...that’s what’s really sad though...if Boris can express all of those views, and he has...and he can be the dishonest person that he is...and still have the public not scrutinise him more, but many will vote for his party...?...then that shows a huge lacking in the Labour opposition, surely...

It shows a huge failure in the media. Take the Sunday times today; on the front page it was conservative estimate of £1 trillion for labours plans. Not independent, but even on stuff that won't be in the manifesto. Page 2 was the article about Johnsons and the tory party links to Russian funding. When you have the media constantly pushing this BS because they are owned by billionaires, then that's how marketing/propaganda works. Keep drilling the same things into peoples minds and you end with up figures like over 70% of sun readers voting for brexit.

i think you do voters a disservice. They are not unaware of the key issues that are important to them and they vote accordingly. The problem is that there are no good options, very similar to the last USA presidential election. That being the case, voters are more likely to either not vote at all or register some sort of ineffective protest vote.

The best outcome would be another hung parliament, lets see what happens

...I completely see what you’re saying, Slim...it’s everything that’s ever been mentioned by the Labour Party In any degree whatsoever...and to the media, it’s a plan that’s going to happen and the funding will be flying out of their windows..?..I still though think that this is exactly the type of thing that so doesn’t make sense..that if it is being believed..?...it’s because of a leaning to believe it...

If I do them a disservice, then why is propaganda even a thing? And why are (mainly tories) getting involved with Cambridge Analytica and other data mining companies that allow them to target adds and misinformation to the wrong people. I'm not having your false equivalency; there is a good option. One candidate has dedicated his life to fighting injustice and to work for a better society, this can be shown over decades, and you're equating a decent man who's rolled out loads of great policy aims and goal, with a russian funded liar, who's under 2 investigations, and another candidate that voted for all the worst tory policies inflicted on society.

Anyone can vote for anyone, but to say there isn't a good option is completely false. Corbyn isn't fighting to enrich his friends, and you're intelligent enough to know that BJ has ever only been an opportunist.

The government won't release costings on their own plans or the cost of brexit, yet what they have to say about labour costings is front page news in the times. This isn't some local village paper

What are the policies that are said to be costly? That way we can make up our own minds.

The Labour party didn't help themselves with some of the proposals that came out of their party conference. Some of the stuff wasn't credible... eg. 2030 net-zero carbon emissions target and scrapping private schooling.

But I don't know if those will be manifesto pledges?

Sunday Times only has a circulation of 700,000 btw, and you have to pay to read articles online. It's not that widely read.

I saw this ,they really do skirt around the questions don't they ? :laugh:

The Big Problem
for Labour
is Corbyn has said Publicly
he will NOT US Nukes.................

You know the government is bad when people have to celebrate narrowly avoiding a recession :joker:

Sure Liam

So it's now a problem that a potential leader of the country won't use nuclear weapons? Can you not see the madness in this? The whole world has tried to avoid using these weapons since the horror of Japan in 1945. A country using these weapons against another country could easily lead to the humanity being wiped off the planet.

This is just completely ****ing stupid.

Yes but as Corbyn has Stated he will not use them
that is Wrong
as the Leader must keep that secret.



If we get Nuked by a Nation
we must fire back
That is normal

But countries have signed up to pacts specifically not to use these weapons against each other. The premise of the question is absurd to begin with. Generations lived in fear of these weapons actually being used, but now not using them makes someone weak? It just highlights the anti-intellectual cesspit we've crawled down.

Give me a leader that says he/she won't use these weapons, over a tough talking idiot that says he/she will.

The Sunday times isn't a major sunday broadsheet?

A pattern?

That means Nothing
like when Hitler Signed the British Peace Paper
for that terrible prime minister Neville Chamberlain,

Leaders can Change fast
in any nations.

If only life and politics was easy as talking tough. Give me fewer children in poverty over this stupidity.

Let's say Russia nukes us, then what? They have enough nukes to wipe the planet clean many times over, so you're the PM (lol - you couldn't even beat the SLF :smug: ) and you get the call, do you tell the generals to nuke them back?

C'mon, this should be an easy decision for you because using nukes is a black and white thing and acting tough is easy, right?

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. It's not hard to understand. I would much rather have a prime minister who is prepared to use them than one who would invite the invading enemy in for a coffee and a chat

Ahhh yes, the two equal and opposing sides of the nuclear weapons debate is being "prepared to use them" versus "coffee and a chat."

Here's another example.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJBVaPwW...pg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJBVaPwX...pg&name=medium