Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Like I said, it just levels the playing field, unless you can point to any situation where payments are made to the Tory party ounless someone opts out of doing so. Can you?Reforms on party funding are borderline scandalous. Certainly making the UK less democratic. Tories threw the proposals out last time on the correct assumption that the best Tory party for the UK was one that was kept in check and fit by healthy competition.
Redrawing of the constituency boundaries isn't great either.
As for boundary redrawing, there are also arguments that this is again just levelling a playing field that had been tilted towards Labour. Not that it will make any difference to the next election result, Corbyn has done way more damage to Labour's chances than any boundary changes.
Edited for crap spelling."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
£475 a scandalous amount for a dream bike?
Scandalous reporting more like.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Bally, I think the award for best prediction made in this thread so far could go to youLooks like this thread could run til Xmas.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-labour-mps-are-plotting-a-coup-against-the-potential-leader-if-he-is-elected-10399272.html
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Although unfortunately Rick is up for the wooden spoonHe won't win.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Another priceless gem from Jezza.
Spend the billions to build Trident subs to safeguard union jobs but don't arm them.
Brilliant!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-trident-compromise-no-nuclear-warheads0 -
Another priceless gem from Jezza.
Spend the billions to build Trident subs to safeguard union jobs but don't arm them.
Brilliant!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-trident-compromise-no-nuclear-warheads
I guess the plan was not to tell anyone that they were unarmed submarines. How would foreign security services ever find out? I wonder how much per job that would cost for the defence equivalent of a chocolate teapot?
What next? Give the army guns but no bullets?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You jest, gents, but stranger things have happened....Another priceless gem from Jezza.
Spend the billions to build Trident subs to safeguard union jobs but don't arm them.
Brilliant!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-trident-compromise-no-nuclear-warheads
I guess the plan was not to tell anyone that they were unarmed submarines. How would foreign security services ever find out? I wonder how much per job that would cost for the defence equivalent of a chocolate teapot?
What next? Give the army guns but no bullets?Ecrasez l’infame0 -
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there...0
-
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there...
Yeah...and there is the problem with politics, tribal voters will interept what he said in the way they need to hear it. Subs have been firing missiles with conventional warheads plenty of times in recent conflicts. I still don't agree with Corbyn but at least I understand what he was saying.0 -
It is a wild guess because I can't see where he mentions doing thatI'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there... After all he is a pacifist. Maybe they could use harsh language? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is a wild guess because I can't see where he mentions doing thatI'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there... After all he is a pacifist. Maybe they could use harsh language?
There's a difference between non-aggression and pacifism.0 -
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there...
In which case why spend such an amount on a capability that can be duplicated elsewhere? Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates have missile launch capabilities. How big would a missile on your non nuclear armed sub have to be? Such a missile would have a tiny fraction of the power of its nuke brother and have no strategic value at all.
Never mind, we would have spent all that money to keep McCluskey happy, so all would be well in the lefty world. 0 -
True, he's not a total pacifist. Not when it comes to acts of terrorism anyway:
It is a wild guess because I can't see where he mentions doing thatI'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there... After all he is a pacifist. Maybe they could use harsh language?
There's a difference between non-aggression and pacifism.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-isnt-anti-war-hes-just-anti-west/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
True, he's not a total pacifist. Not when it comes to acts of terrorism anyway:
It is a wild guess because I can't see where he mentions doing thatI'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there... After all he is a pacifist. Maybe they could use harsh language?
There's a difference between non-aggression and pacifism.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-isnt-anti-war-hes-just-anti-west/
I'll read that link if I get time. Coming from the Spectator, I'm sure that it'll be a highly intelligent, balanced piece of stunningly perceptive journalism.0 -
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there...
In which case why spend such an amount on a capability that can be duplicated elsewhere? Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates have missile launch capabilities. How big would a missile on your non nuclear armed sub have to be? Such a missile would have a tiny fraction of the power of its nuke brother and have no strategic value at all.
Never mind, we would have spent all that money to keep McCluskey happy, so all would be well in the lefty world.
Submarines are more difficult to detect and destroy. That's why they carry nuclear weapons and not surface ships.0 -
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there...
In which case why spend such an amount on a capability that can be duplicated elsewhere? Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates have missile launch capabilities. How big would a missile on your non nuclear armed sub have to be? Such a missile would have a tiny fraction of the power of its nuke brother and have no strategic value at all.
Never mind, we would have spent all that money to keep McCluskey happy, so all would be well in the lefty world.
Submarines are more difficult to detect and destroy. That's why they carry nuclear weapons and not surface ships.
Agreed. That's why they are perfect for nukes and a waste of money otherwise..
As I said above, building trident subs and arming them with missiles of inconsequential strategic value to keep the unions happy is lunacy, even by the lefty standards we have recently come to expect.0 -
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there...
In which case why spend such an amount on a capability that can be duplicated elsewhere? Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates have missile launch capabilities. How big would a missile on your non nuclear armed sub have to be? Such a missile would have a tiny fraction of the power of its nuke brother and have no strategic value at all.
Never mind, we would have spent all that money to keep McCluskey happy, so all would be well in the lefty world.
Submarines are more difficult to detect and destroy. That's why they carry nuclear weapons and not surface ships.
Agreed. That's why they are perfect for nukes and a waste of money otherwise..
As I said above, building trident subs and arming them with missiles of inconsequential strategic value to keep the unions happy is lunacy, even by the lefty standards we have recently come to expect.
Some would say that spending so much money on the Trident system is lunacy in itself. If we are going to spend so much money on weapons, why not conventional weapons which might actually prove useful in the unlikely event that we ended up in a war with another major power?0 -
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there...
In which case why spend such an amount on a capability that can be duplicated elsewhere? Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates have missile launch capabilities. How big would a missile on your non nuclear armed sub have to be? Such a missile would have a tiny fraction of the power of its nuke brother and have no strategic value at all.
Never mind, we would have spent all that money to keep McCluskey happy, so all would be well in the lefty world.
Submarines are more difficult to detect and destroy. That's why they carry nuclear weapons and not surface ships.
Agreed. That's why they are perfect for nukes and a waste of money otherwise..
As I said above, building trident subs and arming them with missiles of inconsequential strategic value to keep the unions happy is lunacy, even by the lefty standards we have recently come to expect.
Some would say that spending so much money on the Trident system is lunacy in itself. If we are going to spend so much money on weapons, why not conventional weapons which might actually prove useful in the unlikely event that we ended up in a war with another major power?
Because in a game of Top Trumps, no number of conventional forces would be enough.
If S Korea didn't shelter under the US nuclear umbrella and the man with the funny hair cut having nukes, how long would you say it would take N&S Korea to become just Korea?0 -
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that Corbyn means arming them with non-nuclear missiles. It isn't a straight choice between nuclear weapons and no weapons, there are plenty of other types out there...
In which case why spend such an amount on a capability that can be duplicated elsewhere? Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates have missile launch capabilities. How big would a missile on your non nuclear armed sub have to be? Such a missile would have a tiny fraction of the power of its nuke brother and have no strategic value at all.
Never mind, we would have spent all that money to keep McCluskey happy, so all would be well in the lefty world.
Submarines are more difficult to detect and destroy. That's why they carry nuclear weapons and not surface ships.
Agreed. That's why they are perfect for nukes and a waste of money otherwise..
As I said above, building trident subs and arming them with missiles of inconsequential strategic value to keep the unions happy is lunacy, even by the lefty standards we have recently come to expect.
Some would say that spending so much money on the Trident system is lunacy in itself. If we are going to spend so much money on weapons, why not conventional weapons which might actually prove useful in the unlikely event that we ended up in a war with another major power?
Because in a game of Top Trumps, no number of conventional forces would be enough.
If S Korea didn't shelter under the US nuclear umbrella and the man with the funny hair cut having nukes, how long would you say it would take N&S Korea to become just Korea?
We're not in the same situation as South Korea. We don't have any border disputes with major powers - the only one we do have is the Falkland Islands and a few state-of-the-art ships and planes are enough to guarantee their security.0 -
That is true... for Jan 17 2016.
But unless you can see the future, it is the governments responsibility to plan for future possibilities.
It takes years to build and commission such weapon systems. You can't just build it overnight if things take a dramatic turn on the world stage.
Upgrading trident is looking decades ahead.0 -
And what sacrifices should be made to pay for Trident?0
-
And what sacrifices should be made to pay for Trident?
That is where everyone will disagree. As most people who object, including yourself it would seem, would rather the money be spent on conventional forces, the money would be coming from the defence budget. Is it not a question of where you would prefer the defence budget be spent rather than what you want to see cut?
BTW Are you now agreeing that Trident should be maintained and updated?
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-will-renewing-trident-cost-100-billion-39002
The author is also very clear on what the £100 billion estimate covers. This is both the capital costs associated with the replacement and the subsequent lifetime running costs for the three elements nuclear warheads, missiles and submarines.
This would take us up to 20620 -
At the end of the day Finchy, Corbyn would see similar money spent on Trident, with radically diminished capability, just to appease the unions.0
-
The trident commission report I linked to above takes us up to 2062 - 46 years away.
Those that want to do away with it on the grounds that it is not needed today, think back to 1970. Who then had a clear picture of what the world of 2016 would look like?0 -
And what sacrifices should be made to pay for Trident?
That is where everyone will disagree. As most people who object, including yourself it would seem, would rather the money be spent on conventional forces, the money would be coming from the defence budget. Is it not a question of where you would prefer the defence budget be spent rather than what you want to see cut?
BTW Are you now agreeing that Trident should be maintained and updated?
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-will-renewing-trident-cost-100-billion-39002
The author is also very clear on what the £100 billion estimate covers. This is both the capital costs associated with the replacement and the subsequent lifetime running costs for the three elements nuclear warheads, missiles and submarines.
This would take us up to 2062
I don't know what my position is. I've not really heard much from either side, other than the usual bland platitudes. I want a nuclear-free world, I don't know whether multilateral disarmament is the best way to go about it or whether a couple of countries disarming unilaterally would speed up the process. I'm also not sure whether holding nuclear weapons would make us more or less likely to end up in a nuclear war if we were to go to war with another major power. In theory, MAD should keep us safe, but in practice, the other side might decide to deliver a "knockout" blow if they thought, rightly or wrongly, that we were preparing to use ours. Humanity could have been wiped out at least 2 times, I think maybe even 3 during the Cold War due to Soviets misinterpreting Western actions.
TBH, I just can't see us ever being in a position in which we would be threatened by nuclear weapons. We don't have enough natural resources to make invading us worthwhile, as I say we don't have any territorial disputes bar the Falklands (and I suppose Gibraltar). It's not like the whole world is full of beady-eyed foreigners enviously eyeing up our islands, just waiting for us to let our guard down. So all in all, I'd be more likely to come down on the side of not renewing it and spending the money on something we'll actually use.
Nuclear weapons can also be a source of conflict in themselves (Cuban missile crisis, the current dispute with Russia over the American missile shield...).
What people don't seem to consider is that the longer we (humans, not just the UK) hold nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that they will be used. In fact, given enough time, their use becomes more likely than not. I don't know whether this time is measures in decades, centuries or millenia, but this is an interesting read.0 -
We are in a dangerous age and I too would like a world where these weapons didn't exist. But the sad truth is they can't be uninvented.0
-
Indeed they can't be uninvented, but that doesn't answer the question of whether we'd be better off with or without them.0
-
Nice thought but given that it is not a realistic prospect, it's a theoretical conversation with no real world application. The real question is whether we should have them or not.Indeed they can't be uninvented, but that doesn't answer the question of whether we'd be better off with or without them."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
