I dont understand your reply. You seem to be supporting the answer he gave and the notion that he should do as he says, which would entail gratuitous mass murder. Or is it just facetious point scoring?
He answered directly and gave an answer that may damage him politically, this suggests he was being honest.
A key criticisms of politicians is that they don't answer questions which are difficult, but instead try to evade them. You suggested he should "[refuse] to answer the question", I prefer it when a politician answers rather than evades.
Authorising a nuclear strike does not make you into a genocidal manic, it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
While there is now a big question mark over whether the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 was justified (and it may well have been a war crime)
…. it is not viewed as the beginning of an attempt by the allies to murder the entire Japanese population (genocide).
Owen Smith is just another clone to come out of the laboratories that produce the permanent political class. He claims to be "left of centre" but in reality it's just Tory Lite all over again. He:1, Voted for Trident renewal despite have once been a member of CND.2. Abstained from last year's vote on the Welfare Bill3. Voted in favour of bombing Iraq.4. Wasn't an MP at the time of the Iraq war but when asked if he would have voted against replied "I don't know."5. Used to work for the huge pharmaceuticals company Pfizer and has hired a leading corporate lobbyist who works for Pfizer to run his campaign.6. Reminds me of Tony Bliar (sic) in the way he presents himself. The press conference appearance was straight out of the Cameron/Bliar playbook, even down to the white shirt with rolled up sleeves and no tie.7.Voted against holding an EU referendum then for it.8. Is a dick head...sorry...I meant "ideologically suspect"...no...he is a dick head.
Oily Smith is just another clone to come out of the laboratories that produce the permanent political class. He claims to be "left of centre" but in reality it's just Tory Lite all over again. He:1, Voted for Trident renewal despite have once been a member of CND.2. Abstained from last year's vote on the Welfare Bill3. Voted in favour of bombing Iraq.4. Wasn't an MP at the time of the Iraq war but when asked if he would have voted against replied "I don't know."5. Used to work for the huge pharmaceuticals company Pfizer and has hired a leading corporate lobbyist who works for Pfizer to run his campaign.6. Reminds me of Tony Bliar (sic) in the way he presents himself. The press conference appearance was straight out of the Cameron/Bliar playbook, even down to the white shirt with rolled up sleeves and no tie.7.Voted against holding an EU referendum then for it.8. Is a dick head...sorry...I meant "ideologically suspect"...no...he really is a dick head. See, I can't make up my mind either...
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.
Quote from: tc on July 26, 2016, 05:12:34 pmI'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.Fair enough. How do you define proper politics?
Quote from: tomtom on July 26, 2016, 06:00:43 pmQuote from: tc on July 26, 2016, 05:12:34 pmI'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.Fair enough. How do you define proper politics?Tall order, but this'll do for starters:Public confidence in politicians' integrity needs to be restored. At the moment the behaviour of our elected officials resembles an organised crime syndicate. They buy (or lie for) our votes, extract money from us and line their own, and their associates', pockets. We have a permanent political class, funded and controlled by big business. "There is a big gap between politicians' understanding of integrity and that of the public, and disillusionment with the behaviour of politicians matters in terms of democratic engagement." (Gerry Stoker, University of Southampton)
How do they "buy votes" in the UK?> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
No. The two policies I mentioned appeal to a specific demographic. With the Pensioner Bonds, for example, the Tories were desperate to win back the older voters. At the last general election, three-quarters of 60-year-olds turned out to vote, the huge majority of them for the Tories, compared with fewer than half of first-time voters (aged 18 to 24). This was a cynical attempt to bribe these voters.
Quote from: tc on July 26, 2016, 08:22:53 pmHow do they "buy votes" in the UK?> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes Out of interest, would a pledge to plough loads of extra funding into the NHS be an attempt to buy votes by this logic? Or into schools? I don't agree with either of the policies you mentioned, but it's hard to imagine a world where political parties don't appeal to the section of the population that votes for them by doing things with public money to benefit those voters.
Quote from: benno on July 27, 2016, 12:14:57 pmQuote from: tc on July 26, 2016, 08:22:53 pmHow do they "buy votes" in the UK?> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes Out of interest, would a pledge to plough loads of extra funding into the NHS be an attempt to buy votes by this logic? Or into schools? I don't agree with either of the policies you mentioned, but it's hard to imagine a world where political parties don't appeal to the section of the population that votes for them by doing things with public money to benefit those voters.No, because improving schools and improving the NHS benefits everyone. Those two above only help those who are:a) Already quite well offb) Don't give much of a fuck about the rest of societyTherefore a clear bribe for votes...
Cutting tuition fees (students), or improving access to benefits (unemployed or low-income people) are both policies that would appeal to a specific demographic of voters by spending public money. Do I take it that these hypothetical policies would be cynical attempts to bribe those voters?