So instead of being in Cambridge for last night's debate, instead Theresa May was in Devon - which is where this interview for the Plymouth Herald happened... 1.) Two visits in six weeks to one of the country’s most marginal constituencies – is she getting worried? ‘I’m very clear that this is a crucial election for this country.’ 2.) Plymouth is feeling the effects of military cuts. Will she guarantee to protect the city from further pain? ‘I’m very clear that Plymouth has a proud record of connection with the armed forces.’ 3.) How will your Brexit plan make Plymouth better off? ‘I think there is a better future ahead for Plymouth and for the whole of the UK.’ 4.) Will you promise to sort out our transport links? ‘I’m very clear that connectivity is hugely important for Plymouth and the South West generally.’ ...has anyone suggested she take the Turing Test?
Oh, FFS Trump!!! Trump says the Paris pact is an example of "Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other companies". Trump says he "cares deeply about the environment", So apart from confusing 'countries' with 'companies', in what way do you care deeply for the environment?? And where does not believing in climate change and global warming fit into any thinking going on in that tiny, tiny, brain??? TWAT!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/electi...election-2017-lib-dem-leader-pushed-on-brexit What is it with these journos? Paxman the other night almost shouting down Corbyn and now Andrew Neil blindly arrogantly talking over Tim Farron, completely ignoring the fact that he had already answered his question! Ignorant, loud, blustering egos - and for once it's not the politicians!!
Neil is particularly pompous, patronising and self-righteous these days. Paxman has made a career out of it.
My views on this election are divided. On the one hand Corbyn came out out last night's debate quite strongly. On the other hand, there are one or two key issues (Trident - I'm afraid to say - and others) that mean I couldn't bring myself to vote for him. May though, comes across as utterly ineffective. 'Call Me Dave' was a bit of a dick but he at least could do the bread and butter of being a politician, beyond shagging pigs. I'm in the rare position of being less than a week out from an election or referendum and having no idea whatsoever at this stage who I'll vote for. Past the big two, I like some of what the Lib Dems are saying, but their leader is a nutcase and I can't trust them (snuck in just before the uni fees went up...). The Greens are a non option. As a dual US citizen, I'm familiar with the situation of a "no-win" election, but this feels far worse.
It will be fun if they get rid of her with 12 months if it is such a tight result. Who do they go for? I think they should take a leaf out of many a PL club and appoint a continental Conservative who fits their ideal exactly. Step forward, Sarkozy. He would be excellent for them and no doubt lead them back into the European fold of centre-right parties where they should be and not on the extremes.
What are the two issues? Corbyn has already said he will renew trident even if he is against it as thats what the labour party want (not sure if its in their manifesto)
I fail to undersand of the point of spunking billions of £ renewing Trident. Does anyone see any sense in it at all when police numbers have been slashed, school funding slashed and local Government services shredded to the bone. Conservatives are no doubt relying on the role of philnathropists to fill the void here.
Its a nuclear deterrent. It means people are less likely to invade you if they knew you could ruin them and the planet
✔@PressSec .@POTUS "I was elected by voters of Pittsburgh, not Paris. I promised I wld exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve US interests" ✔@billpeduto Fact: Hillary Clinton received 80% of the vote in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh stands with the world & will follow Paris Agreement @HillaryClinton https://twitter.com/theinclinepgh/status/870368024926224384 …
There ought to be a 'none of the above' on the voting form and if 'none of the above' wins, then the election is voided and each party has to elect a new new leader before a re-run. All candidates with less then 25% of the vote in their constituancy would be barred from standing for two parliaments. It would get rid of the deadwood.
It didn't deter the Argentinians from invading the Falklands, the Iraqis from invading Kuwait and there's other examples, is clearly no use in regional wars like in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and does not stop genocides. It can only be used in the event that everything else has failed and everything will be destroyed anyway, and there are plenty enough nukes to do that without ours. The missiles cannot be used independently anyway since the process relies on American involvement. So the main problem with the independent nuclear deterrent is that it is not independent and it is not a deterrent. There is some argument that the balance of terror helped keep the peace between the start of the nuclear arms race and the end of the cold war, but that was because of the trade off between American and Soviet power. Our contribution is rather pointless and rather expensive. And I speak not as a pacifist by any means. In 1982 the deterrent in the Falklands would have been to keep the patrol ship Endurance on station and keep more troops on the island. That is significantly cheaper than maintaining a fleet of nuclear submarines, and ultimately might have saved many lives. I'm not just for putting the Trident budget straight into the NHS or similar, I think a lot of that should go into conventional (and usable!) defence.
I completely agree with you. I feel that whichever party I vote for, I'm going to get right royally ****ed either way!
Trident is not about deterring invasion you have army's to do that. Trident is about Britain thinking of itself as a big player in the world, it's about having a seat on the top table. It's what also lies behind the campaign to prevent Scottish Independence. Ask yourself, who is going to invade the UK? Russia? North Korea? Do you think that destruction of humanity is preferable to being ruled by a different set of ego's? The position of so called nuclear deterrents is completely nonsensical and just shows how '****ed up' humans are. THink of yourselves as being in the same team and the same club as Trump because that is your level.
Not that trident is ideal since we rely on the americans but someone invading the falklands is very different to someone invading the uk. Theres a reason china doesnt invade n Korea (apart from geopolitics). Its because kim jong un might be crazy enough to use his nuke and the **** show afterwards with refugees and **** isnt something they want to deal with it. Right now no one wants to invade uk and the Western world is in control. Fortunately everyone seems to have their head screwed on but it only takes one person down the line of a powerful country to screw things up. We have only had 2 world wars less than a hundred years ago. Sure it would probably not be too bad if we were ruled by invaders like the Russians or the americans. However if someone like Isis get in (maybe not forever as we seem to be able to keep them in check ) and infiltrate lets say saudi arabia and they were stronger and invaded i think i would press the red button on them than live under how they have been ruling recently. All hypothetical of course. In an ideal world there would be no nukes but the cats out of the bag now. Whilst we disarm trident might as well reduce our army as well. Whos going to go through all of europe first to invade us?
I think we need an elected, proportionally representative House of Lords with enhanced oversight of the lower house. Each party would be required to submit candidate lists. Everyone's vote would count at the constituency (lower house as is now) and the national (upper house) level and people wouldn't feel that their vote was a waste of time if they lived in a safe seat constituency. Equally, it would probably mean that the electorate would dispense with the tactical voting that has allowed 2 parties to dominate government.
