I imagine he'd have done something mad like invade Ukraine if it wasn't for Trident.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Or they have prevented major wars on those ocassions more like. Tensions couldn't escalte into major warefare because of MAD.
He is doing as much as he can. Any designs on Western Europe are impossible due to nuclear weapons.
Ironically
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-26676051
Do you have any setting other than sarcasm by the way?
So how does that work with something like the Norwegian rocket incident?
Europe spent the best part of 50 years basically partitioned between two superpowers. If Russia had invaded conventionally, they'd almost certainly have won. All those times when thee world came extremely close to war over nukes, imagine those without nukes. Imagine those belligerent generals like Curtis LaMay straining at the leash to kick some commie ass, and his Russian counterparts who I'm sure were just as bad given their love of crushing dissent in Eastern Europe with tanks. Imagine those feckers free to whisper in their political masters ears without the easy defence of 'the nukes would destroy the world'. Hell these are the same types of assholes who at various points were pushing both sides to consider surprise first strike attacks WITH nukes.
And if you think those kinds of people are only in the past, go listen to some modern day Republicans.
that is one of various competing explanations. Nuclear weapons might have had utility in the past but nowadays they are essentially useless at best and extremely dangerous at worst.
If countries really want to cling on to these weapons (to their own detriment), committing to use them only in an incident of a nuclear attack (and adjusting the capabilities accordingly) would be a solid first step. Sadly the current government seems to think differently. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html
Its your money that is wasted and your security, that is undermined, so I am not too bothered either way.
But there's a prioritisation. Unionist voters in these areas (the majority of which are traditional Labour voters in working class areas) are going to be poorer for the Conservative rule.
We're already leaving the EU and the SNP are going to push for another referendum regardless of this election's outcome.
I'm sure they were a huge factor in the cold war - and I think it's actually a good thing that Russia developed nuclear weapons as early as it did for the exact reason you mention above - I just don't buy that they are the only reason we've seen peace, and I also think that their role in keeping peace is diminishing. I'm not even sure that our nuclear weapons will be effective in a couple of decades time. Ours is a system that relies on Russia (or whoever) not being able to find 1 or 2 submarines, or not being able to defend against the relatively small number of missiles that we can launch.
And yet it'd only take a relatively small number of well placed warheads to make our small island almost entirely uninhabitable. Just seems like more trouble than it's worth for us; I'd happily leave it to the US and Russia to sort out between themselves.
Anyway that's my personal beliefs, however it's not something that I think Labour should be campaigning on. Gotta pick your battles.
True. I'm kind of somewhere in the middle on the nuclear debate (used to be very, very against) but our view on nuclear weapons is (at the moment) framed from the perspective of a society who have gotten lucky with them so far. As you say, if there ever was to be an attack involving them, there's a decent chance a lot of attitudes would change.
And I'm not sure they're the only reason we've avoided global conflict again either (although they may have stopped one between the US and Russia). After WWII we saw increased cooperation between European states which has resulted in a lack of conflict since then, and a lot of first world nations have seen improved social conditions to the point where figures such as Hitler tend not to get elected anymore. Meaning we end up with fairly mundane leaders, instead of tyrannical mad men.
And we're talking about a lack of conflict from a Western POV. Someone in Syria or Iraq or Libya won't be saying how nuclear weapons have led to less conflict, for example. Granted, that's not a war on a global scale, but it is a conflict spanning across a pretty massive region.
I think the right (speaking in general terms because this ranges from Tories to Trump) have done an effective job at creating this whole narrative of the liberal left being out of touch elites who sneer on the working classes. It's not really true and is far too generalised for a collective group that could be seen as encompassing figures ranging from Tony Blair to Jeremy Corbyn, but it's definitely become quite prevalent and has been quite effective. Right-wing parties are trying to portray themselves as the honest voice of the people; it's what Trump tried to do with his supporters painting his more outrageous claims as him just being an honest and open guy with no pretenses.
Have you been in a cave for the last 12 months?
I'm talking about what's happened over the past 60 years or so. Naturally, someone like Trump getting in changes a lot...and may very much change how we're looking back at the world once he's gone.
This chart gives a fairly good insight into how votes have shifted in Wales - longstanding steady decline of the Labour vote initially to UKIP, and now that UKIP has outlived its use they're going Tory rather than back to Labour.
The question is getting tiresome. He's showing time and time again that he supports equality for same sex couples. Why not ask him if it's right that he's a Christian?
According to the bible, pre-marital sex is a sin. Why not ask him that? What is important here is how he's voted on the issue.
Focusing on the wrong stuff here, but...
Their signs always look so cheap and shitty. I think they've been using the same one since the birth of the party. Looks like a load of people tore up road signs and had a get-together.
They're the ones voting for their decimation.
Mmm
I fear for this country.
Once with Brexit, twice with this election, maybe they will have learned their lesson by 2022
This is so fecking frustrating. We already do work weekends. In fact, I have literally just come off a series of weekend nights. Pretty much all doctors (unless you have chosen carefully ie Dermatology) work weekends.
The NHS has been screwed over for a while but I have not seen such a drop in quality of care, number of staff, safety and morale of the workforce in my time within the NHS. I simply can't stomach it any more and am looking for an out for myself and my family. Many of my colleagues are doing the same. For the 5th or 6th biggest biggest economy in the world to have such a problem with staff retention is an absolute disgrace.
So many things are putting me off this country currently. Its such a shame.
I think it is the working class, who for a whole variety of reasons, are choosing to go for the Tories in a perfect storm of an election. I do not think they will end up any better off with them in power.
Never seen anything like it. People flocking to the party that continues to impose austerity and make them poorer because of immigrants they hardly see. And we make fun of the Yanks.
The lunatics have taken over the assylum in this country
Hope Scotland gain their independence and prosper. I'm scheduled to relocate there next year. Always liked Edinburgh
Hope Scotland gain their independence and prosper. I'm scheduled to relocate there next year. Always liked Edinburgh
Brilliant city...but if things stay the way they are, you might have a Tory MP. Which is quite remarkable.
I am not a Corbyn supporter. I think he is an ineffectual opposition leader and would likely be an ineffectual PM too, even though I do like many of his policies. He does not help himself in the slightest.
However, do you really think the media treat him 'fairly'? Or that they approach him in an objective way?
Look at this article which I read yesterday for example.
https://www.ft.com/content/92fe3510-240d-11e7-a34a-538b4cb30025
Corbyn visits a factory where trains are assembled. Wears (I believe) a modern reinforced safety hat, as well as goggles. And the Financial times (not the DM/ Sun/ Express) publish an article about him wearing a 'baseball cap' and emerging from a 'commuter train'?
Really?
Tears
The political situation in this country is depressing.
A lot of liberals on the left won't bother turning up.
Last edited:
For peers? After they abolish the House of Lords?
I'm talking about normal voters.
If those swings the other day were accurate, I think it resulted in all but one of the MPs in the Edinburgh area becoming Tory
If those swings the other day were accurate, I think it resulted in all but one of the MPs in the Edinburgh area becoming Tory
Considering there's five, I'm not sure if there might be two that don't go Tory under those predictions. Not sure exactly though. Edinburgh East is the safest one, and Edinburgh South is predicted to swing from Labour to Tory.
I do find it a bit strange, though. My knowledge of Edinburgh's partly limited even though I know the centre alright, but it does feel like a very liberal, metropolitan kind of place. I can certainly see why it's more Tory than Glasgow, which remains staunchly anti-Tory along with nearly all of the West of Scotland.
Will be interested to see if the Tories supplant Labour and get into second place in my own constituency. They don't have a hope in hell of winning it, but second is now a very realistic possibility which is incredible.
I just can't see traditional Labour voters voting Tory. I know Labour voters who voted for Brexit and they're not going to start voting Tory now or even UKIP.
I think a couple of them needed really absurdly big swings which only one of the polls out provided, but even so.
I want you to get out with a "Are you a Tory?" placard in your constituency and see if you can find some.
It's possibly age related, according to the poll breakdowns - https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...hBarometerResults_April17_WestminsterVI_W.pdf - under 50s are still breaking to Labour fairly comfortably, but over 50s are just as comfortably Tory whilst also being far more numerous. On a related note:
To be fair, the main town of my constituency (well over half of it) probably isn't where most of em' are...it's the affluent wee towns and villages on the outskirts. But yeah, I'm fascinated to find out who these Tories are because I genuinely think I only know one or two at a push. Whereas I know a ton of Labour/SNP/Greens. Even a fair few who have voted Lib Dem at some point. Which actually highlights a stark divide, cause I'd like to think I have a varied circle of people I know. There must be some Labour voters I know going Tory though. Has to be.
To be fair, the main town of my constituency (well over half of it) probably isn't where most of em' are...it's the affluent wee towns and villages on the outskirts. But yeah, I'm fascinated to find out who these Tories are because I genuinely think I only know one or two at a push. Whereas I know a ton of Labour/SNP/Greens. Even a fair few who have voted Lib Dem at some point. There must be some Labour voters I know going Tory though. Has to be.
I guess it makes sense in Scotland more than anywhere else though. The SNP have always done well off the two big Unionist parties taking votes off each other, I guess it was inevitable that one would win out and combined with Yes/Leave voters defecting it's ripe for the Tories to sweep in.
Yep, just fascinating to see the extent to which it's happened, and the quickness with which it's happened as well. I presumed they'd just about maxed out at Holyrood last year.
You could argue that the magnitude of Russia launching a nuclear bomb made them hold out and prevented conflict. Let's say we lived in a world where massive non nuclear bombs like the one the US dropped on Syria were the biggest. I'm sure that Russia would have made a decision to fire one of those back a lot quicker in the same situation, which could have in turn escalated war.
Labour are dead in Scotland. New Labour destroyed the Scottish vote but Corbyn polls so incredibly badly up there they are dead in the water. The SNP will be undermined by losing seats to the Tories and not insignificantly.
What Brexit Labour want no one even knows. It will probably involve staying in the single market, however, which means FoM and you know what that means.
ute
Did not now you worked for the nhs, feel sorry for you. Its the shittiest health service I have come across in the western world, I'm surprised they can employ anyone, my mrs is a nurse.
I would go as far to say the health and care service contributed to the pain my mum felt before she died.
Forgot to add, at least it feels free
I think you're overreacting somewhat. The FT's piece is an irreverent fashion column, not a news story or leader. It also points out that he is sensibly wearing safety gear, while noting it looks stupid.
People regularly laughed at Osborne in high-vis and hard hat on factory visits.
The piece also slates Warren Buffett too.
It points that out after readers had alerted them of the context of the picture. That was not initially the case.
It slates multiple people but the underlying message of the piece is explicit. 'Global left' leader looks stupid and not like a real leader. The same fixation on what Corbyn is wearing/ how he looks that is a relative constant when it comes to analysis of him.
It also may not be a front page news story but I'd generally expect a higher standard from the FT than I would of the Sun for example.
My point anyway was not specifically to attack that article specifically but just the most recent example of what I thought was a rather obvious trend when it comes to the media's analysis of Corbyn. Which just happened to be most fresh in my mind as I read it yesterday.