The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[drummonds]

To be fair he was never going to get the party onside with his trident views.

 

I'm an ardent supporter of disarming our capability but realistic enough to know it is not going to happen Corbyn-style. Pragmatism tells me there is nothing that can be done to prevent renewal of the system in 2016 as the government has a majority, and if needed enough willing Labour MPs to carry a future vote (say after 2020) against scrapping the system.

 

The longer game IMO is making sure we never renew our capability after that, 10 or 20 years down the line or whenever the next decision is made.

 

There's really no point in Corbyn making too much of this. We know his views but he isn't going to change things.

 

 

if we are going to spend billions on a nuclear deterent, there really isn't much point having a prime minister who announces to the world that you can fire your nukes at us with total impunity, because i'm the man with the codes and under no circumstances will i fire back".

 

the man is a lunatic and would be a total liabilty. he would be a real danger to this country.

[WiseOwl182]

To be fair he was never going to get the party onside with his trident views.

 

So why promise his own colleagues a debate on it one week, and then completely undermine it the next? I heard his interview on radio and it seems his idea of a debate is somewhat one-sided. At this rate, alienating his own team, he won't even last until Xmas.

[RonJeremy]

So why promise his own colleagues a debate on it one week, and then completely undermine it the next? I heard his interview on radio and it seems his idea of a debate is somewhat one-sided. At this rate, alienating his own team, he won't even last until Xmas.

 

Please don't even think that. We want him in charge of an unelectable labour party for a long time...

[I1L2T3]

if we are going to spend billions on a nuclear deterent, there really isn't much point having a prime minister who announces to the world that you can fire your nukes at us with total impunity, because i'm the man with the codes and under no circumstances will i fire back".

 

the man is a lunatic and would be a total liabilty. he would be a real danger to this country.

 

The bit in bold I agree with

 

I don't thing Corbyn is a lunatic though, more an idealist. If he's going to be inclusive though he needs to yield a bit and accept that many of his MPs do support Trident and the concept of a deterrent.

 

I think Trident renewal in 2016 is going to be the flashpoint that sees him leave. Given what he has said I think he has just started digging his own grave. He can't really stand up in PMQs and oppose the renewal when maybe over 100 of his own MPs would happily vote with the government for renewal.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2015 at 20:20 ----------

 

So why promise his own colleagues a debate on it one week, and then completely undermine it the next? I heard his interview on radio and it seems his idea of a debate is somewhat one-sided. At this rate, alienating his own team, he won't even last until Xmas.

 

2016 Trident renewal vote is when he'll go.

[Happ Hazzard]

Corbyn needs to be more ruthless if he wants to ever become PM.

[Anna B]

This is just a question so don't all jump down my throat. I know it is the PM who usually gives the command, but is there any reason why it couldn't be changed, say, to the Minister for defence, in consultation, who issued the command?

 

Actually, I feel a bit odd even thinking about the practicalities of something of such enormity, as the end of the world.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Anna B

[tinfoilhat]

This is just a question so don't all jump down my throat. I know it is the PM who usually gives the command, but is there any reason why it couldn't be changed, say, to the Minister for defence, in consultation, who issued the command?

 

Because if you are going to kill millions of people in one go it really should be our PM - it's the top job. Trying to fob it off to someone because you haven't got the stomach for it isn't leadership material.

[drummonds]

This is just a question so don't all jump down my throat. I know it is the PM who usually gives the command, but is there any reason why it couldn't be changed, say, to the Minister for defence, in consultation, who issued the command?

 

Actually, I feel a bit odd even thinking about the practicalities of something of such enormity, as the end of the world.

 

is there any point in a prime minister who can be over ruled on such matters? that is called anarchy. corbyn has just demonsrated that he is unfit for high office.

[I1L2T3]

is there any point in a prime minister who can be over ruled on such matters? that is called anarchy. corbyn has just demonsrated that he is unfit for high office.

 

The other way of looking at it is if he did get into office then he could rapidly solve the problem by scrapping the fleet of subs. Doing so would mean he would never have to make the decision to push any button. That s probably how his mind is working.

 

I don't think the public would vote him in on that basis but you never know. Some weird things have happened already with Corbyn.

[Eric Arthur]

He can't really stand up in PMQs and oppose the renewal when maybe over 100 of his own MPs would happily vote with the government for renewal.

Mind you, it isn't stopping him. On current form he might not even make it to Halloween. He carries on showing that he can't be trusted to hold other people's experience or opinions to be the equal or better than his.