Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ben.anderson)
    .. Think about it love, who got us into this mess in the first place!!!
    The financial industries, especially the banks who were incredibly reckless and careless in their dealings.

    But you say you're against printing money... the Conservatives have been printing huge amounts of money. Are you against them?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    How have they exactly?

    And I'm not talking about the Right-Wing media who anyone knows will always go after Left-Wing politicians.
    take the Mirror, which apparently 'supports Labour'

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...corbyn-8664386

    This article has a 'can you differentiate between Trump or Corbyn's policies' deliberately to smear him.

    Question 7 says that Corbyn supports disbanding NATO.

    Instead, his actual answer is a bit more boring and long-winded but it effectively doesn't amount to him wanting to disband NATO.

    This is one example. Other examples of when this has happened before include his nuclear stance, him supporting the capture and not remote execution of terrorists, him supporting not extending airstrikes to Syria, etc...

    He is a victim of constant media smearing, and regardless of whether or not I agree with him - many people continue to support him and ignore the media smears because of this happening throughout the 21st century.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The financial industries, especially the banks who were incredibly reckless and careless in their dealings.

    But you say you're against printing money... the Conservatives have been printing huge amounts of money. Are you against them?
    I don't blame Labour for the financial crash. It how they dealt with it. They made the public sector too big before the finical crash happened. Our country would be in a lot better state and we could pick up our feet again quicker if Labour were not as stupid with their spending. Jemery Crybon wants to print money for his fantasy projects, let's not borrow any more than we have too!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What I find staggering is how Theresa May was regarded as mainstream and centrist for happily declaring that she would press the nuclear button and kill millions of innocent civilians, whereas Jeremy Corbyn was regarded as a dangerous extremist for saying he would not kill millions of civilians.


    I'm no Corbyn fan, but it is deeply worrying that being willing to kill millions of innocent civilians is seen as the new centre ground as politics.
    If you're building a nuclear deterrent then of course you're going to declare that you would use it, otherwise it renders it obsolete and useless as a deterrent. That's just common sense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ben.anderson)
    I don't blame Labour for the financial crash. It how they dealt with it. They made the public sector too big before the finical crash happened. Our country would be in a lot better state and we could pick up our feet again quicker if Labour were not as stupid with their spending. Jemery Crybon wants to print money for his fantasy projects, let's not borrow any more than we have too!
    Unpopular as it may sound to say, it's a myth that Labour overspent during this period. It was more like a lack of a diversified economy over-reliant on financial services. So as a country we were very exposed to the effects of the global crash.

    Not that cost is an argument against Trident, mind. When you consider that the cost is spread over decades and how small the yearly cost is compared to other budgets it really ain't no thang. Saying bazillions and kadrillions and look at the NHS and blah blah sounds like an actual and plausible argument to some people but when you regain some perspective, it really isn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Unpopular as it may sound to say, it's a myth that Labour overspent during this period. It was more like a lack of a diversified economy over-reliant on financial services. So as a country we were very exposed to the effects of the global crash.

    You Corbynite
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ben.anderson)
    I don't blame Labour for the financial crash. It how they dealt with it. They made the public sector too big before the finical crash happened. Our country would be in a lot better state and we could pick up our feet again quicker if Labour were not as stupid with their spending. o!
    What's your evidence for this? What does the size of the public sector have to do with the financial crash? Which parts of the public sector were too big?

    You also realise that the conservatives borrowed and spent more in 5 years then Labour did in 13?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ben.anderson)
    I don't blame Labour for the financial crash. It how they dealt with it. They made the public sector too big before the finical crash happened. Our country would be in a lot better state and we could pick up our feet again quicker if Labour were not as stupid with their spending. Jemery Crybon wants to print money for his fantasy projects, let's not borrow any more than we have too!
    With respect this wasn't a large factor in the aftermath of the crash and Labour ran a pretty ordinary deficit leading up to it. Labour just totally failed to defend their record though so now everyone has the impression that they're less economically competent than the Tories, which is not necessarily true.

    Just as a disclaimer, I'm not taking sides here and I'm not a Corbyn supporter in any way shape or form!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I know, the silly Labour party have been quantitatively easing hundreds of millions since 2010. Oh no wait... that's the Conservatives.
    Yes and all that austerity they impose to try and run the country within its budget.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Is there any evidence for this though? If someone is crazy enough to nuke us, what makes you think that they would care about being nuked back?

    If ISIS ever got hold of a nuclear weapons, the threat of their destruction would mean nothing if it meant that they could take us with them.
    The biggest threats we face today are not nuclear. Arguably the two biggest threats we face today are ISIS and global warming.

    Even Michael Portillo, a right wing former defense secretary opposed trident on the grounds that it is totally useless in defending us from the threats we face today.

    Each missile has the power to kill millions, the less of them in the world, the better. I don't want our Prime Minister to be prepared to kill millions of innocent civilians. I want one who is measured, who wouldn't rush to war and certainly one who would not kill millions. I'm not saying that's Jeremy Corbyn, but opposing trident does not make one dangerous.


    There seems to be an awful lot of paranoia, and in essence our love of trident seems little more than a **** measuring contest.
    You mean other than the entire Cold War? I know that there's other factors such numbers of conventional forces too but I don't think you'll find many public acknowledgements of nations admitting they didn't attack a neighbour due to that neighbour having nukes.
    There's also others -
    India & Pakistan
    DPRK & ROK/USA
    China & Taiwan/USA

    Heck, even in the Falklands War, the fact the RAF got a Vulcan bomber down to region concerned the Argentines as it meant that our nuclear weapons could potentially reach them. They apparently pulled more fighters around their capital to protect it.

    Unfortunately, it's easy to fall into the trap of being prepared for the last war you fought. Just because Trident wasn't useful in Iraq, Afghan etc doesn't mean it won't be useful in 10-20yrs time. No one can accurately predict the geo-political situation for when this new weapon system comes online.

    From what Corbyn has said, he wouldn't go to war fullstop. If he'd have got his way, we'd wouldn't have intervend in the first Gulf War, the Balkans or Sierra Leone during the 1990s all of which can absolutely universally be described as positive.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Yes and all that austerity they impose to try and run the country within its budget.
    A self-imposed budget, with the economic argument supporting austerity highly discredited.

    But i'm not interested in a debate about austerity, i'm pointing out how the poster criticized Labour for wanting to print money, when it has been the tories printing huge amounts of money in recent years.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to know how anyone can defend his performances in parliament. For example, insulting his own MPs (3:10):
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    You mean other than the entire Cold War? I know that there's other factors such numbers of conventional forces too but I don't think you'll find many public acknowledgements of nations admitting they didn't attack a neighbour due to that neighbour having nukes.
    There's also others -
    India & Pakistan
    DPRK & ROK/USA
    China & Taiwan/USA

    Heck, even in the Falklands War, the fact the RAF got a Vulcan bomber down to region concerned the Argentines as it meant that our nuclear weapons could potentially reach them. They apparently pulled more fighters around their capital to protect it.

    Unfortunately, it's easy to fall into the trap of being prepared for the last war you thought. Just because Trident wasn't useful in Iraq, Afghan etc doesn't mean it won't be useful in 10-20yrs time. No one can accurately predict the geo-political situation for when this new weapon system comes online.

    From what Corbyn has said, he wouldn't go to war fullstop. If he'd have got his way, we'd wouldn't have intervend in the first Gulf War, the Balkans or Sierra Leone during the 1990s all of which can absolutely universally be described as positive.
    I've always found the label 'Cold war' rather strange, given the number of brutal conflicts that took place during the period.

    Other than that, you do make a strong argument for trident. Ultimately I see it as totally needless and useless for the threats we face today. I'd rather we focused on genuine threats to the planet such as global warming, rather than insist on building more and more deadly weapons, each with the capacity to kill millions and end the world as we know it.

    What really scares me though, is the fact that people such as Donald Trump could be in control of America's war heads, would you trust him with them? I know I wouldn't. Therein lies a huge problem, what if such weapons end up in the hands of all the wrong people?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Unpopular as it may sound to say, it's a myth that Labour overspent during this period. It was more like a lack of a diversified economy over-reliant on financial services. So as a country we were very exposed to the effects of the global crash.

    Not that cost is an argument against Trident, mind. When you consider that the cost is spread over decades and how small the yearly cost is compared to other budgets it really ain't no thang. Saying bazillions and kadrillions and look at the NHS and blah blah sounds like an actual and plausible argument to some people but when you regain some perspective, it really isn't.
    This.

    It was a global crisis the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1930's. The Tories conveniently forget that they supported(or at least pretended to as a means of not losing votes) Labour's spending up until 2008.

    Their whole "blame the last govt for everything " line is pathetic and easily debunked.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    take the Mirror, which apparently 'supports Labour'

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...corbyn-8664386

    This article has a 'can you differentiate between Trump or Corbyn's policies' deliberately to smear him.

    Question 7 says that Corbyn supports disbanding NATO.

    Instead, his actual answer is a bit more boring and long-winded but it effectively doesn't amount to him wanting to disband NATO.

    This is one example. Other examples of when this has happened before include his nuclear stance, him supporting the capture and not remote execution of terrorists, him supporting not extending airstrikes to Syria, etc...

    He is a victim of constant media smearing, and regardless of whether or not I agree with him - many people continue to support him and ignore the media smears because of this happening throughout the 21st century.
    An almost satirical quiz in the Mirror isn't a smear campaign. He invites ridicule as he hasn't put forward anything with substance behind it, like Trump. Labour's website having no mention of any policies being a prime example of this. Try reading what the Mirror say about the Tories, they're basically the left-wing Daily Mail.

    His nuclear stance is one of unilateral disarmament and not pushing the button under any circumstances. Regardless of our(I suspect different) opinions on the matter printing these facts in an article isn't smearing him, it's the truth.

    The same with his opposition to bombing in Syria, again it's the truth.

    He wants to withdraw from NATO, the truth.

    His stance on drone strikes, the truth.

    If his opinions are unpopular with the majority of the general public then he isn't a viable candidate to lead the country.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    An almost satirical quiz in the Mirror isn't a smear campaign. He invites ridicule as he hasn't put forward anything with substance behind it, like Trump. Labour's website having no mention of any policies being a prime example of this. Try reading what the Mirror say about the Tories, they're basically the left-wing Daily Mail.

    His nuclear stance is one of unilateral disarmament and not pushing the button under any circumstances. Regardless of our(I suspect different) opinions on the matter printing these facts in an article isn't smearing him, it's the truth.

    The same with his opposition to bombing in Syria, again it's the truth.

    He wants to withdraw from NATO, the truth.

    His stance on drone strikes, the truth.

    If his opinions are unpopular with the majority of the general public then he isn't a viable candidate to lead the country.
    "Its the truth" means nothing, the media has represented his views differently to what they actually are, if you think those things, then you have probably interpreted these things from the very media which I am condemning.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    "Its the truth" means nothing, the media has represented his views differently to what they actually are, if you think those things, then you have probably interpreted these things from the very media which I am condemning.
    The entirety of the media across the political spectrum aren't conspiring against him. The paranoid notion of such demonstrates the bubble that some Corbynistas operate in.

    His views on those issues mentioned simply aren't popular in the mainstream, Labour is fast becoming a protest group on the fringes rather than a serious political party.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The entirety of the media across the political spectrum aren't conspiring against him. The paranoid notion of such demonstrates the bubble that some Corbynistas operate in.

    His views on those issues mentioned simply aren't popular in the mainstream, Labour is fast becoming a protest group on the fringes rather than a serious political party.
    I agree with you. He also has this weird thing he does with the media where he acts like he's talking sense to a lunatic - that he's acting maturely - when really he just looks completely lost.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paraphilos)
    I agree with you. He also has this weird thing he does with the media where he acts like he's talking sense to a lunatic - that he's acting maturely - when really he just looks completely lost.
    His and his followers views are their views that they're perfectly entitled to. I just find it bizarre how a lot of them can't countenance the fact that not everyone shares them, any counter opinions seem to form part of a conspiracy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    This.

    It was a global crisis the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1930's. The Tories conveniently forget that they supported(or at least pretended to as a means of not losing votes) Labour's spending up until 2008.

    Their whole "blame the last govt for everything " line is pathetic and easily debunked.
    Where do you stand on the political spectrum? As in ideology, rather than political parties.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 22, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.