Could Corbyn sue Cameron for slander after todays speech

[I1L2T3]

So.... Mrs Thatcher isn't to blame for everything that's gone wrong since 1979?

 

You wouldn't think so from reading SF.

 

Not everything. A lot of things though.

 

Or are people seriously arguing she was perfect. Truth is she was deeply flawed in her thinking although I would accept most of what she did she thought she was doing for Britain. She had what she thought was the nation's best interests at heart.

 

Not like the current crop or Blair, who have and are continuing to shaft the British people

[Berberis]

Not at all, what's apparent here is that I have much (actually lots) more respect for someone who spent his younger days trying to help sort out some of the more problematic political issues, as opposed to someone who alledgedly spent his inserting his private parts into a dead pig.

 

You obviously feel different, that is your right and I respect that!

 

The problem is Titanic, you want the Cameron allegation to be true so much, you fail to see how illogical it is. This is the comments of one person writing a book to make money.

 

How to you feel about what Tony Blair said publicly, that "If Jeremy Corbyn wins [the] leadership, Labour faces 'annihilation'"?

 

I personally think Blair is correct, but as a previous avid supporter of his, do you now think he is wrong?

[ez8004]

Ok to the uneducated among you who are so stubbon as to not see another person's point of view in the face of clear evidence.

 

Corbyn is a treat to our national sercurity "if he becomes Prime Minister" as he has already stated that he will not use our Trident missile system under any circumstances. He will effectively unilaterally disarm our nation's nuclear deterrent. This will in fact invite a military strike on our nation as he has effectively said that there will be no repercussions. If that isn't a treat to our country, I don't know what is.

 

Also, since he also wants to abolish Trident, where will all the thousands of jobs go which rely on the nuclear deterrent? Corbyn has stated that they should be redistributed to other industries but don't state any detail whatsoever. This guy has no substance whatsoever in his policies, his numbers don't add up and his idea that the government should always run a deficit is frightening. You would have thought he learnt something over the last 7 years.

[999tigger]

Ok to the uneducated among you who are so stubbon as to not see another person's point of view in the face of clear evidence.

 

Corbyn is a treat to our national sercurity "if he becomes Prime Minister" as he has already stated that he will not use our Trident missile system under any circumstances. He will effectively unilaterally disarm our nation's nuclear deterrent. This will in fact invite a military strike on our nation as he has effectively said that there will be no repercussions. If that isn't a treat to our country, I don't know what is.

 

Also, since he also wants to abolish Trident, where will all the thousands of jobs go which rely on the nuclear deterrent? Corbyn has stated that they should be redistributed to other industries but don't state any detail whatsoever. This guy has no substance whatsoever in his policies, his numbers don't add up and his idea that the government should always run a deficit is frightening. You would have thought he learnt something over the last 7 years.

 

I like how you call people uneducated then fail to address the issue as laid out by the OP.

[ez8004]

I like how you call people uneducated then fail to address the issue as laid out by the OP.

 

Hmm.... Are you not following the discussion? The conversation has moved on in the last 6 pages. Can you follow a thread?

[I1L2T3]

Hmm.... Are you not following the discussion? The conversation has moved on in the last 6 pages. Can you follow a thread?

 

You're trying to move it to attacking Corbyn on the same terms as Cameron did instead of rationally discussing the question posed in the OP.

 

If you agree with Cameron then fine, just say so.

[blake]

I'm unsure about that.

 

Kinnock to Smith to Blair was a pretty big change while Labour were in the wilderness. I think political parties experiment while they are out of power until they find a winning formula. Look at the Tories with Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard.

 

if the Tories had not completely messed up and elected the wrong leader(s) like Labour just have then they'd have had a shot at power in 2005. But because they did mess up so badly, like Labour just have, they had to wait ten more years until 2015.

[*_ash_*]

I will try later, but assume it was about Michael Foot, militant tendency and the SDP? You sound more objective about these things. I'll have a look later, but it is bonkers how poor Labour are at choosing leaders and naive in their ideology.

 

If you arent in power you change very little.

 

It was a bit of that yes, but was in general about the nation (and his view of it) as well as all the political issues of the time. I came away from it really liking him, and learned quite a bit too.

[ez8004]

You're trying to move it to attacking Corbyn on the same terms as Cameron did instead of rationally discussing the question posed in the OP.

 

If you agree with Cameron then fine, just say so.

 

Have you even read my previous post? It is not an attack on Corbyn. It is filled with fact and reasoned logic. If you are having issues understanding, then say so and I'll gladly elaborate. If you can't give a decent counter argument then that is your problem and not mine.

[I1L2T3]

Have you even read my previous post? It is not an attack on Corbyn. It is filled with fact and reasoned logic. If you are having issues understanding, then say so and I'll gladly elaborate. If you can't give a decent counter argument then that is your problem and not mine.

 

I would argue that if we are not pointing nuclear missiles at another country they would be less likely to point them at us.

 

The rest of your argument really hinges on the likelihood of a strike even if we keep the weapons. I'd say it is practically zero.

 

As for the jobs then I'd suggest that the workers get ready for life after nukes. This is a good primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Moved_My_Cheese%3F