Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Did Cameron just say that ??
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 64
|
By:
Did you expect anything else?
|
|
By:
The guy is deluded, listening to this claptrap is depressing.
|
|
By:
The party of the "fair chance" really ??? Especially if your name is Tarquin....
|
|
By:
More than likely to be discriminated against if your name was Tarquin I'd have thought.
|
|
By:
the party of no chance
|
|
By:
The party for everyone and that's a fact whether you like it or not.
A Tory government will operate policies that safeguard the country and the economy and allow us things like the NHS and old age pensions. Whilst a Labour government would set us on the road to gloom and destruction and put these everything and everyone at risk. |
|
By:
Everybody prospers when the Tories are in power whilst Labour governments get us into more and more debt.
|
|
By:
The party for everyone that's a fact !
 run along you arrogant fool |
|
By:
Why do you lefties resort to personal insults rather than facts to try and win an argument.
This current Labour party is in disarray and would struggle badly if, god forbid, they ever got into power. FFS sake look at the calibre of your leader and most of the cabinet. Clueless wonders hanging on to their hippy past. |
|
By:
The Labour Party is fkd but your still arrogant and foolish FACT
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
At least he can spell you're tonks. There's only so many excuses we can make for your debauched lifestyle and posting with hookers knickers on your head whilst licking the gusset isn't really multi tasking so no excuses really.
|
|
By:
This thread has cheered me up. |
|
By:
everyone prospers when the tories are in power-
|
|
By:
anxious • October 12, 2015 12:45 AM BST
everyone prospers when the tories are in power I'm glad you've seen the light anxious.  |
|
By:
I see the costs of replacing Trident recently went up from £100 billion by a massive 67% to £167 billion.
It would be quite normal, the way these things go, that these costs will continue to escalate. They have doubled in. Few years and may double again, with the eventual cost being more like £400 billion. Okay £400 billion is a figure plucked from the air, but it's already far closer than the original estimates. Now I am sure some would see the need for the UK to have a nuclear arsenal to be worth any cost the Americans choose to charge us whether it is £167, £400 or £800 billions. However one thing we have all learned since our financial friends buggggered up economy so thoroughly is that our finances are limited. Does anyone else share my concerns that we don't really know even what the real cost of Trident2 will be to within even £100 billions or what replacing trident compared to having aircraft carriers or a credible airforce is actually worth. |
|
By:
Not much point in having aircraft carriers of a credible airforce if uncle Vlad tells us to stop using them or he'll nuke us.
|
|
By:
Yes I know the argument.
But what is the limit of costs to protect this country from nuclear blackmail? So you do seem to be saying that it's good value and worth all the dosh even if we have no army or airforce or navy much left at all. I am not convinced that Trident2 is worth everything. |
|
By:
My mate Petro may disagree with you.
|
|
By:
Ruth you jump to £400 billion then quote £800 billion.
Why stop there? And btw £400 billion is not a lot closer than the original estimate. |
|
By:
whatever the cost the fact remains if there are 4 submarines each one would have 40 warheads, just one of these warheads has 8 times power and force of the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima, this is the tories and their warped sense of value for money
|
|
By:
weapons of mass destruction keeping the peace, i think not.
|
|
By:
What do you suggest in there place?
|
|
By:
The Labour Shadow Defence minister was on the radio this morning backing the extra spending on defence.
''Mr Cameron is under pressure from some Conservatives and retired generals over the target that Nato member states should each spend a minimum of 2% of their national income - or GDP - on defence.'' The extra spending on defence would meet that target. |
|
By:
I know nothing about any of this nonsense, but would like to ask
where will the money come from? They tell us all in the working class to tighten our belts, saying that cuts are needed. Despite the constant clamour on here from the ultra conservative activists, they, the con &Unionist govt ( 2nd term - this time totally unapposed) are cutting back on Border Control bc of cost. Those with a hotline to tory party HQ, please earn your fee by telling us where will the money come from? |
|
By:
The biggest threat to our national security is immigration.
Yet our borders are still open ready to accept anybody who turns up with an unsubstantiated sob story. As regards fighting foreign wars to dampen down terrorist attacks. How much effort and know how does it take for a radicalised person living here to get a gun and let fly in a crowded area? If we manage to run ISIL out of Syria and Iraq for the time being they'll simply set up camp in Africa, and organise strikes from there. |
|
By:
'Tis amazing that the well-established con&U A Team of capitalism, continue to deplete the Border boys, isn't it?
Obviously, their master, who rule, have told them to do this. Cuts to civilian mod staff, selling off the property. And, if these fkn tridents are in such expensive need of UPGRADING, surely they are NOT CURRENTLY FIT FOR PURPOSE and therefore fkn USELESS at present? Big con trick yet again. They cannot expect the workers to believe their lies that these redundant things are protecting us. Cyber hackers make them good for nothing, except boosting the back-pockets of wealthy supporters of the con&U party and probably a good few of the nu-lab losers too. |
|
By:
Tridents purpose is to stop terrorists and conventional forces launching attacks on UK and it's allies.
It has clearly failed to do so and is an obsolete dreadful waste of taxpayers money. |
|
By:
There's an opposition day debate on Trident today. Will be worth watching to see some of the loony positions the opposition benches take.
Tridents purpose is to stop us being blackmailed by a nuclear power(i.e Russia). There was a bizarre SNP opinion yesterday that was similarly made, because Trident doesn't stop cyber crime it's a waste of money. Must be something in the water up there(Russian subs). |
|
By:
CJ,
I am sure you will agree with me that trident and nuclear weapons in general are there to stop other countries/terrorist forces threatening or invading our territory. Give me a good reason why we didn't nuke Buenos Aires when Argentina invaded the Falklands? Or even why we didn't nuke Washington when USA invaded Grenada? |
|
By:
Meadow X1
It's a waste of time answering a question like that. If you have to ask it, then you are hardly likely to listen to the answer are you? |
|
By:
100,000 plus deaths over the Falklands indeed.
And going to war with America over Grenada. What a question to ask. |
|
By:
By the way, we couldn't launch a nuclear attack on America even if we wanted to.
Or anybody else without the Americans agreeing to it. Would the Americans be likely to sell us nuclear weapons that could be used against themselves? Never mind what our PM tries to suggest. |
|
By:
I think Crippen sums it up.
The SNP seem to be suggesting we should be nuking Beijing for cyber attacks. A little bit more understanding would do them the world of good. |
|
By:
Crippen,
What's your point regarding the Falklands please? |
|
By:
Dr Crippen • November 24, 2015 12:14 PM GMT
By the way, we couldn't launch a nuclear attack on America even if we wanted to. Or anybody else without the Americans agreeing to it Factually incorrect. We have a 2 way agreement with America over the use of nuclear weapons. Both countries would consult each other but nothing to stop them acting alone other than common sense. As regards the question (laughable at that) why we didn't 'nuke' Argentina the answer is very simple. Having nuclear weapons is a deterrent to other countries using their nuclear weapons on us. |
|
By:
What's your point regarding the Falklands please?
A nuclear strike on one of Argentinas cities would have settled it with the loss of whatever the amount of dead would be, 100,000 plus at least. Totally out of the question for the government of the day I'm sure, and not even a possibility. |
|
By:
Both countries would consult each other but nothing to stop them acting alone other than common sense.
So we could nuke America using missiles supplied by them? I don't think so. |