Labour ?

Timmo1341 posted:

What a shame both our electoral and judicial systems are adversarial. Instead of concentrating on developing policies that may dig our nation out of the shit storm it's headed for, all our politicians, political commentators and 99% of Naim forum contributors can do is sneer and belittle all those with whom they don't agree. I've witnessed little or no constructive debate either here or in the press - what a sad, sad state of affairs. At least Jeremy Corbyn's aims appear to be, for the most part, decent and honorable. So he falters occasionally under pressure - who on here has never done likewise. I just wish they'd all carry the info with them and refer to it when questioned. 

I suppose it's too late to hope for a mature and responsible set of hustings!!h

Have you not ever listened to PM questions?

Bruce, you have summed up my own feelings perfectly

dayjay posted:

Cdb posted:

dayjay posted:

If you are launching a policy in a radio interview it stands to reason that they will ask you about the cost and that you prep for it.  If need be keep your iPad open, write it on your hand, tattoo it onto the inside of your wrist, do whatever it takes, as a professional to have the answer to the question that the opposition are trying to make you look flaky on.  That interview was as bad as the Abbot one.  If I presented a major policy to my bosses and didn't have basic data like the cost of the policy I wouldn't survive for very long.

I presume you are replying to my post, but I don't think you have read my post in relation to the one I was responding to. I didn't deny the interview was a wreck, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a fundamental policy/costing flaw. Anyhow I wonder if your presentations to your bosses have involved anything like the stresses involved in a GE campaign for the party leaders. 

Clive

 

He aspires to be Prime Minister and the pressure of being interviewed and the stress associated with it goes with the territory.  If there was a person specification for the job it would have 'deals well with stress and pressure' right at the top of it, after all he may one day have to make a decision on using nuclear weapons which I would imagine is a tad more stressful.  Any competent would be Prime Minister would prepped in advance and would have the data to hand.  And yes, it doesn't detract from the policy or the costing just his competence

Ironically, I think that the nuclear decision is one that would cause Corbyn no stress because he has a clear moral position that means he would never authorise the use of nuclear weapons. Of course that position causes a big problem strategically as nuclear bombs don't 'deter' if your opponents don't think you would use them - not for nothing was the strategy called MAD in the Cold War.

Anyhow I'm not sure the immediate stress of an interview in which you fail to recall a figure is a real test of the stress one would face as PM. I suspect that Corbyn after a particularly gruelling evening yesterday failed to focus on his homework this morning or simply lost concentration after all the work preparing for yesterday. 

I am not actually a Corbyn supporter and I don't have a very high opinion of his competence, but this is more a matter of his lack of experience in developing and carrying through policy into action and his apparent lack of skill in team-building and team work. I don't think what happened in the interview today is a signifier of particularly important shortcomings. I'm certainly not convinced by the 'Submarine' either whose CV seems pretty weak in relation to any outstanding achievements - she seems more astute in serving her career than in any other measure. And I would never vote for the Conservatives whose ideology I despise. I find it morally repugnant that they have been happy to pursue an austerity that bears down on the most vulnerable in our society, while handing out largesse to the wealthiest.

I will vote forlornly Labour in a Tory/Leave constituency because I believe that we do need some of the equality that Labour's policies would create and I am very concerned about the consequences for many if May gets a massive majority.

Clive

Mike-B posted:

Dave***t posted:

 

Hardly an edifying spectacle from any side. It'd work as satire, but as news or helping the electorate to understand the policies on offer, not so much.

One problem I have with Corbyn (among the many) is he can't say 'yes' or 'no' when asked to answer as such,  he just rambles on all around the subject,  he did it so many time last evening I lost count,  the Nuke question, the IRA,  the drone strike.  All it needed this morning was 'I don't have the numbers to hand..... '. 

Mind you TM does a pretty nifty job of not answering straight to direct questions.

..............   Looking forward to Friday

But don't you agree, Mike, that interviewers deliberately construct their questions into something that demands a binary response? It's almost like asking a man a question: 'Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?'.

I abhor this tactic as the issues are complex and often don't lend themselves to such simplistic answers which, if given, the interviewee knows only too well will be used out of context and in a critical way.  The audience is being short-changed because most want to understand the issue better rather than witness a blood sport.

In fairness, politicians are masters  at deploying the same tactics e.g. in PM's questions or when trying to humiliate a witness appearing before  a select committee.  But I still despair at this infantile type of debate. You wouldn't remotely consider using it when discussing an issue at work or socially.   

Yes I agree re your summary,  & I will add that I thought Paxman was unbelievably bad, crass & ineffective last night.  My point is last nights interview & most every other interview I can recall,  Corbyn seems deliberately or unable or for whatever reason known only to him,  unable to give a straight answer such as yes or no.    

Mike-B posted:

Yes I agree re your summary,  & I will add that I thought Paxman was unbelievably bad, crass & ineffective last night.  My point is last nights interview & most every other interview I can recall,  Corbyn seems deliberately or unable or for whatever reason known only to him,  unable to give a straight answer such as yes or no.    

Because the question should he is asked are impossible to answer yes or no to.

They pose questions which on the face of it are Yes/No questions, but either answer would be a trap for Corbyn to walk into.

Would you order a nuclear strike? Yes: then Corbyn is lying and he isn't a pacifist at all; No: then Corbyn can't be trusted with the security of the nation.

Mike-B posted:

Yes I agree re your summary,  & I will add that I thought Paxman was unbelievably bad, crass & ineffective last night.  My point is last nights interview & most every other interview I can recall,  Corbyn seems deliberately or unable or for whatever reason known only to him,  unable to give a straight answer such as yes or no.    

Paxman's sneering style jars with me too.  I do have some sympathy with Corbyn on this particular issue.  It's hypothetical of course and no Prime Minister has ever been asked to 'press the button'.  Any sane and balanced person should recoil from such an awesome responsibility. Who wouldn't have doubts about how they would act in circumstances in which the UK's nuclear weapons might realistically be deployed? If anything, I was more worried by the answer TM gave some time back, at PM's questions, I think, when she said she wouldn't hesitate to press the button.  I'm sure the 'question' was stage-managed by the Tories with the sole purpose of showing TM's strength and highlighting Corbyn's anti-nuclear stanch.  Hopefully TM was playing-to-the-gallery in this because I would want and expect any PM of the UK to be innately reluctant to deploy, demanding the highest evidence that there was no other course. And I say that as someone who has always supported the UK having a nuclear deterrent.    

Surely the whole point of having nuclear weapons is that there should  be absolutely no doubt that if attacked by nuclear weapons we would respond accordingly.
For instance I have absolutely no doubt that if Russia was hit by a nuke Putin would not hesitate to hit back, so I am also sure Russia will not be hit.
Corbyn, failing to give simple emphatic answers, sows doubt and undermines the whole point of spending billions in the first place.

Morton posted:

Surely the whole point of having nuclear weapons is that there should  be absolutely no doubt that if attacked by nuclear weapons we would respond accordingly.
For instance I have absolutely no doubt that if Russia was hit by a nuke Putin would not hesitate to hit back, so I am also sure Russia will not be hit.
Corbyn, giving failing to give simple emphatic answers, sows doubt and undermines the whole point of spending billions in the first place.

You've chosen a scenario in which the UK has already been attacked with nuclear weapons. In those circumstances I suspect the decision to retaliate with the UK's would be easier for the PM (even Corbyn). But what if the military was advising the UK's PM to deploy them as a first strike because the UK was under severe threat? Or because a nuclear weapon has been deployed elsewhere in the world, say in India/Pakistan, N or S Korea, and there's international pressure (say from the USA) for us to join in on a multi strike response against the transgressor? Not so simple now, I suggest.     

I am not sure that it is even sane to react to a nuclear weapons strike. No-one comes out a winner in that case and I thought the one (only?) strong point of having nuclear weapons is that of knowing there is no point in using them.

Any politician who conforms she would use them is a person of such miniscule intelligence that I am surprised she can breathe without life support.

MDS posted:

Morton posted:

Surely the whole point of having nuclear weapons is that there should  be absolutely no doubt that if attacked by nuclear weapons we would respond accordingly.
For instance I have absolutely no doubt that if Russia was hit by a nuke Putin would not hesitate to hit back, so I am also sure Russia will not be hit.
Corbyn, giving failing to give simple emphatic answers, sows doubt and undermines the whole point of spending billions in the first place.

You've chosen a scenario in which the UK has already been attacked with nuclear weapons. In those circumstances I suspect the decision to retaliate with the UK's would be easier for the PM (even Corbyn). But what if the military was advising the UK's PM to deploy them as a first strike because the UK was under severe threat? Or because a nuclear weapon has been deployed elsewhere in the world, say in India/Pakistan, N or S Korea, and there's international pressure (say from the USA) for us to join in on a multi strike response against the transgressor? Not so simple now, I suggest.     

 

True!
I'm not sure the question has ever been put quite like that.
Anyway in his recent Chatham house speech I think he all but ruled out any use of nuclear weapons,
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...cbdbe4b00f308cf4c3fd

There was an excellent play produced by BBC4 called 'War Book' about a group of civil servants and a couple of politicians doing a simulation exercise  depicting the UK potentially being drawn into a nuclear conflict.  It all takes place in a meeting room in Whitehall. Compelling, very sobering and unpacks the issues that HMG would face in way that shows just how complex the whole thing is likely to be.  I can highly recommend it. 

Nick from Suffolk posted:

I am not sure that it is even sane to react to a nuclear weapons strike. No-one comes out a winner in that case and I thought the one (only?) strong point of having nuclear weapons is that of knowing there is no point in using them.

Any politician who conforms she would use them is a person of such miniscule intelligence that I am surprised she can breathe without life support.

I am not understanding your logic, if you have nuclear weapons, publicly you must say you would use them....?

Forget the nuclear M.A.D. scenario,  Corbyn would not even give a clear yes or no answer on ordering a drone strike against a terrorist plotting overseas to attack the UK.   

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

I have never been so miserable about an election.

I have no trust in the Tories. I absolutely detest their 'blindness' to the effects of austerity and Brexit on the NHS. Jeremy Hunt is atrocious, he trots out utter nonsense and I have no idea whether he actually believes it. They have fought an essentially lazy and arrogant campaign in my view with almost no fresh ideas. Sad.

I have significant affinity for parts of the Labour manifesto (although not re-nationalisation of everything) but I don't believe the numbers and far more seriously I don't believe in their competence if made the ruling party. Lets face it, Corbyn can hardly bring together a shadow cabinet. I would pay more tax under them (and the LDs) and would be happy to do so but I honestly don't know that corporations and the City should be stung with Brexit around the corner. I have no idea what their Brexit plan is either. Do they?

As a along term LD supporter I see no great joy in their manifesto either. Some things I support but 'nice but Tim' is deeply uninspiring and legalising cannabis is a bit of nonsense far as I'm concerned. I cannot honestly see them having any real opposition role in the next Parliament. So were an LD vote felt useful before it feels pointless now

So for the first time in my adult life I may not vote. Sure the sitting MP (a relatively inoffensive individual on personal acquaintance) will get in anyway but it always felt important for me to vote before. It does not this time. Might even join my wife in voting Green just because it would make her pleased!

The only positive I can see is the evaporation of UKIP.

Bruce

 

 

I have similar concerns, but I shall vote. I'm not sure yet for whom I shall vote. But I shall vote, even if it is a protest vote.

I appreciate that our first past the post system could well deliver a large majority of seats despite a very low national vote for the winner.  But such a result should temper gross excesses of the next government.

Mike-B posted:

Forget the nuclear M.A.D. scenario,  Corbyn would not even give a clear yes or no answer on ordering a drone strike against a terrorist plotting overseas to attack the UK.   

But, Mike, this isn't dithering on Corbyn's part. I think he's had a long-stated opinion against what he might term State-sponsored assassinations. Last night I think he said he would have preferred Bin-Ladin to have been captured alive and brought to trial.  So, given that position, I can see why he would resist saying that he would authorise (the RAF) to use a drone to 'take-out' a 'baddie' in some foreign land.  Indeed there are those who question the international legality of such acts.  

For my part I've got no problem using drones to strike at terrorists, but I can respect the views of those who are against such acts e.g. because they side-step both a criminal trail (to prove guilt) and the UK's policy of being against capital punishment. 

Mike-B posted:

Forget the nuclear M.A.D. scenario,  Corbyn would not even give a clear yes or no answer on ordering a drone strike against a terrorist plotting overseas to attack the UK.   

How many innocent civilian deaths are permissible? 50 Syrian lives to save 20 British ones?  How about 100 Iraqi lives to save 10 British lives.  That was the kind of question that Corbyn was suggesting needs to be clarified before ordering the strike.  Again, not a question that can be answered yes or no.

He was asked,  given a very narrow time window,  if he would order a drone strike,  he then went off on his usual rambles about assessing the situation but no real answer.  The correct answer would be after explaining his thought process to finish with a clear yes I would order a strike, or no I would not order a strike.             Sorry folks this guy is not a safe pair of hands.  

Mike-B posted:

He was asked,  given a very narrow time window,  if he would order a drone strike,  he then went off on his usual rambles about assessing the situation but no real answer.  The correct answer would be after explaining his thought process to finish with a clear yes I would order a strike, or no I would not order a strike.             Sorry folks this guy is not a safe pair of hands.  

Better than May who will act as a yes woman to Trump and pursues an aggressive forigen policy against terrorists while offering help to regimes who have a history of supporting the very terrorists she claims to be against!

On the drone strikes against a terrorist... Even the pentagon accept 350 civilians have been killed in air strikes supposedly against ISIS and independent observers say it could be 10 times that!  Just this week (26th May) it was reported 100 civilians were killed in around 24 hours of strikes.

So there is NO yes or no answer... it all depends on the intelligence and the situation... just as Corbyn said!

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

He was asked,  given a very narrow time window,  if he would order a drone strike,  he then went off on his usual rambles about assessing the situation but no real answer.  The correct answer would be after explaining his thought process to finish with a clear yes I would order a strike, or no I would not order a strike.             Sorry folks this guy is not a safe pair of hands.  

Better than May who will act as a yes woman to Trump and pursues an aggressive forigen policy against terrorists while offering help to regimes who have a history of supporting the very terrorists she claims to be against!

On the drone strikes against a terrorist... Even the pentagon accept 350 civilians have been killed in air strikes supposedly against ISIS and independent observers say it could be 10 times that!  Just this week (26th May) it was reported 100 civilians were killed in around 24 hours of strikes.

So there is NO yes or no answer... it all depends on the intelligence and the situation... just as Corbyn said!

So May will act as a yes woman to Trump and Corbyn is the greatest thing since sliced bread?? Do I detect a little bias? 

Mike-B posted:

He was asked,  given a very narrow time window,  if he would order a drone strike,  he then went off on his usual rambles about assessing the situation but no real answer.  The correct answer would be after explaining his thought process to finish with a clear yes I would order a strike, or no I would not order a strike.             Sorry folks this guy is not a safe pair of hands.  

Mike

Next week, Naim announce they will be releasing a new DAC later this year.

Will you buy one. Yes or No.

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

He was asked,  given a very narrow time window,  if he would order a drone strike,  he then went off on his usual rambles about assessing the situation but no real answer.  The correct answer would be after explaining his thought process to finish with a clear yes I would order a strike, or no I would not order a strike.             Sorry folks this guy is not a safe pair of hands.  

Better than May who will act as a yes woman to Trump and pursues an aggressive forigen policy against terrorists while offering help to regimes who have a history of supporting the very terrorists she claims to be against!

 

I think it's a bit unfair to level that against TM at this early stage in the time as PM, Eloise.  She really hasn't had any tough calls to make on that front yet. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if she was firm with Trump.  I didn't detect any warmth in their relationship when she visited Washington. 

wenger2015 posted:

So May will act as a yes woman to Trump and Corbyn is the greatest thing since sliced bread?? Do I detect a little bias? 

 

Not sure bias is what you're detecting... more like reading something into my post I didn't write.

The bias is coming in the other direction IMO.

So far May has been a "Yes" woman to Trump, failing to publically tackle him on a host of issues.  She even said that it was up to Trump who he shares intelligence with... until it was British intelligence being leaked!  She's also offered support to Saudi Arabia who have been accused of supporting the same terrorists that UK and the west generally are fighting against; and supporting Turkey who's president is heading towards creating a dictatorship.

Corbyn on the other hand is not the best thing since sliced bread, but for all his failings does appear to want to consider the consequences of his actions.  I do support his "tread lightly" foreign policy statements.  But I also think he has a steep learning curve if Labour (albeit very unlikely to happen) were to win the GE.

There seams to be continual criticism of Corbyn, while giving May a free pass on a host of failings from the ability to fail to answer nearly all questions, to be able to answer basic questions over her manifesto proposals and continually rely on rhetoric and personal attacks because her own campaign is valid and without substance.

PS. Corbyn is much better than sliced bread ... sliced bread is horrid!

MDS posted:

I think it's a bit unfair to level that against TM at this early stage in the time as PM, Eloise.  She really hasn't had any tough calls to make on that front yet. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if she was firm with Trump.  I didn't detect any warmth in their relationship when she visited Washington. 

Maybe no warmth towards Trump, but also no publically standing up to him.

On the other hand she has offered support to Saudis Arabia and Turkey ... surely those decisions should be considered "tough calls" over what support you give those regimes?

fatcat posted:

Mike                Next week, Naim announce they will be releasing a new DAC later this year.  Will you buy one. Yes or No.

NO,  & although its a hypothetical question,  I am still able to answer with definite NO.    I would never buy new product until its matured & proven itself in the market place.