To be scrupulously fair, what we have seen tonight is a man who will stand by his principles when the personal and political advantage to him from resiling from them, just for 10 minutes, would be incalculable; and a woman of whom the same could not be said in light of her obfuscations over the dementia tax.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
But a victory is a mandate. A Corbyn victory of 1 gives him a mandate. Of course a Corbyn minority govt is not a mandate and a coalition with the Nats woukd mesn we would have a Nat mandate. Anyone ready for that? Never mind Trident ... Sturgeon us the nuclear option.
Only one issue has stirred up trouble for May and the govt and that is social care and that is a good bring honest with the people policy.
We now have Corbyn and his chief cheerleader attacking small businesses. But they themselves attacked the budget over NI equalisation for self employed!!! Oh and that was Hammond (long time favourite on this board) NOT Mrs May.
Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?
To be scrupulously fair, what we have seen tonight is a man who will stand by his principles when the personal and political advantage to him from resiling from them, just for 10 minutes, would be incalculable; and a woman of whom the same could not be said in light of her obfuscations over the dementia tax.
Not complaining, just saying.
Unfortunately very few can stay absolutely true to their principles at all times and win a general election
Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?
Incidentally, Corbyn was just as absurd about nuclear deterrence in the infamous Woman's Hour interview, but it got buried under the tsunami of derision about his childcare costings.
Q: On Trident, who should voters believe? The Labour manifesto, which is in favour? Or you, who are against?
Corbyn says the Labour party has committed to Trident.
But they are agreed a nuclear war would be disastrous.
I'm the age of suicide bombers, that logic no longer applies
Food for thought.
Not every threat is a suicidal terrorist. You have to defend against all threats, or as many as you can, not only the one that most recently occurred.
What focussing on actual threats rather than cold war movie threats?
These days anyone mad enough to want to use a nuclear weapons is far too mad to be deterred from using them from the threat of death. The like death. They seek death.
To be scrupulously fair, what we have seen tonight is a man who will stand by his principles when the personal and political advantage to him from resiling from them, just for 10 minutes, would be incalculable; and a woman of whom the same could not be said in light of her obfuscations over the dementia tax.
Not complaining, just saying.
Unfortunately very few can stay absolutely true to their principles at all times and win a general election
The Conservatives need to press home their advantage of tonight by conflating Corbyn's ludicrous position on nuclear deterrence with his ludicrous positions on everything else. So, forget trying to paint him as actively a terrorist sympathiser (although his record on that is vile), and instead paint him as naive beyond belief: a 'nice guy' (professional politicians should be able to say this without throwing up) who is so naive about deterrence, defence and terrorism that he would be a danger to our security, and by extension to our economy.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
I could maybe vote for a modernised form of Old Labour, but that isn't what we are being sold. The Labour party is infested with the middle class champagne socialist disease caring more about frigging Palestine and than Peterborough. And I don't see how that is going to change any time soon.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
That's why one of my Tory friends is abstaining.
He doesn't want to give anything that endorses that manifesto or makes Nick Timothy look like a master strategist.
A small majority and this campaign should teach that lesson.
The Cabinet to ensure it is learnt.
And what's their answer to the populist rage that's everywhere? There was an almost comical editorial in The Economist that sounded like the Ancien Regime in about 1780.
"What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"
Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.
Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button.
In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"
This is an issue where the British public fully expect the PM to be prepared to bluff, lie or we might as well just scrap the whole system.
If you keep the system, you need to keep the bluff.
Everyone knows it's a bluff. That's why it is a waste of money.
In very extreme cases, you might use it to a limited extent.
The best deterrent is to have a credible threat and promise that any person who authorised a nuclear strike would themselves die. If you want to be immoral, you could extend that threat to their family and relations. Then the guilty party suffers, not millions of innocents.
Many on this thread think that Corbyn has blown it. I don't think so at all. There are some genuine warmongers in the population but not that many.
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
Its the only good thing Trump has done. But its not a Chinese hoax. It was started by NASA (James Hansen). And followed up by anybody who could get a grant out of it.
The idea of global warming (whether true or otherwise) goes back a long way before James Hansen.
There is as much chance of Lab stopping an increased TM Maj as Corbyn nuking a dung beetle
Fookin Nil None Zero F Fookin All,
I am off for a lie down just cashed out on a £200 profit.
Lets move on from Corbyn now I cannot do any more canvassing as i cannot defend that stupid nuclear answer.
My Account has not been hacked BTW
I'll beginning to feel sorry for you john.
Leftie wobbles are no where near as good as PB Tory wobbles. We have the best wobbles, don't we folks?
Rob,reading this site for the last two weeks ,isn't helping my health ;-)
You should listen to JohnO, JackW, and myself.
Of all the Cameroon commentators you make me the most petrified. If we're to stop Corbyn's dangerous nonsense our broad church from Clarke to Carswell has to compromise around Mrs May - crucially, for now.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
A Labour leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
That seems ludicrous. Another above a 20 seat majority would be the Tories' best result for 30 years. Repeat 30 years. If she does a fairjjob in the next parliament why would she be threatened? And who replaces her? Don't tell me it's just got to be some smug Cameroon or an Osbornian bottom feeder.
Success equals performance minus anticipation.
A 40 seat majority against Corbyn is a bit shite.
Memories are short. A leaderene with a 50+ majority under her belt and the power of patronage is going to look very different from the way she looks now.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
A Labour leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?
It's only ever been a real issue here since one of the genuine candidates for PM said he'd never use it.
Previously was a fringe issue brought into debates by Green and SNP, raising the cost of it against things like NHS spending.
"What’s the point of have a nuclear deterrent if it is known that the man/woman at the help won’t press button?"
Quite. And no sane moral person would actually press the button and kill millions of innocent people.
Nixon understood this and had Kissinger convince the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations that Nixon was irrational and volatile. It's the only way it works. The upside for the US is that Trump doesn't need to simulate this. The downside is he could actually press the button.
In 1517, Machiavelli had argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"
This is an issue where the British public fully expect the PM to be prepared to bluff, lie or we might as well just scrap the whole system.
If you keep the system, you need to keep the bluff.
Everyone knows it's a bluff. That's why it is a waste of money.
In very extreme cases, you might use it to a limited extent.
The best deterrent is to have a credible threat and promise that any person who authorised a nuclear strike would themselves die. If you want to be immoral, you could extend that threat to their family and relations. Then the guilty party suffers, not millions of innocents.
Many on this thread think that Corbyn has blown it. I don't think so at all. There are some genuine warmongers in the population but not that many.
I'm the age of suicide bombers, that logic no longer applies
Food for thought.
Not every threat is a suicidal terrorist. You have to defend against all threats, or as many as you can, not only the one that most recently occurred.
What focussing on actual threats rather than cold war movie threats?
These days anyone mad enough to want to use a nuclear weapons is far too mad to be deterred from using them from the threat of death. The like death. They seek death.
Even with nuclear weapons the threats range from essentially sensible states like China and Russia, who we assume deterrence will work against, to highly irrational states like North Korea who might nuke a neighbour out of the blue.
If something doesn't work in all situations it doesn't follow that it works in none.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
That's why one of my Tory friends is abstaining.
He doesn't want to give anything that endorses that manifesto or makes Nick Timothy look like a master strategist.
A small majority and this campaign should teach that lesson.
The Cabinet to ensure it is learnt.
And what's their answer to the populist rage that's everywhere? There was an almost comical editorial in The Economist that sounded like the Ancien Regime in about 1780.
An end to austerity as soon as possible, and a return to real wage growth.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
I think she'll convince herself that she was brave by taking on the social care stuff and hence she got a fair and honest mandate. But it was poor planning and communication that did for it.
I agree, IF she gets a majority she still needs to go in the next parliament. No way can she go through another election campaign again.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
A Labour leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
GE2022 is your chance.
Unfortunately for Labour though Corbyn may not have done well enough to win but he will also not do badly enough to lose the leadership
The same could be said of foreign aid. I was hoping May might have made that point when questioned on it tonight.
Yes I agree about foreign aid. TBH I would prefer us to be a bit more self centred when giving it.. Except emergency aid and we could give a bit more of that as a proportion.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
The first two of those are not stupid at all, just very badly presented.
I'd rather the money be invested in expanding T-Levels and vocational education rather than grammar schools. I think if we fix the former the latter won't be necessary.
The dementia tax is an attack on property rights. It's not the policy of a Conservative or conservative. As I said we'd have been better off making pesnioners pay for it via real terms cuts in the state pension until such time as there is enough money to pay for social care. 1% absolute rises per year for 5 years would be enough on the current maths.
To be scrupulously fair, what we have seen tonight is a man who will stand by his principles when the personal and political advantage to him from resiling from them, just for 10 minutes, would be incalculable; and a woman of whom the same could not be said in light of her obfuscations over the dementia tax.
Not complaining, just saying.
Unfortunately very few can stay absolutely true to their principles at all times and win a general election
To be scrupulously fair, what we have seen tonight is a man who will stand by his principles when the personal and political advantage to him from resiling from them, just for 10 minutes, would be incalculable; and a woman of whom the same could not be said in light of her obfuscations over the dementia tax.
Not complaining, just saying.
Unfortunately very few can stay absolutely true to their principles at all times and win a general election
Because we are all hypocrites ?
No. Because in a democracy we have to make compromises - and that also explains why it's perfectly possible to get contradictory policies. Now in an autocracy....
Interesting how Trident has been a constant issue in the last several elections. In the French election nukes barely came up at all. Melenchon certainly didn't speak out against them. Likewise, I don't recall Sanders making it a part of his campaign. Why is it always such an issue here?
French Nukes made by French workers.
American Nukes for British subs!
Our nukes, their missiles.
Why can't we use French missiles ?
1. Because they're not as good, poor range. 2. Because they are stupidly expensive, the low numbers mean that R&D costs are spread over a far smaller number of missiles.
The more apt question would be "why don't the French use American missiles?" To which some reply that national pride drove them towards developing their own ... but the real reason is that the Americans don't trust them with the design.
The same could be said of foreign aid. I was hoping May might have made that point when questioned on it tonight.
Yep and it was an open goal given that she has already committed to maintaining the 0.7% of GDP. These sorts of things should be trumpeted far and wide as they are positives which will cut through in what has been a thoroughly negative campaign so far from all sides.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
That's why one of my Tory friends is abstaining.
He doesn't want to give anything that endorses that manifesto or makes Nick Timothy look like a master strategist.
A small majority and this campaign should teach that lesson.
The Cabinet to ensure it is learnt.
And what's their answer to the populist rage that's everywhere? There was an almost comical editorial in The Economist that sounded like the Ancien Regime in about 1780.
An end to austerity as soon as possible, and a return to real wage growth.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
A Labour leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
GE2022 is your chance.
The risk for Labour is that some dim Corbynite is installed as the next leader - Angela Rayner, for example, if Corbs doesn't get an absolute doing on Thursday.
A half decent Labour leader would have walked this against TMay and the manifesto from hell.
Dan Hodges called out those who voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the US elections re Trump withdrawing from the Paris Accord. Imagine voting Green and then that indirectly leading to the election of a President who said that global warming was a hoax by the Chinese ideaogical purists are beyond silly.
Its the only good thing Trump has done. But its not a Chinese hoax. It was started by NASA (James Hansen). And followed up by anybody who could get a grant out of it.
The idea of global warming (whether true or otherwise) goes back a long way before James Hansen.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
A Labour leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
A Labour UKIP leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
I think she'll convince herself that she was brave by taking on the social care stuff and hence she got a fair and honest mandate. But it was poor planning and communication that did for it.
I agree, IF she gets a majority she still needs to go in the next parliament. No way can she go through another election campaign again.
If she wins a majority I think she needs to shake up her advisers and her team. Also maybe look at herself, her style of governing as well though that would be much harder to change.
If a situation arose where pushing the button would save lives net, I would push it. That's what Corbyn had to say tonight.
But if anyone out there believes that our nuclear weapons deter in any way the kind of nutters we face today, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Serious question unrelated to Corbyn. Do you not think that the fact the UK and France have nuclear weapons has been or might be at least a small deterrent to Putin if the US becomes increasingly estranged from Europe?
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
That seems ludicrous. Another above a 20 seat majority would be the Tories' best result for 30 years. Repeat 30 years. If she does a fairjjob in the next parliament why would she be threatened? And who replaces her? Don't tell me it's just got to be some smug Cameroon or an Osbornian bottom feeder.
Success equals performance minus anticipation.
A 40 seat majority against Corbyn is a bit shite.
Memories are short. A leaderene with a 50+ majority under her belt and the power of patronage is going to look very different from the way she looks now.
She was much less waffley and flustered tonight.
She would be several points better off if she hadnt dodged the debates.
If a situation arose where pushing the button would save lives net, I would push it. That's what Corbyn had to say tonight.
But if anyone out there believes that our nuclear weapons deter in any way the kind of nutters we face today, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Serious question unrelated to Corbyn. Do you not think that the fact the UK and France have nuclear weapons has been or might be at least a small deterrent to Putin if the US becomes increasingly estranged from Europe?
If a situation arose where pushing the button would save lives net, I would push it. That's what Corbyn had to say tonight.
But if anyone out there believes that our nuclear weapons deter in any way the kind of nutters we face today, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The deterrent is to deter nuclear attacks primarily, although the annexation of Crimea would have been unlikely to have happened if they had not unilaterally disarmed. Just because it doesn't stop terror attacks doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need the right tool for the right job.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
A Labour leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
GE2022 is your chance.
The risk for Labour is that some dim Corbynite is installed as the next leader - Angela Rayner, for example, if Corbs doesn't get an absolute doing on Thursday.
A half decent Labour leader would have walked this against TMay and the manifesto from hell.
No doubt CCHQ have also learnt some lessons from this debacle.
Thursday can't come fast enough my nerves are shattered I really hope the polling in the next few days shows something of a swing back to the Tories. How many will have watched the BBC debate tonight how much press coverage will it get over the weekend . Will it move that many votes ? hopefully it can stem the tide of momentum that Corbyn has at the moment. at this stage I'll just be happy at the exit poll when I hear the words " Conservative majority"
To be scrupulously fair, what we have seen tonight is a man who will stand by his principles when the personal and political advantage to him from resiling from them, just for 10 minutes, would be incalculable; and a woman of whom the same could not be said in light of her obfuscations over the dementia tax.
Not complaining, just saying.
Unfortunately very few can stay absolutely true to their principles at all times and win a general election
Because we are all hypocrites ?
Exactly. Hypocrite lecteur, mon semblable, mon frere as the other TSE put it.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
That seems ludicrous. Another above a 20 seat majority would be the Tories' best result for 30 years. Repeat 30 years. If she does a fairjjob in the next parliament why would she be threatened? And who replaces her? Don't tell me it's just got to be some smug Cameroon or an Osbornian bottom feeder.
Success equals performance minus anticipation.
A 40 seat majority against Corbyn is a bit shite.
Memories are short. A leaderene with a 50+ majority under her belt and the power of patronage is going to look very different from the way she looks now.
She was much less waffley and flustered tonight.
She would be several points better off if she hadnt dodged the debates.
I think Lynton gave her a lot of coaching for tonight, not sure she would have been able to handle the debates.
IIRC Abbott wanted to wipe the DNA of innocent people.
Under current rules if you're arrested for a trigger offence, your DNA is taken.
But if no charges are brought or the person is found not guilty, Abbott wanted that person's record wiping.
I'd be curious to know how often innocent people are then done for something else due to their DNA being on the database.
There have been cases of things like a man bought in for drinking and driving gives a fingerprint or DNA match for an unsolved murder from 20 years ago, not sure how deleting his DNA if he's innocent of the drink driving charge stops the police making a match though.
I'd imagine the issue under discussion is the other way around - if they arrest a friend of last week's terrorist, but have to let him go and delete his record. A year later another bomb turns up with his DNA all over it, but the police can't match the samples to that guy any more because he wasn't charged.
Thursday can't come fast enough my nerves are shattered I really hope the polling in the next few days shows something of a swing back to the Tories. How many will have watched the BBC debate tonight how much press coverage will it get over the weekend . Will it move that many votes ? hopefully it can stem the tide of momentum that Corbyn has at the moment. at this stage I'll just be happy at the exit poll when I hear the words " Conservative majority"
Debates last time didn't move the polls at all. And the polls maybe totally out anyway.
Only five days and twenty-three hours until the bongs at ten.
If a situation arose where pushing the button would save lives net, I would push it. That's what Corbyn had to say tonight.
But if anyone out there believes that our nuclear weapons deter in any way the kind of nutters we face today, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The problem is the conditional "save lives net". One half of that is certain - millions of innocents will die from the nuclear strike(s). The other half, the lives thereby saved, is an unprovable hypothetical. And used as a post rationalisation for a criminal act.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
A Labour leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
GE2022 is your chance.
The risk for Labour is that some dim Corbynite is installed as the next leader - Angela Rayner, for example, if Corbs doesn't get an absolute doing on Thursday.
A half decent Labour leader would have walked this against TMay and the manifesto from hell.
No doubt CCHQ have also learnt some lessons from this debacle.
To be scrupulously fair, what we have seen tonight is a man who will stand by his principles when the personal and political advantage to him from resiling from them, just for 10 minutes, would be incalculable; and a woman of whom the same could not be said in light of her obfuscations over the dementia tax.
Not complaining, just saying.
Unfortunately very few can stay absolutely true to their principles at all times and win a general election
Nor should they. We have a Parliamentary system, and all PMs lead a coalition even if that's a single party. We have MPs who may be similarly minded within a party but are not and should not be identical. When you're party leader, you get a lot of what you want, but you're not meant to be there representing the May Party or the Corbyn Party - you're there for the Conservatives or Labour (or whoever) on an agreed platform which should not be your personal reckonings alone.
Part of the problem is May doesn't like it, and Corbyn doesn't understand it.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
The first two of those are not stupid at all, just very badly presented.
I'd rather the money be invested in expanding T-Levels and vocational education rather than grammar schools. I think if we fix the former the latter won't be necessary.
The dementia tax is an attack on property rights. It's not the policy of a Conservative or conservative. As I said we'd have been better off making pesnioners pay for it via real terms cuts in the state pension until such time as there is enough money to pay for social care. 1% absolute rises per year for 5 years would be enough on the current maths.
It is not a tax and is a very big improvement on the current situation. Plus you will be hitting the poorest pensioners (those with only the state pension to rely on) hardest unless you are suggesting stealing money from people's private pension funds a la Gordon Brown.
A half decent Labour leader would have walked this against TMay and the manifesto from hell.
Many people are saying this, but I'm not sure it's true.
The reason for this is precisely because Corbyn's appeal is that he is bonkers and the Labour manifesto was written by the tooth-fairy. If Labour had a sensible leader, the manifesto would be more sensible, and therefore lose its appeal. The only reason that Labour have done as well as they have over the past few weeks is that no-one in the media took their manifesto seriously, so it has had zero scrutiny, whereas everything Theresa May has proposed is treated as likely to actually happen, downside and all.
The same could be said of foreign aid. I was hoping May might have made that point when questioned on it tonight.
Yes I agree about foreign aid. TBH I would prefer us to be a bit more self centred when giving it.. Except emergency aid and we could give a bit more of that as a proportion.
Emergency aid should be our military turning up with logistics, engineers and supplies, supported by well known NGOs like the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
A Labour leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
A Labour UKIP leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
Corrected.
Lol. If we've learnt anything from this election it is that the "Labour" brand is incredibly incredibly strong.
@bigjohnowls A left-wing leader with none of the problematic Trident/IRA views would romp home. I'd probably be voting for them, given May's deficiencies. Take that from the GE. Labour has a lot to smile about, despite my incessant moaning over the last week or so.
A Labour leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
A Labour UKIP leader who was proud of his/her country, who was pro brexit and tough on immigration would romp home.
Corrected.
labour could afford to lose far left voters who thinks we should have open borders to the rest of the world and still romp it.
What we need to do to close this out and win the GE is for one big worker friendly policy to come out!
A 2% cut in NI for all workers ie reduce the rate from 12% to 10% for the general NI band (up to £45k pa?) and eliminate the higher 2% band to be paid for by cuts to sponger benefits!!
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
The first two of those are not stupid at all, just very badly presented.
I'd rather the money be invested in expanding T-Levels and vocational education rather than grammar schools. I think if we fix the former the latter won't be necessary.
The dementia tax is an attack on property rights. It's not the policy of a Conservative or conservative. As I said we'd have been better off making pesnioners pay for it via real terms cuts in the state pension until such time as there is enough money to pay for social care. 1% absolute rises per year for 5 years would be enough on the current maths.
It is not a tax and is a very big improvement on the current situation. Plus you will be hitting the poorest pensioners (those with only the state pension to rely on) hardest unless you are suggesting stealing money from people's private pension funds a la Gordon Brown.
The hit on pensions will collectively be very small but will save the government billions to pay for social care which is disproportionately spent in pensioners. Working people already pay too much tax.
How confiscation of all but £100k of one's home equity isn't a tax is not clear to me. It is also an untenable attack in property and inheritance rights.
IIRC Abbott wanted to wipe the DNA of innocent people.
Under current rules if you're arrested for a trigger offence, your DNA is taken.
But if no charges are brought or the person is found not guilty, Abbott wanted that person's record wiping.
I'd be curious to know how often innocent people are then done for something else due to their DNA being on the database.
There have been cases of things like a man bought in for drinking and driving gives a fingerprint or DNA match for an unsolved murder from 20 years ago, not sure how deleting his DNA if he's innocent of the drink driving charge stops the police making a match though.
I'd imagine the issue under discussion is the other way around - if they arrest a friend of last week's terrorist, but have to let him go and delete his record. A year later another bomb turns up with his DNA all over it, but the police can't match the samples to that guy any more because he wasn't charged.
Only the DNA of convicted criminals ought to be kept on the database in my opinion, even if that makes it more difficult to trace people later on.
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
That's why one of my Tory friends is abstaining.
He doesn't want to give anything that endorses that manifesto or makes Nick Timothy look like a master strategist.
A small majority and this campaign should teach that lesson.
The Cabinet to ensure it is learnt.
And what's their answer to the populist rage that's everywhere? There was an almost comical editorial in The Economist that sounded like the Ancien Regime in about 1780.
An end to austerity as soon as possible, and a return to real wage growth.
Money.
To be achieved how?
Pay off the deficit, obtain new tech, productivity, good education, good infrastructure, and be flexible on wages, investment, re/predistribution, taxes, business incentives, and find a better way of taxing net wealth, without robbing peoples homes.
If a situation arose where pushing the button would save lives net, I would push it. That's what Corbyn had to say tonight.
But if anyone out there believes that our nuclear weapons deter in any way the kind of nutters we face today, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Serious question unrelated to Corbyn. Do you not think that the fact the UK and France have nuclear weapons has been or might be at least a small deterrent to Putin if the US becomes increasingly estranged from Europe?
To be scrupulously fair, what we have seen tonight is a man who will stand by his principles when the personal and political advantage to him from resiling from them, just for 10 minutes, would be incalculable; and a woman of whom the same could not be said in light of her obfuscations over the dementia tax.
Not complaining, just saying.
Unfortunately very few can stay absolutely true to their principles at all times and win a general election
Nor should they. We have a Parliamentary system, and all PMs lead a coalition even if that's a single party. We have MPs who may be similarly minded within a party but are not and should not be identical. When you're party leader, you get a lot of what you want, but you're not meant to be there representing the May Party or the Corbyn Party - you're there for the Conservatives or Labour (or whoever) on an agreed platform which should not be your personal reckonings alone.
Part of the problem is May doesn't like it, and Corbyn doesn't understand it.
Even a President has to compromise with the legislature, as Trump found on healthcare
The question is, what happens when TMay returns with a similar mandate to what she already has?
No matter the majority, Mrs May has fatally damaged her reputation among Tories.
It's a question of
1) When she goes in the next Parliament
2) Is it at a time of her own choosing
And can we block her stupid ideas (grammar schools, dementia tax, racial pay charter, energy cap).
That's why one of my Tory friends is abstaining.
He doesn't want to give anything that endorses that manifesto or makes Nick Timothy look like a master strategist.
A small majority and this campaign should teach that lesson.
The Cabinet to ensure it is learnt.
And what's their answer to the populist rage that's everywhere? There was an almost comical editorial in The Economist that sounded like the Ancien Regime in about 1780.
An end to austerity as soon as possible, and a return to real wage growth.
Money.
To be achieved how?
Pay off the deficit, obtain new tech, productivity, good education, good infrastructure, and be flexible on wages, investment, re/predistribution, taxes, business incentives, and find a better way of taxing net wealth, without robbing peoples homes.
Something for everyone there.
I'm hoping they made that 2025 commitment on the deficit so they can beat it, and come to the 2022 election saying that they've cleared the deficit. Of course, that might just be an invitation for people to vote Labour
The same could be said of foreign aid. I was hoping May might have made that point when questioned on it tonight.
Yep and it was an open goal given that she has already committed to maintaining the 0.7% of GDP. These sorts of things should be trumpeted far and wide as they are positives which will cut through in what has been a thoroughly negative campaign so far from all sides.
Is it true the government gives North Korea aid money as suggested by a member of the audience tonight ?
The same could be said of foreign aid. I was hoping May might have made that point when questioned on it tonight.
Yep and it was an open goal given that she has already committed to maintaining the 0.7% of GDP. These sorts of things should be trumpeted far and wide as they are positives which will cut through in what has been a thoroughly negative campaign so far from all sides.
I don't think for anybody who is actually struggling personally that would be seen as a positive. I think they might justifiably feel we need to put our own house in order. So no, May is very aware that would go down like a lead balloon with the people she needs to attract.
Comments
Not complaining, just saying.
Doesn't anyone else remember it?
Im going back to being a full time carer
Of course a Corbyn minority govt is not a mandate and a coalition with the Nats woukd mesn we would have a Nat mandate. Anyone ready for that? Never mind Trident ... Sturgeon us the nuclear option.
Only one issue has stirred up trouble for May and the govt and that is social care and that is a good bring honest with the people policy.
We now have Corbyn and his chief cheerleader attacking small businesses. But they themselves attacked the budget over NI equalisation for self employed!!!
Oh and that was Hammond (long time favourite on this board) NOT Mrs May.
That's a nuclear bomb to you Corbyn - oh no you will wait for Britain to be wiped out first - thanks for coming!
Q: On Trident, who should voters believe? The Labour manifesto, which is in favour? Or you, who are against?
Corbyn says the Labour party has committed to Trident.
But they are agreed a nuclear war would be disastrous.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/30/general-election-2017-may-corbyn-paxman-snp-manifesto-politics-live?page=with:block-592d4043e4b00493c827772c
'A nuclear war would be disastrous'. Deep analysis, eh?
These days anyone mad enough to want to use a nuclear weapons is far too mad to be deterred from using them from the threat of death. The like death. They seek death.
Don't risk it!
Many on this thread think that Corbyn has blown it. I don't think so at all. There are some genuine warmongers in the population but not that many.
If we're to stop Corbyn's dangerous nonsense our broad church from Clarke to Carswell has to compromise around Mrs May - crucially, for now.
Previously was a fringe issue brought into debates by Green and SNP, raising the cost of it against things like NHS spending.
Still, they were political bear-traps she didn't need to walk into.
Hiroshima was very nasty, but defendable.
If something doesn't work in all situations it doesn't follow that it works in none.
Money.
I agree, IF she gets a majority she still needs to go in the next parliament. No way can she go through another election campaign again.
Except emergency aid and we could give a bit more of that as a proportion.
The dementia tax is an attack on property rights. It's not the policy of a Conservative or conservative. As I said we'd have been better off making pesnioners pay for it via real terms cuts in the state pension until such time as there is enough money to pay for social care. 1% absolute rises per year for 5 years would be enough on the current maths.
2. Because they are stupidly expensive, the low numbers mean that R&D costs are spread over a far smaller number of missiles.
The more apt question would be "why don't the French use American missiles?" To which some reply that national pride drove them towards developing their own ... but the real reason is that the Americans don't trust them with the design.
WillS
(*Someone found at boarding schools-not Versailles)
But if anyone out there believes that our nuclear weapons deter in any way the kind of nutters we face today, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
A half decent Labour leader would have walked this against TMay and the manifesto from hell.
Corrected.
She would be several points better off if she hadnt dodged the debates.
Just because it doesn't stop terror attacks doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need the right tool for the right job.
Surely....
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/870762466111827969
I'd imagine the issue under discussion is the other way around - if they arrest a friend of last week's terrorist, but have to let him go and delete his record. A year later another bomb turns up with his DNA all over it, but the police can't match the samples to that guy any more because he wasn't charged.
Only five days and twenty-three hours until the bongs at ten.
Part of the problem is May doesn't like it, and Corbyn doesn't understand it.
The reason for this is precisely because Corbyn's appeal is that he is bonkers and the Labour manifesto was written by the tooth-fairy. If Labour had a sensible leader, the manifesto would be more sensible, and therefore lose its appeal. The only reason that Labour have done as well as they have over the past few weeks is that no-one in the media took their manifesto seriously, so it has had zero scrutiny, whereas everything Theresa May has proposed is treated as likely to actually happen, downside and all.
https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/870763542764437504
A 2% cut in NI for all workers ie reduce the rate from 12% to 10% for the general NI band (up to £45k pa?) and eliminate the higher 2% band to be paid for by cuts to sponger benefits!!
CON supporting hard working families!!!
How confiscation of all but £100k of one's home equity isn't a tax is not clear to me. It is also an untenable attack in property and inheritance rights.
Something for everyone there.
If we CON get 10 seats I am not upset if SLAB get 20