[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I have to for Kirk

[MTVN]

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.

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

Clearly a flippant comment where he was playing to the TV audience and intended as a joke at Labour's expense, even if it was an ill judged one. Its not exactly an official declaration of government policy.

[Tom4784]

I think we should scale back our nuclear arsenal regardless, We spend far too much on what's essentially a 'mutually assured destruction' button. I'm all for preventative measures but the billions spent on nuclear weaponry would be better served elsewhere.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

Not too simple for you to answer it seems, looks like given the choice it would be you sat alone hugging your nuke

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I think we should scale back our nuclear arsenal regardless, We spend far too much on what's essentially a 'mutually assured destruction' button. I'm all for preventative measures but the billions spent on nuclear weaponry would be better served elsewhere.

Precisely, it's not defense if we're all going to be wiped out regardless of its usage. Nuclear weapons need to be internationally outlawed completely, horrible dangerous things.

[Kizzy]

Trident is obsolete that's the issue, this would be our chance to decommission, so why not?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not too simple for you to answer it seems, looks like given the choice it would be you sat alone hugging your nuke

Are you suggesting that I am only equal to answering 'simple' questions?

Yes, I am all for the preservation of an up-to-date nuclear deterrent but - again - the choice posed in the OP is idiotic and beneath legitimising with an answer.

We have both, and the only possible way that we will end up with neither, is heeding the advice and wishes of anti-Uk, anti-Democracy Mr Wurzel Gummidge Corbyn and all the Aunt Sallys which follow him.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Precisely, it's not defense if we're all going to be wiped out regardless of its usage. Nuclear weapons need to be internationally outlawed completely, horrible dangerous things.

Multi-Lateral disarmament is a pipe-dream Josh, and unilateral disarmament would be a lethal nightmare.

[joeysteele]

Well I am happy to be an Aunt Sally following Corbyn,far better than following ditherer Cameron any day, at least Corbyn sticks to what he says in the main.

I think the OP question is quite valid,a simple choice between preserving public services or spending more and more on nuclear weapons which in all truth, should not and likely would not ever be used.

I agree also with all Dezzy said too,the spending should be curbed back as to nuclear weapons and again I say, we should have something that is ours and not reliant on permission granted from the USA to use,if god forbid we ever had to.

I've gone then from also being a loonie left wing extremist to an Aunt Sally, it just gets better and better.
However if all those terms mean I don't support this heartless bunch of what we have in this present govt, then call us Labour supporters all you like.

Anyway,Insults thrown at others, say more about the one insulting, than it ever will about those who are the ones being 'generalised' insulted.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well I am happy to be an Aunt Sally following Corbyn,far better than following ditherer Cameron any day, at least Corbyn sticks to what he says in the main.

I think the OP question is quite valid,a simple choice between preserving public services or spending more and more on nuclear weapons which in all truth, should not and likely would not ever be used.

I agree also with all Dezzy said too,the spending should be curbed back as to nuclear weapons and again I say, we should have something that is ours and not reliant on permission granted from the USA to use,if god forbid we ever had to.

I've gone from also being a loonie left wing extremist to an Aunt Sally, it just gets better and better.
However if all those terms mean I don't support this heartless bunch of what we have in this present govt, then call us labour supporters all you like.

Anyway,Insults thrown at others, say more about the one insulting, than it ever will about those who are the ones being 'generalised' insulted.

Agreed, there's no argument that we should be investing in growth, infrastructure, jobs, health or education just the relentless focus on war and welfare spending from this govt.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Agreed, there's no argument that we should be investing in growth, infrastructure, jobs, health or education just the relentless focus on war and welfare spending from this govt.

From one Aunt Sally to another,I agree totally,which will be of no surprise to anyone I doubt.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

From one Aunt Sally to another,I agree totally,which will be of no surprise to anyone I doubt.

I once won a fancy dress competition as aunt sally So it was quite prophetic really, hey we should join the Sally army!

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;8321806]Well I am happy to be an Aunt Sally following Corbyn,far better than following ditherer Cameron any day, at least Corbyn sticks to what he says in the main.

"far better than following ditherer Cameron any day"

I did not vote for Cameron - I voted for Farage, but I do support more of Cameron's policies than the non-policies of Corbyn, who sadly is an unmitigated disaster for an already ailing Labour Party.

"at least Corbyn sticks to what he says in the main".
Come on Joey - Corbyn is like a restrained feral dog which has been muzzled and pumped full of tranquilisers by his 'owners' so that he toes the party line and presents a more 'acceptable face' to voters.

As a result of the above, Corbyn does ANYTHING but 'stick to what he says', as his unrelenting succession of infamous 'U Turns' attest.

Is the 'Poppy Wearing, 'Queen Bowing', 'National Anthem Singing', 'EU Agreeing', 'Trident Tolerant', 'Non Nation Book Balancing', Jeremy Corbyn the REAL Corbyn?

Is it hell.

"I agree also with all Dezzy said too,the spending should be curbed back as to nuclear weapons and again I say, we should have something that is ours and not reliant on permission granted from the USA to use,if god forbid we ever had to."


The OP clearly states that this is a straight CHOICE beween TWO options -
"well-equipped schools and hospitals" OR "New Nuclear Weapons", so you cannot elect to have a reduced or modified version of a nuclear deterrent because it is outside the paramaters of the idiotic question in the OP.

"I've gone then from also being a loonie left wing extremist to an Aunt Sally, it just gets better and better. However if all those terms mean I don't support this heartless bunch of what we have in this present govt, then call us Labour supporters all you like."

Now, I am being taken out of context. I was referring specifically to Corbyn - a man who I detest as much as you detest Cameron.

I did not refer to the Labour Party OR Labour Supporters. I clearly said; "Wurzel Gummidge Corbyn and the Aunt Sally's who follow him', because - to me - Corbyn DOES NOT REPRESENT THE REAL LABOUR PARTY, as over half the Shadow Cabinet and an increasingly more vociferous number of Labour supporters are in agreement. To me, 'Following the Labour Party' and 'Following Corbyn' are two DISTINCLY different things, and that DISTINCTION is becoming more apparent every day - evidenced by the growing schism WITHIN the party due to Wurzel and his TRUE ideologies.

"Anyway,Insults thrown at others, say more about the one insulting, than it ever will about those who are the ones being 'generalised' insulted."

I know all about 'insults' on here Joey, being the recipent of numerous ones - no matter how much they may be thinly veiled or mitigated by a joker emotican or two, and I am sorry if you feel insulted by my comments, but I feel that I have as much rights to berate and name-call a hateful idiot such as Corbyn as you do Cameron.

And yes - I did refer to anyone following Corbyn as an Aunt Sally, because I cannot understand how anyone can follow this dangerous idiot, because he does not even REPRESENT true Labour values and I fear that the truth is, that the majority of those who do follow him do so by default because he IS the Labour Leader (by title) and as such is the antithesis of Cameron - a man they detest, or because in Corbyn, they have found a man who embodies all the anti-Western, anti-British, anti-Democratic, Terrorist Appeasing, warped ideologies they themselves hold dear.

I do not personally place you in either category so I am a little confused where you are concerned Joey, I confess.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Precisely, it's not defense if we're all going to be wiped out regardless of its usage. Nuclear weapons need to be internationally outlawed completely, horrible dangerous things.

Josh, I want you to think about this - You are a trouble causing aggressive bully out looking to punch someone's head in for no good reason. There are two men standing at a bar - one stands all of 5' 2"" tall, weighs 6 stone, and wears spectacles and clutches a copy of the 'Nerd Weekly For Pacifists' in his frail, soft pink little hand, the other is 6' 6" tall, weighs 20 stone of rippling muscle, has a battle-scarred face carved from granite, and is clutching a copy of 'Ring' magazine in his massive fist.

Which potential 'victim' are you going to follow and attack?

That's right Josh - the DEFENCELESS one. The one most likely not to retaliate, the one least EQUIPPED to put up much of a fight and beat you even if he DID try to retaliate.

Should '6 stone weaklings' have a RIGHT to live life without being attacked by moronic bullies? YES of course.

But DO moronic bullies sometimes beat up 6 stone weaklings anyway? YES of course they do.

And this is EXACTLY WHY we NEED a nuclear deterrent.

Sane, peace-loving people do NOT WANT nuclear weapons, but in this world of insane violent terrorists and unstable Regimes run by insane violent Despots - we NEED a nuclear deterrent.

Many countries around the world have conventional weapons - guns, bombs, knives - but they are NOT using those guns to kill innocent people. They are NOT using those knives to behead innocent people, and they are not strapping those bombs to themselves to commit suicide in order to kill innocent people.

All too sickenly frequently, atrocity after atrocity comitted by IS in some country of the world makes headlines. But analyse the stories behind those headlines and you will RECOGNISE a very clear pattern - These insane murderers are NOT bravely parachuting into Army barracks or into heavily defended Military areas, they are cowardly taking unarmed, unprepared inocent victims by surprise and using the advantage their weapons gives them to GUARANTEE success of their evil plans.

Which is the point of my opening analogy.

BULLIES will NOT engage with 'Victims' who are prepared and equally armed .
So can you imagine what would happen if these nutcases did get hold of nuclear weapons (as they are trying to do as I write).

Do you think they would shrink from using them against an unprepared 'enemy' who DID NOT have nuclear weapons with which to retaliate, the same way they use bombs, bullets and knives against unprepared unarmed innocent civilians now?

In the 70 years since these terrible weapons were first used - no one has used them since.

They have been, and are a DETERRENT. Which IS their real purpose.

But to be a detterrent, such weapons must be updated and ready to meet or surpass any threat which evolves from implied to imminent.

The cost of ensuring an up to date nuclear deterrent might be indecently high, but the cost of NOT having one WILL one day be fatally imeasurable and unthinkable.

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=kirklancaster;8322305]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well I am happy to be an Aunt Sally following Corbyn,far better than following ditherer Cameron any day, at least Corbyn sticks to what he says in the main.

"far better than following ditherer Cameron any day"

I did not vote for Cameron - I voted for Farage, but I do support more of Cameron's policies than the non-policies of Corbyn, who sadly is an unmitigated disaster for an already ailing Labour Party.

"at least Corbyn sticks to what he says in the main".
Come on Joey - Corbyn is like a restrained feral dog which has been muzzled and pumped full of tranquilisers by his 'owners' so that he toes the party line and presents a more 'acceptable face' to voters.

As a result of the above, Corbyn does ANYTHING but 'stick to what he says', as his unrelenting succession of infamous 'U Turns' attest.

Is the 'Poppy Wearing, 'Queen Bowing', 'National Anthem Singing', 'EU Agreeing', 'Trident Tolerant', 'Non Nation Book Balancing', Jeremy Corbyn the REAL Corbyn?

Is it hell.

"I agree also with all Dezzy said too,the spending should be curbed back as to nuclear weapons and again I say, we should have something that is ours and not reliant on permission granted from the USA to use,if god forbid we ever had to."


The OP clearly states that this is a straight CHOICE beween TWO options -
"well-equipped schools and hospitals" OR "New Nuclear Weapons", so you cannot elect to have a reduced or modified version of a nuclear deterrent because it is outside the paramaters of the idiotic question in the OP.

"I've gone then from also being a loonie left wing extremist to an Aunt Sally, it just gets better and better. However if all those terms mean I don't support this heartless bunch of what we have in this present govt, then call us Labour supporters all you like."

Now, I am being taken out of context. I was referring specifically to Corbyn - a man who I detest as much as you detest Cameron.

I did not refer to the Labour Party OR Labour Supporters. I clearly said; "Wurzel Gummidge Corbyn and the Aunt Sally's who follow him', because - to me - Corbyn DOES NOT REPRESENT THE REAL LABOUR PARTY, as over half the Shadow Cabinet and an increasingly more vociferous number of Labour supporters are in agreement. To me, 'Following the Labour Party' and 'Following Corbyn' are two DISTINCLY different things, and that DISTINCTION is becoming more apparent every day - evidenced by the growing schism WITHIN the party due to Wurzel and his TRUE ideologies.

"Anyway,Insults thrown at others, say more about the one insulting, than it ever will about those who are the ones being 'generalised' insulted."

I know all about 'insults' on here Joey, being the recipent of numerous ones - no matter how much they may be thinly veiled or mitigated by a joker emotican or two, and I am sorry if you feel insulted by my comments, but I feel that I have as much rights to berate and name-call a hateful idiot such as Corbyn as you do Cameron.

And yes - I did refer to anyone following Corbyn as an Aunt Sally, because I cannot understand how anyone can follow this dangerous idiot, because he does not even REPRESENT true Labour values and I fear that the truth is, that the majority of those who do follow him do so by default because he IS the Labour Leader (by title) and as such is the antithesis of Cameron - a man they detest, or because in Corbyn, they have found a man who embodies all the anti-Western, anti-British, anti-Democratic, Terrorist Appeasing, warped ideologies they themselves hold dear.

I do not personally place you in either category so I am a little confused where you are concerned Joey, I confess.

I am not bothered in the least,I insult no one, even generally or directly, I have my opinions on voters in some areas of the UK who are at odds with the rest of the UK.
I judge Politicians, PMs and cabinet Ministers on what they do with power.

You did not however specify who the Aunt Sally's were,you just said the Aunt Sally's who supported Corbyn.
Well I for one do support him, I also don't accept that he is in any way dangerous either.

Furthermore, I answered the question,I said in a straight choice between the 2 in the vote above, I would vote for Public services.
That however does not stop me also agreeing with Dezzy, who made a valid strong and reasoned point too in relation to topic at large in expansion of the topic.
It still doesn't mean the vote is void as it asks a specific choice from those who decide to vote in it.

I always maintain and accept there is little that is only black or white in total, there are always loads of grey areas too.
That does not prevent me making a choice in a simple question with 2 choices one way or the other, if that was the only options given at the time.

If however I don't like the question,then I do not need to vote in it,very simple.
That does not however in any way negate the question asked nor should it invite derision as to who asked it either.

Now flying right off topic for a time but to deal with the points you threw at me.
Finally I think you are wrong completely as to Corbyn not representing the Labour party, there were all the years of Blair not doing that and turning Labour into a milder Conservative party.

This Labour party appeals to me far more than Blair's ever did or could,there is loads too I could agree with the Conservatives on if they were not so discriminating,heartless and void of all compassion in their current policymaking.
Furthermore as to policy,I know a great many in Labour who like the policies unfurling from Corbyn and whether he stays or goes before 2020, I hope much of his plans and policies remain intact, as a real and true alternative to the heartlessness and injustice there has been this last 5+ years now under this particular PM and his govt.

[Kizzy]

'The cost of ensuring an up to date nuclear deterrent might be indecently high, but the cost of NOT having one WILL one day be fatally imeasurable and unthinkable.'

Well yes 40 billion is the estimated figure, as heard on question time. It was intimated that in order to provide it services may suffer, that was the whole crux of my question.

It's not idiotic to attempt to predict who is for a total replacement of a nuclear deterrent and who isn't due to the affectation of public services, due to the impact of such measures.
There is a live chat about it at 12 today if anyone is interested.

http://www.theguardian.com/society-p...vices-livechat

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'The cost of ensuring an up to date nuclear deterrent might be indecently high, but the cost of NOT having one WILL one day be fatally imeasurable and unthinkable.'

Well yes 40 billion is the estimated figure, as heard on question time. It was intimated that in order to provide it services may suffer, that was the whole crux of my question.

It's not idiotic to attempt to predict who is for a total replacement of a nuclear deterrent and who isn't due to the affectation of public services, due to the impact of such measures.
There is a live chat about it at 12 today if anyone is interested.

http://www.theguardian.com/society-p...vices-livechat

And so it has NOT occurred to you that this TORY Cabinet Minister might have been pre-emptingly 'planting' a 'seed' on a NATIONAL television program watched by only the 'poiltically' interested - a 'seed' which will subconsciously grow in the viewer's minds that IF we are to HAVE a 'viable' and 'vital' nuclear deterrent, then we must EXPECT further cuts in some of our services?

This Tory Cabinet Minister must either be a complete idiot, or he had ulterior motives for stating what he has - motives which could include the very clever 'softening up' of an increasingly anxious, terrorist aware public - acclimatising them to, and making them more receptive to, the idea that future cuts to some services are 'unavoidable'.

[Kizzy]

Well yes... That's exactly what I think he was saying.

[Kizzy]

'in the case of the Cold War, through deterrence may have helped promote stability, it did not create genuine peace. The last forty years in Europe have seen merely the absence of war, which has not been real peace but a facsimile founded dear. At best, building arms to maintain peace serves only as a temporary measure. As long as adversaries do not trust each other, any number of factors can upset the balance of power. Lasting peace can assure secured only on the basis of genuine trust.'

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/wo...reality-of-war

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'in the case of the Cold War, through deterrence may have helped promote stability, it did not create genuine peace. The last forty years in Europe have seen merely the absence of war, which has not been real peace but a facsimile founded dear. At best, building arms to maintain peace serves only as a temporary measure. As long as adversaries do not trust each other, any number of factors can upset the balance of power. Lasting peace can assure secured only on the basis of genuine trust.'

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/wo...reality-of-war

Lasting peace is just unrealistic though without a deterrent and belongs in the fairytale Corbynite dream land.We have been on the brink of WW3 a number of times during the Cold War.The only thing that stopped it happening was the fact that nuclear weapons exist.Nobody wanted to be responsible for armageddon.Like it or not,Nuclear weapons are the main reason we have peace between the super power nations.Europe would have been a bloody battle ground again without them.It's a lovely idea that all nations can get along in a big fluffy fairytale but it is not in human nature.Trident is at work every day keeping us safer.The fact that we don't have to use it is exactly its purpose.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Lasting peace is just unrealistic though without a deterrent and belongs in the fairytale Corbynite dream land.We have been on the brink of WW3 a number of times during the Cold War.The only thing that stopped it happening was the fact that nuclear weapons exist.Nobody wanted to be responsible for armageddon.Like it or not,Nuclear weapons are the main reason we have peace between the super power nations.Europe would have been a bloody battle ground again without them.It's a lovely idea that all nations can get along in a big fluffy fairytale but it is not in human nature.Trident is at work every day keeping us safer.The fact that we don't have to use it is exactly its purpose.

That's a very nihilistic view.

The Corbynite view is in line with a spiritual leader, you say that like it's a bad thing. Whose are Camerons fire and brimstone views more closely related to, if you want comparisons?

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's a very nihilistic view.

The Corbynite view is in line with a spiritual leader, you say that like it's a bad thing. Whose are Camerons fire and brimstone views more closely related to, if you want comparisons?

Cameron's views are pragmatic and realistic, not idealistic and fanciful

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Cameron's views are pragmatic and realistic, not idealistic and fanciful

Realistic? He has had weeks to convince the commons that this is the right thing to do... and he still can't.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Cameron's views are pragmatic and realistic, not idealistic and fanciful

Read my mind

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Read my mind

AND mine.