[Kizzy]

'A Cabinet minister has appeared to question whether Britain could continue to afford well-equipped schools and hospitals if it spends money on new nuclear weapons.

Matthew Hancock, the cabinet office minister, was appearing on BBC One’s Question Time programme.'

Which would you rather have?....


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6751206.html

[DemolitionRed]

When and if the darkness comes, it will be the world and not just half of it. When and if we are nuked, the initial bombs will be triggered by a nation committing suicide and it will happen regardless of our defence.

[smudgie]

BoTh. No need for either either.
Thankfully with this government we appear to have them both.

[joeysteele]

Public services are being destroyed from all they were ever since this PM took office in the coalition and worse still now.
Even though public services were not perfect before.

I have a view that we should look for a cheaper nuclear deterrent and also have one that is not under the rule of the USA either.
On balance if it was a straight choice between public services and the nuclear issue then I would go for public services.

[kirklancaster]

"Our Matthew needs putting back in the Cabinet in his Office - and the ruddy door locking.This question is daft. In this violent bloody world - without one, we soon won't have to worry about the other."

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'A Cabinet minister has appeared to question whether Britain could continue to afford well-equipped schools and hospitals if it spends money on new nuclear weapons.

Matthew Hancock, the cabinet office minister, was appearing on BBC One’s Question Time programme.'

Which would you rather have?....


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6751206.html

Both

[Kazanne]

Can't see why we can't have both.

[bots]

its not an either or dilemma. Both is just fine

[joeysteele]

Obviously both but the question asked for one or the other, if the choice was on a referendum say of do we keep public services or nuclear weapons,which would I choose. Then no doubt, I would take the chance/risk and choose public services.

[Jamie89]

If we didn't have nuclear weapons though, would one of the countries that hates us and has them, not just fire one our way and destroy us all? If this would be the outcome of not having nuclear weapons then I can't choose public services, because what would be the point in having them if there's no public?

[Kizzy]

There is no both option.

'A Cabinet minister has appeared to question whether Britain could continue to afford well-equipped schools and hospitals if it spends money on new nuclear weapons.

Please try pick one or the other.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

When and if the darkness comes, it will be the world and not just half of it. When and if we are nuked, the initial bombs will be triggered by a nation committing suicide and it will happen regardless of our defence.

Indeed, this is how I see it. If a nuclear war DOES start, everyone is ****ed regardless of how big their own nukes are

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There is no both option.

'A Cabinet minister has appeared to question whether Britain could continue to afford well-equipped schools and hospitals if it spends money on new nuclear weapons.

Please try pick one or the other.

but its not a realistic option. The cabinet minister is, not to put to fine a point on it, being a simplistic prick

[Vicky.]

Maybe the question should have been worded, which do you prefer 'even more cuts to public services in order to build more nukes' or 'public services left alone and our nukes are fine'. Would this have been better and stopped the it will never happen answers?

[Kizzy]

“We have to reduce our debt but we’re still the fifth richest nation in the world and this week while we’re been told we can’t afford this, we can’t afford that – Cameron’s telling us those four nuclear submarines will cost Ł40bn,” the veteran Labour politician had argued.
“It’s a question of the choices you make. I’d rather our kids had a better education and that we had more hospital beds than four nuclear submarines.”

Another panellist, comedian Matt Forde, told Mr Livingstone: “I want schools, hospitals, and nuclear submarines.”

But Mr Hancock, who has responsibility for the government's efficiency drives, questioned whether all three priorities would be affordable at once.'

These were the comments that led to the 'either/or' question, he inferred that both were not an option simultaneously.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Imagine you could not pay for your dog to get cured because your partner had spunked all the money on another new burglar alarm?

Yes you could get robbed but really...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Imagine you could not pay for your dog to get cured because your partner had spunked all the money on another new burglar alarm?

Yes you could get robbed but really...

Brilliant analogy..

[bots]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Imagine you could not pay for your dog to get cured because your partner had spunked all the money on another new burglar alarm?

Yes you could get robbed but really...

but you are simplifying the issue beyond what is reasonable

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

but you are simplifying the issue beyond what is reasonable

I have to for Kirk

[bots]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I have to for Kirk

Kirk, you have my permission to smack him

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

but you are simplifying the issue beyond what is reasonable

You are complicating the issue, he suggests all three are not a viable option... so what gives? schools, hospitals, or WMDs?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You are complicating the issue, he suggests all three are not a viable option... so what gives? schools, hospitals, or WMDs?

i'm not complicating the issue. He and he alone is saying the choice is one or the other. That's just not realistic and it is over simplistic.


I could equally say, we can afford to pay for cancer treatment or old age pensions. Pick one ..... Its not realistic. He is taking 2 elements and connecting them together when there is no direct either or choice. Only within his simplistic mind

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i'm not complicating the issue. He and he alone is saying the choice is one or the other. That's just not realistic and it is over simplistic.


I could equally say, we can afford to pay for cancer treatment or old age pensions. Pick one ..... Its not realistic. He is taking 2 elements and connecting them together when there is no direct either or choice. Only within his simplistic mind

'Mr Hancock, who has responsibility for the government's efficiency drives, questioned whether all three priorities would be affordable at once.

“Maybe that’s why we ran up so many debts under Labour,” he told the audience.'

It is simple, he scoffs at Labour for borrowing to achieve all three, suggesting that if 40 billion is spent on defence then other elements will suffer.
It's more brutally honest than anything,without further borrowing they can't achieve all three either so what will they do?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i'm not complicating the issue. He and he alone is saying the choice is one or the other. That's just not realistic and it is over simplistic.


I could equally say, we can afford to pay for cancer treatment or old age pensions. Pick one ..... Its not realistic. He is taking 2 elements and connecting them together when there is no direct either or choice. Only within his simplistic mind

A PROPER brilliant analogy. And the question in the OP IS ridiculous and over simplistic - you are 100% correct BitOnTheSlide.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Kirk, you have my permission to smack him