Corbyn leadership in serious trouble as general warns of mutiny

donaghs · 22-09-2015 7:27pm

I don't mind Corbyn from what I know, but a lot of his party would understand that if someone as Middle-of-the-road as Ed Miliband can be successfully depicted as a "Red Ed" bogeyman, there there's no chance of Corbyn being PM.

But after reading about the Islington "children's homes" abuse scandal recently, I was wondering what Corbyn had/has to say about it all - since he's been an MP there since the early 80s, and the story was first (sort of) mentioned in parliament in the mid 80s, and broke in the news in the early 90s.

Hard to find much comment from him on it. I know he wasn't directly responsible for the Council, but I still think he'd have some interest in it. BTW the Margaret Hodge, now Dame, was responsible in Islington Council at the time. She's a Labour MP now and was Minister for Children in Blairs government.

lochderg · 24-09-2015 11:07am

josephryan1989 wrote: »

You don't believe the general said what he said or that Corbyn faces a leadership challenge?

The Tories are sitting back and eating their popcorn while Labour tears itself to pieces.

It's quite sad that the UK has now no effective political opposition leader because this blithering idiot has been elected Labour leader.

In the past few days he has shown himself to be staggeringly inept and naive.

weren't you there when those stupid women wanted the vote-wasn't it you who shouted loudest about those 'adorable but ignorant creatures' giving us all a laugh about wanting to have a say?-what are they like?-women!-voting!--bah humbug stuff & nonsense

ancapailldorcha · 24-09-2015 11:30am

lochderg wrote: »

weren't you there when those stupid women wanted the vote-wasn't it you who shouted loudest about those 'adorable but ignorant creatures' giving us all a laugh about wanting to have a say?-what are they like?-women!-voting!--bah humbug stuff & nonsense

This is adding nothing to the discussion. Please read out charter before posting again.

walshyn93 · 25-09-2015 12:06am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/food/11887317/Treat-meat-eaters-like-smokers-warns-Jeremy-Corbyns-new-vegan-farming-minister-Kerry-McCarthy.html

"Treat meat eaters like smokers" - Vegan shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs

By appointing someone like this to a position in charge of rural affairs I think Corbyn shows appalling lack of judgement. He doesn't want to upset the establishment, I think he just wants to kick it in the balls and run away.

demfad · 25-09-2015 12:19pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/food/11887317/Treat-meat-eaters-like-smokers-warns-Jeremy-Corbyns-new-vegan-farming-minister-Kerry-McCarthy.html

"Treat meat eaters like smokers" - Vegan shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs

By appointing someone like this to a position in charge of rural affairs I think Corbyn shows appalling lack of judgement. He doesn't want to upset the establishment, I think he just wants to kick it in the balls and run away.

You can produce roughly 4 times the amount of food in a field full of grain than the same field to feed cows can provide. It is stone cold logic that this is the way forward.

You are suggesting that by holding a position they believe in, i.e a position of integrity, Corbyn and his shadow minister are showing lack of judgement.

You are saying he/she should show more judgement by acting with less integrity.

That is the position of the establishment for sure. You may be of the belief that this is an immutable fact of life. I would argue that this corruption needs be kicked on the balls as regularly as possible.

StonyIron · 25-09-2015 1:21pm

They really need to find more of a Mo Mowlam (RIP) - intelligent, down to earth, extremely likeable and the polar opposite to Cameron and the old boys club and very highly electable.

I don't think the UK is really in the humour for someone as far left and as starchy as Corbyn but I equally don't think they're really as far right as the Tories.

Labour needs someone who's capable of bringing it back to a centre left, practical set of values and who can reconnect with the electorate.

He isn't the person who's going to do that.

I think much like Ireland, someone like Mo would really work. The problem is people like that are pretty rare in politics and I think New Labour drove a lot of them our due the war dodgy dossiers etc etc

Blair caused really very serious damage with all of that stuff and has been largely responsible for creating this mistrust that now exists.

Labour has a lot of bridge building to do.

walshyn93 · 25-09-2015 1:34pm

demfad wrote: »

You can produce roughly 4 times the amount of food in a field full of grain than the same field to feed cows can provide. It is stone cold logic that this is the way forward.

You are suggesting that by holding a position they believe in, i.e a position of integrity, Corbyn and his shadow minister are showing lack of judgement.

You are saying he/she should show more judgement by acting with less integrity.

That is the position of the establishment for sure. You may be of the belief that this is an immutable fact of life. I would argue that this corruption needs be kicked on the balls as regularly as possible.

Do you want to live off grain? How is forcing people to eat like you showing integrity? There's no integrity in being a vegan control freak who wants to run other people's lives and punish them for eating meat. And he will run away crying if this is how he intends to go about running the country. Making the country live off grain is hardly going to convince people he's not dirty commie who hates Britain.

demfad · 25-09-2015 8:15pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Do you want to live off grain? How is forcing people to eat like you showing integrity? There's no integrity in being a vegan control freak who wants to run other people's lives and punish them for eating meat. And he will run away crying if this is how he intends to go about running the country. Making the country live off grain is hardly going to convince people he's not dirty commie who hates Britain.

You are correct. Anyone who doesnt believe in monarchy or imperialism must be anti-British.
I guess we are all anti-Irish here given that we chose a different path?

KingBrian2 · 25-09-2015 8:22pm

The press have too much of a role in deciding who is best for the British electorate. The 4th estate has spoken.

A Dub in Glasgo · 25-09-2015 8:57pm

I remember reading the Chris Mullen book A Very British Coup and watching Ray McAnally in the Channel 4 adaption - similar themes to what is happening now

donaghs · 26-09-2015 4:12pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I remember reading the Chris Mullen book A Very British Coup and watching Ray McAnally in the Channel 4 adaption - similar themes to what is happening now

Except that Corbyn would actually have to win the general election first, for that scenario to play out.

walshyn93 · 26-09-2015 10:54pm

demfad wrote: »

You are correct. Anyone who doesnt believe in monarchy or imperialism must be anti-British.
I guess we are all anti-Irish here given that we chose a different path?

Not exactly but the two definitely go hand in hand. Given that every one of his policies seems to be geared towards making Britain weaker relative to other countries it would seem as though he is in fact anti-British.

demfad · 28-09-2015 12:18pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Not exactly but the two definitely go hand in hand. Given that every one of his policies seems to be geared towards making Britain weaker relative to other countries it would seem as though he is in fact anti-British.

Please explain why you believe Britishness goes hand in hand with the monarchy?

Germany does not have a monarchy. Do you consider Germany weak?

feargale · 28-09-2015 3:36pm

donaghs wrote: »

Except that Corbyn would actually have to win the general election first, for that scenario to play out.

Ok. So we must all vote tory to ensure there's no coup. Simple solution. We preserve democracy and keep Jeremy out all at once. Huh?

donaghs · 28-09-2015 3:53pm

feargale wrote: »

Ok. So we must all vote tory to ensure there's no coup. Simple solution. We preserve democracy and keep Jeremy out all at once. Huh?

"A Very British Coup" is a work of fiction. I don't have a vote in the UK elections, just pointing out that Corbyn doesn't look very electable. So, speculating about his impact as PM and comparisons with A Very British Coup seem be putting the cart way ahead of the horse.

Sam Russell · 29-09-2015 3:19pm

Most people who saw the TV version missed the final point. As the titles roll, the radio comes on at 7 am with the polling stations in darkness and the newsreader saying, instead of the usual 'The polling station are opening across the nation for today's General Election ....', instead he opens with - 'The Authorities at Buckingham Palace .....' - what Authorities? There are no 'Authorities' at Buckingham Palace.

They had a normal military coup after all, not the secret hidden 'British' one where the errant PM resigns and takes the big pension and the Earldom and quietly goes to spend more time with his dahlias.

I would not put it past the military to stage a coup if Corbyn were to win a general election and become PM.

A Dub in Glasgo · 29-09-2015 3:23pm

donaghs wrote: »

So, speculating about his impact as PM

Isn't that what the majority of people have been doing especially in the media?

walshyn93 · 29-09-2015 11:28pm

demfad wrote: »

Please explain why you believe Britishness goes hand in hand with the monarchy?

Germany does not have a monarchy. Do you consider Germany weak?

What makes Britishness go hand in hand with the monarchy? Mate... There's a such thing called culture and the monarchy has always been a large part of that. To attack the monarchy is to attack something that many Brits feels is intrinsic to their culture. Just like to attack freedom of speech or guns is to attack something Americans feel is intrinsic to their culture. Except unlike guns the monarchy is now benign. It's a pointless fight.

And I never said the monarchy had anything to do with weakness or strength. Just that when he attacks Trident (undeniably trying to weaken Britain's position) and the monarchy it's not that big a jump to suggest he hates Britain and wants to weaken it and take away its identity, thus weakening it further.

I believe he does dislike Britain and British values. He's a globalist through and through and British people will begin to get a sense that he's looking out for the interests of the rest of the world at Britain's expense.

BoJack Horseman · 29-09-2015 11:32pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

I believe he does dislike Britain.

Jezz made it clear that he loves britain in his speech today.
He included a much expected line specifically saying so.
(just to put it to bed).

The telegraph cartoonist probably agrees with you though..

walshyn93 · 29-09-2015 11:42pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Jezz made it clear that he loves britain in his speech today.
He included a much expected line specifically saying so.

He can say it all he wants. If you look at the kind of Irish people who love what he has to say, they all hate Britain too!

Tbh I don't blame him either. He's too much of an academic to not look at Britains past and think that she has a lot to answer for. She doesn't come off well under any analysis, but you generally shouldn't elect people like that to run the country. It's letting the fox into the hen house.

BoJack Horseman · 29-09-2015 11:54pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

He can say it all he wants. If you look at the kind of Irish people who love what he has to say, they all hate Britain too!

Tbh I don't blame him either. He's too much of an academic to not look at Britains past and think that she has a lot to answer for. She doesn't come off well under any analysis, but you generally shouldn't elect people like that to run the country. It's letting the fox into the hen house.

Yeah, I see where you are coming from.

He's no fan of Britain's past
But I don't think he dislikes his nation.... just aspects of it.

He certainly despises its military.
His speech today reaffirmed his anti-Vanguard replacement stance, but threw a bone to the unions, vaguely affirming commitment to those jobs.... but no detail.

After the Vanguard project, the only other Royal Navy procurement project for a long time is the much delayed Type-26 programme to be built in Scotland.
I'd imagine that if Jezz scraps the Vanguard class and its replacement, he'll certainly scrap the Type-26s too.

You can see the dilemma he faces.... union owned, but not committed to their needs necessarily.

walshyn93 · 30-09-2015 12:25am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yeah, I see where you are coming from.

He's no fan of Britain's past
But I don't think he dislikes his nation.... just aspects of it.

He certainly despises its military.
His speech today reaffirmed his anti-Vanguard replacement stance, but threw a bone to the unions, vaguely affirming commitment to those jobs.... but no detail.

After the Vanguard project, the only other Royal Navy procurement project for a long time is the much delayed Type-26 programme to be built in Scotland.
I'd imagine that if Jezz scraps the Vanguard class and its replacement, he'll certainly scrap the Type-26s too.

You can see the dilemma he faces.... union owned, but not committed to their needs necessarily.

This is all academic because he won't last until the next election anyway.

For any voter who's simply looking for the most competent leader they're going to rule out the man who shows absolutely no tact whatsoever. He seems to do things that couldn't possibly produce any tangible benefit to himself or anyone else (anthemgate), so you have to call into question the man's priorities and whether he's in the right frame of mind to actually lead a country or whether he's just the type who likes to "make a point".

At this point in time Labour supporters are hoping he wises up and stops picking fights with the elements of the establishment the British people actually like and starts being more politician-like. But once he does that, come election time someone like Cameron is going to nail him for all the principles he's abandoned. He really can't win.

Thomas_.. · 30-09-2015 8:31am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Jezz made it clear that he loves britain in his speech today.
He included a much expected line specifically saying so.
(just to put it to bed).

The telegraph cartoonist probably agrees with you though..

I really like that Cartoon, it´s like "nail on the head" on his personality. I´ve read his pamphlet about the Economy in 2020 and some of his suggestions might be worth to be considered, but all in all, a person like him, who´s "befriended" with Shinners/Provos and other "former" terrorists has no credit whatsoever to me.

The Labour Party might soon enough regret it that she has opened this leadership election to the "wider public" where people got the opportunity to vote in it by just paying £3. Without that "extending" the "electorate", he might not have won the competition. The increase in the numbers of new Party members is also due to that opportunity and in particular his candidacy. All those left-radical nutters who had no place or prospect in other left-wing parties, joined the Labour Party in their attempt to transform this Party into another "far-left" Party. This is what Corbyn stands for and this is what he always stood for. Therefore, the cartoon showing himself wrapped in the Union Flag while making a speech and thworing it away one he left the stage is imo exactly "nail on the head".

Jelle1880 · 30-09-2015 8:41am

Right after he got elected they already interviewed several high ranking Labour members who were less than pleased, some downright hostile. So it's only normal that this would happen sooner or later.

It'll be a test of his leadership skills to see if he can turn it around.

It has nothing to do with some perceived media hatred for him as some would have you believe.

Thomas_.. · 30-09-2015 9:06am

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Right after he got elected they already interviewed several high ranking Labour members who were less than pleased, some downright hostile. So it's only normal that this would happen sooner or later.

It'll be a test of his leadership skills to see if he can turn it around.

It has nothing to do with some perceived media hatred for him as some would have you believe.

Since he was elected as an MP for his London constituency in the 1980s, he always stood against his own party in the Commons. His opposition didn´t matter much, as he was someone in the "wilderness". Seen from that angle, he´s the "outsider" from the inside who managed to get re-elected on and on but didn´t have the chance to move anything. Without the failure of the Blair and Brown cabinets, the weak leadership of Ed Miliband, he never got a chance for becoming the leader anyway.

He wants to end austerity by placing the "burden" of tax paying onto the wealthy (and I include by that the upper middle class) and thinks that it´ll pay off for him once he get into power. But those he like to tax higher are a tad more clever than himself and they do have their ways and means to secure their wealth and if necessary, leave the country with their money and say good bye to Britain.

He´s just another one who thinks that socialism can work against capitalism but the truth is, that it is the balance between the two that works to the benefit of the wider society. One shouldn´t underestimate the might and influence of the financial sector in the UK. The Thather years transformed that country from the manufacturing and heavy industry to what it is today, one of the most important financial centres on this earth. They won´t heed his "proposals" and they won´t follow his "demands", they´ll resist him and if it goes hard to hard, they´d have the means to bring his government down because no government can work without the backing of the financial world. He wants to break that, but he will not succeed. Others failed with that before him, and others who try to do the same will fail after him.

Economy is that rules the world, behind the political Scenes, not the politicians, they´re are just the elected representatives of the people, not the economy for the economy has her own rules and as we saw in the way the Greek crisis was "solved" (which isn´t entirely solved yet), democracy comes second to them, economic and financial reasoning rules in the first place. It´s been that way all the centuries, it´ll go on that way and if anybody has any doubts about that, one has just to look to China, the last big Communist "Empire" where the nomenclatura was left without any other choice but to move from the central run economy towards a "moderate" open and free economy, just to secure the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Cuba as adapted that a couple of years ago, in their minor Frame as it stands. The reason for that is simple, without a free economy, there is no prosperity and economical growth.

Radicals aren´t famous for being balanced and moderate, aren´t they? So, as Corbyn is a radical, he´ll fail and I do hope that he will. To me, he looks like the undertaker of the British Labour Party, worst than Blair and Brown put together.

Lemming · 30-09-2015 2:14pm

TBH, over the last couple of days of interviews & speeches, he's said himself (or words to the effect at least) that he does not have any policies, just philosophical ideas and that it'll be down to an "open discussion" to decide what Labour wants to do. So in short, "I've not got a clue what I'm doing, LOLZ".

But then he goes and utterly, utterly undermines both his notions of community discussion within the Labour party and any sense of national security if he makes it into power by saying that he would never ever ever in a month of Sundays press the nuclear button. So on one hand, he's told his party that regardless of what gets discussed, he'll overrule them anyway, and told potential enemies that they can totally ignore Britain's nuclear deterent if he gets into power.

Not only that, but on a more revealing note of his personality and mindset, it shows that he is a selfish egotistical windbag who puts his own personal principles before the rest of the nation so he can feel warm and fuzzy inside.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; a leader of a political party - never mind a country - he is not.

BoJack Horseman · 30-09-2015 2:23pm

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, over the last couple of days of interviews & speeches, he's said himself (or words to the effect at least) that he does not have any policies, just philosophical ideas and that it'll be down to an "open discussion" to decide what Labour wants to do. So in short, "I've not got a clue what I'm doing, LOLZ".

But then he goes and utterly, utterly undermines both his notions of community discussion within the Labour party and any sense of national security if he makes it into power by saying that he would never ever ever in a month of Sundays press the nuclear button. So on one hand, he's told his party that regardless of what gets discussed, he'll overrule them anyway, and told potential enemies that they can totally ignore Britain's nuclear deterent if he gets into power.

Not only that, but on a more revealing note of his personality and mindset, it shows that he is a selfish egotistical windbag who puts his own personal principles before the rest of the nation so he can feel warm and fuzzy inside.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; a leader of a political party - never mind a country - he is not.

He's a 'facilitator of discussion'.... not a leader.

I listen to a lot of BBC radio & in every interview half his sentences are punctuated by "lets have a debate".

Which seems wonderfully democratic & all, but abdicates policy responsibility to his army of intensely adoring fans.
Reminds me of Alex Tispras hiding behind the ballot box when tough choices had to be made.

When it all blows up, he's got the masses to blame.

I wouldn't be too harsh on him declining to defend his nation in a WW3 scenario...

Certainly kneeling before the Kremlin throne would be a 'bus mans holiday' for Jezza.
But also being of the insane CND mob.... he's not quite grounded in rationality

Thomas_.. · 30-09-2015 2:27pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

He's a 'facilitator of discussion'.... not a leader.

I listen to a lot of BBC radio & in every interview half his sentences are punctuated by "lets have a debate".

Which seems wonderfully democratic & all, but abdicates policy responsibility to his army of intensely adoring fans.
Reminds me of Alex Tispras hiding behind the ballot box when tough choices had to be made.

When it all blows up, he's got the masses to blame.

They´re probably the best chums, Tsipras, Varoufakis and Corbyn. There hasn´t past one day from when Corbyn was elected that someone (through the media) called him a threat to the national security of the UK. Well, what else can he be called by his "proposal" to abolish the British Military Forces.

BoatMad · 30-09-2015 2:37pm

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; a leader of a political party - never mind a country - he is not.

I agree, and outside certain sections of the labour party , neither does anyone else see him so.

The labour party, in searching for an answer to the recent shattering defeat, in effect a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory to many, have simply found the " wrong answer" cause the other " answer" is way too unpalatable

SO the activistas , have blamed centrist blair-ite policies for their defeat , failing of course to recognise that such policies actually got them into power in the first place and have lurched to the left. The population has clearly however not so "lurched".

Hence the current and possibly future un-electability of Labour and the transient nature of Comrade Corbyns tenure

Mucco · 30-09-2015 6:29pm

Lemming wrote: »

But then he goes and utterly, utterly undermines both his notions of community discussion within the Labour party and any sense of national security if he makes it into power by saying that he would never ever ever in a month of Sundays press the nuclear button. So on one hand, he's told his party that regardless of what gets discussed, he'll overrule them anyway, and told potential enemies that they can totally ignore Britain's nuclear deterent if he gets into power.

I heard the interview this morning: there are several ways the BBC could have framed the nuclear question, eg:
In what situation would you order the killing of 100,000 civilians?
or even blunter: Would you order the killing of 100,000 civilians?

How would Cameron answer that?

I can't see a situation where a rational human would order a nuclear launch, and therefore trident is all about status. It could be debated whether that is the most appropriate way to spend the billions. In my view, properly funding the world service would probably achieve more, for a lot less money.

Of course, this is all covered in Yes, Prime Minister

BoJack Horseman · 30-09-2015 6:44pm

Mucco wrote: »

How would Cameron answer that?

In that scenario you paint... DC would already be well aware that London or Manchester or Birmingham have just been vapourised....

I assume he would't hesitate to retaliate.

Eugene Norman · 30-09-2015 6:46pm

Thomas_.. wrote: »

I really like that Cartoon, it´s like "nail on the head" on his personality. I´ve read his pamphlet about the Economy in 2020 and some of his suggestions might be worth to be considered, but all in all, a person like him, who´s "befriended" with Shinners/Provos and other "former" terrorists has no credit whatsoever to me.

The Labour Party might soon enough regret it that she has opened this leadership election to the "wider public" where people got the opportunity to vote in it by just paying £3. Without that "extending" the "electorate", he might not have won the competition. The increase in the numbers of new Party members is also due to that opportunity and in particular his candidacy. All those left-radical nutters who had no place or prospect in other left-wing parties, joined the Labour Party in their attempt to transform this Party into another "far-left" Party. This is what Corbyn stands for and this is what he always stood for. Therefore, the cartoon showing himself wrapped in the Union Flag while making a speech and thworing it away one he left the stage is imo exactly "nail on the head".

No he won amongst regular labour supporters. Labour can sweep the next election, it just needs to drop the hostility towards defence and be agnostic towards Europe.

Eugene Norman · 30-09-2015 6:47pm

BoatMad wrote: »

I agree, and outside certain sections of the labour party , neither does anyone else see him so.

The labour party, in searching for an answer to the recent shattering defeat, in effect a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory to many, have simply found the " wrong answer" cause the other " answer" is way too unpalatable

SO the activistas , have blamed centrist blair-ite policies for their defeat , failing of course to recognise that such policies actually got them into power in the first place and have lurched to the left. The population has clearly however not so "lurched".

Hence the current and possibly future un-electability of Labour and the transient nature of Comrade Corbyns tenure

The U.K. population is largely leftist economically -- including the UKIP.

walshyn93 · 30-09-2015 7:40pm

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No he won amongst regular labour supporters. Labour can sweep the next election, it just needs to drop the hostility towards defence and be agnostic towards Europe.

And also step aside in favour of someone electable.

BoatMad · 30-09-2015 7:46pm

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The U.K. population is largely leftist economically -- including the UKIP.

Yes I would say its centre left , unlike Ireland which is largely centre right.

But it's not anything as left as corbyns Labour Party is. That's the point

trashcan · 30-09-2015 7:50pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

He's a 'facilitator of discussion'.... not a leader.

I listen to a lot of BBC radio & in every interview half his sentences are punctuated by "lets have a debate".

Which seems wonderfully democratic & all, but abdicates policy responsibility to his army of intensely adoring fans.
Reminds me of Alex Tispras hiding behind the ballot box when tough choices had to be made.

When it all blows up, he's got the masses to blame.

I wouldn't be too harsh on him declining to defend his nation in a WW3 scenario...

Certainly kneeling before the Kremlin throne would be a 'bus mans holiday' for Jezza.
But also being of the insane CND mob.... he's not quite grounded in rationality

Whereas being prepared to drop Nuclear bombs is strikingly sane and rational. Riiiight, gotcha.

BoJack Horseman · 30-09-2015 8:06pm

trashcan wrote: »

Whereas being prepared to drop Nuclear bombs is strikingly sane and rational.

It is when you have been attacked with nuclear weapons, yes.
If UK cities have been turned to ash, a stern letter won't cut it.

As for the CND, its fine to oppose nukes... no problem there.
But they also (insanely) oppose Europe's capability to defend itself from these horrifying weapons!

They perceive the ability to save millions of lives in the event of nuclear launch as a bad thing....

quite mad.... but when you consider they were bought by the soviets in the 70s & 80s you can understand.

walshyn93 · 30-09-2015 8:28pm

trashcan wrote: »

Whereas being prepared to drop Nuclear bombs is strikingly sane and rational. Riiiight, gotcha.

It's funny how anti-nuclear activists only campaign in the countries least likely to ever initiate a nuclear confrontation.

KingBrian2 · 30-09-2015 9:06pm

There is an interesting aspect to all this. Corbyn in enormously popular nobody can deny that now how will balance his views and opinions about British society and international relations with that of the other large audience in the UK, the Muslims. A huge group of voters who would not agree with any of his social policies. It makes for a combustible encounter. Labour's new era leftism with Islam orthodoxy.

Lemming · 30-09-2015 9:30pm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

There is an interesting aspect to all this. Corbyn in enormously popular nobody can deny that now how will balance his views and opinions about British society and international relations with that of the other large audience in the UK, the Muslims. A huge group of voters who would not agree with any of his social policies. It makes for a combustible encounter. Labour's new era leftism with Islam orthodoxy.

Well, he's already made his first bomb internationally; it'll be interesting to see how the Americans "warm" to him given his outrageously undiplomatic and blunt statement trying to capitalise on 9/11 for domestic purposes.

Again, he is not a leader. He is not a statesman. In Jeremy Corbyn's mind, he is still a student socialist activist/radical rebel shouting from the back-benches to anyone who can be bothered listening to him whilst simultaneously ignoring his own party. Despite being on those backbenches for nigh on twenty years, he seems woefully ignorant about any sense of policy, hoping others will conjure them up for him with all his talk of "open debate" (unless he doesn't like their ideas in which case he'll just do what his principles tell him to do anyway, everyone else be damned). He has been in office all of a wet week and has thus far displayed an unnervingly canny ability to lurch from one crisis to the next on a constant backfoot due to picking the most stupid, trivial, or pointless "battles" to wage, all engineered by his own lack of political acument and/or common fvcking sense.

Edit: I will most certainly not be voting for Labour at risk of placing him anywhere within eyeball distance of 10 Downing st. He is genuinely dangerous, as are some of his cabinet.

walshyn93 · 30-09-2015 11:27pm

trashcan wrote: »

Whereas being prepared to drop Nuclear bombs is strikingly sane and rational. Riiiight, gotcha.

Being prepared to drop nuclear bombs is very rational. It's far more rational than the opposite which is to become a sitting duck at the mercy of your enemies.

BoatMad · 01-10-2015 1:33am

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No he won amongst regular labour supporters. Labour can sweep the next election, it just needs to drop the hostility towards defence and be agnostic towards Europe.

Nope, because historically labour needed significant Scottish votes. That train has left the station. The Tories can get elected from England and Wales , labour can not.

BoatMad · 01-10-2015 1:35am

walshyn93 wrote: »

Being prepared to drop nuclear bombs is very rational. It's far more rational than the opposite which is to become a sitting duck at the mercy of your enemies.

The uk has no real nuclear deterrent, not against china or even Russia. It depends totally on the US. The situation would not change with or without Trident

Lemming · 01-10-2015 1:56am

BoatMad wrote: »

The uk has no real nuclear deterrent, not against china or even Russia. It depends totally on the US. The situation would not change with or without Trident

To put what a nuke will do in perspective, it was estimated during the early 1980s that a single nuclear detonation above a city the size of Sheffield would stretch the NHS to breaking point. Rinse repeat for any city in any location in the world by and large; with only the USA, and to a lesser degree Russia & China, able to soak up a bit more before reaching national crisis point due to a combination of geography, infrastructure, and how well developed/co-ordinated emergency services are.

A single Trident II (D5) UGM-133A missle can carry up to fourteen seperate warheads (depending on MIRV version and warhead yield) capable of independent targetting. That's a lot of damage. A single Vanguard-class submarine carries sixteen Trident missiles. The UK has both the means, and capaibility to reach just about anywhere on the planet from any given location. So, you still want to insist that the UK has no real deterrent? A single nuke (not a missile, just a warhead) is a sobering prospect for any country, and will bring all but the largest countries to their knees.

Edit: add to the point that whether or not the UK has any "real" deterrent is moot anyway given that if one ICBM launch is detected, everybody launches. That's MAD doctrine for you.

BoatMad · 01-10-2015 1:59am

Lemming wrote: »

To put what a nuke will do in perspective, it was estimated during the early 1980s that a single nuclear detonation above a city the size of Sheffield would stretch the NHS to breaking point. Rinse repeat for any city in any location in the world by and large; with only the USA, and to a lesser degree Russia & China, able to soak up a bit more before reaching crisis point due to a combination of geography, infrastructure, and how well developed/co-ordinated emergency services are.

A single Trident II (D5) UGM-133A missle can carry up to fourteen seperate warheads (depending on MIRV version and warhead yield) capable of independent targetting. That's a lot of damage. A single Vanguard-class submarine carries sixteen Trident missiles. The UK has both the means, and capaibility to reach just about anywhere on the planet from any given location. So, you still want to insist that the UK has no real deterrent. A single nuke is a sobering prospect for any country, and will bring all but the largest countries to their knees.

Assuming , it actually gets through of course. The uk has no practical deterrent. It lives quite happily under the USA nuclear umbrella, it's position is no different with or without trident. Trident is a national fig- leaf that's all.

Lemming · 01-10-2015 2:01am

BoatMad wrote: »

Assuming , it actually gets through of course. The uk has no practical deterrent.

Nobody has ever demonstrated any credible, reliable, guaruanteed defence against an ICBM or a cruise missile. Care to elaborate on your dismissal? .....

walshyn93 · 01-10-2015 2:14am

BoatMad wrote: »

Assuming , it actually gets through of course. The uk has no practical deterrent. It lives quite happily under the USA nuclear umbrella, it's position is no different with or without trident. Trident is a national fig- leaf that's all.

Gets through what? They're going to shoot it out of mid-air? Pew-pew. It travels 24 times faster than the speed of sound. Good night sweet prince.

BoatMad · 01-10-2015 2:42am

Lemming wrote: »

Nobody has ever demonstrated any credible, reliable, guaruanteed defence against an ICBM or a cruise missile. Care to elaborate on your dismissal? .....

I meant that the uk has no independent ability to launch in reality. I am not arguing the destructive ability of the weapon. The uk lives under the USA's nuclear deterrent umbrella. Whether or not it has a physical weapon is irrelevant.. I don't support corbyns position , even though he's changed it , but I don't rate trident or support the fiction , that the uk has an independent nuclear deterrent

A Dub in Glasgo · 01-10-2015 7:13am

The world should just be done with it and develop one huge weapon of mass destruction that will take out the whole planet and give one to every state. MAD and all that will ensure it never gets used

BoJack Horseman · 01-10-2015 8:23am

BoatMad wrote: »

Assuming , it actually gets through of course. The uk has no practical deterrent. It lives quite happily under the USA nuclear umbrella.

At the moment it isn't.

Those 4 Arleigh Burke destroyers are in the Mediterranean.
They cannot cover the UK from that far away.

The original plan was for a couple to be deployed to the northerh half of the continent.... but there is doubt that America can spare the ships in the long term.

The Royal Navy's SAMs are supposed to have BMD capability under development, but its not going anywhere & wouldn't be sufficient to intercept a Russian ICBM anyway.

So, the only deterrant Britain has is the sword... she has no shield.

Corbyn leadership in serious trouble as general warns of mutiny

Comments