UK Labour Leadership election

Benny_Cake

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Network Rail is effectively nationalised and they own and maintain the infrastructure. The operator of the train services (franchises) are private (or not so private insofar as state railways in Europe operate some of the private train franchises in Britain). It is the franchise that Corbyn wants to nationalise and I fully agree with him

It seems to be the mainstream position now, even among Tory voters:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/

LordSutch

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Preferably, or at the very least located outside Scotland. It says something about the world we live in that opposing the spending of billions (possibly £100 billion over the lifetime of the system) on weapons of mass destruction is seen as a wacky, radical position to take.

OK so here's a simple schoolyard analogy; All the big boys in the schoolyard have bought Tazer guns in Maplins (for self defence), each boy knowing that if he tazers one of the others, he will face an equal "paralyzing retaliation" from his schoolyard victim, hence there never are any attacks, due to the painful & paralysing tazer deterrent.

These tazers need an annual software update (which costs quite a lot of pocket money) and if not updated, then the others will know that Mr Softie's tazer doesn't hurt anymore, and that he is a soft target > Yet on the other hand, the cost of updating the Tazer means that his metaphorical lunchbox is never as full or as healthy as he would like it to be.

Of course one can always call a friend to tazer the bully on your behalf, but could you really trust your friend to deliver that electric punch for you, as and when you wanted?

Surely you would feel much happier if you possessed the deterrent yourself? Wouldn't you feel stronger & more secure knowing that you were in possession of the latest Tazer software (just in case) you are attacked.

A very simple analogy, but I guess that's the "lets keep Trident" argument in a nutshell (for beginners)

ancapailldorcha

Your analogy doesn't account for NATO. Personally, I don't see any reason to renew Trident given that mainland Britain hasn't been threatened since World War II.

A Dub in Glasgo

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It seems to be the mainstream position now, even among Tory voters:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/

There are 18 franchises that run train services in Britain

7 are run by companies that are wholly private owned
4 are run by companies that are part owned by the French state railway
2 are run by companies that are part owned by the Dutch state railway
3 are run by companies that are wholly owned by the German state railway
2 are run by companies that are wholly owned by the Dutch state railway

Companies owned by the UK state are forbidden by law to bid for 'private' train franchises

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Your analogy doesn't account for NATO. Personally, I don't see any reason to renew Trident given that mainland Britain hasn't been threatened since World War II.

ICBMS make that sort of statement utterly redundant.

As for NATO, there is already a dawning realisation in Washington that they may end up getting nuked over protecting much smaller, recent NATO members like Estonia. The UK withdrawing itsself from the Nuclear table would put even more strain on the collective defense paradigm of NATO and be viewed as abdicating further responsibility to the Americans by the Americans and raise the question more loudly of "why should we get nuked protecting someone else who isn't even bothered to defend themselves?".

The cold war hasn't gone away, it's waking up again (unfortunately). The Russians are now conducting cold war flights several times a week every week with RAF intercepts; most of it just isn't getting reported because it's so common now. Five years ago that wasn't the case.

In any case, it will cost more to scrap Trident than to renew it, costing a great deal more jobs in the process.

A Dub in Glasgo

LordSutch wrote: »

OK so here's a simple schoolyard analogy; All the big boys in the schoolyard have bought Tazer guns in Maplins (for self defence), each boy knowing that if he tazers one of the others, he will face an equal "paralyzing retaliation" from his schoolyard victim, hence there never are any attacks, due to the painful & paralysing tazer deterrent.

These tazers need an annual software update (which costs quite a lot of pocket money) and if not updated, then the others will know that Mr Softie's tazer doesn't hurt anymore, and that he is a soft target > Yet on the other hand, the cost of updating the Tazer means that his metaphorical lunchbox is never as full or as healthy as he would like it to be.

Of course one can always call a friend to tazer the bully on your behalf, but could you really trust your friend to deliver that electric punch for you, as and when you wanted?

Surely you would feel much happier if you possessed the deterrent yourself? Wouldn't you feel stronger & more secure knowing that you were in possession of the latest Tazer software (just in case) you are attacked.

A very simple analogy, but I guess that's the "lets keep Trident" argument in a nutshell (for beginners)

So LordSutch, you agree that all countries and states should have the right to Nuclear weapons... for self defence purposes?

Trident is US designed, manufactured and operated, the UK will need US permission to use them

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote: »

ICBMS make that sort of statement utterly redundant.

and who is likely to use ICBMS on the UK?

Benny_Cake

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So LordSutch, you agree that all countries and states should have the right to Nuclear weapons... for self defence purposes?

This.

I get the deterrence argument LordSutch, but it's questionable what the actual value of the UK arsenal is in that sense. Letting Trident die of old age would be a powerful statement of commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth which is ultimately the only way we can feel "safer". I'd rather no pupils have Tazers, in short

Lemming

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Letting Trident die of old age would be a powerful statement of commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth which is ultimately the only way we can feel "safer". I'd rather no pupils have Tazers, in short

Whilst a compelling argument, it only works if everyone else takes the same view. And when they don't (which they won't ... ), you've left yourself wide open to being shoved around at a geopolitical level any time both sides square off (unless you ultimately fancy a nuke to the face)

LordSutch

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So LordSutch, you agree that all countries and states should have the right to Nuclear weapons... for self defence purposes?

My previous post was simply a beginner's guide (analogy) as to why a country might wish to retain a deterrent.

Personally speaking I'm not sure if the UK should scrap its nuclear deterrent or not? (I'm sitting on the fence).

I guess the massive amount of money that could be saved in scrapping the deterrent would result in the Royal Navy doubling the size of its fleet, with the regular Army doubling in size too, more RAF jet fighters, many more battle tanks, etc etc etc. But is that what the UK needs in this day and age?

Then again, does any country need to spend billions in a deterrent that can never be used?

BoJack Horseman

LordSutch wrote: »

does any country need to spend billions in a deterrent that can never be used?

That's the point of a strong deterrent.

At 0.16% of GDP, the UK's nuclear programme isn't crippling.

The UK would be silly sausages to give it up...
It's costly, but not unaffordable.

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's the point of a strong deterrent.

At 0.16% of GDP, the UK's nuclear programme isn't crippling.

The UK would be silly sausages to give it up...
It's costly, but not unaffordable.

Disability welfare is unaffordable yet Weapons of Mass Destruction welfare is affordable? I think you have your priorities arse about face

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote: »

Whilst a compelling argument, it only works if everyone else takes the same view. And when they don't (which they won't ... ), you've left yourself wide open to being shoved around at a geopolitical level any time both sides square off (unless you ultimately fancy a nuke to the face)

So you also agree that every state has a right to Nuclear weapons just in case a nuke to the face is threatened?

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Disability welfare is unaffordable

Gonna ask you to quote where I said that?

I've no idea what disability allowance costs the UK taxpayer

I'm just making the point that expending just 1/10th of the already modest defence budget on the nuclear deterrent isn't unaffordable for one of the largest economies on earth.

A Dub in Glasgo

Is this the same defence budget that is resulting in closure of air force and navy bases as well as sending soldiers to war without the appropriate equipment? Yet Weapons of Mass Destruction are affordable?

Anyhow, Corbyn has named his first appointments for the Shadow Cabinet

S Home Sec - Burnham
S Chancellor - McDonnell
S Foreign - Benn
S Health - Alexander
S NI - Coaker
S Business - Eagle
S Communities & Local Gov - Abbott

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So you also agree that every state has a right to Nuclear weapons just in case a nuke to the face is threatened?

I never said nor implied such; so stop trying to attribute things to me that I have neither said nor suggested. It's disingenious at best, outright dishonest at worst.

But to answer your absurd question, and being perfectly frank I'd rather nobody had them. But that's not the world we live in, nor will it ever be the world that we go back to in our lifetimes, or the next several. Considering what that world once was, maybe that's a good thing given that said world gave us Hitler & Stalin. So the next best thing is non-proliferation. That means that holding the status quo as the lesser of two realistic evils, namely everyone has them (fvck that) or as few as possible have them, keeping each other in check and the world in one piece.

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote: »

To be frank, I'd rather nobody had them. But that's not the world we live in, nor will it ever be the world that we go back to in our lifetimes, or the next several. Considering what that world once was, maybe that's a good thing given that said world gave us Hitler & Stalin. So the next best thing is non-proliferation. That means that holding the status quo as the lesser of two realistic evils, namely everyone has them (fvck that) or as few as possible have them, keeping each other in check and the world in one piece.

So that is a Yes and a No and a Maybe thrown in as well

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Is this the same defence budget that is resulting in closure of air force and navy bases as well as sending soldiers to war without the appropriate equipment?

Yes, I assume it is!
It's been reducing for years.

I agree with you though, the UK defence budget should be increased.

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So that is a Yes and a No and a Maybe thrown in as well

Ok, now you're just being plain dishonest.

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yes, I assume it is!
It's been reducing for years.

I agree with you though, the UK defence budget should be increased.

So what are you willing to cut to fund the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote: »

Ok, now you're just being plain dishonest.

It is the UK Government that is being dishonest

'Britain is committed to eliminating its nuclear arsenal under Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 190 states have signed the treaty, which states that:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament."'

How does replacing Nuclear weapons that are obsolete with up to date modern weapons square with the commitments in law to eliminate nuclear weapons?

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So what are you willing to cut to fund the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Well, I'm flattered, but it isn't my choice.
Plus, I'm in Ireland, so don't really care.

However, where I emperor of Britannia, I would ensure both conventional & nuclear are maintainable.

The existence of 4 x Trafalgar submarines wouldn't have to be at the cost of some other programme (not that they are afaik?).

But we both know that "Jez we can" doesn't intend on using that 10% saving to bolster conventional forces.
In his mind, its all for the chop.

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is the UK Government that is being dishonest

'Britain is committed to eliminating its nuclear arsenal under Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 190 states have signed the treaty, which states that:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament."'

How does replacing Nuclear weapons that are obsolete with up to date modern weapons square with the commitments in law to eliminate nuclear weapons?

No, you are the one being dishonest, trying to imply that I've said something that I have not and because I disagree with you then 1 + 1 must somehow equal 15 to the power of elventy one billion million pie.

You can't even read what you're citing without getting it wrong. There's a very important word in there that matters to the entire context of the paragraph you cited. I wont tell you what it is because to be frank, you're the one that's cited it.

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Plus, I'm in Ireland, so don't really care.

Don't care and top poster in thread?

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Don't care and top poster in thread?

There is a difference between 'interest' & 'caring'.

Manach

Arguing historically, there was a reason for the lack of use of mass destructive weapons (Gas, Nerve agents) in WWII. That was due to if they were used then all sides who had them would retaliate. Thus having a deterrent acts as a means to keep the war violence within some check.

Arguing legally, signing a treaty does not translate to direct action in domestic law due to the nature of the English legal system - ie it is aspirational and has no direct legal effect.

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Your analogy doesn't account for NATO. Personally, I don't see any reason to renew Trident given that mainland Britain hasn't been threatened since World War II.

Doesnt Corbyn want to take the UK out of NATO?
So, no nuclear deterrent and no NATO to call on in case Putin is knocking on the door.

feargale

LordSutch wrote: »

OK so here's a simple schoolyard analogy; All the big boys in the schoolyard have bought Tazer guns in Maplins (for self defence), each boy knowing that if he tazers one of the others, he will face an equal "paralyzing retaliation" from his schoolyard victim, hence there never are any attacks, due to the painful & paralysing tazer deterrent.

These tazers need an annual software update (which costs quite a lot of pocket money) and if not updated, then the others will know that Mr Softie's tazer doesn't hurt anymore, and that he is a soft target > Yet on the other hand, the cost of updating the Tazer means that his metaphorical lunchbox is never as full or as healthy as he would like it to be.

Of course one can always call a friend to tazer the bully on your behalf, but could you really trust your friend to deliver that electric punch for you, as and when you wanted?

Surely you would feel much happier if you possessed the deterrent yourself? Wouldn't you feel stronger & more secure knowing that you were in possession of the latest Tazer software (just in case) you are attacked.

A very simple analogy, but I guess that's the "lets keep Trident" argument in a nutshell (for beginners)

Would you give nukes ( sorry, Tazer guns ) to the little boys who are being bullied, e.g. the evicted inhabitants of Diego Garcia?

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It just happens that almost everyone is to the right of someone on the far-left.

Are all of the people who concur with Corbyn's policies and opinions 'far left'?

It appears that public support for Corbyn's policies/opinions is remarkably strong.

56% of people support (31% against) an increase on taxes on incomes of over one million GBP.

Support for renationalising the railways has cross-party support with even the Tories being split down the middle on the issue.

Two thirds of Brits want an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.

6 out of 10 Brits want to see rent controls on landlords.

60% of the public support a mandatory living wage.

Almost half of the UK public want to see tuition fees cut with only 31% against the idea.

43% were with Corbyn on opposing the Iraq war with 37% duped wartards in favour with even greater numbers aligning on the UK bombing of Syria.

It appears that being centrist is now labelled 'far left'. That would make the Tories and their fanboys far-right radicals.

Dohnjoe

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Are all of the people who concur with Corbyn's policies and opinions 'far left'?

It appears that public support for Corbyn's policies/opinions is remarkably strong.

56% of people support (31% against) an increase on taxes on incomes of over one million GBP.

Support for renationalising the railways has cross-party support with even the Tories being split down the middle on the issue.

Two thirds of Brits want an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.

6 out of 10 Brits want to see rent controls on landlords.

60% of the public support a mandatory living wage.

Almost half of the UK public want to see tuition fees cut with only 31% against the idea.

43% were with Corbyn on opposing the Iraq war with 37% duped wartards in favour with even greater numbers aligning on the UK bombing of Syria.

It appears that being centrist is now labelled 'far left'. That would make the Tories and their fanboys far-right radicals.

Corbyn is about as far-left as they come (outside of Venezuela and the 1950's) The new shadow chancellor he has chosen was sacked by "Red Ken" for being too left in, let that sink in.

Here are some of McDonell's comments on the IRA

"It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle.
"It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table."

Entertaining times ahead.