|
Post by champagneprince on May 30, 2017 10:52:54 GMT 1
I suppose having nukes gives you some negotiating power in the event of conflict like The Falklands. Not sure how far Thatcher would've gone if events hadn't gone our way back in 1982, but the 'We'll nuke you' chat may well have been Plan B or C, and for me it's logical to think that any invasion of our overseas territories becomes less likely with a nuclear deterrent in place. I don't believe that we would seriously contemplate starting a nuclear war over the Falklands, then or now. And even if we were crazed enough to do so, I don't believe the US (then or now) would permit us to launch nuclear weapons in those circumstances, especially not on the American continent. Our other NATO allies wouldn't countenance such extreme and disproportionate force either. I don't believe it's really an independent deterrent anyway but I certainly don't think it would be an option in a Falklands-type engagement - it didn't deter Argentina then and it wouldn't deter a similar incursion now. Agreed. However, behind closed doors who knows what goes on! www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/22/books.franceOf course, she would never have done it (although she always had a bit of a mad look in her eye). The crucial thing is the word 'deterrent' and any leader has to make a judgement on whether the threat is real or not. Would she do it? It's a game of political bluff and one that relies on patience, sweating it out and trying to gauge whether your dealing with a madman (woman). Not sure if the Russians would've stopped at Cuba if the Americans had no nuclear deterrent all those years ago. Although it could also be said that the Russians wouldn't be anywhere near Cuba if the Americans had no nuclear deterrent. The likes of Canada and Australia seem to do ok without them?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 30, 2017 10:53:56 GMT 1
Complete waste of time Labour saying they will renew when they have Corbyn who has stated that he would under no circumstances sanction their use. Thus making the deterrent redundant. I suspect that may go for future Labour leaders too if it's Momentum and the like playing king maker. According to a Labour spokesperson on Five Live this morning unless it's voted for being got rid of at a Labour Conference Jezza can do nothing about it apparently? Must be something to do with their part rules and regs? Not sure I understand the point you are making. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time Labour saying that they will renew Trident if the leader of the Labour party (who would then be Prime Minister) would never sanction it's use. It simply means it is redundant. There is no deterrent.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 30, 2017 11:14:31 GMT 1
Surely he's had long enough in politics to have listened to all the experts by now? It would undoubtedly have a significant rebellion, and I wonder if there was enough split whether he would offer a referendum and let the public decide? Also, one question I have for Stutty: do you feel less safe living in a country without WMDs than you did in England? Today is the first time I've thought about the fact I'm in that situation, not once has it made me feel any less safe. No, at this moment in time not. But I know things do and will change. I don't look only to how the world is today but understand that things may look very different in the future. Just because there is no threat today does not mean that there will be no threat tomorrow. And then my feelings may well change. We live in an ever changing world. A short time past I would never expected in a million years that the UK would suffer an attack like it did last Monday in Manchester. We shouldn't look only to how things are today but consider that things do and will change. And as some seem very keen to repeat time and time again, the UK is just a small country off the coast of Europe. So better that we have what is needed to defend ourselves if ever it were needed. In the great scheme of things 1945 isn't that long a time past. The US used it's nuclear capabilities to bring about the surrender of Japan. I have no doubt they would not have done so if they knew Japan could respond in kind. Sure we are not at war. Sure we have NATO. But like I say, things do and will change. That's how I see it anyhow...
|
|
chef
Midland League Division One
Posts: 450
|
Post by chef on May 30, 2017 11:19:37 GMT 1
According to a Labour spokesperson on Five Live this morning unless it's voted for being got rid of at a Labour Conference Jezza can do nothing about it apparently? Must be something to do with their part rules and regs? Not sure I understand the point you are making. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time Labour saying that they will renew Trident if the leader of the Labour party (who would then be Prime Minister) would never sanction it's use. It simply means it is redundant. There is no deterrent. Only for the term of of that government but Trident is meant to last longer. He may not want to use it himself but he seems to recognize that it's something that people still want. Isn't that democracy? Much better than forcing his will on others surely.
|
|
|
Post by simianbenzoate on May 30, 2017 11:26:01 GMT 1
Also while i'm here, there are a large number of misconceptions across a number of posts that i'll clear up for you.
1) The "independent" in "independent nuclear deterrent" means we are free to use our weapons as we see fit. We do NOT require permission from the US, we do not require "unlock codes" from the US. It's unlikely they would ever be used without consultation with the US, but they cannot stop us.
2) We do not lease our deterrent from the US. The subs are ours, the payload is ours (though it uses some US parts to save development costs). Both are built and serviced in the UK, not the US. We lease the Trident D5 missiles from a pool in the US, and they're returned there and cycled out for servicing. We may end up co-developing the launch tube compartments for the new subs with the US to save money and ensure compatibility for the next iteration of Trident.
3) Yes, the subs run on old Windows (in fact most of the MoD still does, i was still using XP a year ago!) BUT a very heavily modified and pared down version which makes it more stable, and harder to mess with. In fact part of the reason they stick with older stuff where they can is because they have so much experience of running it and have spend years identifying the loopholes and problems with security. All of which is largely irrelevant anyway because the subs aren't vulnerable in the same way the rest of the world is - they aren't linked to the internet or the outside world in any way, at sea or in port - the only vector for attack is direct connection to the system within the sub, which is a whole different kettle of fish to sending out phishing emails
4)UK subs do not operate like US ones. US subs require launch permission from the Commander in Chief and cannot be fired without it - the missiles are physically prevented from firing without the correct launch codes. UK subs are controlled through orders issued by the PM, or designated replacement if they're dead - but the subs have the ability to fire without such orders, which is why a new PM issues written orders to the captains to be stored in a safe on the boat. It is still within the captain's ability to fire or not, regardless of issued or written orders. The list of authorised order-issuers to replace the PM is somewhat shrouded in secrecy, it's likely the Admiralty rather than a succession of politicians like the US has - god forbid everyone but Boris Johnson gets wiped out.
5)In that way, Jeremy Corbyn saying he wouldn't use it does not make it any less "effective" a deterrent. The sub captains can still fire if they see the need and they've lost communication. It's unlikely they would though, i'll wager. I think he was also talking about first-strike, but i may be wrong - as someone else mentioned i doubt he'd use them anyway, if we're all going to die i can;t imagine he'd be willing to kill millions of Russian out of spite for the mistakes of their military. He might use them as a missile shield, however...
6) we have no anti ICBM capability except for nuking them out of the sky with our own. It might be a better investment than a weapon we'll never use, but again, if your main concern is russia it would be ruinously expensive to provide a defence against thousands of ICBMs. The US have limited capabilities with THAAD, and potentially Patriot, but not against a mass exchange of ICBMs
7) the 2% GDP defence spending "for NATO membership" isn't being met by many countries. We already don't meet it (which is why Cameron tried to include intelligence spend in the total, to bump it up, which no one else does), and would likely only do soif we pressed ahead with the new subs. Hardly a worthwhile reason
8)underwater drone tech is far behind airborne drones, and fundamentally limited by the physics of underwater operation. I'm sure as with all technology it'll see vast improvements, but i'll wager nowhere near the pace you'd expect. Same reasons that we know less about the sea than we do about other planets and the moon. The subs will be safe from that for the foreseeable future
9) i don't think - and i would hope we haven't - ever used our nuclear capability in "negotiations", save the unspoken threat.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 30, 2017 11:29:44 GMT 1
According to a Labour spokesperson on Five Live this morning unless it's voted for being got rid of at a Labour Conference Jezza can do nothing about it apparently? Must be something to do with their part rules and regs? Not sure I understand the point you are making. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time Labour saying that they will renew Trident if the leader of the Labour party (who would then be Prime Minister) would never sanction it's use. It simply means it is redundant. There is no deterrent. This is why I can't understand why JC isn't really pushing this. Spend the money elsewhere. He has clear views, been campaigning for 50 years, but now with the opportunity in his hands to reach millions of people he's gone all quiet on us, when in fact it's Theresa May who may have more difficulty in defending why we should keep it. For me, it's either: 1. He doesn't really believe in what he's been campaigning for for the last 50 years, or 2. He doesn't think the public would vote for him if he were to categorically say that his party were not going to renew Trident Instead he's gone for option 3 "I'll do whatever my party wants" And that would be fine (for me) if he hadn't been so vocal about it in the past. I'm struggling to believe that he would continue to accept " doing whatever his party wants" if elected into power. It seems much more likely to me that the Trident review following the election would actually become something very different. And on that score I think I'd feel a little bit conned if I voted for him. He's actually got a very good point about nuclear disarmament, but he needs to be fighting the cause now instead of hiding. The money for all this extra funding has got to come from somewhere. Ditching a deterrent that's not a deterrent (in his hands) is surely a great opportunity to free up billions!
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 30, 2017 11:30:44 GMT 1
Not sure I understand the point you are making. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time Labour saying that they will renew Trident if the leader of the Labour party (who would then be Prime Minister) would never sanction it's use. It simply means it is redundant. There is no deterrent. Only for the term of of that government but Trident is meant to last longer. He may not want to use it himself but he seems to recognize that it's something that people still want. Isn't that democracy? Much better than forcing his will on others surely. Unless we're talking about first use of nukes (which surely no sane Trident supporter seriously advocates), our nukes would be used in retaliation. I think the absence of Radio 4 from the airwaves is still the indicator to the sub(s) at sea that the UK has been obliterated, in which case I don't think the decision to launch or not would rest with the PM. In the absence of a clear chain of command it would be the sub commander's call. The idea of Corbyn, May or anyone else with their finger hovering over the button has always seemed too far from the likely horrific reality to have any real meaning.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 30, 2017 11:40:28 GMT 1
Corbyn's CND speech just over a year ago. He now has the opportunity to reach out to millions of people in the same way, but has strangely gone all quiet.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 30, 2017 11:44:25 GMT 1
Not sure I understand the point you are making. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time Labour saying that they will renew Trident if the leader of the Labour party (who would then be Prime Minister) would never sanction it's use. It simply means it is redundant. There is no deterrent. Only for the term of of that government but Trident is meant to last longer. He may not want to use it himself but he seems to recognize that it's something that people still want. Isn't that democracy? Much better than forcing his will on others surely. If the people want it then I suspect they want it to meet it's intended purpose. Otherwise you might as well not bother. And sure, understand that this is for the short term with Corbyn in place but even so, the point stands. There is no deterrent if whoever is PM would never sanction it's use.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 30, 2017 11:47:26 GMT 1
Only for the term of of that government but Trident is meant to last longer. He may not want to use it himself but he seems to recognize that it's something that people still want. Isn't that democracy? Much better than forcing his will on others surely. Unless we're talking about first use of nukes (which surely no sane Trident supporter seriously advocates), our nukes would be used in retaliation. I think the absence of Radio 4 from the airwaves is still the indicator to the sub(s) at sea that the UK has been obliterated, in which case I don't think the decision to launch or not would rest with the PM. In the absence of a clear chain of command it would be the sub commander's call.
The idea of Corbyn, May or anyone else with their finger hovering over the button has always seemed too far from the likely horrific reality to have any real meaning. I still think they need permission i.e Corbyn if in power needs to write a 'letter of last resort' as these would get destroyed if Theresa May was no longer in power. He has stated that he would write these letters but whether he would or not is open to question and there has to be some doubt given his past campaigning!
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 30, 2017 12:12:56 GMT 1
I recently read a very credible synopsis on our nuclear capabilities which concluded that in all probability they are obsolete and of little value simply because of the underwater drone capabilities of the major world powers, which would destroy our submarine fleet well before we were able to deploy any weapons. I'd be interested in reading that if you have a link? It doesn't really wash with me simply because you're looking for 4 submarines in the entire planet's oceans, which aren't necessarily moving - although nuke subs aren't as quiet at diesel-electric, you'd have to have tens of thousands of drones searching the seas to find them in anything less than a lifetime, unless you could track them all the way from port, which is feasible but not easy because drones have short run times and have (as yet) limited ability to communicate with other drones and pass on info to another one to take over the chase when its batteries run dry I shall try and find it again, can't actually remember whether or not i read it on line or in print
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 30, 2017 16:17:01 GMT 1
I'd be interested in reading that if you have a link? It doesn't really wash with me simply because you're looking for 4 submarines in the entire planet's oceans, which aren't necessarily moving - although nuke subs aren't as quiet at diesel-electric, you'd have to have tens of thousands of drones searching the seas to find them in anything less than a lifetime, unless you could track them all the way from port, which is feasible but not easy because drones have short run times and have (as yet) limited ability to communicate with other drones and pass on info to another one to take over the chase when its batteries run dry I shall try and find it again, can't actually remember whether or not i read it on line or in print Possibly this one here: www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2016/feb/29/new-trident-submarines-doomed-by-drones-of-the-future-says-new-reportIf this is true why haven't we heard Corbyn shout up about it? 100 billion on nothing! "In the past, submarines have enjoyed the luxury of hiding in empty seas. In the future, those seas are likely to be increasingly crowded with networked drones, a net of eyes and ears which no submarine can escape."
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 30, 2017 16:22:29 GMT 1
No, wasn't that one but the storyline is very similar, clearly the authors were at the same briefing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 17:22:21 GMT 1
I recently read a very credible synopsis on our nuclear capabilities which concluded that in all probability they are obsolete and of little value simply because of the underwater drone capabilities of the major world powers, which would destroy our submarine fleet well before we were able to deploy any weapons. I'd be interested in reading that if you have a link? It doesn't really wash with me simply because you're looking for 4 submarines in the entire planet's oceans, which aren't necessarily moving - although nuke subs aren't as quiet at diesel-electric, you'd have to have tens of thousands of drones searching the seas to find them in anything less than a lifetime, unless you could track them all the way from port, which is feasible but not easy because drones have short run times and have (as yet) limited ability to communicate with other drones and pass on info to another one to take over the chase when its batteries run dry Might be this one. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/trident-nuclear-deterrent-under-threat-from-underwater-drones-expert-warns-a6786946.htmlThis is interesting. www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1755129-darpa-explores-new-underwater-sub-drone-techThe technology may be advancing at a pace quicker than some people think. As I've said up thread, the GIUK gap had a string of passive sonar in the 70s/80s which enables NATO subs to track Warsaw Pact subs, technology moves on and I really don't think it's much of a stretch to think that within the lifespan of Trident another threat might become a reality. I think this is what Corbyn is on about.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 30, 2017 18:10:06 GMT 1
Why is anyone surprised at the march of technology? Years ago the nuclear deterrent took the form of V Bombers, then it went to Polaris and then to Trident. These are only delivery systems, not nuclear weapons in themselves and I'm sure the method of delivery will again change in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:19:27 GMT 1
Why is anyone surprised at the march of technology? Years ago the nuclear deterrent took the form of V Bombers, then it went to Polaris and then to Trident. These are only delivery systems, not nuclear weapons in themselves and I'm sure the method of delivery will again change in the future. Yes, absolutely right . Of course , after the use of nuclear weapons we won't have the problem . It'll be back to bows and arrows and spear chucking to solve our differences.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 30, 2017 18:24:26 GMT 1
I'd be interested in reading that if you have a link? It doesn't really wash with me simply because you're looking for 4 submarines in the entire planet's oceans, which aren't necessarily moving - although nuke subs aren't as quiet at diesel-electric, you'd have to have tens of thousands of drones searching the seas to find them in anything less than a lifetime, unless you could track them all the way from port, which is feasible but not easy because drones have short run times and have (as yet) limited ability to communicate with other drones and pass on info to another one to take over the chase when its batteries run dry Might be this one. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/trident-nuclear-deterrent-under-threat-from-underwater-drones-expert-warns-a6786946.htmlThis is interesting. www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1755129-darpa-explores-new-underwater-sub-drone-techThe technology may be advancing at a pace quicker than some people think. As I've said up thread, the GIUK gap had a string of passive sonar in the 70s/80s which enables NATO subs to track Warsaw Pact subs, technology moves on and I really don't think it's much of a stretch to think that within the lifespan of Trident another threat might become a reality. I think this is what Corbyn is on about.
But he's happy to back the Trident renewal isn't he? Otherwise he'd be full-out trying to convince us all why Trident is a waste of money. He would have a fair point, but he's hardly even trying to convince us from what I can see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:30:36 GMT 1
But he's happy to back the Trident renewal isn't he? Otherwise he'd be full-out trying to convince us all why Trident is a waste of money. He would have a fair point, but he's hardly even trying to convince us from what I can see. Yes, that should be "was" on about, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 30, 2017 19:18:30 GMT 1
Why is anyone surprised at the march of technology? Years ago the nuclear deterrent took the form of V Bombers, then it went to Polaris and then to Trident. These are only delivery systems, not nuclear weapons in themselves and I'm sure the method of delivery will again change in the future. Yes, absolutely right . Of course , after the use of nuclear weapons we won't have the problem . It'll be back to bows and arrows and spear chucking to solve our differences. And your point is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 23:24:56 GMT 1
Yes, absolutely right . Of course , after the use of nuclear weapons we won't have the problem . It'll be back to bows and arrows and spear chucking to solve our differences. And your point is? Don't bother asking ,you'll be quite safe all alone on your own planet .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 11:57:14 GMT 1
But he's happy to back the Trident renewal isn't he? Otherwise he'd be full-out trying to convince us all why Trident is a waste of money. He would have a fair point, but he's hardly even trying to convince us from what I can see. Because that's his personal view. As he has pointed out, he is no dictator. The policy on trident was arrived at by a democratic process undertaken by his party. At some point that policy may well be up for discussion and when it is, that will be the time for him to make his case and the rest of the party to make theirs.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 31, 2017 12:19:57 GMT 1
According to a Labour spokesperson on Five Live this morning unless it's voted for being got rid of at a Labour Conference Jezza can do nothing about it apparently? Must be something to do with their part rules and regs? Not sure I understand the point you are making. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time Labour saying that they will renew Trident if the leader of the Labour party (who would then be Prime Minister) would never sanction it's use. It simply means it is redundant. There is no deterrent. Jeremy Corbyn, simultaneously Live on SKY 1 and Channel 4 unequivocally stated that he would sign the necessary papers to authorise Tridents use if this country was in real danger and all other options were not open. How clear would you want a Prime Minister to be ?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 31, 2017 12:27:11 GMT 1
Not sure I understand the point you are making. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time Labour saying that they will renew Trident if the leader of the Labour party (who would then be Prime Minister) would never sanction it's use. It simply means it is redundant. There is no deterrent. Jeremy Corbyn, simultaneously Live on SKY 1 and Channel 4 unequivocally stated that he would sign the necessary papers to authorise Tridents use if this country was in real danger and all other options were not open. How clear would you want a Prime Minister to be ? Not good enough. Unless he's moaning ecstatically about the prospect of incinerating thousands of people, he's to be treated as a pinko commie traitor.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 31, 2017 14:21:58 GMT 1
Not sure I understand the point you are making. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time Labour saying that they will renew Trident if the leader of the Labour party (who would then be Prime Minister) would never sanction it's use. It simply means it is redundant. There is no deterrent. Jeremy Corbyn, simultaneously Live on SKY 1 and Channel 4 unequivocally stated that he would sign the necessary papers to authorise Tridents use if this country was in real danger and all other options were not open. How clear would you want a Prime Minister to be ? Woah there tiger. Don't get your knickers in a twist. Previously he has said he would never sanction their use. Previously when asked whether he would use nuclear weapons and he said no. Clearly he has changed his opinion on that. So good to hear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 15:19:41 GMT 1
Previously when asked whether he would use nuclear weapons and he said no. Clearly he has changed his opinion on that. So good to hear. It is good to hear, cos if me and my family are going to hell in an apolcolyptic fire storm, I'll sleep sounder knowing the rest of the world will to! Bring it on!!!
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 31, 2017 18:30:20 GMT 1
Previously when asked whether he would use nuclear weapons and he said no. Clearly he has changed his opinion on that. So good to hear. It is good to hear, cos if me and my family are going to hell in an apolcolyptic fire storm, I'll sleep sounder knowing the rest of the world will to! Bring it on!!! Nobody expects anybody to press the button and chances are that we'd all be dead, so we'd never find out if he'd pressed it anyway! If we did survive and then managed to exist in a post-apocalyptic world, it might be years before we found if he'd pressed the button. And lets face it, at that stage we wouldn't give a flying fig! However, at this point in time, it's about the word 'deterrent'. To tell anyone who might be your enemies that you'd never press the button, just makes a mockery of the word. And then to say you're going to back your party in investing £100 billion+ in it (although you'd never use it), is just an absolute waste of a substantial amount of cash, at a time when everything is underfunded and he's built a whole campaign around it! Now, if he has changed his mind, and WOULD press the button then at least we know that 100 billion has been spent on the word 'deterrent' although by doing that he's basically turned his back on 50 years of campaigning. Question is : Even if he has said it, do we believe him, and is he just saying it to get more votes?! Will it be a case of the 'true' Jeremy Corbyn showing his colours over the next few years and before we know it we'll all be living with no deterrent whatsover?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 31, 2017 18:33:38 GMT 1
Previously when asked whether he would use nuclear weapons and he said no. Clearly he has changed his opinion on that. So good to hear. It is good to hear, cos if me and my family are going to hell in an apolcolyptic fire storm, I'll sleep sounder knowing the rest of the world will to! Bring it on!!! Well whatever floats your boat... Anyhow, I think the idea is that a nuclear deterrent is maintained in order to make such an apocalyptic fire storm less likely to occur. The only time that we have seen nuclear weapons used was in the second world war when the US used them to bring about the defeat and surrender of Japan. The only time nuclear weapons have been used was when the one side knew that the other could not reply in kind. That should give you an idea as to how this sort of thing works. It is why we talk about a nuclear deterrent. In an ideal world of course we wouldn't need such a deterrent. But we don't live in an ideal world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 18:34:35 GMT 1
What Ifind about Jeremy Corbyn is that , yes, he makes mistakes as we have recently witnessed and does change his mind on certain issues . But, he acknowledges the fact . On the other hand May blatantly tells lies as we have witnessed all to often . She expects us to believe that that there have been no changes and that everything was contained in her manifesto all along when we all know only too well that that is just not so. It's always a clue when her mouth drops open as she impersonates a grouper fish.
The tide is changing , she has misjudged the public and gone for a snap election after telling everyone that she wasn't minded to do so .
She has had the chance to change her mind constructively and debate with Corbyn et al on national t v . She has refused and come out with an excuse which is pathetic in the extreme. She says she debates with Corbyn at PM' s questions and doesn't see the point of debating in an open forum . Why ? It's because she hasn't got the backing of her baying loonies sitting right behind her.
Jeremy and his Party may not win the election but it looks as if May won't have the crushing victory she envisaged.
I just wonder if May ŵill survive the general election ? Will her standing viewed by the EU prove that , far from being strong and stable she is indeed weak and feeble.
All of a sudden Gove looks a much better option . What happened to him by the way. ?
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 31, 2017 18:41:44 GMT 1
What Ifind about Jeremy Corbyn is that , yes, he makes mistakes as we have recently witnessed and does change his mind on certain issues . But, he acknowledges the fact . On the other hand May blatantly tells lies as we have witnessed all to often . She expects us to believe that that there have been no changes and that everything was contained in her manifesto all along when we all know only too well that that is just not so. It's always a clue when her mouth drops open as she impersonates a grouper fish. The tide is changing , she has misjudged the public and gone for a snap election after telling everyone that she wasn't minded to do so . She has had the chance to change her mind constructively and debate with Corbyn et al on national t v . She has refused and come out with an excuse which is pathetic in the extreme. She says she debates with Corbyn at PM' s questions and doesn't see the point of debating in an open forum . Why ? It's because she hasn't got the backing of her baying loonies sitting right behind her. Jeremy and his Party may not win the election but it looks as if May won't have the crushing victory she envisaged. I just wonder if May ŵill survive the general election ? Will her standing viewed by the EU prove that , far from being strong and stable she is indeed weak and feeble. All of a sudden Gove looks a much better option . What happened to him by the way. ? Yeah, but this thread is about the nuclear deterrent
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 18:45:44 GMT 1
What Ifind about Jeremy Corbyn is that , yes, he makes mistakes as we have recently witnessed and does change his mind on certain issues . But, he acknowledges the fact . On the other hand May blatantly tells lies as we have witnessed all to often . She expects us to believe that that there have been no changes and that everything was contained in her manifesto all along when we all know only too well that that is just not so. It's always a clue when her mouth drops open as she impersonates a grouper fish. The tide is changing , she has misjudged the public and gone for a snap election after telling everyone that she wasn't minded to do so . She has had the chance to change her mind constructively and debate with Corbyn et al on national t v . She has refused and come out with an excuse which is pathetic in the extreme. She says she debates with Corbyn at PM' s questions and doesn't see the point of debating in an open forum . Why ? It's because she hasn't got the backing of her baying loonies sitting right behind her. Jeremy and his Party may not win the election but it looks as if May won't have the crushing victory she envisaged. I just wonder if May ŵill survive the general election ? Will her standing viewed by the EU prove that , far from being strong and stable she is indeed weak and feeble. All of a sudden Gove looks a much better option . What happened to him by the way. ? Yeah, but this thread is about the nuclear deterrent Sorry, you are quite right , my apologies. Afraid I got slightly carried away . Will try and do better
|
|