They just don't get it -

[observer]

Well Toga Tim, wants to welcome in another 50,000 Syrian "refugees" (est. £4.3billion), which will do wonders for the housing market, school places, and GP surgeries. How libDUM is that ?  Closely followed by Jeremy, wanting to guarantee rights for EU citizens in the UK, before any negotiations take place. What planet are these people on ?

[Evil Sid]

Planet "I don't really want to be elected because of all the problems we have at the moment." 

[observer]

As with all manifestos, you have to take the rough with the smooth; but aside from the fact, that this particular G/Election is about Brexit and competent Leadership; there are some goodies in Labour's wish list, that they need to keep for the following G/Election, such as re-nationalisation. There are also some jokes that need resolving, such as their wishy washy approach to immigration and their absurd position on Trident.  If you believe in Trident as deterent, it must carry a commitment to use it, if circumstances dictate. However, Jeremy has declared he would never push the red button; and recent TV war game scenarios, using ex-professionals in the field, have disclosed that that lack of commitment is not restricted to him.  What it comes down to in the end, is if an attack on London kills a million Brits, of what use is it to kill a million Russians in Moscow ?   It's a bit like having a top of the range car, that you'll never drive. So in our current cash strapped state, wouldn't it be preferable to scrap Trident, and spend the money on the NHS etc; whilst, like the Germans etc, sheltering under the umberella of the US ?     

[asperity]

Sounds like you want to forget the sacrifices this country made in WW2, the EU referendum result and just allow this country to become a minor backwater in the world. Voting for Corbyn Obs?

[observer]

Again Asp, your mis-reading my point.  There's only one viable pro-Brexit Party to vote for this time. However, next time, other issues may become more relevant; such as the relevance or otherwise of Trident, in a time when we'll need every penny we can muster, for more important things. I frankly don't see the correlation between having a nuke and becoming a "back water", perhaps you've been listening to the N/Korean Leader ? ! You'll be reassured no doubt, that if Jeremy gets to No 10, he's going to appoint a "Minister for Peace", perhaps suitably robed in a toga and sandals !  Perhaps Tim Farron could do the job? !   

[Bazj]

All of Labours financial promises are fully funded and accounted for...... apparently Dianne Abbott did the maths and said they all work out perfectly and will cost in total about £80,000     £800,000    £8,000,000    ahhh bugger that, we'll just make it up as we go along and tax the rich to pay for it

[Confused52]

Labour' policies for this election are close to the same ones that turned the country into a basket case in the 70s. If you remember, the way we fixed it last time was begging to join the EEC!

[asperity]

4 hours ago, observer said:

Again Asp, your mis-reading my point.  There's only one viable pro-Brexit Party to vote for this time. However, next time, other issues may become more relevant; such as the relevance or otherwise of Trident, in a time when we'll need every penny we can muster, for more important things. I frankly don't see the correlation between having a nuke and becoming a "back water", perhaps you've been listening to the N/Korean Leader ? ! You'll be reassured no doubt, that if Jeremy gets to No 10, he's going to appoint a "Minister for Peace", perhaps suitably robed in a toga and sandals !  Perhaps Tim Farron could do the job? !   

This is what you said: "It's a bit like having a top of the range car, that you'll never drive. So in our current cash strapped state, wouldn't it be preferable to scrap Trident, and spend the money on the NHS etc; whilst, like the Germans etc, sheltering under the umberella of the US ?"

Which, to me, sounds a lot like abandoning our commitment to NATO and hoping that the US doesn't just say stuff you lot, and pull up the drawbridge.

[observer]

Errm, how many members of NATO have nuclear weapons ?  Three, and that doesn't include Germany, which has underfunded it's military commitment to NATO along with other European States for years; no doubt allowing them to divert money to their health systems etc. And as we know, Germany runs the EU, and can't be described as a "backwater". I'm certainly no pacifist, but rather a pragmatist;  I can't see many politicians of today's ilk, authorising the killing of millions of people under any circumstances.  Especially when the same people are first in the queue to condemn Marine A for killing a terrorist. That's my point, I don't believe the human factor, or perhaps the inhuman factor, is there to actually use the weapon. In which case, it would seem a rather pointless expense. As for the Yanks, they've been quite happy to be the world's policeman, and now (quite rightly imo), Donald is sending everyone the bill !   As for NATO, it was set up to defend it's members against Soviet aggression; so when the Soviet Union ceased to exist and the Warsaw Pact dissolved, it had clearly served it's purpose. However, not only was it kept in being, but then moved East towards the Russian border, closely followed by the EU; so one can understand the Russian paranoia, and the continuation of hostility.