Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Corbyn leadership in serious trouble as general warns of mutiny

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Gringo180 wrote: »
    With all due respect your first 2 points are absolute nonsense! He appointed Maria Eagle as his shadow defence secretary knowing full well that her views were the exact opposite to his own with regards Trident. Hardly the move of a man who isn't up for dialogue on the issue.

    Eagle was the third & last to be asked.... there was no one else left...
    The first two choices said no way, because Jezz is so anti-defense forces.

    He only had a pool of 20-30 MPs to chose his shadow cabinet from, the rest don't want to know him.

    I agree with you... 'dialogue' is all Jezz is up for.
    Certainly not leading... just debating.


  • Options
    #123
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,030 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Lemming wrote: »
    [*] He has also signalled to the British tax payer that he is perfectly willing to lie and waste their money by undermining the very thing that his party may yet agree on extending.

    It is actually the weapons of mass destruction supporters who are perfectly willing to waste the taxpayers money


  • Options
    #124
    Gringo180
    Registered Users Posts: 9,205 ✭✭✭Gringo180


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    It is actually the weapons of mass destruction supporters who are perfectly willing to waste the taxpayers money

    100 billion sterling for something that will never be used :pac:


  • Options
    #125
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Gringo180 wrote: »
    With all due respect your first 2 points are absolute nonsense! He appointed Maria Eagle as his shadow defence secretary knowing full well that her views were the exact opposite to his own with regards Trident. Hardly the move of a man who isn't up for dialogue on the issue.

    I think you'll find that there's been quite a bit of anger inside his own shadow cabinet over what he said because he has effectively said that even if Labour agree to vote for Trident- and he's said he will abide by the wishes of the majority - he will render the existence of Trident irrelevant by refusing to use it. That is how he has said he will ignore what the party wants and do things his way anyway if he doesn't get the answer he wants from them regards the deterrence.

    That is not nonsense, it's exactly what has transpired over the last couple of days.

    To that effect, he has also said he'll be perfectly happy to talk the good talk about "honest politics" whilst undermining both the tax payer and his party by allowing for such an expensive item of national defense whilst knowing he was planning to undermine its existence anyway.


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    It is actually the weapons of mass destruction supporters who are perfectly willing to waste the taxpayers money

    I'd rather it wasn't necessary, but that's not the world we live in. Reality has to kick in at some point, and the only thing that has kept the world alive and kicking throughout the worst excesses of the cold war was nuclear deterrence between the big boys.


  • Options
    #126
    Gringo180
    Registered Users Posts: 9,205 ✭✭✭Gringo180


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Eagle was the third & last to be asked.... there was no one else left...
    The first two choices said no way, because Jezz is so anti-defense forces.

    He only had a pool of 20-30 MPs to chose his shadow cabinet from, the rest don't want to know him.

    I agree with you... 'dialogue' is all Jezz is up for.
    Certainly not leading... just debating.

    Its hardly his fault that the rest didn't want to know him because of his policies, policies that gave him an overwhelming win in the labour leadership elections.


    He has being in the job a few weeks now, hardly enough time to judge his leadership qualities don't you think?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Gringo180
    Registered Users Posts: 9,205 ✭✭✭Gringo180


    Lemming wrote: »
    I think you'll find that there's been quite a bit of anger inside his own shadow cabinet over what he said because he has effectively said that even if Labour agree to vote for Trident- and he's said he will abide by the wishes of the majority

    So his statements of "lets have a debate" and "I'm for more honest, open democracy" isn't a charade. Thanks for clearing that up.


  • Options
    #128
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Gringo180 wrote: »
    So his statements of "lets have a debate" and "I'm for more honest, open democracy" isn't a charade. Thanks for clearing that up.

    How about you quote the full sentence instead of playing dishonest "cut and paste".


  • Options
    #129
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Isis, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra has made nuclear war mute. Conventional weapons are as vicious as nuclear weapons. Should a terrorist be able to manufacture chemical agents real dangers will exist. That is why treating all such high profile weapons as nuclear, chemical and bio weapons as extremely hazardous excluded from militaries needs to be adopted by all nations.


  • Options
    #130
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Isis, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra has made nuclear war mute. Conventional weapons are as vicious as nuclear weapons. Should a terrorist be able to manufacture chemical agents real dangers will exist. That is why treating all such high profile weapons as nuclear, chemical and bio weapons as extremely hazardous excluded from militaries needs to be adopted by all nations.

    Your just simply underestimating how quickly geopolitics can change, it's only 100billion over 50 years for a insurance policy that will also create high quality jobs.


  • Options
    #131
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,030 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    gallag wrote: »
    Your just simply underestimating how quickly geopolitics can change, it's only 100billion over 50 years for a insurance policy that will also create high quality jobs.

    Where do you get 50 years from? About 500 jobs are directly linked to the weapons of mass destruction


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Where do you get 50 years from? About 500 jobs are directly linked to the weapons of mass destruction

    As with any large scale industry, a rough rule of thumb is for every direct job at the proverbial coal-face, times four behind it either in direct support, ancilliary support, or the regional community.

    So - for example - the closure of the Clyde shipyards would not just equate to several thousand jobs lost at the yards, but all the suppliers, any contractors, and then all of the businesses that those workers use, be it the local newsagent & chippie right down to things like the viability of bus travel routes. The exact same rule of thumb applies regards Faslane and the Coulport penninnsula.


  • Options
    #133
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,030 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    So how many jobs do you think will be lost at Redcar?


  • Options
    #134
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    So how many jobs do you think will be lost at Redcar?

    And the point of your question is?


  • Options
    #135
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,030 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    My point is that the price per job created / retained by spending money on weapons of mass destruction is far too high to justify spending that cash to create jobs therefore the jobs argument for trident is very weak at best. You are also assuming that the facility at Faslane would close trident to canned


  • Options
    #136
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    My point is that the price per job created / retained by spending money on weapons of mass destruction is far too high to justify spending that cash to create jobs therefore the jobs argument for trident is very weak at best. You are also assuming that the facility at Faslane would close trident to canned

    I'm not trying to justify the price of Trident; I'm pointing out the fallacy in thinking that it'll "just be 500 jobs". In any case, the cost of scrapping Trident would - at best - make any savings neglible if not exceed maintaining it, but that's a rather important little nugget that the left are quite keen to conveniently gloss over.

    It's not a case of canning Trident tomorrow and suddenly having £n billion to play with elsewhere the following day, never mind anytime after that that isn't far, far, far into the future (and by that I mean measured in decades, not years)


  • Options
    #137
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,030 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Lemming wrote: »
    I'm not trying to justify the price of Trident; I'm pointing out the fallacy in thinking that it'll "just be 500 jobs".

    Meanwhile the NE of England loses about 6,800 jobs with the closure of a steel plant and the Government do nothing to help and then shells out £500m on prep work for the new generation of weapons of mass destruction - go figure


  • Options
    #138
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Meanwhile the NE of England loses about 6,800 jobs with the closure of a steel plant
    As you know the gov can't just give Tata cash to keep a plant open....
    They could however come to a deal to buy a sh*t load of steel!
    But that's not the fault of the MOD.


  • Options
    #139
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Gringo180 wrote: »
    100 billion sterling for something that will never be used :pac:

    More like 100 billion to prevent a nuclear war.


  • Options
    #140
    Gringo180
    Registered Users Posts: 9,205 ✭✭✭Gringo180


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    More like 100 billion to prevent a nuclear war.

    Yes sure look at all those nuclear wars raging in the 184 countries on the planet that don't have nuclear warheads.


  • Options
    #141
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Gringo180 wrote: »
    Yes sure look at all those nuclear wars raging in the 184 countries on the planet that don't have nuclear warheads.

    Look at the 70 years of peace between the worlds superpowers who, for thousands of years beforehand couldn't stop tearing each other to pieces.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    lochderg
    Registered Users Posts: 118 ✭✭lochderg


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    This is adding nothing to the discussion. Please read out charter before posting again.
    ...and describing a mature,intelligent man who wants a 'real' change as a blithering idiot is constructive?


  • Options
    #143
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    lochderg wrote: »
    ...and describing a mature,intelligent man who wants a 'real' change as a blithering idiot is constructive?
    Report any posts you find objectionable and we'll take a look or pm the mod. Do not take it up on thread. Thanks.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #144
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »

    I agree with you... 'dialogue' is all Jezz is up for.
    Certainly not leading... just debating.

    What is it that you think democracy is?

    I understand that you are ideologically opposed to Corbyn but is this kind of criticism seriously the best you can offer? It's spin and doublespeak simply masquerading as an argument. I'd love to have it explained to me just what is so awful about a leader who is eager to talk and be conciliatory? Would you rather he be more dictatorial?


  • Options
    #145
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    karma_ wrote: »
    I'd love to have it explained to me
    No, I doubt you really would

    Mine is just an opinion & I assume you differ.

    I posted that he isn't a leader, I still don't think he is

    From conference.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11904045/If-Jeremy-Corbyn-cant-change-Labours-mind-on-Trident-he-must-stand-down.html
    the voice-over explained to the viewers how Jeremy Corbyn’s own conference had just voted to support the retention of the independent deterrent.
    There was then a clip of Andy Burnham, who is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow home secretary. His leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, he said.
    Next was a clip of Maria Eagle. She is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow defence secretary. Her leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, she said.
    Next was a clip of Hilary Benn. He is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow foreign secretary. His leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, he said.
    Next was a clip of Angela Eagle. She is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow first secretary of state. Her leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, she said.
    Next was a clip of Lord Falconer. He is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow Lord Chancellor. His leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, he said.
    Next was a clip of Heidi Alexander. She is Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow health secretary. Her leader had been wrong to rule out the use of the deterrent, she said

    At some point,a party will tire of 'debate' & need to put a policy platform before the British people.

    One of Jezza's cornerstones was no-nukes.
    The Labour parties policy was for the retention of these.... Last weeks conference reaffirmed this policy position.

    He's failed to lead on the EU
    He's failed to lead on leaving NATO.
    He failed to change policy on nukes.... And his colleagues don't hide from undermining him for it.

    Politics is a blood sport.
    It can't always be about dialogue & backrubs.
    At some point he'll have to bring his party to him, otherwise he serves zero purpose.

    I actually thought Jezz would be stronger.... But 2 weeks in & he's got Lame Duck written all over him.


  • Options
    #146
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Its clear that Corbyn is a " rebound " date, and once the emotions in the Labour party die down , he will be dumped for a proper leader that has some chance of gaining the popular vote


  • Options
    #147
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Gringo180 wrote: »
    Yes sure look at all those nuclear wars raging in the 184 countries on the planet that don't have nuclear warheads.

    A point of clarification. 196 countries in the world recognised by the UN

    The following countries have nuclear weapons.
    1. USA
    2. Britain
    3. France
    4. Russia
    5. China
    6. North Korea
    7. Israel
    8. Pakistan
    9. India
    So 187 countries do not have nuclear weapons.


  • Options
    #148
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    josephryan1989 wrote: »
    Unilaterally disarm Britain's nuclear deterrent while a nuclear armed Russia runs rampant in Ukraine and Syria? While nuclear armed China flexes its military muscles in the South China Sea? While Iran seeks nuclear arms? While North Korea threatens the world? Corbyn is off his head.

    Conciliate with Russia led by Putin who says one thing and does another and then laughs in your face. The f*cker armed the rebels in Ukraine with ground to air rockets and killed hundreds of people when they shot down an international airliner full of innocent passengers and denied he had anything to do with it.

    Conciliate with a Russian tyrant who is league with Assad who is barrel bombing and using chemical weapons against his own people?

    Coybyn and his supporters openly praised the IRA - a movement which bombed, shot and kneecapped innocents?

    Corbyn is so naive it is dangerous.

    If Corbyn tried to do what he says he would be endangering millions of his people and no soldier in good conscience could allow that and would have to mutiny.

    So as opposed to making peace with Russia we should exacerbate strained tensions between east and west ?.So Putin is arming east Ukrainian rebels ? well David Cameron is arming Terrorists in Syria along with the US.And you're calling Putin a tyrant ? he is supported by at least 80% of Russian people, where Cameron wouldn't have a chance if Britain didn't have a first past the post electoral system.

    Corbyn isn't dangerous, its the the echos of the establishments fear and hyberbole infused rhetoric promulgated by the daily mail and the telegraph.

    "If Corbyn tried to do what he says he would be endangering millions of his people and no soldier in good conscience could allow that and would have to mutiny.[/QUOTE]"
    ^ And Britain arming itself to the teeth with trident missiles and increased military spending isn't endangering millions ?.In reality Russia has no interest in what a secondary world power does,


  • Options
    #149
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    MRnotlob606 wrote: »
    So as opposed to making peace with Russia we should exacerbate strained tensions between east and west ?

    Unilateral disarmament means that Russia (for example) doesn't need to "make peace"; they can just do as they like when they like because the other guy's all talk and no substance to back it up.

    THAT is why - in part - Corbyn is dangerous.
    ^ And Britain arming itself to the teeth with trident missiles and increased military spending isn't endangering millions ?.In reality Russia has no interest in what a secondary world power does,

    "Arming itself to the teeth" eh? Cut the hysteric theatricals. You're trying to imply that the UK is trying to expand its stockpile of nuclear weapons and/or delivery systems. They're not. Replacement does not equate to expansion. Hardly a case of "arming itself to the teeth"; unlike Russia who have announced that they are building fifty new TU-160 nuclear bombers. Not heard a peep out of any of the "usual suspects" about that one oddly enough .....

    Ironically, it is unilateral disarmament which would be more dangerous. The situation that Corbyn would place the UK in, and the wider world, is dangerous and makes nuclear escalation more likely, with the only nuclear power left in Europe playing counterbalance against Russia would be France. Bearing in mind that historically, the Soviet Union's playbook was (in a sentence) to intimidate Europe into believing the US would be neither able or willing to defend them, and most of their posturing was aimed at western Europe, not the US. The same people who were in charge of the Soviet Union are in charge of Russia.


  • Options
    #150
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Lemming wrote: »
    "Arming itself to the teeth" eh? Cut the hysteric theatricals. You're trying to imply that the UK is trying to expand its stockpile of nuclear weapons and/or delivery systems.
    Indeed, the reality is the numbers are reducing.
    (225 -> 180 warheads..... compared to Russia's 8,500)
    unlike Russia who have announced that they are building fifty new TU-160 nuclear bombers. Not heard a peep out of any of the "usual suspects" about that one oddly enough .
    Just google where the CND got their money from & you can see why they not only oppose deterring Russia, but oppose the ability to defend against Russia's missiles as well in the event they are actually fired at Europe.... they'd prefer they found their mark & British people be vapourised.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,030 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Lemming wrote: »
    Cut the hysteric theatricals..

    Works both ways, your postings on Corbyn epitomise 'hysteric theatricals'


Advertisement