But it wasn't no. It was "I'll think about it at the time" which, when you only have 10-15 mins to think about it and respond, isn't reassuring.
This is what annoys me, everyone knows Corbyn is against Nuclear War and has been an activist for decades against it, as well as being there protesting against governments against the wars in Iraq and bombing Syria...and yet this is a bad thing to some? It's not a question that's debatable, no one should want to hear yes as an answer to it. In fact the only person in power who comes to mind about pro-nuclear weapons is Trump, does anyone want a politician who wants to be compared to that level? No.
One thing stood out from last night's debate, Corbyn's questions were mostly based on his past (which in perspective is just a man who wants peace by going right to the cause and trying to talk, but the media won't spin it that way), May's questions were everything about right now in the present about things that are affecting us all that they've caused in the last 7 years, and will continue to do so if the Conservatives are in power this time next week.
I'm quite frankly petrified about my future if the Conservatives win, because after 7 years I'm worn out of struggling to live because of their policies and their cuts. I've already got to deal with Brexit affecting my life and don't think I can handle another 5 years of them fucking it even more.
Then why doesn't he say he would never ever use nuclear weapons?! A definite answer would've shut down any more questions but he refused to give a straight answer and the audience and dimbleby had every right to get a straight answer out of him.
His answer was pretty simple. He wouldn't ever use nuclear weapons in a first-fire capacity, and would prefer using negotiation before ever reaching that point.
The outrage was because he didn't immediately say 'yes, I'd kill millions of people and destroy the planet in the process.'
Lol no it wasn't at all please stop being utterly ridiculous, you'd do well to be a daily mail writer with that kind of hyperbolic nonesense.
He just never said yes or no would he use them. It's the fact he refused to say he'd use them and danced around the idea of using them if we were attacked by nuclear weapons (which I've repeatedly posted why this is the most morally correct way of acting in possession of nuclear weapons).
People were trying to get an answer and he repeatedly refused to give a definite answer.
I think sometimes his principles get in the way. Noble but you have to play the game. For me, I do not see how we would be under any more threat than Germany (which doesn't have nukes) if we ditched Trident. Corbyn's position is the right one but he is being led into a trap. Not sure MAy would push teh button in all circumstances either!
DEFENCE hawks who want Britain to spend more than £100 billion renewing its nuclear arsenal admitted this weekend that they would never “push the button” themselves.
Royal United Services Institute deputy director-general Malcolm Chalmers said he did not think “most British prime ministers … since we acquired nuclear weapons” would have been prepared to use them, even if Britain itself faced a nuclear attack.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been singled out for criticism for saying that he would not fire Britain’s Trident missiles under any circumstances.
Mr Corbyn was sticking to his principles yesterday, telling Andrew Marr on his BBC show: “Greater security in the world is not achieved by nuclear weapons.”
Speaking at the Fabian Society conference, Mr Chalmers claimed that whether or not weapons were actually deployed was irrelevant as “retention of Trident is about deterrence, and it’s about psychology.”
David Clark, who worked as an aide to the late Labour foreign secretary Robin Cook, said: “For a deterrent to work doesn’t require leaders to press buttons — it requires the capability, combined with uncertainty in the mind of an adversary, about your intentions, which is why sensible leaders never get into a position of answering the question of whether they would press the button.”
Hell, all he had to say is "I would take military counsel at the time and act on the advice I was given by the military". But he didn't, he just didn't communicate his views properly or make a quick decision to say that, and when you're a leader of a party and of a country, that is literally your job.
Hell, all he had to say is "I would take military counsel at the time and act on the advice I was given by the military". But he didn't, he just didn't communicate his views properly or make a quick decision to say that, and when you're a leader of a party and of a country, that is literally your job.
Why is this the main story to come from the question time though?
Theresa May told a nurse to her face to get over her 7 year wage cut and the media would rather talk about a fantasy world in which nukes are needed.
The nuclear deterrent theory is an outdated 1950's military strategy that has no place in today's world. No one should be even contemplating asking the question, let alone trying to answer if they would use a nuclear weapon.
Hell, all he had to say is "I would take military counsel at the time and act on the advice I was given by the military". But he didn't, he just didn't communicate his views properly or make a quick decision to say that, and when you're a leader of a party and of a country, that is literally your job.
Why is this the main story to come from the question time though?
Theresa May told a nurse to her face to get over her 7 year wage cut and the media would rather talk about a fantasy world in which nukes are needed.
I know which I'm more outraged about.
We know the answer to that though. The clue is the word 'press'. Corbyn has to accept this is going to be fired at him (excuse the pun) and win despite it!
I don't understand what answer people want him to give tbh. "Yes I will happily fire a missile that kills millions of innocents". Hardly a vote winner.
Well seeing as it's a decision that he may well have to make as PM, I think the electorate are within their rights to know and to ask him.
Before this build up started, as much I'm obviously not one of Corbyn's biggest fans, I had a grudging respect for him as imo he said what he thought, rather than what everyone wanted to hear, much like Livingstone, Trump, Tony Benn, Farage etc., but I think now he's fallen into the same trap as every other UK politician in just wanting to please the crowd.
Damo, have you seen the Facebook stuff the Conservatives are flooding out where they cut and paste some Corbyn speeches to make it sound as if he won't condemn the IRA? Not fake accounts. The Tory election machine. Stuff the right like to convince the voters Corbyn would say.
Both are as bad as each other. More than happy to admit the faults with Tories.
Whatever happens this country (combined with Brexit) is going to be a horrible, divided place to live in the next few years.
Tories are not a perfect solution.
Some people on here literally have a view that we will be living in some kind of Utopia in a few years time.
It's gonna be pretty shitty whatever happens.
Good post @DamoNorthStand , considerably more measured than my one so hats off, you should maybe think about being a statesman. Have you considered joining the Labour party ;-)
They are actually weakening the effectiveness of Trident by asking him the question. The Labour party have committed to it! The whole point of it is for it to never be used. I would say wanting to please the crowd is the easy option, but that is something not in Corbyns make up. Miltary experts say a prime minister should never say they will definitely push the button. It is cheap politics, but like I said earlier, Corbyn has to play the game, no matter how ridiculous it is.
Can't believe some of the vile comments on twitter and Facebook calling members of the public bloodthirsty just because they wanted a straight answer from Corbyn about nuclear weapons.
He gave a straight answer about deals with the snp and condemning all acts of terror which shut down any more questions about that completely.
I can't believe people are asking whether he wants to kill millions of people, and that they're offended that his answer has been no.
But it wasn't no. It was "I'll think about it at the time" which, when you only have 10-15 mins to think about it and respond, isn't reassuring.
It's very difficult to imagine any potential nuclear confrontation with any other country that would in reality develop in '10-15 mins' - plus the 'examples' given by the questioners - Iran or North Korea - are not realistic either.
Iran currently doesn't have nuclear weapons and if it did it would probably target them at it's Sunni 'enemy' Saudi Arabia (who incidentally don't have nuclear weapons but it's reasonably reliably reported that they funded Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons and could and would get some from Pakistan if the 'need' arose).
As for North Korea it would seem it does have a nuclear weapon but not (yet) the ability to miniaturise it to put on a missile or a reliable missile to put it on. And if at any point NK develop that ability and Kim Jong Un takes it into his head to use them it would more likely be against South Korea or any US territory it could reach (not the much further way UK). And before we got to that point the US and/or China would probably intervene....
Utterly bonkers and distracting how this nuclear non issue is dominating. Under what circumstances would the UK need to use nuclear weapons? Like the Brexit vote, this is some kind of mid twentieth century timewarp mindset.
Having to talk endlessly about this and Europe when the UK has real issues in the NHS and education system, for example, seems bizarrely anachronistic.
The nuclear deterrent theory is an outdated 1950's military strategy that has no place in today's world. No one should be even contemplating asking the question, let alone trying to answer if they would use a nuclear weapon.
So what game theory work has superseded the deterrent theory? Or are you developing one yourself? If you are I'd be the first to create a petition to award you with a nobel prize.
The nuclear deterrent theory is an outdated 1950's military strategy that has no place in today's world. No one should be even contemplating asking the question, let alone trying to answer if they would use a nuclear weapon.
So what game theory work has superseded the deterrent theory? Or are you developing one yourself? If you are I'd be the first to create a petition to award you with a nobel prize.
We don't need a deterrence anymore, if we no longer have nuclear weapons we're not at risk of the likes of Russia or India suddenly deciding to nuke us are we? If USA scrapped it's weapons, Russia isn't going to jump the gun and nuke them are they? The idea of a deterrence is outdated, it doesn't stop ISIS going around blowing kids up does it?
I'm astounded that the use of nuclear weapons is even a factor in this election debate when there's so many other important things at stake here.
Missed the Theresa May part but I must say Corbyn at least believes in what he says which makes a change for politics. In my opinion if he didn't have himself surrounded with people like Abbott and McDonnell people would be much more inclined to vote for him.
He's thrown a bit of a wobbly on the nuclear weapons questions and as someone said earlier he answers every question in a vague way by expanding the answer in to other things, as I type this he's completely dodged the blokes questions about business' moving abroad (this is one of my big worries)
Corporation tax at 26% still lower than the other G7 countries. There, answered
That literally hasn't answered the question he was asked..
Didn't it? The suggestion was that if Corporation Tax was raised, companies would move to other countries. The response was that Labour's proposal to raise Corporation Tax would still result in the UK having the lowest rates of the other G7 countries, and with CT still being lower that it was in 2010. So, if companies did decide to leave the UK, it would clearly be for other reasons.
Why couldn't they move to Ireland?
Do they want to do business in our very wealthy economy? We are about to leave the EU after all and about to negotiate a lot of new trade deals.
Indeed. However, it'd be easier, and more profitable, to move their registered head office to Ireland and pay corporation tax there. Everything else stays in place for them.
It seems that those that were fretting about business leaving the UK as a result of Brexit, are now advocating trying to further push them away.
This has been discussed loads of times. If you run a successful business in the U.K. lets say a chain of car washes. You claim your HO is in Dublin, but how are you going to get your revenue and costs into the Dublin company's books? Send an invoice for " management services" or following the Starbucks model " brand use" ? HMRC will be down on you like a ton of Millwall Bricks.
Why then are they letting Google and Facebook get away with it? Well, you tell me. Incompetence and lack of resource, I would suggest though.
Actually it would be interesting to hear from @DamoNorthStand on this. His "boss", Sir Martin Sorrell, moved WPP HQ to Dublin. then he moved it back again. Right, Damo?
That's correct.
Things are looking decidedly tricky in our sector and any tax changes are likely to be felt considering that he slowdown in ad spend is already being felt. And frankly has done since Brexit.
This week we merged with Maxus - the "4th" WPP media agency to make one big agency.
The squeeze is already being felt and people are nervous for the future. We employ thousands of staff across multiple agencies in London. And some of the changes that are being spoken about could affect our staff.
But as we are not public sector or NHS it doesn't get spoken about.
I have a question for everyone that is a Tory supporter or a Corbyn doubtful...
Is Jeremy Corbyn too Complacent in your views, "a pacifist" that is not leadership material because he refuses to kill millions of people? or is he a terrorist sympathiser that condones the killing of innocent people?
You see the right wing bias press have accused him of being both, sometimes on the same day. The two things couldn't be any different, complete binary opposites, so each a contradiction of the other. You can't have it both ways so which one is he?
The claim that he is a terrorist sympathiser is scandalous and disgusting. It is scraping the very bottom of a deep barrel. When you have conflicts causing many innocent deaths, you have people like Corbyn who try to find the solutions to stop the bloodshed and others who want policies that perpetuate the violence. How can people not get this? What amazes me is the peace process was achieved by talking to terrorists and even Unionist hardliners like the Rev Ian Paisley worked that out and even forged an unlikely friendship with McGuiness.
The claim that he is a terrorist sympathiser is scandalous and disgusting. It is scraping the very bottom of a deep barrel. When you have conflicts causing many innocent deaths, you have people like Corbyn who try to find the solutions to stop the bloodshed and others who want policies that perpetuate the violence. How can people not get this? What amazes me is the peace process was achieved by talking to terrorists and even Unionist hardliners like the Rev Ian Paisley worked that out and even forged an unlikely friendship with McGuiness.
Exactly, but The Sun doesn't want you thinking like that.
The chances of nuclear war seem to increase of there are utter right wing s***stains in charge. There are clearly a few of them about. Let's make sure we don't elect one
IRA bombs were part and parcel of my growing up - to find a solution, politicians had to talk to the IRA. This eventually brought about the Good Friday Agreement. I challenge all those who have an issue with politicians talking to the IRA to read Peter Hain's excellent account dating from 2007 of how peace was achieved. In all honesty, I don't expect one of the people critical of Corbyn's position to take the time to read it.
I joined CL in 2009 (well the Clique invited me to join, I had put them off for years) and read most of the 2010 election thread with interest but barely commented and found the bias to the right At that election I voted Lib Dem. I think one of the staunchest Tories then was @sadiejane1981 who has now moved over to Labour. You could sense that people were moving from all areas slightly to the right.
Shamefully, yes
I was asked by someone in my family why the big U-turn? Well I wouldn't call it a U-turn I'd call it growing up, getting educated and experiencing life. I was bought up Conservative and was very lucky that I never wanted for anything, however life experience and living among real people in the real world and seeing real life struggles can really change someone's perspective. Also needless to say having children with special needs and seeing their services cut and/or abolished all over the place by Tories that feel these children should just use the mainstream services available to them also played a part.
Someone should ask May about her role in 2010 when movement restrictions were removed and thousands of Lybian extremists were given back passports and encouraged to fight Gadaffi because the USA thought his removal would be better for the Middle East. Wonder if one of them taught Abedi how to make his bomb?
I joined CL in 2009 (well the Clique invited me to join, I had put them off for years) and read most of the 2010 election thread with interest but barely commented and found the bias to the right At that election I voted Lib Dem. I think one of the staunchest Tories then was @sadiejane1981 who has now moved over to Labour. You could sense that people were moving from all areas slightly to the right.
Shamefully, yes
I was asked by someone in my family why the big U-turn? Well I wouldn't call it a U-turn I'd call it growing up, getting educated and experiencing life. I was bought up Conservative and was very lucky that I never wanted for anything, however life experience and living among real people in the real world and seeing real life struggles can really change someone's perspective. Also needless to say having children with special needs and seeing their services cut and/or abolished all over the place by Tories that feel these children should just use the mainstream services available to them also played a part.
You should never feel shame for your political views and everyone can change their viewpoint at any time. It doesn't make you a hypocrite or that you were wrong at the time. This line of thought seems to have only come in recently with dinosaurs like Corbyn coming through who have basically never changed their views on anything. Yet somehow this is something people now want in a leader? Very strange.
I feel Mr Corbyns approach may be similar to Neville Chamberlain. I had a nice cup of tea and a little chat with this Mr Hitler chap and he's promised not to do anything nasty. Look he's signed this piece of paper. That turned out well. Of course Mr Chamberlain was a Tory!!! And of course we were ill prepared to defend these islands due to a run down on defence spending as well.
It's all very well having these nice conversations with groups over the years but sometimes you have to be prepared to take difficult decisions to protect your nation.
I joined CL in 2009 (well the Clique invited me to join, I had put them off for years) and read most of the 2010 election thread with interest but barely commented and found the bias to the right At that election I voted Lib Dem. I think one of the staunchest Tories then was @sadiejane1981 who has now moved over to Labour. You could sense that people were moving from all areas slightly to the right.
Shamefully, yes
I was asked by someone in my family why the big U-turn? Well I wouldn't call it a U-turn I'd call it growing up, getting educated and experiencing life. I was bought up Conservative and was very lucky that I never wanted for anything, however life experience and living among real people in the real world and seeing real life struggles can really change someone's perspective. Also needless to say having children with special needs and seeing their services cut and/or abolished all over the place by Tories that feel these children should just use the mainstream services available to them also played a part.
You should never feel shame for your political views and everyone can change their viewpoint at any time. It doesn't make you a hypocrite or that you were wrong at the time. This line of thought seems to have only come in recently with dinosaurs like Corbyn coming through who have basically never changed their views on anything. Yet somehow this is something people now want in a leader? Very strange.
I feel Mr Corbyns approach may be similar to Neville Chamberlain. I had a nice cup of tea and a little chat with this Mr Hitler chap and he's promised not to do anything nasty. Look he's signed this piece of paper. That turned out well. Of course Mr Chamberlain was a Tory!!! And of course we were ill prepared to defend these islands due to a run down on defence spending as well.
It's all very well having these nice conversations with groups over the years but sometimes you have to be prepared to take difficult decisions to protect your nation.
IRA bombs were part and parcel of my growing up - to find a solution, politicians had to talk to the IRA. This eventually brought about the Good Friday Agreement. I challenge all those who have an issue with politicians talking to the IRA to read Peter Hain's excellent account dating from 2007 of how peace was achieved. In all honesty, I don't expect one of the people critical of Corbyn's position to take the time to read it.
Comments
He just never said yes or no would he use them. It's the fact he refused to say he'd use them and danced around the idea of using them if we were attacked by nuclear weapons (which I've repeatedly posted why this is the most morally correct way of acting in possession of nuclear weapons).
People were trying to get an answer and he repeatedly refused to give a definite answer.
DEFENCE hawks who want Britain to spend more than £100 billion renewing its nuclear arsenal admitted this weekend that they would never “push the button” themselves.
Royal United Services Institute deputy director-general Malcolm Chalmers said he did not think “most British prime ministers … since we acquired nuclear weapons” would have been prepared to use them, even if Britain itself faced a nuclear attack.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been singled out for criticism for saying that he would not fire Britain’s Trident missiles under any circumstances.
Mr Corbyn was sticking to his principles yesterday, telling Andrew Marr on his BBC show: “Greater security in the world is not achieved by nuclear weapons.”
Speaking at the Fabian Society conference, Mr Chalmers claimed that whether or not weapons were actually deployed was irrelevant as “retention of Trident is about deterrence, and it’s about psychology.”
David Clark, who worked as an aide to the late Labour foreign secretary Robin Cook, said: “For a deterrent to work doesn’t require leaders to press buttons — it requires the capability, combined with uncertainty in the mind of an adversary, about your intentions, which is why sensible leaders never get into a position of answering the question of whether they would press the button.”
Is the answer to that possibly to do with the fear of retaliation?
Theresa May told a nurse to her face to get over her 7 year wage cut and the media would rather talk about a fantasy world in which nukes are needed.
I know which I'm more outraged about.
Before this build up started, as much I'm obviously not one of Corbyn's biggest fans, I had a grudging respect for him as imo he said what he thought, rather than what everyone wanted to hear, much like Livingstone, Trump, Tony Benn, Farage etc., but I think now he's fallen into the same trap as every other UK politician in just wanting to please the crowd.
Iran currently doesn't have nuclear weapons and if it did it would probably target them at it's Sunni 'enemy' Saudi Arabia (who incidentally don't have nuclear weapons but it's reasonably reliably reported that they funded Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons and could and would get some from Pakistan if the 'need' arose).
As for North Korea it would seem it does have a nuclear weapon but not (yet) the ability to miniaturise it to put on a missile or a reliable missile to put it on. And if at any point NK develop that ability and Kim Jong Un takes it into his head to use them it would more likely be against South Korea or any US territory it could reach (not the much further way UK). And before we got to that point the US and/or China would probably intervene....
Having to talk endlessly about this and Europe when the UK has real issues in the NHS and education system, for example, seems bizarrely anachronistic.
I'm astounded that the use of nuclear weapons is even a factor in this election debate when there's so many other important things at stake here.
Things are looking decidedly tricky in our sector and any tax changes are likely to be felt considering that he slowdown in ad spend is already being felt. And frankly has done since Brexit.
This week we merged with Maxus - the "4th" WPP media agency to make one big agency.
The squeeze is already being felt and people are nervous for the future. We employ thousands of staff across multiple agencies in London. And some of the changes that are being spoken about could affect our staff.
But as we are not public sector or NHS it doesn't get spoken about.
I have a question for everyone that is a Tory supporter or a Corbyn doubtful...
Is Jeremy Corbyn too Complacent in your views, "a pacifist" that is not leadership material because he refuses to kill millions of people? or is he a terrorist sympathiser that condones the killing of innocent people?
You see the right wing bias press have accused him of being both, sometimes on the same day. The two things couldn't be any different, complete binary opposites, so each a contradiction of the other. You can't have it both ways so which one is he?
The chances of nuclear war seem to increase of there are utter right wing s***stains in charge. There are clearly a few of them about. Let's make sure we don't elect one
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/nio/ph120607.pdf
I was asked by someone in my family why the big U-turn? Well I wouldn't call it a U-turn I'd call it growing up, getting educated and experiencing life. I was bought up Conservative and was very lucky that I never wanted for anything, however life experience and living among real people in the real world and seeing real life struggles can really change someone's perspective. Also needless to say having children with special needs and seeing their services cut and/or abolished all over the place by Tories that feel these children should just use the mainstream services available to them also played a part.
It's all very well having these nice conversations with groups over the years but sometimes you have to be prepared to take difficult decisions to protect your nation.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/