Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

If the British economy crashes, the poorest and most vulnerable will be even worse off. They always are regardless of who's in power.

This!

To anyone thinking the economics aren't important, you need to ask yourself why - if they're not important - the Labour party went to big efforts to show costings.

We could maybe argue about how good those costings are, but there's no argument about the fact that even Corbyn's Labour recognise that there needs to be the money to pay for the promises.

And people are mugging themselves in believing only 5% of the population will feel the impact of a change of allocation of resources by Labour - because unless it's *only* luxury goods and services (that only the very wealthy purchase) that resources are moved from, there will be that impact onto others.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, uscore said:

 

You may not like Corbyn, that's fair enough. But the one thing we've learned in the last few weeks is that he can handle himself in a debate, and under pressure interviews, whilst May didn't exactly shine - or in some cases avoids them entirely.   I'm no less confident of Corbyn and his team (which doesn't include Boris Johnson as Foreign Minister!!) than I am of May and her lot being able to represent Britain, particularly in regards to looking after the poorest and most vulnerable.

Boris is a worry I must admit

[OneLittleFish]

6 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

Tony benn said that the way to control people is to demoralise and instill fear. The governments over the past 15-20 years have done a great job of that. He also said that to bring about real change you need to mobilise the poor to vote, I think there's more chance of Corbyn achieving that than anyone else at the moment.

 

I was horrified at the folk on question time last night pushing him on the "pushing the button" thing and I think he spoke well on this and could  trust someone who would want to negotiate.  

Long live the NHS

Put simply, last night can be distilled to this:

"Theresa, what are you going to do to safeguard the most vulnerable in our society; the poor, the unwell, the hungry, the young and the elderly? How can we look after these people as a society?"

 

"Jeremy, why are you so reluctant to nuke and kill millions of innocent civilians?"

 

Which line of questioning do you think affects us more day to day? People are terrified for their well-being under the Tories, the Tories were looking for cheap point scoring from Corbyn.

Edited June 3, 2017 by OneLittleFish

[uscore]

 

Just now, eFestivals said:

 

To anyone thinking the economics aren't important, you need to ask yourself why - if they're not important - the Labour party went to big efforts to show costings.

 

Because Labour have allowed themselves to be defined as the economically illiterate party and feel (perhaps correctly) that they have to make more of an effort to prove each of their ideas are affordable.

[Babylon sister]

1 minute ago, OneLittleFish said:

Put simply, last night can be distilled to this:

"Theresa, what are you going to do to safeguard the most vulnerable in our society; the poor, the unwell, the hungry, the young and the elderly? How can we look after these people as a society?"

 

"Jeremy, why are you so reluctant to nuke and kill millions of innocent civilians?"

You can always rely on the BBC to deliver  

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

I was horrified at the folk on question time last night pushing him on the "pushing the button" thing and I think he spoke well on this and could  trust someone who would want to negotiate.  

Why were you horrified about people asking questions of a potential PM about what they'd do in specific circumstances?

You might not like nukes in all circumstances, but the 2nd duty of any state is to protect the people within it - the very reason for the needs of common cause that is the state. People have different ideas of how that protection is best achieved and not everyone agrees with Jezza.

I'm saddened that Jez had neither the courage of his convictions to say he'd never push the button or (alternatively) enough of a grown-up approach to say he'd follow the will of Parliament towards nukes, and instead fudged it. It only made him come across as untrustworthy towards defence.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, uscore said:

 

Because Labour have allowed themselves to be defined as the economically illiterate party and feel (perhaps correctly) that they have to make more of an effort to prove each of their ideas are affordable.

there's that, of course - but economic literacy is still the central part of it, not a dismissal of it and a pretence that it doesn't matter.

[babyblade41]

If you all think that all these vulnerable people who you say are going to be fearful of their lives under a tory government  and are going to be less fearful in time under a labour government,  a Labour Govt who think all this money they are offering is only going to come from a very small percentage of top earners then I think that is a very blinkered look.

 

I feel in time if JC does become PM he will realise that wont work and you will all feel the belt tightening .

The fact that Mcluskey will be operating JC like a puppet is another problem.

~The nuke scenario is also worrying  , it is there as a deterrent so no one attacks...take it away and that position is no longer valid.  In an ideal world but in reality ??? give me the button any day 

 

As I said I am not going to change any of your view points and you mine , so agree to differ 

[Mr.Tease]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Why were you horrified about people asking questions of a potential PM about what they'd do in specific circumstances?

You might not like nukes in all circumstances, but the 2nd duty of any state is to protect the people within it - the very reason for the needs of common cause that is the state. People have different ideas of how that protection is best achieved and not everyone agrees with Jezza.

I'm saddened that Jez had neither the courage of his convictions to say he'd never push the button or (alternatively) enough of a grown-up approach to say he'd follow the will of Parliament towards nukes, and instead fudged it. It only made him come across as untrustworthy towards defence.

Because, as he found out last year, if he comes out and says "no I wouldn't" it renders Trident completely useless (it's no longer a deterrent if its never going to be used- and you've just wasted all that money building it!) and he'd get blasted for it- as people said at that time, even though no one would likely authorise it's use, as long as there is the smidgen of doubt it's still a threat. If you back the party policy in renewing trident then part of that has to be not saying you would never ever use it.

Personally I don't get why they didn't nip this in the bud ages ago- have Corbyn say everyone knows he would never use it so he would put his defense secretary in charge of writing the instruction letters (in the event of an attack)- frees him up to argue his case and not endorse its use, while keeping the deterrent threat because no one would know what the defense secretary had written. Problem solved!

[uscore]

7 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

If you all think that all these vulnerable people who you say are going to be fearful of their lives under a tory government  and are going to be less fearful in time under a labour government,  a Labour Govt who think all this money they are offering is only going to come from a very small percentage of top earners then I think that is a very blinkered look.

 

I feel in time if JC does become PM he will realise that wont work and you will all feel the belt tightening .

 

My wife is a social worker, my dad was a nurse, my mum a psychologist in the NHS.  Most of my friends are in the public sector, as teachers,  healthcare professionals or in social care.  Each and every one of them says that life gets much worse for the vulnerable under a Tory government.   My wife's social work job is now mostly going around telling old and/or handicapped people what services they are no longer eligible for.

If JC does become PC, and it turns out that the money from the small percentage of top earners is not enough to help the vulnerable, then I certainly hope the rest of us do have to do some belt tightening.

[arcade fireman]

Personally the nukes thing is way down my list of priorities. But unfortunately it's exactly the sort of thing that would swing undecideds away from Labour. It's the sort of thing which creates a general feeling for some people about Corbyn as a man not willing to defend or stick up for this country - and once people get that feeling they start to project it onto anything and everything. People will draw a line between this sort of thing and the Brexit negotiations.

The vote on Trident was had by the Labour Party. For better or worse the party policy is to hang on to Trident. So Corbyn could have acknowledged his huge personal opposition to nuclear weapons. He could have said that he wouldn't launch a first strike. But he could have said in the event that this country was under nuclear attack since the party decision was we would have the weapons in place he would consider using them. 

It's hardly a stretch to say this - and highly unlikely we would be in this scenario in our lifetimes. The whole point of having Trident is at least envisaging one possible scenario where they might be used. If he at least named one scenario where he might have countenanced using them (since having them is in the Labour manifesto) he could have put a few of those arguments to bed.

He was also asked if he thought the IRA were terrorists. He didn't answer this question straight at all - he said he condemned all violence etc etc. Which again is a shame - of course the IRA were terrorists. There is a marked change in Corbyn when he is pressed on these issues.

It's a shame as he did well on a lot of other things. But the general consensus is that last night wouldn't have changed that much - that suits May far more than it suits Corbyn with the Tories still having a lead in most polls translating to some form of increased majority. Certainly over the past few days it's looking like Labour's poll advances are running out of steam. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Because, as he found out last year, if he comes out and says "no I wouldn't" it renders Trident completely useless (it's no longer a deterrent if its never going to be used- and you've just wasted all that money building it!) and he'd get blasted for it

But how he handled it last night just made it that anyway, so he might as well have said it if that's what he meant.

Because he didn't say it and didn't really say anything at all, it leaves everyone to invent their own version of what he meant - and for anyone not in the same place as Jez it makes it damning.

 

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

- as people said at that time, even though no one would likely authorise it's use, as long as there is the smidgen of doubt it's still a threat. If you back the party policy in renewing trident then part of that has to be not saying you would never ever use it.

But he if wants to leave the threat lingering then he can do that in a much better way without leaving people to believe he'd never push it, as he did.

He might have said "I fundamentally disagree, but the will of Parliament is that we have this deterrent, and so in specific circumstances as leader of the country I'd carry thru on that".

For any leader it's still about those specific circumstances, where some might push it and some wouldn't. If he wasn't going to say he'd never push the button he needed to say that there'd be circumstances where he would (and be prepared to back that up if given a hypothetical circumstance, or outline one himself).

His history was always going to make this a big question for him (it one of the reasons why many thought him unsuitable as leader), so he's had all the time in the world to come up with a better way of dealing with it, rather than ducking it as he did.

 

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Personally I don't get why they didn't nip this in the bud ages ago- have Corbyn say everyone knows he would never use it so he would put his defense secretary in charge of writing the instruction letters (in the event of an attack)- frees him up to argue his case and not endorse its use, while keeping the deterrent threat because no one would know what the defense secretary had written. Problem solved!

Yep - there's ways he could have much-better solved the personal political aspects of this problem, with what you say there being one of them.

When it comes down to it no one thinks it's a dilemma he'd really face anyway - but the attitudes to defending 'the people' is always a biggie for anyone who wishes to be leader of a country. It doesn't get raised to others because the take of those others is the conventional one.

[The other Bellboy]

I didn't

 

[Babylon sister]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Why were you horrified about people asking questions of a potential PM about what they'd do in specific circumstances?

You might not like nukes in all circumstances, but the 2nd duty of any state is to protect the people within it - the very reason for the needs of common cause that is the state. People have different ideas of how that protection is best achieved and not everyone agrees with Jezza.

I'm saddened that Jez had neither the courage of his convictions to say he'd never push the button or (alternatively) enough of a grown-up approach to say he'd follow the will of Parliament towards nukes, and instead fudged it. It only made him come across as untrustworthy towards defence.

I guess my simplistic view is that I'd rather a government working towards not having them. I'm never convinced that they offer us any protection. If ever a nuclear war we're all fucked. I'd rather the time had been spent on other issues. 

[babyblade41]

5 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

Personally the nukes thing is way down my list of priorities. But unfortunately it's exactly the sort of thing that would swing undecideds away from Labour. It's the sort of thing which creates a general feeling for some people about Corbyn as a man not willing to defend or stick up for this country - and once people get that feeling they start to project it onto anything and everything. People will draw a line between this sort of thing and the Brexit negotiations.

The vote on Trident was had by the Labour Party. For better or worse the party policy is to hang on to Trident. So Corbyn could have acknowledged his huge personal opposition to nuclear weapons. He could have said that he wouldn't launch a first strike. But he could have said in the event that this country was under nuclear attack since the party decision was we would have the weapons in place he would consider using them. 

It's hardly a stretch to say this - and highly unlikely we would be in this scenario in our lifetimes. The whole point of having Trident is at least envisaging one possible scenario where they might be used. If he at least named one scenario where he might have countenanced using them (since having them is in the Labour manifesto) he could have put a few of those arguments to bed.

He was also asked if he thought the IRA were terrorists. He didn't answer this question straight at all - he said he condemned all violence etc etc. Which again is a shame - of course the IRA were terrorists. There is a marked change in Corbyn when he is pressed on these issues.

It's a shame as he did well on a lot of other things. But the general consensus is that last night wouldn't have changed that much - that suits May far more than it suits Corbyn with the Tories still having a lead in most polls translating to some form of increased majority. Certainly over the past few days it's looking like Labour's poll advances are running out of steam. 

I think the results will be entirely down to age and if the current surge for the Labour Party is due to a fair bigger percentage of 18-24 who have now registered to vote then it's whether those in that category do turn up next Thursday.

I'm not entirely convinced that all those who have will actually do so , but it is encouraging that the younger generation seem to be getting more involved.

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But how he handled it last night just made it that anyway, so he might as well have said it if that's what he meant.

Because he didn't say it and didn't really say anything at all, it leaves everyone to invent their own version of what he meant - and for anyone not in the same place as Jez it makes it damning.

 

But he if wants to leave the threat lingering then he can do that in a much better way without leaving people to believe he'd never push it, as he did.

He might have said "I fundamentally disagree, but the will of Parliament is that we have this deterrent, and so in specific circumstances as leader of the country I'd carry thru on that".

For any leader it's still about those specific circumstances, where some might push it and some wouldn't. If he wasn't going to say he'd never push the button he needed to say that there'd be circumstances where he would (and be prepared to back that up if given a hypothetical circumstance, or outline one himself).

His history was always going to make this a big question for him (it one of the reasons why many thought him unsuitable as leader), so he's had all the time in the world to come up with a better way of dealing with it, rather than ducking it as he did.

 

Yep - there's ways he could have much-better solved the personal political aspects of this problem, with what you say there being one of them.

When it comes down to it no one thinks it's a dilemma he'd really face anyway - but the attitudes to defending 'the people' is always a biggie for anyone who wishes to be leader of a country. It doesn't get raised to others because the take of those others is the conventional one.

Yep- think he got very rattled last night because a bit of him wanted to got on a tirade vs the person who asked the question, which left him losing his composure and making a bit of a dogs breakfast over it

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, uscore said:

If JC does become PC, and it turns out that the money from the small percentage of top earners is not enough to help the vulnerable, then I certainly hope the rest of us do have to do some belt tightening.

the problem with that take is that people are being told they won';t have to, and (for many) it's the final part which makes voting Corbyn acceptable to them. They want the things on offer, but they don't want to be the ones paying for them.

It went very very badly for Hollande when those who voted for him discovered he'd made empty promises.

(I accept it's easier for Corbyn to follow thru because he controls the printing presses and Hollande did not, but having those printing presses running isn't the promised 'free' either, tho it is more deceptive in taking the money).

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, Babylon sister said:

I guess my simplistic view is that I'd rather a government working towards not having them. I'm never convinced that they offer us any protection. If ever a nuclear war we're all fucked. I'd rather the time had been spent on other issues. 

And that's his view but he had to commit to the opposite. It's like if you're a vegetarian but have had to agree that you'll support the meat industry, and then people keep questioning you about the benefits of eating meat, and would you support the slaughter of cows and pigs to ensure its survival. In your head you know you have to shut up and go along with it, but a bit of you can't bring yourself to say the words and your always on the cusp of letting rip with your real views!

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

I guess my simplistic view is that I'd rather a government working towards not having them. I'm never convinced that they offer us any protection. If ever a nuclear war we're all fucked. I'd rather the time had been spent on other issues. 

That's fine and there's plenty with your view (including me) ... but the problem from an electoral point of view is that others have very different opinions, with those opinions being a deal-breaker over whether Corbyn gets their vote or not.

I personally think he'd have done better to say straight out that he'd never push it rather than fudge it and leave people to invent their own versions.

As I say, I think how he handled it made him look untrustworthy for all defence (to those who see it as a big issue) rather than just around nukes.

[Babylon sister]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

And that's his view but he had to commit to the opposite. It's like if you're a vegetarian but have had to agree that you'll support the meat industry, and then people keep questioning you about the benefits of eating meat, and would you support the slaughter of cows and pigs to ensure its survival. In your head you know you have to shut up and go along with it, but a bit of you can't bring yourself to say the words and your always on the cusp of letting rip with your real views!

Nicely put, I'm glad I share his view 

[Mr.Tease]

I think at this point the well has run dry (in terms of Tory self made disasters), they'll probably spend the next few days shoring stuff up. I think we needed a couple more biggies to close the gap. Now we just have to hope we can get Labour voters to turn up and vote, and hope something bizarre happens at the last minute with the older tory voters (though I fear things might swing the other way).

[Babylon sister]

Just now, eFestivals said:

That's fine and there's plenty with your view (including me) ... but the problem from an electoral point of view is that others have very different opinions, with those opinions being a deal-breaker over whether Corbyn gets their vote or not.

I personally think he'd have done better to say straight out that he'd never push it rather than fudge it and leave people to invent their own versions.

As I say, I think how he handled it made him look untrustworthy for all defence (to those who see it as a big issue) rather than just around nukes.

I would have cheered out loud if he had the courage to say it out loud. It's enough to know that he thinks it. I get what you're saying about the electorate but having seen so many politicians who lack of integrity his stance sits easier with me than someone who'd sell their soul for a vote. 

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

Nicely put, I'm glad I share his view 

Me too- I just find Trident is a colossal waste of money that could be better spent on much more useful things that actually save lives. I laughed when that questioner said about us being attacked by North Korea and Iran- why the hell would they attack us? We won't even be in the EU! We'll be a tiny, unimportant country which is on the other side of the world from them! And even if they did get nukes, and we did somehow get into a war with them, they have no way of delivering them that distance!

[babyblade41]

20 minutes ago, uscore said:

 

If JC does become PC, and it turns out that the money from the small percentage of top earners is not enough to help the vulnerable, then I certainly hope the rest of us do have to do some belt tightening.

but then why doesn't JC say this,?  he thinks it is only going to come from the very wealthy and that won't work. He then reneges on his pledge and how many are going to be disillusioned if that happens ?

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

I would have cheered out loud if he had the courage to say it out loud. It's enough to know that he thinks it. I get what you're saying about the electorate but having seen so many politicians who lack of integrity his stance sits easier with me than someone who'd sell their soul for a vote. 

The Labour party decided the policy- he has to adhere to it, unfortunately