The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[tinfoilhat]

The UK, in fact, as "GB" pre-supposes his handing over Northern Ireland to its southern neighbour.

 

What evs, the point still stands.

[blake]

The guy is dangerous. I did think it was a bit of a joke at first, but the more I hear from him, the more it worries me.

 

I wasn't there, but at the Labour Friends of Palestine meeting, they also apparently mobbed him as soon as he entered the room. Everyone was taking selfies and there was a party atmostphere, although of course they weren't cracking open the champagne - that is not their style.

 

thank goodness he almost certainly won't be there as leader at the conference next year.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2015 at 22:21 ----------

 

Corbyn has made it clear that he abhors what they stand for.

 

no he hasn't. And neither has the guy who is the Shadow Chancellor either. They've both got to go.

Edited September 30, 2015 by blake

[Anna B]

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.

 

I have to agree with this.

 

We are probably about to spend £millions, if not £billions, paying for an outdated weapon which will never be used. Does that make him an idiot, or us. Heaven knows the money can be better spent.

 

He says he is not a Dictator. He is happy to discuss it. He says he wants to bring a nuclear-free world nearer, and will work to those ends. That sounds good to me.

 

Remember a lot of very wealthy, civilised countries have made the decision to be nuclear weapons free.

[Manlinose]

thank goodness he almost certainly won't be there as leader at the conference next year.

 

In many ways that would be a shame - there isn't enough diversity in politics as it is. Irrespective of whether or not he is a potential PM, and irrespective of whether or not he will galvanise the labour party or tear it apart, politically, the times they are a changing and, after the relatively boring times of recent years, things are a lot more interesting

 

On a non-partisan basis, the last thing politics needs is another Cameron/Miliband/Osborne/Burnham clone

[WiseOwl182]

I have to agree with this.

 

We are probably about to spend £millions, if not £billions, paying for an outdated weapon which will never be used. Does that make him an idiot, or us. Heaven knows the money can be better spent.

 

He says he is not a Dictator. He is happy to discuss it. He says he wants to bring a nuclear-free world nearer, and will work to those ends. That sounds good to me.

 

Remember a lot of very wealthy, civilised countries have made the decision to be nuclear weapons free.

 

 

While ever there are bad guys with nuclear weapons, we still need some good guys with them too. Of course we'd hope to never have to use them, but if it came to it, we could. It wouldn't mean the end of the world, but there would be a lot of innocent civilian deaths. I'd rather be at the good guy end than the bad guy end of that.

[blake]

I have to agree with this.

 

 

 

Remember a lot of very wealthy, civilised countries have made the decision to be nuclear weapons free.

 

you're just naive, Anna. They only made that decision, when that decision was made for them, like it was for Germany and Japan.

 

why don't you ask the French, who are only just next door, and who are the major historical enemy of Britain, to get rid rid of theirs, before we get rid of ours?

[Manlinose]

you're just naive, Anna. They only made that decision, when the desicion was made for them, like Germany and Japan.

 

why don't you ask the French, who are only just next door, and who are the major historical enemy of Britain, to get rid rid of theirs, before we get rid of ours?

 

Of course it isn't naive - the French can do whatever they want, they are not a threat to our security

 

Our nuclear weapons do not make us any less likely to be attacked than any other NATO country - most of which do not have an independent nuclear "deterrent"

 

The naive view is to believe that Trident makes us safer than we would be without it

[I1L2T3]

Trident is a one trick pony. It is not a flexible deterrent.

 

It is designed with one objective and that is (with less than 50 warheads) to take out approximately ten command and control centres in the Greater Moscow region, basically to cut the head off the Russian military. Each centre is treated to targeting by 3 or 4 Trident warheads. The Americans have duplicated this targeting and have dozens of additional warheads targeted on each command centre.

 

Trident cannot disable the Russian state alone. In a first strike scenario it probably wouldn't even disable return strike capability. It would have to be used in conjunction with US strikes.

 

In return for this we have how many Russian warheads targeted on our towns and cities?

Hundreds!!

 

The only thing guaranteed is our destruction when the time eventually comes. Not worth it.

[L00b]

indeed i was trading. but there is no import duty or vat payable on packages under the value of £15. if you ship 5000 of them there still is no duty or vat payable. i'm sure that if you are that bothered you can consult your taxman friend about it.

I'm not that bothered. It just sounded fishy, and still does.

 

I also didn't think you'd be daft enough to 'fess up to tax evasion and wear it as some badge of honour on a public forum. Especially given your views about contribution from economic migrants, what the Gvt should spend taxpayers money on, etc.

 

Takes all sorts I suppose.

[tinfoilhat]

Trident is a one trick pony. It is not a flexible deterrent.

 

It is designed with one objective and that is (with less than 50 warheads) to take out approximately ten command and control centres in the Greater Moscow region, basically to cut the head off the Russian military. Each centre is treated to targeting by 3 or 4 Trident warheads. The Americans have duplicated this targeting and have dozens of additional warheads targeted on each command centre.

 

Trident cannot disable the Russian state alone. In a first strike scenario it probably wouldn't even disable return strike capability. It would have to be used in conjunction with US strikes.

 

In return for this we have how many Russian warheads targeted on our towns and cities?

Hundreds!!

 

The only thing guaranteed is our destruction when the time eventually comes. Not worth it.

 

I think it also still carries a certain amount of political weight - although since the end of the Cold War that weight decreases. I'm not sure it's the most cost effective way of carrying a nuclear deterrent. Can't we lie and just say we have it? The current war heads could be full of pick and mix for all we know.