Corbyns losing it on triedebt right?

[fuckwitery]

Or AIBU? re question time special.

I am not in favour of nuclear weapons in any way. I agree that we should be working to never getting to that point, but the question was asking if push came to shove, would he push the button to defend us. Not a first strike but would he do it.

I would not want to be in that position, but I am not putting myself forward to be leader of a country and I feel he should have given an answer.

The Tories are going to lower more taxes for businesses. We run our own business and corporation tax will be going from 20% to 17% over the next few years. It makes me so angry! We need to be paying more taxes, not less to support public services.

Why are the Tories LOWERING taxes? makes no sense what so ever.

I'll be voting labour, for the first time, ever.

"why's everyone so keen to kill millions of people"

I think it is simplistic to say that. The audience is basically judging how much a pacifist Corbyn is, and when the unfortunate reality doesn't align with his principles what would he do. Because there is a vast space between talking around a table and nuclear bombing, but no convincing strategy is offered to fill that.

If he doesn't want to use it not in the first case of even the second cse as he said why spend all the money on it then? His answer is his party wants it in....well if he cannot influence and convince his party to his way of thinking on that he does not want it than how the hell is going to have any influence in brexit talks.

Furthermore all the money being spent on Trident is money that could be spent on NHS,schools etc. IT would mean he wouldn't have to increase corporation tax.

Why are the Tories LOWERING taxes? confused makes no sense what so ever.

To get votes.

Bollocks that Trump would not hesitate. He hasn't nuked North Korea... I reckon he's waiting for them to try and strike, first... Ooh. Just like Corbyn.

MAD worked when it was superstate vs superstate - where each have leaders who don't want to die. When you have leaders willing to use these weapons whether or not they are under threat it fails. If one of these states uses a weapon what possible benefit would we have by using a nuclear weapon against them? They would be in bunkers happy to see us effectively killing the planet because nothing would make them believe we would be as crazy as them

I cannot bring myself to vote for either of them. I don't believe this country has ever had such a lack of choice when it comes to political leaders. It's a poor state of affairs imo.

I thought he did particularly well on the IRA issue.
For God's sake please vote labour people, some of us only have crappy local parties to vote for.

Most countries DON'T HAVE nuclear weapons.

Why do we? What do we have to fear that most countries don't have to fear? Why aren't other civilised countries developing nuclear weapons?

Ah so he was asked about sitting next to an arsenal? I didn't hear the question well but i also thought he said sitting next to an arsehole and then Corbyn did cats bum mouth!

I struggle to look at it balanced as i like Corbyn but hate how bloody principled he is in not wanting to bring mudslinging into politics. He could have buried TM in so many of his responses without the need to exaggerate the truth.

Trident questions really annoyed me and the 'how much are you prepared to pay to leave EU' questions TM had annoy me. Over whether you would launch a nuclear missile isnt something you can commit to in hypothetical scenarios and equally you're not going to declare what a 'bad deal' is before you negotiate with other countries.

Overall I think taking questions from the public for this kind of programme is pointless. There was no depth to a lot of the questions. The questioning needs to be done by someone who has heard and scrutinised the sounbites and the statistics quoted. Like Paxmans if he wasn't biased and let people speak.

Tories have always been about lower taxes; lower corporation tax helps small to medium businesses. They are going to increase the personal allowance again and move the threhold at which 40% tax kicks in. This is going to help the poorer and middle class people.

and if you get rid of all your nuclear weapons, and god forbid someone attacks the UK with their nuclear weapons, what then? Lets be honest - no one is going to get rid of nuclear weapons because Jeremy Corbyn says so.

We need to be paying more taxes, not less to support public services.

I agree, I am disappointed that the Tories doesn't raise tax moderately, and I think cooperate tax should remain at current level. That said quite a lot of companies are already thinking about executing their exit strategy (which they had in place before Brexit happen) so maybe she feels a cut will secure the investments to prevent an exodus. A tax cut may not work so well once the exodus actually started.

I supported the broad base 1% tax rise for NHS and reversing the additional tax band to 50%.

and god forbid someone attacks the UK with their nuclear weapons, what then

Why aren't other countries who haven't got nuclear weapons developing them?

What do we know that they don't?

Orlantina but you don't know that for a fact though. At the moment 5 countries have NPT nuclear weapons, and 3 have Non-NPT nuclear weapons, of the three, north korea may/may not have land and/or sea based weapons. Israel may have nuclear weapons, but they have decided not to declare it. How many others do you think might not want to declare it? Personally i would rather the UK have it, but of course only to be used under extreme duress.

and god forbid someone attacks the UK with their nuclear weapons, what then

we all die - pretty much like we would with nuclear weapons ...

How many others do you think might not want to declare it

Germany?
Holland?
Australia?
Italy?
Norway?
Sweden?
Spain?
South American countries?

Why don't they need them?

And if you have them as a deterrent, then shouldn't you declare you have them so people don't attack you?

Personally i would rather the UK have it, but of course only to be used under extreme duress

At what point would they have stopped Russia invading Crimea and the Ukraine?

At what point do you decide to end the world?

To be completely honest...

Unless you are an absolute maniac, if we were all about to die anyway, why would it make you eel better to know Jc would happily be melting thousands of babies...

That had had nothing to do with our own deaths?

It's fucking mental.

I'm with Jc on this one, how about we aren't dicks to the rest of the planet and actually practice some diplomacy.

Or do we think all foreign people are animals that will destroy us if we don't threaten mutual destruction?

Maybe we should follow Israel's example, then - when asked if we have nuclear weapons, just smile enigmatically and leave everyone guessing. It's just so much cheaper that way. It's not as if Israel would want to nuke those most keen to attack it, anyway, given the fact they live on its very doorstep. You would only want to nuke somewhere an incredibly long way from home (and only if the wind was blowing in the right direction...). Nuclear weapons are such an appalling invention, only the certifiably insane would actually use them and we all know that. That's why everyone is scared of North Korea. Bomb North Korea and South Korea might have something to say about that, too!

It must be quite hard to hide a nuclear weapons programme in the budget.

Education: if everyone goes to university then that effectively makes an undergrad degree a requirement for an entry level post that previously required GCSE's (it's what happened under the last Labour government when they last put that idea forward) it devalues education when it's meant to be a way for employers to choose suitable candidates and skill people for the workforce.

Huh? That didn't happen under Labour; it happened in the early 1990s. Loads of new places, and a lot of Polytechnics, which traditionally offered more employment-based skills, became universities. Deliberate policy, which was officially done to increase skills and reduce inequality. The fact it also massively reduced youth unemployment was probably a good bonus - but the massive costs meant we ended up abolishing free education, too.

I quote: [[http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ceedp79.pdf The early Nineties have been characterised by a dramatic change in the British higher education landscape. Reforms allowed universities to expand and at the same time new institutions were granted university status. In a five year period, the number of
students doubled (from 15% in 1988 to 30% by 1992).]]

If you want to attack Labour, then at least don't do so over the policies of Major and Thatcher, set in play at a time when Labour hadn't been in power for over a decade. And if your argument against voting Labour, personally, is that you don't like what they do when in power, might be a notion to check out which administration did what, and when. Assuming parties you dislike did everything you disagree with isn't reliable.

Personally, I think we should give highly qualified tradespeople degrees. I don't see why a fully qualified gas plumber, or electrician, both of whom literally keep us alive, shouldn't be formally trained at a standard that could attract a degree. Plenty of degrees require workplace settings to fulfil the practical side, and it would presumably help weed out cowboys if there was a single, recognised level of qualification. Don't see why it has to be Golf Course Planning gets a degree (it does - not making that up) but specialist electricians don't, personally.

At what point would they have stopped Russia invading Crimea and the Ukraine?

I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.

Or do we think all foreign people are animals that will destroy us if we don't threaten mutual destruction?

Did you see the sort of people braying for Jc to push the button in question time?

No doubt that is exactly what they think.