British Politics Thread.

[Path Walker]

I don't think you can seriously call Corbyn's beliefs radical, most of the electorate in blind polls on policy would agree with what he says.

2020 will see the Tories with either Gideon Osbourne or Boris Johnson in charge, that will not be popular.

[Mr Mystery]

I dunno.

They came out of last time fairly well because they made the Lib Dems the bad guys - their more vicious policies were seen as the Lib Dems failing, rather than Tory skulduggery.

I think we need Corbyn. There is a rising Lefty sentiment in Britain - and lot of people haven't been voting because the left has had no strong voice to represent that part.

And I wouldn't call Corbyn at all radical. He's a pretty standard Lefty if you ask me - a fairer distribution of the rewards of industry, social mobility. All things I can totally get behind.

The fact the other three candidates are so vehement about him not getting elected is showing the true problem with Labour. They're obsessed with being Diet Tory just so they can regain power, rather than because they believe it's right.

[grimmas]

The thing is the country does need and wants an alternative to the Tories and New Labour isn't it because let's face it the Tories do the same thing but better. We need something different I for one would welcome aparty that set out to look after the working people of Britain and that isn't going to be Middle Class guilt party that labour has become. May be Corbyn is the answer in don't know, he won't be however if he takes Labour back to the 70s

I'd say they need to look back further to their greatest triumph the NHS. If you read the statement they sent out regarding it's inception it's truly inspiring. It's proper by the workers for the workers stuff. I'm not really that left wing in all honesty, very much a right realist when it comes to crime, however only a fool doesn't realise that the country lives or dies by the people who do the work.

[Wolfshade]

Whilst I am not left wing, I find Corbyn to be distancing himself from the pack by actually having policies and ideas about what he wants and why

[Psychosplodge]

See he has some polices that like pw says a lot of people will support. But then other things he says are complete cloud cuckoo land.

The idea that if he dismantled trident the surrounding support skills base could be retained by transferring to other industries for example - well if the demand existed the jobs would already exist wouldn't they?

[Mr Mystery]

Is that not true of all Parties though? Random fringe pleasers to attract that part of the vote, knowing the policy itself would never fly in a Parliament? As long as the vote is held, manifesto has been adhered to.

[Wolfshade]

We need a credible nuclear deterrent, and that is trident, for now.

[Mr Mystery]

I really don't know that we do.

If a Nuclear war does go down, it's not gonna be us that starts it, nor is it gonna be started because of us - we're far, far too wee as a country. Which means the only Nuclear War that is going to happen to Britain is one where a Nuclear Deterrent has failed to deter some lunatic in another country from just pressing the big red button anyway. Nukes or not, stupid Britain, you go squish now.

[Psychosplodge]

I'd rather have them and not need them than the other way round.

Plus it's probably handy to be able to turn most of an average sized country to glass.

[Mr Mystery]

An expensive waste of time in my opinion. I just see no need for them in the modern day - leastways not pootling them about on Submarines. All that does is ensure we get a bit of genocide in before anyone else - which remains an utterly futile thing.

After all, it was us that came up with the idea of camouflaged missile silos in the first place, neatly hidden around so nobody knows where ours are, nor how many we've actually got. So why the Submarines as well? We're never, ever going to fire a Nuke in anger - and if we ever find ourselves in a situation where we would - we're screwed anyway, so what is the point?