[Archived] The General Election 2015

[T J Hooker]

I see, like sitting down for a cup of tea

dislike. (reason being, flippant meaningless response to a good concise post)

[yoda]

dislike. (reason being, flippant meaningless response to a good concise post)

I bow too your superior knowledge on the subject.

[den]

My Dad was a Japanese prisoner of war and there's a good argument to be made that Nuclear bombs saved the lives of many thousands of allied lives.

[Amo]

My Dad was a Japanese prisoner of war and there's a good argument to be made that Nuclear bombs saved the lives of many thousands of allied lives.

That always seems to be the Allied justification for bombing some 80,000 people into the ground. I don't think it's ever been supported by hard evidence.

There were non-nuclear alternatives other than a full-scale invasion. It's entirely possible that the Japanese would've surrendered had we completely blockaded them and used strategic bombings. We ended up agreeing to the same terms of surrender that they were offered before we decided to nuke them, anyway.

[den]

That always seems to be the Allied justification for bombing some 80,000 people into the ground. I don't think it's ever been supported by hard evidence.

There were non-nuclear alternatives other than a full-scale invasion. It's entirely possible that the Japanese would've surrendered had we completely blockaded them and used strategic bombings. We ended up agreeing to the same terms of surrender that they were offered before we decided to nuke them, anyway.

Even after Hiroschima they believed that they could negotiate a surrender on their own terms Amo. I think it's indisputable that without the action that was taken, deaths and horrific treatment allied POWS would have continued. They only surrendered unconditionally after Nagasaki. That's what it took.

[Amo]

Even after Hiroschima they believed that they could negotiate a surrender on their own terms Amo. I think it's indisputable that without the action that was taken, deaths and horrific treatment allied POWS would have continued. They only surrendered unconditionally after Nagasaki. That's what it took.

You're mistaken, den. The Allies wanted "unconditional surrender" which meant the removal of the imperial dynasty.

They accepted a conditional surrender and the Emperor remained on the throne.

General Douglas MacArthur felt that the bombings were unnecessary:

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

[den]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11904045/If-Jeremy-Corbyn-cant-change-Labours-mind-on-Trident-he-must-stand-down.html

The predicament Corbyn finds himself in.

[den]

You're mistaken, den. The Allies wanted "unconditional surrender" which meant the removal of the imperial dynasty.

They accepted a conditional surrender and the Emperor remained on the throne.

General Douglas MacArthur felt that the bombings were unnecessary:

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Would they have surrendered at all without the first bomb Amo?

I didn't say it was a fact that the bombs saved thousands of allied lives Amo - I said there's an argument for it. I read Max Hastings excellent book on the war in Japan and after looking at a whole load of evidence he came to the opposite conclusion.

[Amo]

I didn't say it was a fact that the bombs saved thousands of allied lives Amo - I said there's an argument for it. I read Max Hastings excellent book on the war in Japan and after looking at a whole load of evidence he came to the opposite conclusion.

Interesting. I stand by my belief that the bombings were avoidable on the Allied part, and the ulterior motive was to scare the Russians.

[wolfie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11904045/If-Jeremy-Corbyn-cant-change-Labours-mind-on-Trident-he-must-stand-down.html

The predicament Corbyn finds himself in.

Funny old world, hey? Being condemmed for not wanting to kill millions of innocent people.

[K-Hod]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11904045/If-Jeremy-Corbyn-cant-change-Labours-mind-on-Trident-he-must-stand-down.html

The predicament Corbyn finds himself in.

The Telegraph, like so many papers isn't known for its impartiality. That though, was embarrassingly one-sided. Could have been straight out of the Tory manifesto.

[den]

Labour have got themselves in a right old pickle though. The basic idea that party members decide policy - whether the leader and shadow cabinet believe in it or not is just ridiculous. There HAS to be a leader and preferably a leader who takes the party to where the people are, rather than trying to take the people to where the party is.

[K-Hod]

Absolutely Den. There's no way Corbyn will end up PM into. He'll be replaced before too long I suspect in any case.

[Mike E]

There's no harm in being a leader that listens to the people that got him there imo. Regardless of where he takes the party, Corbyn has got a LOT of my mates talking about politics having had very little interest previously. If having someone who actually seems normal asking Q's of the PM that normal people want to ask, it ought to lead to a larger proportion of the electorate getting involved.

Imo he's a stand-in until Cooper or Burnham takeover.

[Baz]

Corbyn is saying on one hand that he'll follow whatever the party membership wants, but then he appears to have already decided that he wants rid of trident, when its a contentious issue.

However Corbyn does have a big mandate, and is heavily back by the union leaders too, so he's there to stay for the time being.

[yoda]

Corbyn is saying on one hand that he'll follow whatever the party membership wants, but then he appears to have already decided that he wants rid of trident, when its a contentious issue.

However Corbyn does have a big mandate, and is heavily back by the union leaders too, so he's there to stay for the time being.

The unions have said they want to keep Trident though!

One thing I would like Corbyn to be successful with is winning Labours Scottish seats back and wipe the smirk of Sturgeons face

[Mike E]

I recently posted this on FB and thought I'd ask the boards opinions on this article explaining the CCGS decision to stop giving elderly people with mild hearing loss hearing aids:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/01/nhs-to-begin-denying-people-hearing-aids-for-first-time?CMP=share_btn_fb

My reaction:

It's a rare day I feel thankful that my hearing loss is severe. For elderly people with mild hearing loss to be deprived of treatment that can improve their lives significantly is upsetting and in my opinion only serves increase the social isolation they will feel.

I have many wonderful and supportive friends but feel that isolation on a daily basis when I have to say 'What?' more than the acceptable 3 times and be treated like I'm an imbecile. For someone in the later stages of life, possibly with friends and family no longer around to support them, even a mild loss of hearing will have drastic effects on their social interaction. What if they're worried about walking to the shops in case they don't hear the traffic as they cross the road? What about the intolerance of the public, as I mentioned earlier? What about listening to the radio or the TV? What about the dreaded, dismissive 'ugh, never mind'? That will be more intimidating and upsetting to a pensioner trying to adapt than to my 24yo, socially active self who adapted to hearing aids aged 2. Make no mistake, Deafness is still not understood properly and is often as invisible and stigmatised as any mental illness.

Even if I were to disregard the social aspect of this, I wish to highlight 2 parts of the article:

'The CCG says the new restrictions are necessary to help it save money, and will save it about £200,000 in the first year.'

'Marcus Warnes, the CCGs chief operating officer, defended its action. Our decision to introduce an eligibility criteria for hearing aids for people with mild to moderate hearing loss was not financially driven...'

Can you spot the difference?

[Baz]

I recently posted this on FB and thought I'd ask the boards opinions on this article explaining the CCGS decision to stop giving elderly people with mild hearing loss hearing aids:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/01/nhs-to-begin-denying-people-hearing-aids-for-first-time?CMP=share_btn_fb

My reaction:

It's a rare day I feel thankful that my hearing loss is severe. For elderly people with mild hearing loss to be deprived of treatment that can improve their lives significantly is upsetting and in my opinion only serves increase the social isolation they will feel.

I have many wonderful and supportive friends but feel that isolation on a daily basis when I have to say 'What?' more than the acceptable 3 times and be treated like I'm an imbecile. For someone in the later stages of life, possibly with friends and family no longer around to support them, even a mild loss of hearing will have drastic effects on their social interaction. What if they're worried about walking to the shops in case they don't hear the traffic as they cross the road? What about the intolerance of the public, as I mentioned earlier? What about listening to the radio or the TV? What about the dreaded, dismissive 'ugh, never mind'? That will be more intimidating and upsetting to a pensioner trying to adapt than to my 24yo, socially active self who adapted to hearing aids aged 2. Make no mistake, Deafness is still not understood properly and is often as invisible and stigmatised as any mental illness.

Even if I were to disregard the social aspect of this, I wish to highlight 2 parts of the article:

'The CCG says the new restrictions are necessary to help it save money, and will save it about £200,000 in the first year.'

'Marcus Warnes, the CCGs chief operating officer, defended its action. Our decision to introduce an eligibility criteria for hearing aids for people with mild to moderate hearing loss was not financially driven...'

Can you spot the difference?

I think you need to find out what the clinical research they are claiming led them to this decision actually was.

If you read that and think the decision is still based on finances, which there's every chance it may be, or is flawed in the way it has been done, then you should challenge on that.

http://www.northstaffsccg.nhs.uk/download.cfm?doc=docm93jijm4n7144.pdf&ver=11131

[joey_big_nose]

There's no harm in being a leader that listens to the people that got him there imo. Regardless of where he takes the party, Corbyn has got a LOT of my mates talking about politics having had very little interest previously. If having someone who actually seems normal asking Q's of the PM that normal people want to ask, it ought to lead to a larger proportion of the electorate getting involved.

Imo he's a stand-in until Cooper or Burnham takeover.

I think that's the default scenario, or they find another new candidate in two years time.

However I have to say predicting anything in politics at the moment is very difficult. If Corbyn plays a canny tight game who knows where it will lead.

From UKIP and Trump, to the SNP, to Bernie Sanders and Corbyn everything is surprising everybody. I'm interested to see how things play out boths sides of the Atlantic.

[Mike E]

Indeed, I've never known so many people my age be as interested in politics after UKIP came rising up and now Corbyn. The variety is good for engaging discussion and different ideas.

[Guest]

Politics is a game for those with connections to the rich and powerful. This is not a game for honest and ordinary people. Corbyn would be eaten alive if he becomes Prime Minister. What a sad world we live in.

It's strange... We clamour for trustworthy politicians who will not pull the wool over the people's eyes, and for politicians who are honest in service, yet we still get hung up on what they're wearing, what they're not singing, or which farm animal's face they've allegedly disturbed decades ago. We can look at politicians, but we also have to look at ourselves. We get what we deserve.

[Paul]

We don't deserve Theresa May

[Paul]

.

[Gav]

Cannot believe people voted these Tory arseh0les into power.

Theyre so out of touch with life outside the Whitehall bubble, they talk about giving people the right to buy a house? When they can't even put food on the table all this Whilst Plunging millions of children into poverty to boot.

It's absolutely scandalous, but the British public voted them in.....

[Baz]

Cannot believe people voted these Tory arseh0les into power.

Theyre so out of touch with life outside the Whitehall bubble, they talk about giving people the right to buy a house? When they can't even put food on the table all this Whilst Plunging millions of children into poverty to boot.

It's absolutely scandalous, but the British public voted them in.....

They are very good PR people Gav, they continually say how well the economy is going, but then revise forecasts down, they promised to have no budget deficit by this year, now its by the next election. They are allowed to mis-quote Corbyn over Bin-Laden. They are allowed to reduce inheritance tax, whilst cutting tax credits. They are participating in air strikes in foreign countries, without the mandate of parliament.

They are doing this, whilst the media is concentrated on Corbyn not wearing a tie, wearing socks with sandals. The Labour Party aren't doing their job, but it's fair to say they have the media running their messages for them.