Jeremy Corbyn declares Labour Party is ready to take power and rebuild Britain Watch

Poll: Would Jeremy Corbyn be a good PM?
Yes (25)
25%
No (75)
75%
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 weeks ago
#41
Jeremy Corbyn is not a leader, so would not make a good Prime Minister. No real leader would take so long to have a policy on a second referendum in the European Parliament elections, no leader would be so soft on anti-semitic comments by some of his party.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by tashkent46)
I find it remarkable how people who dislike Conservatives so easily fall for their propaganda. The media has a huge bias against Corbyn, and indeed any labour leader. If any other leader had won they'd be claiming they were unelectable too, the trick is the public believe that the Tories are electable. They shouldn't be.
That is how they are brainwashed, but don't get it. They used to say that Ed Miliband was the worst thing that happened to the UK. Then they said that Corbyn would be a disaster, even though he beat their expectations and gained more seats.

Many of the power influences know that Corbyn will ruin their party. Gone will be the days were they will cheat the people with zero hour contracts, poor health care, poor infrastructure etc.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by tashkent46)
I find it remarkable how people who dislike Conservatives so easily fall for their propaganda. The media has a huge bias against Corbyn, and indeed any labour leader. If any other leader had won they'd be claiming they were unelectable too, the trick is the public believe that the Tories are electable. They shouldn't be.
That is how they are brainwashed but don't get it. They used to say that Ed Miliband was the worst thing to happen to the UK. Then they said that Corbyn would be a disaster, even though he beat their expectations and gained more seats.

Many of the power influences know that Corbyn will ruin their party. Gone will be the days of low quality employment, zero hour contracts, poor health care, poor infrastructure etc.
0
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 weeks ago
#44
No thanks.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by ed5rftygubh)
You find the fact that he is hesitating on killing billions of innocent people to be totally disturbing?
I find that he wishes to remove our nuclear deterrent disturbing, they never need to be used but do need to be there and the likes of Putin need to know that our PM would sanction the use of them if we were attacked, hence the use of the word deterrent.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by ColinDent)
I find that he wishes to remove our nuclear deterrent disturbing, they never need to be used but do need to be there and the likes of Putin need to know that our PM would sanction the use of them if we were attacked, hence the use of the word deterrent.
Putin does not care about your deterrent. He has killed on your soil and the most you did was to beg other countries to expel his diplomats. The earlier you open your eyes to our position in the world the better. If Putin really wanted to harm us, we would be wiped us out at night.
0
reply
tashkent46
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by ColinDent)
I find that he wishes to remove our nuclear deterrent disturbing, they never need to be used but do need to be there and the likes of Putin need to know that our PM would sanction the use of them if we were attacked, hence the use of the word deterrent.
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Putin does not care about your deterrent. He has killed on your soil and the most you did was to beg other countries to expel his diplomats. The earlier you open your eyes to our position in the world the better. If Putin really wanted to harm us, we would be wiped us out at night.
Agreeing with Wired on this one, Putin has already killed multiple times on British soil without significant consequences to himself. The nuclear deterrent is good to have, but do we really need it when the US and France have nukes too? In what conceivable situation would we not have the backing of those countries.

There are over a hundred countries who survive quite well without nukes.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by tashkent46)
Agreeing with Wired on this one, Putin has already killed multiple times on British soil without significant consequences to himself. The nuclear deterrent is good to have, but do we really need it when the US and France have nukes too? In what conceivable situation would we not have the backing of those countries.

There are over a hundred countries who survive quite well without nukes.
Putin has overseen the assassination/ attempt and consequential death of others yes, but without our deterrent how far do you think he would be prepared to go, France? do me a favour, if Europe is relying on France to defend itself then Europe is ****ed.
You are also correct about those other countries not having nukes, but then those countries also don't have arguably the best intelligence network in the world, nor are they positioned in what would be a strategic stronghold for Allied, particularly US, troops to try to regain a foothold within Europe if ever the time came again, nor are they the financial capitals of the world.
There are these and many other reasons that would make us a big target for a rogue state that has a leader with an itchy trigger finger, this is why we need the deterrent.
0
reply
tashkent46
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by ColinDent)
Putin has overseen the assassination/ attempt and consequential death of others yes, but without our deterrent how far do you think he would be prepared to go, France? do me a favour, if Europe is relying on France to defend itself then Europe is ****ed.
You are also correct about those other countries not having nukes, but then those countries also don't have arguably the best intelligence network in the world, nor are they positioned in what would be a strategic stronghold for Allied, particularly US, troops to try to regain a foothold within Europe if ever the time came again, nor are they the financial capitals of the world.
There are these and many other reasons that would make us a big target for a rogue state that has a leader with an itchy trigger finger, this is why we need the deterrent.
Now I'm not one of these people who shits on the UK. The UK is amazing. However you're overstating our influence now, we're a soft power and have been for quite a while. We'd struggle to launch any war by ourselves especially with current cuts to the military. We already rely on the US for our security in many ways, as does much of the world.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 weeks ago
#50
Of course that Labourites discount it all as scaremongering and look the other way but were Labour to win the next election whenever it happens and this country's economy would tank it big time. Think of the apocalyptic No-Deal scenario and multiply it by ten, there would be a complete freeze in economic confidence from the markets and investors, the pound would lose something like at least 10% overnight, capital would be flying out of the door next morning. Everybody in the world of finance would be holding their breath to see what happened next, fearing the worst to start with.

McDonnell has just made some noises on what he dreams of, instead of reassuring public confidence he just went on to confirm that he has a long list of things to change with a radical new approach to the economy. Because of that, were he to make it to number 11 and everything in the para above is what would happen. Their younger voters would be saddled with a bill for the rest of their lives. It's a funny world.
Last edited by z-hog; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by tashkent46)
Now I'm not one of these people who shits on the UK. The UK is amazing. However you're overstating our influence now, we're a soft power and have been for quite a while. We'd struggle to launch any war by ourselves especially with current cuts to the military. We already rely on the US for our security in many ways, as does much of the world.
So you don't agree that we have one of, if not the best intelligence services in the world? Or that we are the financial capital of the world? Or that from a geographic and tactical point of view we are ideally positioned?
And yes we may not be as militarily strong as we once were but do still pack a punch and are currently in the process of modernising our weaponry, how exactly would removing the nuclear deterrent help that or any of the above?
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by z-hog)
Of course that Labourites discount it all as scaremongering and look the other way but were Labour to win the next election whenever it happens and this country's economy would tank it big time. Think of the apocalyptic No-Deal scenario and multiply it by ten, there would be a complete freeze in economic confidence from the markets and investors, the pound would lose something like at least 10% overnight, capital would be flying out of the door next morning. Everybody in the world of finance would be holding their breath to see what happened next, fearing the worst to start with.

McDonnell has just made some noises on what he dreams of, instead of reassuring public confidence he just went on to confirm that he has a long list of things to change with a radical new approach to the economy. Because of that, were he to make it to number 11 and everything in the para above is what would happen. Their younger voters would be saddled with a bill for the rest of their lives. It's a funny world.
You started by stating that we were scaremongering then you went on an alarmist rant.

Jeremy Corbyn, Ed Miliband and many Labour senior politicians have been at the front of the queue to save the UK from disaster. Here are some examples:

1. Austerity: Since 2010, the Labour position was that austerity did not work. Despite the fact that the Americans introduced Quantitative Easing to inject new capital to the system, we decided to kill the British economy. The Tory idea was that cutting funds will somehow help the system.

Unfortunately, that was a lie. It was the most painful decade that we have experienced since Thatcher. Yet, we were not better off. Instead, there have been many more issues including worsening living conditions.

2. Brexit: The Labour position has been to ensure the UK wins from the EU Exit. This would be through a new trading relationship that would involve a sort of customs union or closer link.

After all the political posturing by the Tories, it appears they are beginning to see reason and abandon that aggressive stance. They could not even pass a deal when they had a majority in Parliament, which shows how shambolic their Government is.

3. Public services: The Labour position has been more funding for our public services. This include the NHS, police, education, security services, welfare etc. It was only since last Autumn that the Tory Chancellor began to support Labour funding policies, when it came out that the public opinion was at an all time high against Tory refusal to fund public services.

We have not even talked about many more Tory policies that the Labour Party have criticised that the Tories have begun to secretly abandon.

Unlike what you wrote, the markets and investors have actually attacked Tory policies. The current weakness of the pound is because of the Tory party. The current flight of investment because of Brexit is because of the Tories. The high suicide rates because of worsening living conditions is because of the Tories.

Please take a step back to actually think for yourself.
0
reply
Molseh
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 weeks ago
#53
Literally the only reason Labour is gaining any seats/popularity is because of the incompetence of current Tory leadership. It has nothing to do with the scruffy terrorist sympathising Corbyn
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by ColinDent)
So you don't agree that we have one of, if not the best intelligence services in the world? Or that we are the financial capital of the world? Or that from a geographic and tactical point of view we are ideally positioned?
And yes we may not be as militarily strong as we once were but do still pack a punch and are currently in the process of modernising our weaponry, how exactly would removing the nuclear deterrent help that or any of the above?
Please don't be offended but this is a bit of a stretch.

1. The best intelligence services in the world is not ours. We are nowhere the best. You seemed to have forgotten about the CIA, FSB, MOSSAD, GRU, DGSE, NIA etc. Yes, we are good but we are not the best. Come on.

2. We are not the best financial capital in the world. Yet, again, we have New York, Frankfurt, Zurich, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, Toronto etc. Yes we are up there, but we are not the best. Beside, Brexit has forced more capital flight, so we may move down the ranking.

3. Geographical location: Yes. I agree that our location, language and strategic position is good for us. But this forms part of our soft power that the other poster wrote and not a hard power.

4. Military might: As a country, we are unable to go to war with another global power like China, Iran, Russia, North Korea etc. This is because we will be ruined. It is the reason why we are desperate to have collective involvement from the major western bloc like US, France, Germany etc.

I think there are other ways we can defend our country than spending hundreds of billions on a weapon that we will never use. For example, we can actually modernise our military complex to withstand other new forms of warfare including biological, cyberwar, financial war etc.
0
reply
Molseh
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
I'll bite.

1. We are absolutely on par or better than all of those outside of Mossad - who have the unique position in that they have backing of former members at the highest levels of government to do whatever they like.

4. We are still the best trained and respected Military in the world. Unarguable fact. As a country, whilst we maintain current levels and investments - and in particular the Nuclear deterrent we are a valuable ally. If we dilute this further - in particular Trident - we risk alienating our biggest allies.

(Original post by Wired_1800)
1. The best intelligence services in the world is not ours. We are nowhere the best. You seemed to have forgotten about the CIA, FSB, MOSSAD, GRU, DGSE, NIA etc. Yes, we are good but we are not the best. Come on.

4. Military might: As a country, we are unable to go to war with another global power like China, Iran, Russia, North Korea etc. This is because we will be ruined. It is the reason why we are desperate to have collective involvement from the major western bloc like US, France, Germany etc.
1
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Please don't be offended but this is a bit of a stretch.

1. The best intelligence services in the world is not ours. We are nowhere the best. You seemed to have forgotten about the CIA, FSB, MOSSAD, GRU, DGSE, NIA etc. Yes, we are good but we are not the best. Come on.

2. We are not the best financial capital in the world. Yet, again, we have New York, Frankfurt, Zurich, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, Toronto etc. Yes we are up there, but we are not the best. Beside, Brexit has forced more capital flight, so we may move down the ranking.

3. Geographical location: Yes. I agree that our location, language and strategic position is good for us. But this forms part of our soft power that the other poster wrote and not a hard power.

4. Military might: As a country, we are unable to go to war with another global power like China, Iran, Russia, North Korea etc. This is because we will be ruined. It is the reason why we are desperate to have collective involvement from the major western bloc like US, France, Germany etc.

I think there are other ways we can defend our country than spending hundreds of billions on a weapon that we will never use. For example, we can actually modernise our military complex to withstand other new forms of warfare including biological, cyberwar, financial war etc.
Matters of opinion....

1. Would put MOSSAD and maybe the CIA/GRU above our SIS, though certainly not below DGSE and the others - firmly believe we are among the best, and bear in mind the effectiveness of intelligence relies on intelligence sharing between allies e.g. the alliance of Australia, NZ, UK and USA...

2. Bit far out, London has been the 2nd most powerful financial centres on the planet behind New York for decades, with the largest financial services surplus in the world and certainly above the many other also good but not as powerful cities, though like you worry about the effect of Brexit on this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...Major_IMF_IFCs

3. Geographical location has contributed to our Empire in the past and as a key global player in the UNSC, though far from the only determinant of power.

4. You seem to think there is something wrong with our involvement in NATO. We cannot simply waltz into a war because of MAD, and us and many countries/allies having nukes, and has underpinned our defence arrangement since at least WW2 with the USA and our European allies...

Yes, cyberwarfare, biological warfare need researching/funding, but disagree with "wasting" money on nukes, as it underpins British power in the world, without which our UNSC is quite questionable, and reaffirms our defence, and as a strategic deterent and key European player, and actually contribute to our defence arrangement without alienating our key allies, though have to accept there will be fundemental differences in opinion on this, i.e. you may not care for our influence in the world, instead funding national services, which is also a valid line of argument
Last edited by BlueIndigoViolet; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by Wired_1800)
You started by stating that we were scaremongering then you went on an alarmist rant.
Dear Sir, I'm not even going to read any of the rest. Next time you see someone with the most basic understanding of economics ask him/her.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by BlueIndigoViolet)
Matters of opinion....

1. Would put MOSSAD and maybe the CIA/GRU above our SIS, though certainly not below DGSE and the others - firmly believe we are among the best, and bear in mind the effectiveness of intelligence relies on intelligence sharing between allies e.g. the alliance of Australia, NZ, UK and USA...

2. Bit far out, London has been the 2nd most powerful financial centres on the planet behind New York for decades, with the largest financial services surplus in the world and certainly above the many other also good but not as powerful cities, though like you worry about the effect of Brexit on this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...Major_IMF_IFCs

3. Geographical location has contributed to our Empire in the past and as a key global player in the UNSC, though far from the only determinant of power.

4. You seem to think there is something wrong with our involvement in NATO. We cannot simply waltz into a war because of MAD, and us and many countries/allies having nukes, and has underpinned our defence arrangement since at least WW2 with the USA and our European allies...

Yes, cyberwarfare, biological warfare need researching/funding, but disagree with "wasting" money on nukes, as it underpins British power in the world, without which our UNSC is quite questionable, and reaffirms our defence, and as a strategic deterent and key European player, and actually contribute to our defence arrangement without alienating our key allies, though have to accept there will be fundemental differences in opinion on this, i.e. you may not care for our influence in the world, instead funding national services, which is also a valid line of argument
I never wrote that we were not good, but Colin wrote that we were the best, which we certainly are not. I also think our position is based on historical precedence and the current day influence. If we are to start a new UNSC today, i doubt we will be in the running for a permanent seat.

1. Yes, the effectiveness of intelligence services is underpinned by cooperation. I think that is why we are lucky enough to be support by the “5 eyes” programme and have access to swathes of information from top agencies like Mossad, CIA, FSB etc.

2. Fair enough. London has been key because it posed a good segue to the European market. I think the language and political stability historically helped banks and markets to rely on London. This is changing as many centres like Zurich, Frankfurt, Shanghai etc. want a bigger share.

3. The British Empire is dead and buried. We should forget about it.

4. I never wrote there was anything wrong with our involvement in NATO. I wrote that we as a nation cannot go to war on our own. The top countries like Russia, China, the US, probably India etc. can do so, but we cannot. We love to big ourselves up and our standing in the world, but we are not as important as we think.

To your last point, I acknowledge it and agree with some parts, but i still think there are more innovative ways that we can use the £150 Billion that we probably spend on nuclear deterrents.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by z-hog)
Dear Sir, I'm not even going to read any of the rest. Next time you see someone with the most basic understanding of economics ask him/her.
Wow, ok. I’d suggest you read it, you may actually learn something.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by Molseh)
I'll bite.

1. We are absolutely on par or better than all of those outside of Mossad - who have the unique position in that they have backing of former members at the highest levels of government to do whatever they like.

4. We are still the best trained and respected Military in the world. Unarguable fact. As a country, whilst we maintain current levels and investments - and in particular the Nuclear deterrent we are a valuable ally. If we dilute this further - in particular Trident - we risk alienating our biggest allies.
What????

1. We are better than the CIA or FSB?? Really? Ok.

4. We are the best trained and respected military in the world? Again, really???? Better than the Americans, Chinese or Russians. We are not even in the top 5 by military spend.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...y_expenditures

Come on, people. It is fine to big up our nation, but we should be honest.
Last edited by Wired_1800; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (137)
22.87%
The paper was reasonable (262)
43.74%
Not feeling great about that exam... (109)
18.2%
It was TERRIBLE (91)
15.19%

Watched Threads

View All