We’re basically living in a post-Nuclear dystopia already.

A privatised, out-sourced Empire maybe.

Botswana - in association with Group Four.

The People’s Republic of Virgin Airways (formerly the Falkland Isles)

I think the nuke thing is a legitimate enough line of enquiry. Obviously the tabloid, "Corbyn security risk we all gonna get blowed up" angle is demented. But it costs £30 billion or whatever. The Tories say it's a deterrent, we have to say we'll use it for that deterrent to be effective, it gives us a seat on the 'top table' of global warmongers. You can agree with that or not. Labour on the other hand, are spending this money and won't defend it or even say if they'd ever use it, even in the extreme circumstances of the UK being under nuclear attack. What am I supposed to agree with there? Is it £30 billion up the wall or isn't it?

Sevco UK.

monkey wrote:

I think the nuke thing is a legitimate enough line of enquiry. Obviously the tabloid, "Corbyn security risk we all gonna get blowed up" angle is demented. But it costs £30 billion or whatever. The Tories say it's a deterrent, we have to say we'll use it for that deterrent to be effective, it gives us a seat on the 'top table' of global warmongers. You can agree with that or not. Labour on the other hand, are spending this money and won't defend it or even say if they'd ever use it, even in the extreme circumstances of the UK being under nuclear attack. What am I supposed to agree with there? Is it £30 billion up the wall or isn't it?

Don't spend the money. Take those tens of billions of pounds and spend them on making society a better place for those of us who live in it, rather than on a fake insurance policy with a payout of millions dead.

If there was a meaningful nuclear exchange between countries, it would make not one single fucking iota of difference whether the PM pressed the button as to the survivability of the majority of people in the world.

monkey wrote:

I think the nuke thing is a legitimate enough line of enquiry. Obviously the tabloid, "Corbyn security risk we all gonna get blowed up" angle is demented. But it costs £30 billion or whatever. The Tories say it's a deterrent, we have to say we'll use it for that deterrent to be effective, it gives us a seat on the 'top table' of global warmongers. You can agree with that or not. Labour on the other hand, are spending this money and won't defend it or even say if they'd ever use it, even in the extreme circumstances of the UK being under nuclear attack. What am I supposed to agree with there? Is it £30 billion up the wall or isn't it?

It's £30 billion up the wall regardless of if you say you'll use it or not. It's a deterrent that doesn't deter, and has no place in a modern military. The only reason we're replacing Trident is the jobs involved in making and maintaining it, a reason that is never applied to non-military projects.

Diluted Dante wrote:

I think the nuke thing is a legitimate enough line of enquiry. Obviously the tabloid, "Corbyn security risk we all gonna get blowed up" angle is demented. But it costs £30 billion or whatever. The Tories say it's a deterrent, we have to say we'll use it for that deterrent to be effective, it gives us a seat on the 'top table' of global warmongers. You can agree with that or not. Labour on the other hand, are spending this money and won't defend it or even say if they'd ever use it, even in the extreme circumstances of the UK being under nuclear attack. What am I supposed to agree with there? Is it £30 billion up the wall or isn't it?

It's £30 billion up the wall regardless of if you say you'll use it or not. It's a deterrent that doesn't deter, and has no place in a modern military. The only reason we're replacing Trident is the jobs involved in making and maintaining it, a reason that is never applied to non-military projects.

Not if you don't spend it.

They should have been prepared for this particular line of attack really. They don't have to say they'll use it, just say they're committed to renewal as a deterrent. Corbyn can wiggle around the question saying his role as a backbench campaigner is very different from his role as PM, with different responsibilities but he can't list out the circumstances he would and wouldn't fire it.

If it was I, monkey, I would say that only a handful of people know what Britain's policy actually is, I don't know it, you don't know it, (points to whichever Tory lickspittle is asking the question) it's under lock and key on a submarine somewhere, it almost certainly says "In the event of nuclear attack, phone Nato and co-ordinate with them." The specifics of the thing would have been worked out over decades by defence experts, and I would almost certainly keep the same policy intact. To tell you anymore is to threaten this nation's security. Vote monkey for all your armageddon dreams to come true.

The best answer is Grem's one but we're too stupid to go for that.

Fracking ban u-turn has happened marginally quicker than expected...

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-fracking-ban-u-turn-shale-gas-general-election-921414

This country is ridiculously fucked.

Might look into moving to Scotland in 2021

Plenty of spare rooms and sofas up here if you want to crash when househunting.

I prepared for disappointment and it didn't do shit

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I prepared for disappointment and it didn't do shit

Should have prepared better instead of drinking coffees or eggplant.
Boomer Liv has spoken.

GooberTheHat wrote:

I've got an Irish passport with my name on it lined up in a few years time.

I got fuck all. This is my good passport. The other is one only good for free orange overalls

He is surely the best of us.