Agreed unfortunately.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Maybe he thinks Ukip stand a chance of winning in Thanet now that the Tory candidate has been tarnished.
Did you read the article? Mackinlay beat Farage in the '15 election.
That's known but Farage being so positive to the mainstream media is strange. He's always loved claiming bias against his party etc.
Yeah, exactly that. He's also been surprisingly complimentary of people who was shit talking while campaigning for Brexit. At this rate he'll be campaigning for the Green party at the next election.
Think that's almost impossible considering the general decline in UKIP. They couldn't manage in 2015 with their central figure contesting it. If anything Labour may stand to benefit.
Yeah fair enough, I was just taking it as face value. Like Trump thanking articles from fake news New York Times that happen to agree with him.
He has been acting strangely these last few days, positive words about Corbyn was definitely out of character.
It's why I just can't help but think that the right wing want the Tories to lose and Labour to have to deal with the poisoned chalice. There's along term strategy there that worries me.
Descriptions from a Lord Ashcroft focus group
Make Britain Hungry AgainDescriptions from a Lord Ashcroft focus group
Who is this scum that doesn't like bourbons.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think if you take a form line through the Barnet & York QTs of the last 2 nights - both reasonably representative audiences in their different ways - May would seem to have it in the bag now by a reasonable margin.
Corbyn done very well up to tonight, May pretty bad up to tonight. Tories & their press will have a good last weekend now though, after that.
@Silva
Corbyn done very well up to tonight, May pretty bad up to tonight. Tories & their press will have a good last weekend now though, after that.
@Silva
Why are they asking these questions
I love that some people here actually think Corbyn saying publicly that he would or wouldn't use the nuclear weapon in retaliation is a factor in whether a country would nuke us or not. The simpleton logic is astounding
What's a reasonable margin? 50ish seats?
I didn't think Corbyn did particularity well tonight but journalists seem to have him winning over May.
Wars have frequently been started because one side doubts the other will respond. It was certainly a major factor in Argentina invading the Falklands and Saddam invading Kuwait. Ambiguity is not helpful in international diplomacy.I love that some people here actually think Corbyn saying publicly that he would or wouldn't use the nuclear weapon in retaliation is a factor in whether a country would nuke us or not. The simpleton logic is astounding
They like a good narrative, and the hippy weirdo with momentum overcoming our lizard overlord is a good narrative. But it probably won't come to enough next week sadly.
Elections have sometimes been called when an easy win was predicted.
That was painstakingly bad on the nuclear question. Just say I would hate to use it but if the situation demands it I'd have to and move on.
Other than that he outperformed her but no one will remember that.
Other than that he outperformed her but no one will remember that.
Starting at 50 even,
.I don't know, might be quite lively but I kinda worry about the Labour vote holding up in places that haven't felt the austerity because that's all they know anyway but they blame the Forrins insurgency (that a lot never see btw) instead of the Conservative government doing the cutting.
Like the Brexit vote basically but slightly offset by a few warming to Corbyn who hadn't previously. Core vote of the Tories won't go away from them & they have some coming back from UKIP too.
Unless the young vote goes berserk.
Tories 320 - 380
Labour 200 - 260
Yes Mr Putin they do have nuclear weapons but they promised not to use them so we'll be fine nuking them
When you're talking about nuclear weapons there is no reduced risk ffs.
God damn. The MVP was UKIP.
Misread her name at first.
Ok General, let's throw out all the long established principles when it comes to nuclear diplomacy and deterrence that have prevented nuclear war for 70 years and go with this new strategy. What could possibly go wrong.Yes Mr Putin they do have nuclear weapons but they promised not to use them so we'll be fine nuking them
When you're talking about nuclear weapons there is no reduced risk ffs.
We should go back to champions fighting each other, fist fight to the death, winner take all!
There is no new strategy, trident is getting renewal. It persists as a deterrent.
You honestly believe Corbyn not declaring publicly has an impact don't you. Incredible
Or the chess thing. Either is good.
Chessboxing. Now we're getting somewhere. Check mate or knockout for Crimea.
I'll go Tory majority of 75.
Yeah, anyone planning to attack the UK would already know JC be reluctant press the button so it makes no difference what he did or didn't say. And in terms of elections, he'd have lost credibility with the public if he said anything different.
Pointless trying to appease those war mongering Daily Mail readers anyway. They'll never vote for him.
"In 1949, the Soviets detonated an atomic bomb, ending American atomic hegemony and beginning the Cold War in earnest. Both sides were eager to expand their spheres of influence, particularly in Asia, which was seen as still ripe for ideological picking. In January 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson delivered a speech at the National Press Club. During the speech, which was delivered informally and without notes, Acheson identified a line around the globe that America would defend with all its might. The only problem was that his description of the line left out Korea, despite the growing communist forces gathered in the North. The communist Koreans were said to have taken the speech as a “green light” that they could invade the South without American intervention. Emboldened, they did so shortly afterwards. Of course, as we all know, the US did intend to defend South Korea. The ensuing war lasted three years and left millions dead."
Words can matter.
I just want to know whether they people asking the questions know how the Nuclear deterrent works.
That really isn't the point, no state when posed with the risk of us utilising our nukes against them is going to deem that risk negible because of the prior words of a state leader. Under such a situation you know actions may vary and authorities may change, heck you know a rogue situation is a possibility. The risks are too high.
If an enemy is beyond that rationale our deterrent has already failed and words matter not.
Think it's pretty dangerous.