UK Labour Leadership election

Peregrinus

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

Well, except that the IRA and attitudes to it are just not a front-line issue in British politics today. And anyone who tries to make them so will just marginalise themselves.

McDonnell's the shadow chancellor. People will care, one way or the other, about his economic position. They won't care what he says, or said in the past, about an issue that as far as most of them are concerned went away nearly twenty years ago.

LordSutch

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

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

Curious; When did we start calling the nuclear deterrent (Trident) "The weapons of mass destruction"?

Quite obviously they are weapons of mass destruction, but the moniker/label has always been, " The Nuclear deterrent" - until now :cool:

A small shift in language admittedly, but a shift in emphasis all the same :cool:

Benny_Cake

LordSutch wrote: »

Curious; When did we start calling the nuclear deterrent (Trident) "The weapons of mass destruction"?

Quite obviously they are weapons of mass destruction, but the moniker/label has always been, " The Nuclear deterrent" - until now :cool:

A small shift in language admittedly, but a shift in emphasis all the same :cool:

Perhaps when preventing other countries acquiring nuclear weapons became described as "preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction".

Nuclear deterrent sounds quite clinical, similar to "collateral damage". I see no reason that countries such as Iran couldn't similarly speak of developing a nuclear deterrent, but such is the inherent double standard in nuclear proliferation.

gallag

People don't seem to understand there is no point in having a conventional force if you unilaterally disarm your nuclear deterrent, in a war situation your foe could simply lift the phone and tell you to surrender, say for example you put the trident budget into shiny new state of the art artillery and heavy armoured units and they were making good progress on a front against the enemy, will the enemy just accept that if they can just launch a strategic low yield bomb to eliminate your entire division.

It's simple, no point having a conventional force if your enemies know you can only escalate to a certain point.

BoJack Horseman

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I see no reason that countries such as Iran couldn't similarly speak of developing a nuclear deterrent, but such is the inherent double standard in nuclear proliferation.

It is indeed a double standard, but one that the world has decided to accept.

No one rationally wants nuclear weapons in the hands of a fundamentalist islamic dictatorship.

awec

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

gallag wrote: »

People don't seem to understand there is no point in having a conventional force if you unilaterally disarm your nuclear deterrent.

Which is Corbyn's point.

He sees no purpose in maintaining either conventional or nuclear forces, other than seemingly a rump TA.

Its not just Trident, that is headline catching.
He wouldnt have much time for any of the other big procurement items coming soon that the Tories are dithering on.
Scout SV, QE2 carriers, F35B programme, Type 26 GCS programme, nimrod replacement... Trident savings wouldnt be going to any of this.

joseph brand

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)

Change the word tasers to shotguns. You'll quickly realise that confiscating every single weapon is a must. "It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye."

gizmo555

RDM_83 again wrote: »

There is a certain irony for somebody thats pro-corbyn to start sharing awkward group photo's and shared events :-\

Who said I was pro-Corbyn? Just anti-Tory!

BTW, the pic I linked to was more than just an "awkward" photo. Thatcher was notoriously a long-term enthusiastic supporter of Pinochet during and after her time in office.

djpbarry

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No one rationally wants nuclear weapons in the hands of a fundamentalist islamic dictatorship.

We should probably stop making them then.

BoJack Horseman

djpbarry wrote: »

We should probably stop making them then.

Whoever "we" are can do as they wish, just don't give the finished product or the skills to the Ayatollahs!

RDM_83 again

I agree and disagree with him on this.
Whats the point of Trident 2 in the current world?
Any of the arguments for it I've heard are arguments for a French style truly independent nuclear deterrent you might as well have no deterrent if your reliant on US approval if your going to consider far in the future hypothetical situations.

I'm not sure cuts in the size of the army/navy/airforce would be popular with working class Labour voters whereas cutting Trident is.

ads20101

djpbarry wrote: »

We should probably stop making them then.

I agree, but its a bit over simplistic without a global effort.

To be honest I feel that it is too late to put the genie back in the bottle. In this paranoid world it is unlikely that we would get the kind of consensus required.

BoJack Horseman

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats the point of Trident 2 in the current world?.

The reason for its continued existence hasn't changed since its creation.
- Ivan hasn't gone away you know.
- Its a much better delivery system compared to aircraft or cruise missile.

Im not sure cuts in the size of the army/navy/airforce would be popular with working class Labour voters whereas cutting Trident is.

If so, it hasnt shown.
The UK armed forces haven't been as small as it currently is for centuries

djpbarry

ads20101 wrote: »

I agree, but its a bit over simplistic without a global effort.

To be honest I feel that it is too late to put the genie back in the bottle. In this paranoid world it is unlikely that we would get the kind of consensus required.

I agree - pragmatism is required.

But, there are thousands of nuclear warheads already in existence - spending billions of pounds (of borrowed money) on producing more doesn't seem terribly prudent to me.

ads20101

djpbarry wrote: »

I agree - pragmatism is required.

But, there are thousands of nuclear warheads already in existence - spending billions of pounds (of borrowed money) on producing more doesn't seem terribly prudent to me.

Yes - it makes you wonder how many times they want to blow up the planet. Surely once is enough

BoJack Horseman

djpbarry wrote: »

spending billions of pounds (of borrowed money) on producing more doesn't seem terribly prudent to me.

Who is producing more though?

The UK are cutting their stockpile by 20% to save on maintenance costs.

Russia & the US just use existing warhead supplies & maintain what they have.

BoJack Horseman

ads20101 wrote: »

Surely once is enough

If you are going to do it, you want to be sure.
3 times oughta do it!

mimi90

Corbyn is the stereotype leftie, all talk but when it comes down to the nitty gritty no action.
He went on about 50/50 split between men and women in his shadow cabinet, and what does he do when he gets the job, reality hits him a good slap to cop on. He is now promoting the best people for the job, and gender quotas be damned.
The left lives in a dream world, talks big when they have no power to act on these ideas, but as soon as they get power reality brings them back to earth.

A Dub in Glasgo

LordSutch wrote: »

Curious; When did we start calling the nuclear deterrent (Trident) "The weapons of mass destruction"?

Quite obviously they are weapons of mass destruction, but the moniker/label has always been, " The Nuclear deterrent" - until now :cool:

A small shift in language admittedly, but a shift in emphasis all the same :cool:

I have used that phrase a long time. In fact, I use it here in response to one of your posts 9 years ago, posts 11 & 12

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52020739#post52020739

StonyIron

He really handled that media interaction incredibly badly this morning.

Looks like someone's going to be odd to Labour Media training boot camp!

ads20101

StonyIron wrote: »

He really handled that media interaction incredibly badly this morning.

Yes, I thought that too.

He's been a rather maverick backbencher for nearly all of his career. I am not convinced he is truly ready for the sheer personal onslaught that the british media will bring to bare.

gallag

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I agree and disagree with him on this.
Whats the point of Trident 2 in the current world?
Any of the arguments for it I've heard are arguments for a French style truly independent nuclear deterrent you might as well have no deterrent if your reliant on US approval if your going to consider far in the future hypothetical situations.

I'm not sure cuts in the size of the army/navy/airforce would be popular with working class Labour voters whereas cutting Trident is.

It's a common misconception that we need the Americans permission to launch our missiles, we have a service contract with them which I suppose the could renege on but the launch system is wholly independent and am sure we could service them ourselves, we don't need codes from the yanks or anything like that, in fact if we so wanted we could destroy every major American city by dinner time! I just wouldn’t want to be around for supper.

BoJack Horseman

ads20101 wrote: »

Yes, I thought that too.

What was the issue?

ads20101

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What was the issue?

Sky hounding him when he was walking to his car about how he is not appointing enough women to the shadow cabinet.

A Dub in Glasgo

As in Sky want more than 50% of the shadow cabinet to be women?

BoJack Horseman

ads20101 wrote: »

Sky hounding him when he was walking to his car about how he is not appointing enough women to the shadow cabinet.

Right, well its a non-issue anyway..... He's appointing a 50/50 cabinet

ancapailldorcha

I'd say they're just looking for any old excuse to have a go at him.

ads20101

ads20101 wrote: »

Sky hounding him when he was walking to his car about how he is not appointing enough women to the shadow cabinet.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

As in Sky want more than 50% of the shadow cabinet to be women?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd say they're just looking for any old excuse to have a go at him.

Not just Sky in fairness! Radio 5 (BBC) had a caller complaining that the males got the 'important' (their emphasis, not mine) shadow cabinet positions.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Not just Sky in fairness! Radio 5 (BBC) had a caller complaining that the males got the 'important' (their emphasis, not mine) shadow cabinet positions.

The BBC aren't fond of him either.