Rayvin

I don't expect to be better off personally under Labour. I may well be worse off. However, there's a lot they can offer that will, I hope, enable other people to have as good a start in their lives and careers as possible. While also saving the NHS, pulling back from armed conflict the world over, and ensuring that if we have to Brexit, we're not Brexiting for the benefit of rich fuckwits who own newspapers.

I'm voting Labour because I voted Corbyn during the leadership elections based on his policies. Those policies are now in the manifesto and on offer to the public. I feel that there was very little change achievable under previous Labour administrations, amd have been pleased to have an actual choice this election. I wouldn't vote the Tories because I consider them to be cynically holding onto power and wealth while at the same time prepared to trade away everything they don't need/care about in order to maintain control. They are an anachronism.

brilliant.

But what would we do with them? Hold them indefinitely?

And what do we do with them? What do we hold them for, and for how long?

Exactly.

That sounds an awful lot like what I said in my previous post. You would have them arrested before they commit a crime. Minority Report style?

What would you have it do?

Ah you're saying why don't they lock them all up? Probably because they haven't actually committed a crime at the point of being 'on the list'. We can't just bend the rules to get around that point. To do so would compromise our values and way of life.

By the sounds of it, the government hasn't given them the resources they need. At least that was the feedback after Manchester. This is the problem with cutting back the state.

She is the PM like, you'd expect a statement of some form. Did she use the words 'if you vote for us' or anything like that?

I think a lot of that comes from Twitter.

You can't crack down on Islamic extremism in terms of what they are and are not allowed to say without doing the same thing to all 'extreme' discussion. So she'll be going for the far right and left as well. Also, worth pointing out, that if we start cracking down on free speech, our values and way of life have indeed been compromised by terrorism, ergo, they have won. That minor detail aside, May is going to use this in her bid for greater surveillance and the further curtailment of civil liberties. I'm amazed anyone on the right is actually ok with that.

Does that even make sense? What is racial profiling going to offer us that we don't already know? Surely the problem we've got in identifying these people is that the vast majority of brown people arent terrorists, and that therefore they're impossible to pick out based on ethnicity alone.

Yep, agree with you on this. Corbyn's policies like putting more police on the streets and avoiding invading other countries will probably make a difference over the long term but the short term threat is here to stay. And if people like Hopkins and other right wing commentators are anything to go by, the terrorists are winning. Our way of life is definitely going to be changed if these people get their way.

The ultimate goal has to be to force the UK into an extreme response or isolationism. The people behind this probably see things like Brexit as a victory. The problem we have is that each time something like this happens, public support for moderation will diminish.

Momentum versus the right wing media. Ordinary people on the streets versus people paid to write for billionaires. How the fight was always going to be.

Seems as though it's all to do with the youth vote as has been said. We'll have to hope momentum can mobilise them...

WTF??

Ok sure, but given Labour has committed to trident in it's manifesto, so what does any of the above have to do with Corbyn and the present? It's just a distraction. We're under no threat whatsoever of being nuked presently.

Again though, under what circumstances we would be nuked? How do we make someone angry enough to nuke us? Moreover, what difference does it really make if we nuke them back?

Yep, but he believes in his principles so he can't. And anyway, the second he did the Tories would turn around and say you couldn't trust anything he says anymore.

I understand how MAD works, and I know you believe in it. I mean, Russia could destroy our entire country and we could only take out three of their cities, but even so I get how it's meant to work. That said, we are currently not on the precipice of an international conflict that is likely to end up with them being used, at least not against us. So quite why people consider this to be a more pressing issue than the NHS and their quality of life in general is beyond me. The other thing - why would anyone just nuke us for the hell of it? They wouldnt. We'd have to have literally invaded China or Russia or something.

Fair point. Although May just barely condemned Trump.

I'm amazed some people our there are actually worried about getting nuked.