but say that
matty98 Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 2 minutes ago, MattP said: Who knows? The World changes rapidly, we have no idea what it we be like. I'm amazed anyone can have the arrogance to think no one would ever use a weapon on us and be certain of it. A bit more? It's about a 5k per person increase for a small business - that means a lot wouldn't survive. You blame someone who runs a tea shop for being concerned about that. The standard of living for people on minimum wage currently is appalling, should we just allow them to continue to suffer?
Bobby Hundreds Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 North Korea can't even get a pissing missile to the Japanese coast .
Bryn Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Just now, toddybad said: I agree with him and want him to win bit he did everything but say that Of course he did, he doesn't want to be on record as saying he'd use them ad a point of principle. All he said for certain on the matter is he wouldn't use them first. The Tories have no answers to any of the major questions and yet still win the round because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to kill people. That's highly indicative of why this country and this whole planet are utterly screwed.
ousefox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 It's not difficult to say you would use nukes in retaliation. He's just needlessly losing votes every time he refuses to say this.
Dr The Singh Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Just now, Bobby Hundreds said: North Korea can't even get a pissing missile to the Japanese coast . Today..... India were saying the same about Pakistan and vice versa and several years later...
Bellend Sebastian Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 If I were him and I actually got in I'd start a nuclear war just to spite everyone
Guest MattP Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 1 minute ago, matty98 said: The standard of living for people on minimum wage currently is appalling, should we just allow them to continue to suffer? Yeah let's just make them unemployed instead. 1 minute ago, Bobby Hundreds said: North Korea can't even get a pissing missile to the Japanese coast . The sea has took a pasting though.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Just now, Watson said: It's not difficult to say you would use nukes in retaliation. He's just needlessly losing votes every time he refuses to say this. It's refreshing to see a politician stick by their principles and beliefs despite it probably costing him votes. No Tim Farron, I'm not looking at you.
matty98 Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Just now, MattP said: Yeah let's just make them unemployed instead. Or we could increase their wages so they have more disposable income which they can use to support small businesses?
Charl91 Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 2 minutes ago, Watson said: It's not difficult to say you would use nukes in retaliation. He's just needlessly losing votes every time he refuses to say this. This is it. I'm in two minds here. On the one hand, I agree with him, and it's nice to see a politician doggedly sticking to their principles. On the other hand, he's losing votes pointlessly on a non-issue. You don't actually HAVE to fire the missiles Jezza; just saying you will is how a deterrent works.
Bryn Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 3 minutes ago, Watson said: It's not difficult to say you would use nukes in retaliation. He's just needlessly losing votes every time he refuses to say this. I don't disagree. Thats the fundamental issue, Britain doesn't want Corbyn, in my opinion often for terrible reasons, and he will lose the election, and it costs us all greatly. But that's democracy. People who feel strongly about this will leave, which is what I'm considering, the rest will have to put up with it. Laura Kuennsberg just said he wouldn't ever use them in retaliation, which is not what he said, she's a an absolute witch.
Collymore Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 The nuke questions had me in stitches Some of those people seemed genuinely worried that an attack is imminent! The young lad who started it all looked like he played a tactical nuke based computer game every night for the past 10 years. Then there was a older guy lurking at the back whose head looked like it was going to explode in a nuclear explosion with rage after Corbyn's constant question dodging. Then the magic of it all - After everything seemed to calm down, some old codger accidentally was hitting someone on the back, Corbyn and Dimbleby told him to to be careful and then asked the poor bloke if he had a question "I do actually" mic shuffles over giving everyone a hair cut and the whole audience waits with bated breath "...So you would never press any red buttons, ever????"
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Neither of them came out of that particularly well. Corbyn failed on nukes and May failed on health. Bore draw. All these questions have been asked over and over again. There needs to be a rule across networks on these debates. There's enough subjects to talk about within both manifestos that they dont need to keep going on about the same bloody stuff. We know that May thinks no deal is better than a bad deal and we know Corbyn hates nukes. Seriously it's like watching repeats.
Foxxed Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 26 minutes ago, toddybad said: What is this obsession with nuclear weapons on the right? We clearly won't and can't ever use them. Why pretend otherwise? This is the best long read on trident I've read. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/11/trident-the-british-question Two big take-aways: It's completely dependent on the US thanks for Thatcher wanting to save money (unlike the French which is massively more expensive but completely independent) We only have it to keep a place at "the big boys table", i.e. the UN security council. It's brought up so much because the public generally want to so we're seen as important in the world. Corbyn would prefer to scrap it, rely on NATO's protection instead, and spend the money on the country instead - and the Tories can play this off as weak.
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 3 minutes ago, MattP said: The sea has took a pasting though. Hopefully nukes will work when Godzilla wonders out of the ocean.
Strokes Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 3 minutes ago, matty98 said: Or we could increase their wages so they have more disposable income which they can use to support small businesses? If they are on the breadline now, the breadline will move with their wages. Everything will just cost more. So it's pointless.
Guest MattP Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 3 minutes ago, matty98 said: Or we could increase their wages so they have more disposable income which they can use to support small businesses? If the tea shop pays the extra 5k how much tea do you think they'll buy back? Small businesses won't survive that. "All deaths are wrong" - my favourite line of the night.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.