politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Theresa May will be hoping for another polling industry fa

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

She has said it a number of times during the campaign.

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

Yep - this campaign has shown clearly that May is not up to it. But who is there to take over. The Tory talent cupboard is pretty bare. May probably was the best person for the job out of those who applied. Even Corbyn would have beaten Leadsom.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

Yep - this campaign has shown clearly that May is not up to it. But who is there to take over. The Tory talent cupboard is pretty bare. May probably was the best person for the job out of those who applied. Even Corbyn would have beaten Leadsom.

Lynton Crosby. Get him into the HoL.

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

She has said it a number of times during the campaign.

I've been busy working

Good for you. Here's the Tory manifesto:

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Sorry - no time. Busy exporting.

I very much doubt TM will have the heart or enthusiasm to continue as PM for any extended period were her majority to be less than even a comfortable 70 - 80 seats. For let's be honest about things, this General Election which promised to deliver a Tory Majority of at least 150 seats or even more, was supposed to be about pretty much ensuring a further Tory victory in 2022. In fact it will probably result in precisely the opposite, unless by some miracle, the economy booms, Brexit is an unalloyed success and Boris were to take over the top job in around 2020.
The chance of all three of these happening? Probably <1% I would estimate.
So we are going to get a marxist government .... it's simply a matter of whether that happens next week or five years hence.

FPT John Harris video from NE Scotland:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jun/01/a-fishy-business-why-the-tories-are-back-in-scotland-video

Two telling observations - outside the Central belt, Scotland has always been a small c conservative country and the Tories have been in hibernation for 50 years - and the inferred promise of "vote Tory, get fish".

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best fitted to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

That's a Marxist society. Name me one Marxist society that has been just.

You are confusing justice and decency. A decent society cares for its weaker and less able members. A just society is one where everyone is rewarded according to their efforts.

It would be entirely reasonable to say on that basis our current system is neither fair nor decent. But Marxist societies are both deliberately unfair and deliberately indecent. They give out to their client groups by taking randomly from the ablest and brutally oppress the weakest. Hence two Soviet jokes: 'they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work' and 'if you tried Communism in the Sahara desert, you'd run out of sand.'

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

Yep - this campaign has shown clearly that May is not up to it. But who is there to take over. The Tory talent cupboard is pretty bare. May probably was the best person for the job out of those who applied. Even Corbyn would have beaten Leadsom.

Lynton Crosby. Get him into the HoL.

It is the advertiser/PR's job to sell someone else's idea/product. Steve Hilton showed the mistake of confusing the function of the seller with the person/ideas being sold. As an advertiser once said in a different context 'Don't confuse the waiters with the chef'

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

Yep - this campaign has shown clearly that May is not up to it. But who is there to take over. The Tory talent cupboard is pretty bare. May probably was the best person for the job out of those who applied. Even Corbyn would have beaten Leadsom.

Lynton Crosby. Get him into the HoL.

I would have thought he would have been offered one already!

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

She has said it a number of times during the campaign.

I've been busy working

Good for you. Here's the Tory manifesto:

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Sorry - no time. Busy exporting.

Ha, ha!! If it's all down to you, Chas, you are not running a good business. Learn to delegate ;-)

My team is learning, but overstretched for the business we have - I'm reviewing stuff produced by someone 2 years out of university... Sadly my clients expect me to be involved!

We have someone else joining in 10 days, and are in the process of hiring another senior marketing guy as well

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

But it was stated in the context of a response to a question about higher rate taxation.

Because that's where taxes are going up in Labour's manifesto.

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

I think your keyboard has broken.

TravelJunkie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

Of course not. That is twisting the argument. Corbyn lost it with the audience last night when he refused to confirm he would use the nuclear weapon if our Country was under nuclear threat.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TravelJunkie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

Of course not. That is twisting the argument. Corbyn lost it with the audience last night when he refused to confirm he would use the nuclear weapon if our Country was under nuclear threat.

Not just threat, actual attack.

daodao said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

If it's not equitable, it's not just.

It is not just to tax people who work hard, create jobs and wealth, to assuage a feeling of envy

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Labour could conceivably win from the left if May's Brexit does not deliver the prosperity she promises - but only with a leader who is trusted on security. I have no idea how Labour will react to its impending defeat, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn were still leader in 2022.

On topic, a decent overall majority would be a decent overall majority. How it was achieved would soon be forgotten. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory but it is still a route to victory.

And it might yet be quite a bit more than decent.

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

I'm in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament but when I read such nonsense partisan posts I have an urge to obliterate the entire planet with H bombs in the hope that in 65 million years or so we might get some intelligent life.

The concept of nuclear deterrence (which belongs to a bygone age in my opinion) is that state actors with nuclear technology will be deterred from using it by the credible threat that another nuclear power is also willing to use it. It breaks down because first it assumes that nuclear technology is inevitably exclusively going to be in the hands of state actors and secondly it assumes those state actors have a minimum level of rationality. But those advocating it aren't genocidal maniacs. Far from seeking nuclear obliteration, they are trying by their words now to prevent precisely what appals you from being carried out by others.

archer101au said:

It is not just deterrent. It was always stated in the Cold War that if the USSR attacked Western Europe and it became clear that conventional forces could not hold them back, the West would use nuclear weapons. And this was (and is) quite correct. If the attacker does not think that you will use them and you do (for example in a very limited way) it re-establishes the deterrent.

If, in the future, NK obtained ballistic missile technology and it was believed that they might launch a weapon against the West, a pre-emptive nuclear attack on their military targets would be quite justified if it was determined that conventional weapons cannot do the job.

Then there are tactical nuclear weapons to consider.

Nuclear weapons are primarily a deterrent, but there are circumstances in which they should absolutely be used.

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

That sounds like a scenario suitable for a cruise missile strike. I don't see many scenarios where a first strike would be necessary.

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.

Why would we drop a nuclear weapon on France? Can't we use something else.

Who said we would? They just have to think we would.

And enforcement of the Treaty of Troyes, of course.

TravelJunkie said:

Are there any members of PB who are happy to kill millions of innocent people by using a nuclear weapon?

I just don't understand why voters want someone to drop a bomb that kills so many innocent people and the appetite and eagerness to see so much death and destruction.

Throughout history the unscrupulous strong have preyed on the weak. You cannot dis-invent nuclear weapons.

The threat of MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction is the key to not reaching for the red button.

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, a decent overall majority would be a decent overall majority. How it was achieved would soon be forgotten. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory but it is still a route to victory.

And it might yet be quite a bit more than decent.

The Tories will win very easily. But I doubt the campaign will be forgotten. The deep flaws in May that it has exposed will become even more apparent over the coning years as Brexit does not deliver the prosperity she has promised.

Icarus said:

Nuclear deterrence is based on WW2 - If you bomb London we will bomb Berlin. In 21st century this just doesn't work.

You have to wonder, what with North Korea trying to develop ICBMs.

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

Why would it need to be a nuke?

TravelJunkie said:

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

No. Anyone willing to use a nuclear weapon has no respect for humanity and THE INNOCENT people that will die.

Innocent people die. I don't understand why people want innocent people to die.

Destroy the planet for the ego.

Do you support the war against and defeat of Germany in WW11?

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

If it's not equitable, it's not just.

Justice isn't to do with outcomes, it's to do with fairness. People should be rewarded for their efforts and contributions. Society has a duty to eliminate as many barriers to this as they can - ensuring an excellent education, preventing arbitrary discrimination, etc. Equality of opportunity is fair, not equality of outcome.

The second element (welfare, health provision, etc) is more about what type of society you want to live in rather than a matter of a "just society". I believe it behoves a decent society to care for the weak/unfortunate, but that's not a question of whether society is "just" or not.

(But then I am a fan of Aquinas)

Justice, fairness and outcomes are pretty intertwined. As you say, equality of opportunity is absolutely key. The issue is how best you ensure this.

I suspect we agree on more than you want to admit

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

Oh sorry, wrong city, they were in Raqqe.

TravelJunkie said:

CarlottaVance said:

TravelJunkie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

Yes.

You have no concept or respect for human life.

And you want to make the UK more vulnerable to nuclear attack. As Nye Bevan said

....you call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm

Good morning, everyone.

Saw a tiny bit of the QT nonsense. Enjoyed watching Corbyn have a rough time over nukes, but it was also apparent that whilst the audience was balanced, as far as I could see, some were fanboys of him [didn't see May].

Mr. Junkie, and you could feel proud of your moral superiority when mushroom clouds were rising over London, New York and Paris.

Nukes are never a good option, but sometimes they are necessary. In that scenario, doing nothing would lead to more people being killed.

Charles said:

philiph said:

@Charles

The chariity I chair has a request to visit the Fore Trust to discuss our application and bid.

The application was good in itself, as one of the objectives is to fund 'transformative' applications. Very good for the charity to look at itself in these terms regardless of the result.

Thanks for the heads up to apply.

Great news. The process is designed to be helpful in itself in that it forces charities to really focus on what they are trying to achieve, so I am glad it is working as planned.

Let me know if I can be helpful.

Thanks. No doubt I'll be in touch!

TravelJunkie said:

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

I bet your dead proud of yourself that you killed millions of innocent people because you couldn't get your ego out of the way of showing any kind of respect towards human life.

So how would you disarm the nucleur threat

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

If it's not equitable, it's not just.

Justice isn't to do with outcomes, it's to do with fairness. People should be rewarded for their efforts and contributions. Society has a duty to eliminate as many barriers to this as they can - ensuring an excellent education, preventing arbitrary discrimination, etc. Equality of opportunity is fair, not equality of outcome.

The second element (welfare, health provision, etc) is more about what type of society you want to live in rather than a matter of a "just society". I believe it behoves a decent society to care for the weak/unfortunate, but that's not a question of whether society is "just" or not.

(But then I am a fan of Aquinas)

Justice, fairness and outcomes are pretty intertwined. As you say, equality of opportunity is absolutely key. The issue is how best you ensure this.

I suspect we agree on more than you want to admit

I am certain of it. Though I suspect we are irreconcilable on the impact of Brexit!

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

Marvellous, geopolitics based on pishy TV screenplays.
Though tbf that's probably the whole foundation of Trump's foreign policy.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Saw a tiny bit of the QT nonsense. Enjoyed watching Corbyn have a rough time over nukes, but it was also apparent that whilst the audience was balanced, as far as I could see, some were fanboys of him [didn't see May].

Mr. Junkie, and you could feel proud of your moral superiority when mushroom clouds were rising over London, New York and Paris.

Nukes are never a good option, but sometimes they are necessary. In that scenario, doing nothing would lead to more people being killed.

Exactly. If they have no fear of retaliation, they can continue.

FPT: just skimming, but glad to see Mr. Pulpstar say the worm has gone. That was one of the worst aspects of debates.

Also, I have a betting question: at this stage, are the odds on ye olde bookies like Ladbrokes effectively set by book-balancing? ie driven by weight of money rather than determined by the actual chances of a given event occurring.

Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.

This seems to have a lot going for it as a theory about why the polls are almost certainly wrong:
https://twitter.com/stronglozenges/status/870721473887051776