The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Alan Ladd]

Unless he resigns, or is assassinated by an even more left-wing fanatic, it is difficult to see how he can go. No-one has a hope of beating him in an election in the foreseeable future.

 

It depends on whether the Labour party want to stay in opposition.

 

I would have thought every politician enters politics to gain power and influence events. You cant do that if you are permanently in opposition.

 

Corbyn will never ever win a general election. Labour need to sort themselves out before the party implodes.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 15:33 ----------

 

My point is that nuclear weapons are the equivalent of unicorn repellent.

 

You are wrong.

 

MAD (mutual assured destruction) kept the peace from about 1950 to the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

Now, due to the end of the USSR the threat is more diffuse. If we are to protect ourselves we must have an ultimate deterrent.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 15:50 ----------

 

In what circumstances can you envisage a nuclear strike by a foreign enemy strong enough to destroy a single UK city?

 

To be honest that is very contrived scenario and extremely unlikely. The risk is so tiny that a £30bn weapons system to protect against it can't be justified.

 

I can imagine a fundamentalist take over of a nuclear state (Pakistan). I can imagine that we may make common cause with India. That would be sufficient to make us a target.

 

I can imagine North Korea attacking the US (they are about a year away from developing a suitable delivery rocket).They would not hesitate to attack us if they had the capacity.

 

Russia is currently under control but what happens when Putin finishes? Equally China, further economic issues could leave to serious civil unrest and potentially civil war.

 

Who knows what the future holds?

 

We should take the advise of Theodore Roosevelt "walk softly and carry a big stick", in other words use our diplomacy and maintain our ability to hit hard if we need to.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 15:54 ----------

 

but still unelectable. even worse now the loony left has woken up and put the party back to the 1980s. i'm afraid you've just had James Callaghan and now have michael foot back in charge. you've still to endure another kinnock and a smith before you actually find one that folk will vote for.

 

I agree with you, they will have to wait for either, the Tories to slip up catastrophically, or the emergence of a charismatic such as Blair.

[drummonds]

It depends on whether the Labour party want to stay in opposition.

 

I would have thought every politician enters politics to gain power and influence events. You cant do that if you are permanently in opposition.

 

Corbyn will never ever win a general election. Labour need to sort themselves out before the party implodes.

 

i suppose it depends whether their ambition is to win a general election. it could be that the loony party is happy to represent the lunatic fringe. being in power does not require winning general elections. for some the lunacy is the important thing. they would rather places like sheffield and rotherham be controlled as communist ghettos than for the entire country to be governed by moderate labour. so perhaps those in charge of the assylum are happy to have sway over the bits where most of the lunatics live. that would be the socialist republic of south yorkshire.

 

i wouldn't be surprised to see the party implode and split. there are clearly labour mps who have little in common with the crackpots who are party leader and shadow chancellor. it's a bit like a 60's rock band. it remains to be seen which splinter gets to keep the name.

Edited October 2, 2015 by drummonds

[Phanerothyme]

So what do you think stopped America invading Cuba to remove Castro, or the Warsaw Pact throwing the West out of Berlin etc?

 

Well, no single thing "stopped" either of those two non-scenarios from occurring.

 

The US tried invading Cuba to remove Castro once, and ended up having to remove their missile systems from Turkey and egg on faces all round.

 

West Berlin was a useful place for everyone at the time.

 

 

 

 

.

[JFKvsNixon]

Well, no single thing "stopped" either of those two non-scenarios from occurring.

 

The US tried invading Cuba to remove Castro once, and ended up having to remove their missile systems from Turkey and egg on faces all round.

 

West Berlin was a useful place for everyone at the time.

 

 

 

 

.

 

All the historical documentation from the time suggests that JFK was sure that the Warsaw Pack would move against Berlin if the USA moved against Cuba. It was the reason as to why he wouldn't overtly back the rebels in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the reason why he worked so hard negotiating a settlement to the Cuban Missile crisis.

 

The big worry was that, when the Soviets moved against Berlin there would be an escalation which would lead to nuclear war. A book published around that time - The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman, which describes the politicians inability to stop the military's headlong rush to WW1 was a big influence upon JFK's thinking.

 

RFK's book on the crisis gives a good background as does the book of the White House transcripts from the crisis.

 

Prior to this West Berlin was a massive thorn in the side of East Germany, and Khrushchev was determined to remove it any way he could. The Wall was actually welcomed by JFK who was worried that the Soviets problem with West Berlin may lead to conflict.

 

His famous comment upon learning of the Berlin Wall being constructed was - A wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.

[drummonds]

an interesting snippet from the latest yougov poll..

 

the claim that if Labour returned to government they’d get the country into even more debt (47% agreed in 2010, 53% agree now)

 

labour are not trusted on the economy and that level of mistrust is getting worse.

[I1L2T3]

an interesting snippet from the latest yougov poll..

 

the claim that if Labour returned to government they’d get the country into even more debt (47% agreed in 2010, 53% agree now)

 

labour are not trusted on the economy and that level of mistrust is getting worse.

 

Curious.

 

At least the question acknowledges the debt load Osborne has piled on the country

[drummonds]

Curious.

 

At least the question acknowledges the debt load Osborne has piled on the country

 

actually it acknowledges the fact that the majority of people in this country don't trust labour with the economy.

[tinfoilhat]

Well, no single thing "stopped" either of those two non-scenarios from occurring.

 

The US tried invading Cuba to remove Castro once, and ended up having to remove their missile systems from Turkey and egg on faces all round.

 

West Berlin was a useful place for everyone at the time.

 

 

 

 

.

 

8 B26s 1400 Cuban exiles. Hardly the full might of the US military. I wonder why they didn't go full tilt at it?

[drummonds]

8 B26s 1400 Cuban exiles. Hardly the full might of the US military. I wonder why they didn't go full tilt at it?

 

the days when refugees were prepared to fight for their country.

[blake]

what the Tories want is for Corbyn to continue acting the amiable fool and lose votes, but not all that many. If Corbyn loses too many votes, Labour will have to replace him with somebody else and that is the last thing the Tories want.

Edited October 2, 2015 by blake