[Jack_]

For the avoidance of doubt, Janey Godley is joking

[MTVN]

That was the most rattled Corbyn has been in his televised appearances this campaign, you could tell he was actually struggling to keep his cool there when he refused to respond to one of the audience members entirely

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by MTVN

That was the most rattled Corbyn has been in his televised appearances this campaign, you could tell he was actually struggling to keep his cool there when he refused to respond to one of the audience members entirely

Very true.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Nobody wants a nuclear war.They just want to know that the deterrent is actually working as a deterrent.Having a PM who says he wouldn't use it is not a deterrent.

That is what is scary. The fact he seems to lack understanding of how dangerous saying or implying that is. He might as well stick a bl**dy great bullseye on Britain. I really do wonder at his motives - is he really that stupid!

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

That was the most rattled Corbyn has been in his televised appearances this campaign, you could tell he was actually struggling to keep his cool there when he refused to respond to one of the audience members entirely

I didn't hear that audience member actually ask him a question.

[joeysteele]

Corbyn did respond, he answered of course not but that wasn't enough for the likely Con warmonger in the audience.
Where in earth is the logic of demanding someone to push a button to wipe out millions of people and even Nations.
What a crazy obsession that is to me.
Nuclear weapons we get told,if countries have them,help ensure they won't be used.
That's fine and that's Labour policy to have them.

For me the cost is obscene to have them but there it is.
Corbyn however, who has been against them all his political life simply stood true to that stance.

He could have blatantly lied and made life far easier for himself,by simply saying yes he would use them as a first strike.
He didn't and stayed true to his by conviction as to the nuclear issue.
Sorry but I admire that, I don't want trigger happy warmongers with their finger on such a button either.
The question was a waste of time as we have had this for years since Corbyn was elected leader anyway.

Both got poor questions but again, to that Nurse being paid the same now as she was in 2009, the lack of empathy from Mrs May on that and patronising stating they had to make hard decisions was really awful.

How can reducing taxes for the well off already be justified if hard decisions did need to be made.

I think this Q&A session,not a debate, revealed nothing we didn't already know.
Really though,the nuclear issue I knew would be raised and for me it is time to start thinking seriously about these earth destroying weapons.

Someone somewhere has to start doing something else as to trying to decrease the quantity of them in the World, talking very important and the Iran decision is at least a promising possible start.

Now it may not be that Corbyn is the one to get anything going as to reducing nuclear weapons,however for sure a trigger happy warmongering,interfering govt like this present govt. is certainly not the best likely choice either.

Tony Blair sadly went down the international domination and interfering Road,making things worse.
This govt. as to Libya and now Syria again making near similar big errors of interference and involvement.

Perhaps a govt.more concerned at dealing with UK home issues rather than playing too big in conflicts in other areas of the World, may be a better way to gain more respect by earning it,rather than trying to demand it by force.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I didn't hear that audience member actually ask him a question.

The question had been asked as to N Korea,the same questioner wasn't bothered we gave funds to N Korea though which Mrs May was pulled up on.
Corbyn answered, ''of course not''.

There was a further comment,not a question, which Corbyn let pass.
Nothing Corbyn was going to say would have satisfied that fool in the audience and his obsession with using nuclear weapons first.

[Kizzy]

I'm inclined to believe those audience questions were not genuine, my reasoning behind this is that on every chat show, interview and debate that has occurred since the election was announced Corbyn has been asked the same questions...If these people are so interested in politics surely they have heard his reply and his reasonings by now?

Why too are the general public less interested in domestic policies hand how good the candidates are at aiding the electorate, supporting the elderly, children, workers and the environment and more interested in how he intends to annihilate people?.... :/

Ask yourself logically, how plausible is this continued rhetoric, I'm not surprised he looked strained he knew these were dupes.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm inclined to believe those audience questions were not genuine, my reasoning behind this is that on every chat show, interview and debate that has occurred since the election was announced Corbyn has been asked the same questions...If these people are so interested in politics surely they have heard his reply and his reasonings by now?

Why too are the general public less interested in domestic policies hand how good the candidates are at aiding the electorate, supporting the elderly, children, workers and the environment and more interested in how he intends to annihilate people?.... :/

Ask yourself logically, how plausible is this continued rhetoric, I'm not surprised he looked strained he knew these were dupes.

Because it's not much good having good domestic policies if it could all be gone in a cloud of dust is it.

Security should be at the top of the priority list in these dangerous times. What does it take for people to realise what a dangerous world we live in, how under threat we are - how big a target the UK would be.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm inclined to believe those audience questions were not genuine, my reasoning behind this is that on every chat show, interview and debate that has occurred since the election was announced Corbyn has been asked the same questions...If these people are so interested in politics surely they have heard his reply and his reasonings by now?

Why too are the general public less interested in domestic policies hand how good the candidates are at aiding the electorate, supporting the elderly, children, workers and the environment and more interested in how he intends to annihilate people?.... :/

Ask yourself logically, how plausible is this continued rhetoric, I'm not surprised he looked strained he knew these were dupes.

That same thought crossed my mind last night.

Why did nobody in the audience ask May about the Naylor report which firmly points out that the Łbillions promised for the NHS is going towards the sell off and not towards re-stabilization of our medical system ?

Ok, I excuse people for not knowing about the Naylor report but many of us know about the privatization of the NHS and so far, throughout all of these questions and debates, I haven't seen anyone ask questions about it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Because it's not much good having good domestic policies if it could all be gone in a cloud of dust is it.

Security should be at the top of the priority list in these dangerous times. What does it take for people to realise what a dangerous world we live in, how under threat we are - how big a target the UK would be.

Why... Why us, why would the other nuclear countries target us?

What are you so scared of ...who are you so scared of?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Unfortunately the PM came across well despite as usual skirting around questions with Crosby's soundbites.

I wish Jeremy would just say he'd press the button in retaliation, I admire his lifelong belief but we have so many bloodthirsty ****ing dolts in this country who are oblivious to the fact that if anyone uses a nuclear weapon, that is it for humanity, and tit-for-tat retaliation is futile.

Where's the accusations of right wing bias in this audience I wonder?

I agree with all that again.

There is an intolerance to.the word peace being more used as to real security
With a bloodthirsty element among voters of would you use nuclear against this one,that one or anyone.
That likely war obsessed to the extreme notwithstanding in the audience pressing Corbyn to say why he would not press a first strike nuclear assault,spoke volumes.

Within my own family,we were pro nuclear but slowly the feeling has cemented,as you clearly point out Jack_,once anyone starts to use them,that is it.
If there as a deterrent but not to be used means they are not well and good.

Honestly though seriously,surely trying to dismantle the evil weapons is far more credible and someone somewhere leading a Nation needs to try at least to begin that process.

I think Corbyn could get heard,he may not achieve total dismantling but this obsession with a leader should or be made to press the button is sheer madness.
Once it happens it will become a free for all with full fatal devastation for the whole human race.

No rhyme or reason to it whatsoever.

[Kizzy]

Why not make friends with France again? They're 25 miles away.... they have one, we could borrow theirs

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Why... Why us, why would the other nuclear countries target us?

What are you so scared of ...who are you so scared of?

Those who don't understand the power of the deterrent factor or the likely effect of telling the world you would never press that button.

The not knowing is what helps keep us safe.

[Northern Monkey]

I would love for a multilateral disarmament of nuclear weapons worldwide.I think everyone would.
However unilateral disarmament is not an option.
There is a power balance accross the world now.
There are two sides and both sides have to maintain that balance to keep the peace.
That's why Russia are so against missile defence systems in Eastern Europe.
It imbalances global stability if one side is more powerful than the other.
If for instance the UK,France and Israel disarmed then it would leave Russia,China and North Korea in a slightly strategically advantageous position.
If America disarmed then Russia would be in the position to invade the baltic states and take them back under Russian influence.
Countries can't just start taking it up on themselves to unilaterally disarm.
It has to be done globally.