Going by statements fro both Corbyn and Thornberry, Labour is not actually committed to renewing Trident at its present level of capability. He has also said some pretty stupid things regarding our nuclear subs, such as them going to sea with the missiles left in port.
He talks about stopping terrorism and the instability abroad, yet offers no practicable means of remedying such.
So why were they here when taxes were at the level Labour is suggesting?
What are we talking about here? Corporation tax or income tax?
It's a shame we can't look at his voting record and infer whether he voted against foreign interventions which caused the instability in first place, and use that to work out what his foreign policy will be.
Whichever you were referring to in your post.
Voted against Libya interventions didn't he?
Or you could go by the manifesto, which says they are. But then the rest of your nonsense wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so I can see why you wouldn't bother.
Just that bit about releasing the report on Saudi links to terrorism in the speech and to stop selling arms to them immediately in the manifesto. Easily missed, particularly if you're choosing to do so purposely.
No answer at all that, much like Corbyn himself.
I'd argue that it shows that Corbyn is somewhat opposed to foreign intervention, the article I posted above proves just that. Doubt he'd suddenly change his views if elected.
How is that not an answer? Do you need someone to explain to you how foreign interventions cause instability?
You just said the rates were previously at the levels Corbyn is proposing, I know that's the case with corporation tax (but your point wouldn't take into account that we didn't have Brexit to contend with last time), though I was talking about income tax which I just looked up would be astronomically higher for the rich under Corbyn than they were when Labour were last in power.
He also voted against using military force against Daesh in Iraq, something that was requested by their sovereign government to prevent it and the instability that came with it spreading.
I have, and it does not commit to an equivalent renewal. Moreover, they've both refused to commit to it during interviews on TV and radio.
Not at all. You could, however, explain to me what non-intervention achieves at this stage in the game. Being right about Iraq in 2003, doesn't make the same policy correct today. He has referred to the Libyan intervention repeatedly, what's he going to do to fix it?
He's also the only major party leader pledging to stay in the common market, which takes care of the problem corporations have with Brexit. I don't think they've said what income tax will be, maybe it will be astronomical, or maybe that's just unfounded speculation.
This is not the case. They're explicitly for leaving the single market.
Well for a start, he's not going to hold Trumps hand should America ask for an Iran war - which has a realistic chance of happening considering the company he keeps. It would also stop the current mess in the middle east from getting worse because of us.
Tariff free access. Sorry, you're right.
Is this where I point out that Labour is a democratic party and an individual's opinions don't matter in regards to the manifesto, even that of the leader? Corbyn is against nuclear weapons full stop, it's in there because the party isn't.
Yeah that's right, I wouldn't have ever known he'd said that had I not watched it at the time.
reddit said:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He said he will negotiate tariff free access to the single market, that wouldn't take into account all the other related costs such as administration that come without full single market access.
Yeah, I misremember that sorry. But the point is, so long as corporations have full access to the single market - doesn't that solve their Brexit problem? And is it not better for them than reverting to WTO rules?
There's not really any such thing as "full access" outside of membership. The tariff thing is a bit of a red herring, the most valuable thing we get from the single market is the freedom of services within it, which nobody gets outside of at least the EEA. And I'm deeply sceptical they'll be granting us a deal on that.
Fair. And yeah, it's a ridiculous situation we're in thanks to Brexit.
excellent spech.
A start would be the humility to know that the British PM can't "fix" an entire country, let alone one which has nothing to do with Britain or him.
Think he is likely to remain inthe eea and accept freedom of movement if push comes. To shove.
FFS. They must have figured their experience in Liverpool was part of a successful business model.
MAD!
Labour just need to go hard on police numbers. I mean you can say Labour under Corbyn may do this and that but the Tories actually have a record the public will be angry about in this case. Then there's May accusing the police of scaremongering.
Indeed. It gives her the ideal excuse for not being out in front of TV cameras, as she can claim the security situation is too important.
The policing numbers made no difference to these attacks. Responding to them is the job of the police, preventing them is the job of the intelligence services.
Not necessarily true. There's a case that having the police working closely with communities means they can get early information on people that are becoming radicalized. People are more likely to talk to the local 'bobby on the beat' than they are to contact a faceless hotline or huge government department.
