Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Old 3rd Jun 2017, 08:30
  #9641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
Who watched the Question time special last night I wonder ?..when we were treated to a floundering explanation, accompanied by some patronising drivel
Agreed, Corbyns response to whether he would use the deterrent was horrifying, if he had the courage of his convictions he would cancel it as it is wasted in his hands as he has already undermined its purpose. His answer to the question about Corporation Tax demonstrated his lack of real world experience as a professional politician, he appears to think that the world is made up of big companies. Small business is not on his radar. The comment about the manifesto being a letter to Santa was spot on.

Last edited by engineer(retard); 3rd Jun 2017 at 09:51. Reason: Typo correction
engineer(retard) is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 08:40
  #9642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
From that well know Trotskiheit journal the Financial Times.

https://www.ft.com/content/3dd677d8-...9-9f94ee97d996

On taxation, the Conservative manifesto is thin on specifics. Since Mrs May turns every policy into an embarrassment within 72 hours, this may be wise...
Tory policy on Brexit is nothing more than a string of Orwellian catchphrases: “strong and stable”, “smooth and orderly”, “deep and special”. Freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.
To this last I can imagine TM saying, "But that's what the voted for. Why do they need more?"

Last edited by Jetex_Jim; 3rd Jun 2017 at 08:56.
Jetex_Jim is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 08:43
  #9643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips
Who watched the Question time special last night I wonder ?.
What on earth would anyone want to watch it for?
There was nothing to be gained from watching 2 leaders spout rehearsed lies.

On one hand there was May, who having done her best to destroy public services, at least has the advantage of intending to do what the public voted for, Brexit. Next election, I think she'll be long gone.

On the other, Corbyn, who doubtless in 20 years time will claim the program was not a debate, but a tribute to all Labour Politicians, not just those on the extreme left. Meanwhile, promising anything he can to make people forget reality and vote for his version of socialism.
Mind you, at least if he wins, people will know for themselves what damage this brand of stupidity causes, rather than assuming those of us who remember the 70's are exaggerating it.
Smiffy36 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 09:08
  #9644 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,074
And yet, when they look at the alternative.......

Financial Times: Election 2017: The safer bet of a Conservative vote
ORAC is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 09:19
  #9645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
And the top comment from that FT article said this:

I disagree

Theresa May has shown herself to be a deeply problematic leader - regardless of Brexit

The more scrutiny she is under and the less discretion she is, the better off the country will be

That means the more Labour MPs - even under Corbyn - and Lib Dem MPs, the better

It is quite remarkable that unless you are a fully paid up Tory you will look at this election campaign and conclude that rationally that Corbyn DOESN'T seem a worse leader than May, despite all the stick he has gotten from the media and despite all the mistakes he has made

I say that as someone who doesn't like Corbyn at all and who joined Labour to vote against him

I thought I would consider Corbyn the worst choice by far but in the cold light of day he isn't

So if May is to be PM, the more her hands are tied the better - she can't be trusted

Her heart is in cutting immigration and going on about Easter Eggs - that really is the level of governance she will bring
Jetex_Jim is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 09:31
  #9646 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,074
And the fact that a Labour reader has made such a comment means what? The FT itself has recommended its readers to vote Conservative, and read the article to see what it it said about Corbyn.....

https://www.ft.com/content/67949e4a-...7-59b4dd6296b8
ORAC is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 09:47
  #9647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Originally Posted by Jetex_Jim View Post
And the top comment from that FT article said this:
It appears to have been written by Yoda and that the Jedi is a member of the Labour Party. A bit surprised it is critical of Theresa May, not.
engineer(retard) is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 10:00
  #9648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Prior to the election being called I cannot recall to many folk extolling the virtues of Corbyn, in fact most Labour supporters readily acknowledged his lack of suitability as a party leader and supported the attempts to oust him from office.

The fact those same supporters are now championing him as the next PM speaks volumes about both effective intelligence and moral compass.

Irrespective of political leaning I have yet to find anyone who honestly believes that Corbyn, McDonnel and Abbot in No 10 is going to be a good thing so WTF people are doing their level best to bring that about is beyond me.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 10:13
  #9649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 72
Posts: 3,761
Agreed, Corbyns response to whether he would use the deterrent was horrifying, if he had the courage of his convictions he would cancel it as it is wasted in his hands as he has already undermined its purpose.
Absolutely. Corbyn seems to be incapable of understanding that if, as he has stated, he would not authorise the use of nuclear weapons they cease to be a deterrent. Personally I am ambivalent about Trident, so if by some chance Corbyn became prime minister I would hope he would overturn Labour policy and cancel it straight away. He could then reallocate the money to conventional defences, which are now at dangerously low levels.
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 10:15
  #9650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose View Post
Prior to the election being called I cannot recall to many folk extolling the virtues of Corbyn, in fact most Labour supporters readily acknowledged his lack of suitability as a party leader and supported the attempts to oust him from office.

The fact those same supporters are now championing him as the next PM speaks volumes about both effective intelligence and moral compass.

Irrespective of political leaning I have yet to find anyone who honestly believes that Corbyn, McDonnel and Abbot in No 10 is going to be a good thing so WTF people are doing their level best to bring that about is beyond me.
Not really surprising. There are people who really, really dislike Conservative policies and think that almost any possible alternative would be better.
Hopefully they will remain in a minority.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 11:14
  #9651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,241
Watched last night's programme, against my better judgement, and was quite surprised at the poise and presentation skills of JC as compared with TM. Wouldn't walk 5 yards to vote for either but was very impressed with a lady questioner who prefaced her question (on another area) with the observation that "I can't understand why so many people are so keen on killing millions of people with nuclear weapons". Strikes me as totally to the point and prompts the follow-up question to all those who espouse nuclear armaments and their use - " Just why do YOU want to USE nuclear weapons? (since you are berating JC for NOT doing so)
Answers on a piece of radiated, charred cloth, please.
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 11:17
  #9652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,637
You mean it's OK for them to kill millions of us but not for us to kill millions of them in return if they try it.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 11:23
  #9653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lestah
Posts: 159
I doubt anyone would question his comments regarding first use, but he did dodge the question of what he would do if we came under attack. If you are not preapred to use the deterrent, it no longer has any value as such.

Aside from that, he came across comfortable and at ease compared to the stuttering May, who was all over the place on nurses pay.
Local Variation is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 11:26
  #9654 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,074
And "uncle" Joe Stalin was a merry old soul....
ORAC is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 12:45
  #9655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Originally Posted by Local Variation View Post
I doubt anyone would question his comments regarding first use, but he did dodge the question of what he would do if we came under attack. If you are not preapred to use the deterrent, it no longer has any value as such.

Aside from that, he came across comfortable and at ease compared to the stuttering May, who was all over the place on nurses pay.
He was actually rendered speechless by one member of the audience on the subject of nuclear retaliation. He had no answer, he was a rabbit in the headlights. One could see clearly that the man is unfit for high office and it left us all to provide our own answer - JC in downing Street would mean NO nuclear deterrence.

Along with his love-ins with the IRA and Hammas that should have sunk him there and then but will it?
Wingswinger is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 12:59
  #9656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
And the fact that a Labour reader has made such a comment means what? The FT itself has recommended its readers to vote Conservative, and read the article to see what it it said about Corbyn.....

https://www.ft.com/content/67949e4a-...7-59b4dd6296b8
Except my point is not how bad Corbyn is, you'll get no argument from me on that subject, but what a vote loser TM is showing herself to be. (looking at the most recent polls[yes I know, polls and climate models are a no no on Jetblast])

But I'll say this, it's fortunate for UK that UKIP seems to be disappearing up it's own a**se. The current election campaign is all too reminiscent of Trump/Clinton, with the sensible choice Clinton/May loosing ground to the inept and hapless Trump/Corbyn. Had UKIP had it's wits about it might have gained some serious ground by taking votes away from Labour. We should be thankful I suppose that May called the election before they could stop fighting.

My guess, the Conservative party will just scrape in. Then, when the swivel eyed ones that comprise the Conservative party wake up to how soundly TM has f***ed up, then she'll be gone. Off, as my American friends say, like a Prom dress.
Jetex_Jim is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 12:59
  #9657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 853
I am stunned to hear so many so called conservative voters popping up on media and saying they are now voting Corbyn.

I don't believe it for a minute!

It's very easy to phone a radio station or post on the internet that you are a life long Tory but you now believe Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott in league with 'Wee Burnie' are the best bet to rule over us for the next 5 years.

I would put money on May getting a good working majority on June 8th even taking seats in Scotland.

If I'm wrong Easter Island can be nice.
vctenderness is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 13:21
  #9658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
Watched last night's programme, against my better judgement, and was quite surprised at the poise and presentation skills of JC as compared with TM. Wouldn't walk 5 yards to vote for either but was very impressed with a lady questioner who prefaced her question (on another area) with the observation that "I can't understand why so many people are so keen on killing millions of people with nuclear weapons". Strikes me as totally to the point and prompts the follow-up question to all those who espouse nuclear armaments and their use - " Just why do YOU want to USE nuclear weapons? (since you are berating JC for NOT doing so)
Answers on a piece of radiated, charred cloth, please.
I don't think any sane person wants to use nuclear weapons. It's a deterrent and one that has worked well in Europe/USSR since their inception. So one might argue that possession of a nuclear deterrent precludes the 'opposition' from using theirs.

So, if Jeremy says or indicates he will not use them under ANY circumstances, then I can imagine a scenario in which the Russians roll over Eastern Germany, Western Germany and thence across the entire western continent including the farthest tip of Cornwall with a practically defenceless UK looking on aghast.

You could argue that at least the UK population will be alive to endure its enslavement rather than being burnt to a crisp. If that what you want then vote Labour by all means.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 13:33
  #9659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Originally Posted by Wingswinger View Post
He was actually rendered speechless by one member of the audience on the subject of nuclear retaliation. He had no answer, he was a rabbit in the headlights. One could see clearly that the man is unfit for high office and it left us all to provide our own answer - JC in downing Street would mean NO nuclear deterrence.
He also had a bit of a teddy when the audience laughed at him.
engineer(retard) is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2017, 15:53
  #9660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,241
Funny (peculiar, not laughing) that a request for those who lambast JC (for not specifying WHEN he would use a nuclear attack) are unable (or unwilling) to state when THEY would do so. So, come on, all you 'buckets of sunshine' warriors, let us into your secret desires to incinerate large portions of the earth - which SPECIFIC group, country, race or other takes your fancy: do you just want to do it for the HELL of it?? ... or is it just JC who you feel doesn't have the guts to speak up?
Cornish Jack is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.