the snap general election thread

kinger101

BobQ wrote: »

I wonder what impact tactical voting will have on this?

You can't trust these opinion polls. It will be a Plaid Cymru landslide. Trust me.

wotsthat

kinger101 wrote: »

Paxman was aggressive, but this was Corbyn's opportunity to explain where his red lines were, and why. IMO he kept it ambiguous because he didn't believe the answer he would have like to have given would have went down well with the electorate. Unfortunately, to those unsure of how Corbyn would respond, it rather gives the impression he'd dither or duck difficult to call situations.

It all rather assumes it matters where the British PM's red lines are. It doesn't much - we've knocked out how many Toyota Pickups with how many Hellfire missiles? It's largely symbolic.

As for nuclear weapons it's an argument for politicians and a bit of fun for the media. I expect it's the more mundane policies people worry about as they're most likely to impact people's lives (I hope). If we're at the point when it's really relevant whether Corbyn would push the button or not then who gives a !!!! anyway?

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

You make it sound all so simple, all we need is more spending, one wonders why so many terrorist attacks in mainland Europe, did they suffer Conservative cuts too?

Life must be amazing inside France given four years of socialism, right? Not sure then why Calise migrants wanted to leave.

This was a choice she made, much like reducing taxes for the highly paid.

kinger101

wotsthat wrote: »

It all rather assumes it matters where the British PM's red lines are. It doesn't much - we've knocked out how many Toyota Pickups with how many Hellfire missiles? It's largely symbolic.

As for nuclear weapons it's an argument for politicians and a bit of fun for the media. I expect it's the more mundane policies people worry about as they're most likely to impact people's lives (I hope). If we're at the point when it's really relevant whether Corbyn would push the button or not then who gives a !!!! anyway?

I think it matters quite heavily. We're in a grey legal area with strikes against ISIS in territories we're not at war with. I suspect authorization comes from the government, but at the very least, they need to give clear direction on what is and what is not acceptable. The government needs to take full responsibility for whatever military action is asks it's armed forces to take. It is a decision that ultimately a Prime Minister should make.

.string.

kinger101 wrote: »

..... to those unsure of how Corbyn would respond, it rather gives the impression he'd dither or duck difficult to call situations.

That conclusion has been reached a long time ago. Difficult issues are deferred; it may be to the need for more information or the insistence that the difficult event would not have happened if there had been discussions or it's not really up to him, it's Labour Party Policy or whatever excuse comes to mind.

Leaders need to make decisions, not defer them at every opportunity, and sometimes that requires sticking one's neck out. I don't think Corbyn has that in him. I'm not alone in that, most of his former PLP thought so too.

wotsthat

I wonder if Conrad will ever twig that terrorists couldn't give a flying fig whether there's a 'leftie' government or not. We're abhorrent to them no matter who we vote for.

wotsthat

kinger101 wrote: »

I think it matters quite heavily. We're in a grey legal area with strikes against ISIS in territories we're not at war with. I suspect authorization comes from the government, but at the very least, they need to give clear direction on what is and what is not acceptable. The government needs to take full responsibility for whatever military action is asks it's armed forces to take. It is a decision that ultimately a Prime Minister should make.

That's a reasonable argument but the reason I say it matters little is because we're a bit part player. We can argue all we like but the difference between May and Corbyn is insignificant when compared to the impact of US foreign policy.

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

Just a reminder on security, Jezza said if he as PM was asked to authorise a drone strike on a known terrorist on thier scope there and then, he would want more information.

If Nukes were heading our way he suggests he won't retaliate as that would kill many more people. What an incentive for the enemy to send a second lot of nukes to Finnish us off.

I find the way people love to criticise Corbyn for indicating that he has doubts and would want to seek more information bizarre. Many of the same people were probably criticising Blair for being too willing to react to circumstances based on incomplete information.

People under pressure with uncertain information make decisions - some good, some bad. T'was ever thus!

Joe_Horner

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

It is more than nice to know when you are putting your life and career on the line and heading for an immediate investigation by pulling the trigger on a terrorist that the people at the top support the rules under which you are instructed and trained to engage.

That's why we have separation of the legislature and the judiciary. It really doesn't matter what one MP's personal opinion is, even if they are the PM.

If your actions are correct in accordance with those rules then you have the backing of the State. If they're not then you (rightly) don't.

We don't have a President with executive powers* - if anyone wants to change that, they have to change the rules with the backing of Parliament and that won't be retrospective. So you have nothing to worry about if you keep to the current rules.



* Although successive (often terror related) legislation has been eroding that significantly over the past couple of decades.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

I thought the whole point of nukes was deterence not thinking you could get away with a small one....

Even the small ones are a huge deterant

The monster nukes were designed back when accuracy was poor, especially the ussr tech was so poor they needed large weapons knowing that even if they were a couple of km away it would do the job.

Do you recall the china accident that killed something like 200 people injured ten times as much and cost over a billion dollars in damage? trident is more than 10x as powerful as that on its very lowest setting and each missile has something like a dozen warheads.