UK General Election Day and Results: 'Parliament is Well Hung.' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305655]I posted some facts that might make you realise that the govt aren't a gravy train with endless funds to prop up the needy but you are too accusational to understand, or too dumb maybe.[/QUOTE] you haven't even fucking read the article. the article at no point states that tax is at a deficit. i'm actually reading it myself and, surprise surprise, it points out repeatedly that poorer households, and those receiving benefits, still pay tax indirectly: [quote]The poorest households paid more of their disposable income in indirect taxes (such as Value Added Tax (VAT) and duties on alcohol and fuel) than the richest (27.0% and 14.4% respectively) and therefore indirect taxes cause an increase in income inequality.[/quote] and that by average, households are [I]still[/I] paying a chunk of income in tax regardless of whether they're rich or poor: [quote]On average, households paid £7,800 per year in direct taxes (such as Income Tax, National Insurance contributions and Council Tax), equivalent to 18.7% of their gross income. Richer households pay higher proportions of their income in direct taxes than poorer households.[/quote] read your own sources mate.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52305665]You don't even seem to understand the facts you posted that's the hilarious thing[/QUOTE] this is typical of your tactics, writing off facts with the usual vague rhetoric without any facts [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Pissfuck;52305675]you haven't even fucking read the article. the article at no point states that tax is at a deficit. i'm actually reading it myself and, surprise surprise, it points out repeatedly that poorer households, and those receiving benefits, still pay tax indirectly: and that by average, households are [I]still[/I] paying a chunk of income in tax regardless of whether they're rich or poor: read your own sources mate.[/QUOTE] what the fuck are you talking about?

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305685]this is typical of your tactics, writing off facts with the usual vague rhetoric without any facts[/QUOTE] Your source discredits your own point. He doesn't need to post his own facts, you did it for him.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305685]this is typical of your tactics, writing off facts with the usual vague rhetoric without any facts[/QUOTE] ah yes, please continue to try and redirect and ignore the facts while claiming that we're ignoring the facts. [b]you[/b] posted this article and continue to hold it aloft as a bible, an indomitable testament to all your rhetoric, when it continually proves you wrong and provides nothing to back up your argument. infact all it does is say that 50% of the population pays [i]less[/i] tax than the rest. at no point does it establish that this is an unsustainable model or that tax is at a deficit. you're just saying it does because you have no idea how cumulative taxes work. what, you think that 50% not paying enough = the other 50% don't pay enough to make up the end???? mate the other 50% are higher-income households, which pay more tax anyway since they're in a higher tax bracket. with all the fucking spending cuts and budget reductions going on lately, where the fuck is all the money going then?? its clear that benefits spending hasn't increased (the article mentions this, infact it mentions that [b]benefits are progressive to removing people from poverty and enabling people to live without benefits, and has a section detailling that the [u]bloody state pension is doing this[/u][/b]) so where the bloody hell is this magical benefits/tax deficit youre spouting about?

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305685]this is typical of your tactics, writing off facts with the usual vague rhetoric without any facts [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] what the fuck are you talking about?[/QUOTE] What's with people like you

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52305696]ah yes, please continue to try and redirect and ignore the facts while claiming that we're ignoring the facts. [b]you[/b] posted this article and continue to hold it aloft as a bible, an indomitable testament to all your rhetoric, when it continually proves you wrong and provides nothing to back up your argument. infact all it does is say that 50% of the population pays [i]less[/i] tax than the rest. at no point does it establish that this is an unsustainable model or that tax is at a deficit. you're just saying it does because you have no idea how cumulative taxes work. what, you think that 50% not paying enough = the other 50% don't pay enough to make up the end???? mate the other 50% are higher-income households, which pay more tax anyway since they're in a higher tax bracket. with all the fucking spending cuts and budget reductions going on lately, where the fuck is all the money going then?? its clear that benefits spending hasn't increased (the article mentions this, infact it mentions that [b]benefits are progressive to removing people from poverty and enabling people to live without benefits, and has a section detailling that the [u]bloody state pension is doing this[/u][/b]) so where the bloody hell is this magical benefits/tax deficit youre spouting about?[/QUOTE] you are off on some tangent and I haven't got a clue what you are talking about, my original post stated that half of people receive more benefit than they pay tax (fact) read the link I supplied properly before ranting. Where do you assume the revenue to support the deficit comes from? [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52305701]What's with people like you[/QUOTE] what's with people like you?

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305718] read the link I supplied properly before ranting. Where do you assume the revenue to support the deficit comes from?[/QUOTE] i did. you didn't read it before you fucking posted it. that one sentence doesn't exist in a vacuum. it's part of a much larger article, which, as a rational human being aware of the nature of context, i proceeded to read in order to understand. despite what you seem to believe, there is no gap. there is no deficit. one portion of the population [b]pays less than the rest[/b]. that's it. that's all. there's no evidence there to support there's a gap. there's no evidence to support there's a deficit. infact if anything there's plentiful evidence in there that people who get more benefits still pay indirect tax due to VAT and fuel taxation. but, because you cannot, for the sake of your fragile ego, even remotely begin to believe you're in the wrong, you just blindly and blithely ignore both me and the article you posted, hoping that somebody out there will believe you over the cold hard facts [b]you posted[/b] you so consistently tout as being venerable above all. which is, frankly, fucking mental and i have no idea how you can continue to just ignore everything that both i and two other people are saying to you just so you can spout one-line "wow ur wrong read the article" garbage like a fucking pull-string Tory Boy doll. you're deluded, mate. get your head checked.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305685]this is typical of your tactics, writing off facts with the usual vague rhetoric without any facts [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] what the fuck are you talking about?[/QUOTE] I'm loving the resort to personal attacks instead of attacking the argument. You talk about facts and evidence so much, you just cited a reliable source the completely threw out your argument. Have some dignity, better yet actually read it and you might be able to educate yourself But no, your ego can't take the notion you made a mistake [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305509]Isn't the issue more that we are voting for someone who will uphold our wishes as a nation rather than their own wishes though? Otherwise how can we criticise any party on their policies?[/QUOTE] Yeah, and even if I could trust that TM truly had my best interests at heart and in her policy, I still wouldn't vote for her because austerity is fucking backwards.

What the fuck even just happened in this thread?. It looks like [i]someone[/i] just tried to have a random rant about ~Benefit scroungers!~... for no reason? Am I missing something or is this as off topic as it looks?

Lol question time was fucking hilarious, May got absolutely shattered while most of the people that asked Corbyn questions wanted to nuke everyone off the face of the earth

The argument that Trident will be used to "defend Britain" once missiles are in the air is..... ....well I don't know what it is. I'll have to ask this lot. [img]https://i.imgur.com/v9mB48Am.jpg[/img] Bolstering our deterrant through diplomacy > hoping to go down swinging

[QUOTE=Grizz;52306139]The argument that Trident will be used to "defend Britain" once missiles are in the air is..... ....well I don't know what it is. I'll have to ask this lot. [img]https://i.imgur.com/v9mB48Am.jpg[/img] Bolstering our deterrant through diplomacy > hoping to go down swinging[/QUOTE] I wonder if we have any Tory councillors among this bunch. They got away with it on question time after Labour's manifesto leaked. It's hilarious to see people bleating about the BBC being biased [i] against the Tories lmao[/i] when there was literally an opening question from a Tory councillor- passed off as a member of the public- on one of their shows.

Nice to see none of the front pages have got hung up on it today - except the obvious one. Perhaps twigged that their circulation figures would.... take a hit.... in the event of a nuclear war. [media]https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/870751543431180289[/media] This is the level.

[QUOTE=Grizz;52307493]Nice to see none of the front pages have got hung up on it today - except the obvious one. Perhaps twigged that their circulation figures would.... take a hit.... in the event of a nuclear war. [media]https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/870751543431180289[/media] This is the level.[/QUOTE] When no one has nukes but you, you aren't getting nuked back? What an incredible insight. Truly a thought completely followed through on.

Imagine disliking a candidate because they don't have a hard enough stance on a nuclear response. Not the NHS, or wealth inequlaity, social welfare funding, energy policy, internet regulation, crime/counter-terrorism, or even brexit. Nah Corbyn's real dealbreaker quality is that IF nuclear war were to break out he hasn't EXPLICITLY said that we would be the first country to exhaust our (no doubt meagre in comparison to the rest of the world) nuclear capabilities at the first sign of trouble. Imagine having such a distorted view of reality that you don't agree with the sentiment that IF nuclear war were to break out it would be an enormous tragedy and failing in diplomacy that would completely overshadow any willingness to launch nukes. Imagine further still that in your bizarre head, you honestly believe that in any scenario with a potential for nuclear war, we, the UK, or more accurately, the soon to be the republic of Eng-Billy-Fucking-No-Mates-Land and whoever pities us enough to stick around, will be at the forefront of any military action or reaction? Labour said they would continue to fund Trident, they've conceded that much, but somehow I don't think that funding is going to match what the actual key players in this conflict will have spent on their stockpile. These people need to realise that despite what they might hope, we are not the US, we don't have the same military spending, or the resources. If they want to get hard thinking about nuclear war at the hands of the UK, they've got to realise, fast, that we're packing a chode. Something that is literally there to make them feel better, but would do no actual good should we ever flop it out. Not a huge fan of how gross that analogy got but there it is.

I feel like people are missing the point that nuclear weapons are meant to deter them being used (even if the examples being bandied around currently are completely unrealistic in regards to ourselves, the world can go very bad very quickly, and more established nuclear powers with much more capability could very well pose a threat to us), and if we have a leader who is known to not want to press the button [i]if he is put in the position where it is needed[/i] (I wouldn't want to have someone in who would use them first) then the deterrent value of nuclear weapons is severely undermined Honestly, this and his past comments on foreign policy are the only thing preventing me from voting labour at this stage [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] Also nuclear weapons are our seat to the UN security council and I'd prefer not to give up that kind of diplomatic clout

[QUOTE=Mallow234;52307732]I feel like people are missing the point that nuclear weapons are meant to deter them being used (even if the examples being bandied around currently are completely unrealistic in regards to ourselves, the world can go very bad very quickly, and more established nuclear powers with much more capability could very well pose a threat to us), and if we have a leader who is known to not want to press the button [i]if he is put in the position where it is needed[/i] (I wouldn't want to have someone in who would use them first) then the deterrent value of nuclear weapons is severely undermined Honestly, this and his past comments on foreign policy are the only thing preventing me from voting labour at this stage [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] Also nuclear weapons are our seat to the UN security council and I'd prefer not to give up that kind of diplomatic clout[/QUOTE] It's not that people don't understand the concept of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, it's that they don't think we need them. We couldn't use them to strike first without guaranteeing destruction for our tiny island nation. That's ignoring the moral implications of striking first. And if we use them to strike back they obviously haven't worked as a deterrent. So what you're left with is an outrageously expensive weapon system that we in all cases cannot ever use, that requires constant updates and maintenance, and is also a threat to ourselves and others if our internal security was ever breached. It costs billions every year for something that most countries don't even bother with.

I always thought TRIDENT wasn't just for our tiny island though. I always assumed it protected the northern countries of Europe as well. The reason it's so effective as a deterrent is because their location is a secret and their presence is enough of a threat to any would be attacker. Also they cost far less than maintaining tons of nuclear silos and stockpiles like other countries do. It makes far more sense for an island to have roaming nuclear missile platforms than to have them taking up space on-land.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52307752]It's not that people don't understand the concept of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, it's that they don't think we need them. We couldn't use them to strike first without guaranteeing destruction for our tiny island nation. That's ignoring the moral implications of striking first. And if we use them to strike back they obviously haven't worked as a deterrent. So what you're left with is an outrageously expensive weapon system that we in all cases cannot ever use, that requires constant updates and maintenance, and is also a threat to ourselves and others if our internal security was ever breached. It costs billions every year for something that most countries don't even bother with.[/QUOTE] There is still a deterrent argument to using them in retaliation: if we use them to strike back then it continues to work as a deterrent - if you nuke us, we nuke you. Even if both the UK and the aggressor country are utterly annihilated, the principle of MAD continues to apply to the rest of the world - thus keeping humanity safer in the long run (having evidence that MAD really is mutually assured destruction). If we were to be attacked and not respond in kind then that undermines MAD & puts the world in danger.

I do enjoy the post-match audience scrutiny that always comes around. [media]https://twitter.com/wefail/status/870914048921128960[/media]

[QUOTE=Thomo;52307801]Just because you can't use it doesn't mean it's pointless to have, it's currently being used now preventing the nuclear button being pressed, it's a status quo weapon showing the world that if you fuck with us, we'll obliterate everything.[/QUOTE] the fact we haven't been nuked is more a miracle. you're forgetting the alternate possible realities where nuclear war broke out (in spite of MAD) and everyone died. MAD doesn't work in the slightest at all - it's hinged entirely on survivorship bias, and assuming that because we have survived so far it's /because/ of our nuclear weaponry in spite of them. now a nuclear war hasn't happened (yet), but the benefits provided (peace for a hundred years) can be easily reversed by a crisis a century or two from now when we end up using them and destroying everything. We don't know how much damage that a fullscale nuclear war would do. there's a massive asymmetry. if i am wrong about nukes, the worst case scenario is we get invaded and occupied by a foreign power. if you are wrong about nukes, it means the end of the human race.

Seven polls coming tonight from ComRes, ICM, Opinium, ORB, Survation (GB / Scotland) & YouGov.

[QUOTE=Grizz;52307856]I do enjoy the post-match audience scrutiny that always comes around. [media]https://twitter.com/wefail/status/870914048921128960[/media][/QUOTE] Maybe his rich parents pulled the plug on him after he bombed out of private school with no valid skills, having never done a day's hard work in his life, now he really does have a zero hours contract? I don't know, I'm desperate for an explanation as to why these fucking idiots exist.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52307720]Nah Corbyn's real dealbreaker quality is that IF nuclear war were to break out he hasn't EXPLICITLY said that we would be the first country to exhaust our (no doubt meagre in comparison to the rest of the world) nuclear capabilities at the first sign of trouble.[/QUOTE] Not the issue. The issue is that he's actively stated in the past that he wouldn't use them even in retaliation. No one but the craziest of the war mongers is criticizing Corbyn for a firm stance against a first-use policy, but openly stating that you wouldn't use them even in retaliation renders the concept of the deterrent moot. An unfortunate state of affairs given the official party line of Labour now is to renew the deterrent. Given it's in Labour's manifesto now that Trident is to be renewed, Corbyn needs to openly state that he would indeed be prepared to authorize a retaliatory strike, even if he doesn't mean it. [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52307752]So what you're left with is an outrageously expensive weapon system that we in all cases cannot ever use[/QUOTE] Common misconception that a deterrent is only 'used' at the point at which it's fired. At the point at which it's fired, it's failed. The period in which it's used is every second of every day up until that point.

Well whilst he neither confirmed nor denied that he'd use them in retaliation (which, if his stance is he won't is a far better response as it leaves the risk there), maintaining trident also means that any future leader could change their minds again. I expect there has been at least one PM who's letter of last resort said don't fire, we just don't know because that's kinda the point.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;52308089]Not the issue. The issue is that he's actively stated in the past that he wouldn't use them even in retaliation. No one but the craziest of the war mongers is criticizing Corbyn for a firm stance against a first-use policy, but openly stating that you wouldn't use them even in retaliation renders the concept of the deterrent moot. An unfortunate state of affairs given the official party line of Labour now is to renew the deterrent.[/QUOTE] I do question exactly how much of a deterrent nukes are. For a country to be willing to actually launch a nuke, the leadership has to be ready to deal with death tolls in the millions, being totally ostracised by the rest of the world and potentially annihilating a major chunk of the economy depending on their target. The party committing to a first-strike would have to be headed by a genuine psychopath. Considering that the world is now a massively connected place, where a sneeze in Uzbekistan can impact the economy of Iceland, I really don't think a country would be willing to commit political and economic suicide by actually launching now. Even if their target and it's allies cannot launch back. The US only got away with Hiroshima and Nagasaki because nobody had ever dropped them before, nobody had seen the humanitarian and political chaos that came off dropping those bombs.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;52308089]Not the issue. The issue is that he's actively stated in the past that he wouldn't use them even in retaliation. No one but the craziest of the war mongers is criticizing Corbyn for a firm stance against a first-use policy, but openly stating that you wouldn't use them even in retaliation renders the concept of the deterrent moot. An unfortunate state of affairs given the official party line of Labour now is to renew the deterrent. Given it's in Labour's manifesto now that Trident is to be renewed, Corbyn needs to openly state that he would indeed be prepared to authorize a retaliatory strike, even if he doesn't mean it. Common misconception that a deterrent is only 'used' at the point at which it's fired. At the point at which it's fired, it's failed. The period in which it's used is every second of every day up until that point.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it just seems so absurd to harp on at the guy with such a ludicrous hypothetical. I understand the argument that it would damage the deterrent potential of Trident, but I don't think it's a valid one. The argument supposes that potential enemies take the current leader's mindset into account before considering a nuclear strike. I don't think that's the case. No military strategist is seriously thinking, "well we could launch a strike against Britain, they have Trident but I know Corbs probs isn't going to retaliate so yeah that's a sound gamble to me". This is of course ignoring the fact that in any realistic nuclear scenario, London and the headquarters of our government would be the first targets. Sure there will be thorough steps and procedures in place to guarantee that our elected leader is the one calling the shots, but realistically, a retaliation would probably be under someone else's authority. And I know that isn't really an answer that Corbyn could or should feel safe behind, but it's such an unrealistic situation that asking JC about it is almost pointless because so much would have to happen that he couldn't possibly anticipate how he would react in that situation. I would actually argue that anyone who did act as though they know exactly how they'd react and that it would be a perfectly just and measured response is underestimating the consequences of these weapons in a very dangerous way.

The focus on nukes is so dumb anyway. And before someone explains it again, I get what people are saying, If Corbyn disagrees with nuclear weapons- it undermines our deterrent because other countries will decide we aren't prepared to fire them, right?. Literally nobody is going to take that risk. There is not a single world power dumb and crazy enough to risk Nuking the UK, for whatever reason, because the Prime minister at the time has gone on record saying he disagrees with nuking people. And that's before you consider what a horrific move nuking the UK would be economically, diplomatically... It's pure fantasy bullshit. It literally [i] wont happen, ever[/i] Focus on shit that actually matters.

[B]ComRes Fieldwork 31 May - 02 June:[/B] [media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/871049102473220102[/media] [B]Survation Fieldwork: 03 June (today)[/B] [media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/871090909114490881[/media] The comments never cease to amaze. YouGov's should be a laugh :v: Should be rolling up in 30 minutes or so.

[QUOTE=Grizz;52308961][B]ComRes Fieldwork 31 May - 02 June:[/B] [media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/871049102473220102[/media] [B]Survation Fieldwork: 03 June (today)[/B] [media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/871090909114490881[/media] YouGov's should be interesting :v:[/QUOTE] So either the Conservatives have a 12% lead or they have a 1% lead. :why: One of those polling companies is going to be savaged by the party that loses come 9th June. (Before anyone starts claiming there's going to be a Labour majority - remember Labour have to be ahead in the polls by a significant margin for that to happen)