UKC

Good Grief I just wonder how naive he is. Theresa May brought the vote on Trident forward because it would expose divisions in the Labour Party. If it was not going to be binding he should have advised his party not to vote so as not to compromise the party. Harold Wilson(slippery as he was) and even Gordon Brown would have seen through this Tory subterfuge. Nailing my colours to the mast I'm Labour but believe in Trident but this is just political manouevering trying to divert attention from Brexit. I am sorry but he doesnt seem to have any leadership skills.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

He can't catch a break, can he? I'd feel sorry for him if he didn't remind me so much of my 1970's Latin teacher, who I despised.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:
All things said and done, I'm strongly against Trident, and why shouldn't Corbyn be too? Money that could be better spent on industry, investment, jobs and welfare. If indeed this is all about keeping a seat at the big boy's table, that says something about our sense of national identity. I don't believe that Trident makes a jot of difference to my personal safety, or that of anyone in this country, except to perhaps make us more of a target.

In reply to Trevers:


I thought the democratic decision, taken by vote of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, supported the maintenance of a nuclear deterrent. And I know what a stickler Corbyn is for upholding democratic decisions.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

A leader who is happy to accept and encourage a range of opinions within the party and allow debate and democratic vote? Oh yes how awful (exceptional levels of sarcasm in case you cant spot it)

In reply to Scarab9:


He doesn't seem keen to accept the opinion espoused by 80% of his immediate subordinates (democratic mandate notwithstanding) that he is a hopeless leader who is destroying the Labour Party.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:
I don't see giving a free vote as a weekeness of leadership. So I disagree that it is another symbol of his inadequacy. In fact it will resonate with those left wingers in Scotland that are not SNP{ and there are quite a few} who are looking for political represenation other than through the more extreme position of Scottish independence and who would like to see the cash spent elsewhere, especially as we are now vying for distribution of wealth without the EU to support our essential infrastructure. The effectiveness of this type of defense re cost should be open to scrutiny. So I just see this as a committment to open debate on a very serious issue.

All I hope for is an evolution to PR and federalism as a structural way to represent diversity of views with voting on issues in Blocks of left wingery/right wingery , somewhat akin to the block voting that occured in the EU Parliament. This would satisfy this diversity of UK political opinion and we would get used to this style of politics rather than Whipping parties into one view or trying to make parties unrealistically find a "middle " ground- which is a pretty meaningless concept today, as is class identification with a political party which is now thankfully dead.

I can see that a split in the Labour Party seems a realityto you but I think Corbyn sees that the Scottish Labour Party requires autonomy and he is encouraging this diversity within the Labour Party rather than a split. I think your fears are unfounded and his political strategy is smart.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

And just what do you think would have happened if he hadn't voted against it, how could he possibly abstain?

Imagine the field day the media and his enemies would have had with that "bombshell" being against them all his life and then abstaining, even writing it down seems ludicrous.

In reply to BnB:


I wonder if you've ever looked at it from the other side, that it's the PLP refusing to work with him, for the members (and I think the electorate) that's destroying the Labour party.

The PLP are blaming him, so they stand a chance of winning again, it's not very hard to see, you just need to look at it from the other side for a second.

If they really cared about the Labour party, then they'd have at least given it a go, at least 50 PLP MPs have been plotting since day one to oust JC and deny democracy.

They lost touch with their core supporters chasing, floaters, and we all know what happens when you do that.

In reply to krikoman:

Quite the contrary. As someone who leads a team of about 200 staff I think I've got exceptional insight into Corbyn's inadequacy. If 80% of my staff felt I wasn't up to the job, let alone didn't agree with my strategy, my ability to deliver the wishes of my shareholders would be nil.

The difference is that in the business world the shareholders would have the sense to recognise this weakness and remove me.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

From Mark Steel

"There must be something wrong with Jeremy Corbyn if he doesn't want to cause a nuclear holocaust

It’s such a shame Labour didn’t elect somebody more moderate who would be willing to press the button, such as Kim Jong-un"

In reply to BnB:


Maybe you should be leader of the Labour Party then?

the question is whether you believe in democracy at the end of the day, he was elected democratically and now they are changing the rules to oust him, when the members don't want him ousted and the electorate haven't been asked!!

This might be your idea of a great way of selecting leaders, thankfully it's not mine.

You seem to equate his integrity with weakness, and of course he didn't agree with your thoughts on nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile :- in relation to this.
So the UK's only world leading hi-tech company is being sold off for £24bn. ) ARM Holdings.
"May's policy speech a week ago in which, according to Robert Peston, she "was completely unambiguous that she opposed foreign companies buying our strategically important businesses."

So we continue with the spin rather than integrity?

In reply to Removed Userjess1

Note how the SNP , by default, call for independence as their cure all.And have just done it again. If Labour cannot resonate in Scotland, it is not the Labour Party that will split but Scotland from the UK and all through a lack of representation which is a shocking idea!
So English Labour and Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour have to evolve a certain diverse and independent structure which is what I personally hope for. Expecting diversity in the party is a mental shift and will attract voters from all parts of UK not just England. Well that's how I see it from the Scottish perspective.

In reply to BnB:


Of course, you could see attempting to persuade your party on a free vote on what is overwhelmingly a moral, rather than a technical question as the very essence of leadership. Given his very well-known and long-standing position on this, I think that voting for Trident would have destroyed his main virtue, accepted by even his opponents; his consistency and integrity.

Refusing to implement the decision of the majority, despite having voted against, that would be a different issue.

None of this changes my view that he's very much the wrong man for the job.

In reply to krikoman:

Your devotion is touching. But I made no comment about the election rules nor compared Corbyn to May. If a leader can't be judged by his ability to handle decisions, policy and opposition at the sharp end, then your organisation is in deep trouble.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

From John McDonnel
" This coup isn£t about Jeremy Corbyn. This coup isn£t about him, this is about you£
This is the 1% telling the 99% to £get back in your place.£"

Which sums it all up for me, he may be the wrong man for the job, we might be worse coming out of the EU, but it's the minority, telling the majority, they are wrong. And doing all they can to hinder them.

They've threatened legal action against a crowd funder that was set up to help new members afford the £25 fee they now have to pay. FFS!!! Party for the disadvantaged, not any more!

In reply to krikoman:
It's not about causing nuclear holocaust, it's about avoiding nuclear holocaust. Trident is there to discourage. Deterrent works very well look at WWII, there was no use of chemical weapons because Hitler thought we had them as well as he did. The Cold War is also an obvious example. So in the last 70 years you have two different enemies who where discouraged from the use of WMD to achieve political aims, do you know who and what the threats will be in the next 70 years? You didn't know we would be leaving the EU 6 months ago! The world and the nature of the threat to us is changeable and our politicians need take this into account with our defence options. Tanks, aircraft carriers and fighter jets are useless against terrorist threats (such as we saw in Nice) so should we get rid of those as well?

Corbin simply doesn't seem to get this, his CND links are clearly inappropriate for a party leader whose party has got a clear policy of support for defence including the nuclear deterrent.

In reply to Trevers:

Trident is a Cold War relic which weakens our armed forces and economy. Putin and the Russian armed forces must be laughing their heads off as we try compete with the enormity of their defence spending.

In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:


Ah, but that's the thing about nukes, overkill doesn't help. Anyone who has even one ICBM needs to be taken seriously because you can't guarantee that it wouldn't get through.

The thermonuclear warhead is a great leveller.

In reply to cander:

The issue I see is that if there is a further (non test) nuclear detonation it is likely to come from a terrorist organisation rather than a country/state (excepting North Korea but I think they would fall into the MAD methodology/approach if they ever obtain nuclear weapons and are unlikely to obtain a 2nd strike capability within the lifetime of Trident's replacement).

So if its detonated by terrorists who do we "use" Trident's replacement on?
The country we believe the terrorist organisation is operating from?
Where do we target, the capital city which is full off innocent citizens who have nothing to do with terrorist organisation? A remote location where we think they are hiding?

Given this threat Trident's replacement will be as useless as a chocolate tea pot in striking back against the identified aggressors and its use may actually lead to escalation if we struck back against the civilian population/elected government of a state we "deemed" to be harboring terrorists.

The utopian dream is the total destruction of nuclear weapons, however even if this happened we can't unlearn how to make them and this plays into terrorists hands.

In reply to BnB:



You're analogy doesn't work, perhaps because you've got the figures wrong. Jeremy is labour party leader, of the 422,000 people who voted in the leadership election 59.5% voted for him. He seems to feel more accountable to that 59% than to 80% of his MPs (230 in total).

In reply to cander:


Are you suggesting, that the leader must agree with everything their MPs think (I suppose you mean the majority of his MPs).

And if so , where do you stand on MPs voting with the wishes of their electorate?

This seems to stifle free thought and debate, if that's what you're after.

In reply to krikoman:



>
Typical of Steel's smart arsed superficiality. Nobody wants a nuclear holocaust. Very few want nuclear weapons. But the alternatives are not a world with nuclear weapons or a world without them. You can't uninvent them. The alternatives are about the best way to limit and control their possession and their use. That requires hard thinking and tough decisions, not utopian fantasies of a perfect world.

In reply to Postmanpat:


And one of those "tough" decisions would be to kill thousands of innocent people, I don't think that's a tough decision at all.

However you want to dress it up, that's what nuclear weapons do, having more of them about doesn't mean that's less likely, in fact exactly the opposite.

You only have to look at America which has followed this reasoning on gun control to see how well that's worked out.

In reply to MargieB:


Yep, if there's one thing "we" learnt up here in Scotland during the indyref and subsequent UK elections it's that there is no such thing as the Scottish Labour Party... sure the Labour party are in Scotland, but they are not a separate entity in the way "we've" been lead to believe.

In reply to Trevers:


In the 64 years the UK has had nuclear weapons, could you point out the occasions we've been a 'Target' due to our possession of WMDs?

In reply to jonfun21:
The point I was making is that you do not know where the next threat comes from, the world changes at an astonishingly rapid pace, terrorists may detonate a nuclear weapon, but it's only one threat, the threat of other nations holding nuclear weapons hasn't gone away just because there is an additional threat from terrorists.

In reply to Lusk:


I'm pretty sure the presence of Cruise missiles at Moleworth and Greenham Common would have been taken into account in the Russian targeting priorities. It would be naive to think that Coulport and Faslane aren't actively targeted in a way that they wouldn't be were the Navy bases not there.

In reply to krikoman:

I point you to BnB's answer above, leaders lead, they don't disagree with 80% of their team. However as a Tory I fully support JC - my only worry is that he'll bolster the UKIP expansion and the second largest party will be full of racists, anti semites and loons (not that different from labour I suppose).

In reply to Lusk:

There was a list published of the Soviet targeting of the U.K. about 20 years ago, I've got a copy somewhere on my PC the notable target for us was Anthorn on the Solway, apparently a VLF station for communicating to submarines. So yes those nasty Soviets were indeed pointing nukes at us - kinda makes you want to point one back doesn't it.

In reply to cander:

I disagree - I think the threat from states/countries has reduced dramatically as ultimately they care about their own continuation and status in the world.

Terrorist organisations generally don't have these concerns hence their willingness to use is much higher, but our ability to strike back with nuclear weapons is very low.

In reply to krikoman:


You might want to google "nirvana fallacy"

"By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better"."

In reply to Lusk:


Do you not agree that terrorists might attempt to target storage/maintenance facilities for the subs/warheads? And that the weapons themselves do nothing to deter that risk?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't agree that the analogy fails. A large business can often have millions of shareholders and maybe only a thousand staff. A business is there to do the bidding of the shareholders, but if the staff will not work for the leader, then the business will fail and the shareholders will lose their money.

I get that some people like his policies. If only they could see that he is not the man to implement them. It really isn't complicated.

In reply to BnB:


You wouldn't, it's your bad analogy. But to humour and use your terrible analogy, if 60% of your half million shareholders wanted one boss and 180 "staff" wanted a different boss who would prevail?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


The staff everytime. Leadership is a pre-requisite for survival. The fact Corbynites can't see that is bewidering to a high proportion of the general electorate and very damaging for the Labour party.

In reply to BnB:


Really? If a boss was supported by his shareholders and not his staff he would go? Why not sack his disloyal staff and do what the shareholders want?

In reply to captain paranoia:


Hear Hear.
As it's official part policy, the Labour Party should have enforced the whip.

On a more serious note, this just underlines the fact that Corbyn only agrees with democracy when it suits him. The very least that he should have done, as "Leader" of the party, would have been to abstain or to "unfortunately have a previous engagement".

The next time he shouts his mouth about democracy, and his "mandate" he should be put in his place by all and sundry.

And to the "Corbynistas" - you're backing a two-faced undemocratic middle-class *ssh*le who's got nothing in common with the working class and is more interested in power than anything else, including both the future/existence of the Labour party and any meaningful opposition to the Conservative government.
I have no doubt that you'll scream abuse at me but I don't care - I'll have no truck with one view extremists who claim or ignore democracy dependent on what suits them at the time.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Good luck with that. The CEO is going to be very stretched trying to have the same impact as 200 ex-employees.

In reply to BnB:


This a very strange company you have, why wouldn't he hire more people?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

So you favour deselection of 200 MPs?

In reply to BnB:


No, no, we're using your analogy, remember?

In reply to Dave


In every sense of the word.

JW

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Deselection of MPs would be equivalent to sacking staff. I don't understand why you can't see that

In reply to Sir Chasm:

In some lines of work it can take months to find one qualified person. People talk, and if word is that you are a crap employer then it can be virtually impossible to hire.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to imply that MPs are in any way qualified.

In reply to BnB:


But wouldn't you sack staff if they had been behaving the way some Labour MPs have been and bringing the company into disrepute?

(I'm not saying that Corbyn's leadership has been fantastic)

In reply to BnB:


I disagree. I've been involved in projects where the PM did not have the confidence of the staff. In once case I would say close to 100% (of hundreds of people) thought the leader was a liability. However, the job still needed doing, whether the person at the top was - or was not - a good leader, technically competent, or a great manager. So we got on and did it, and, over time, the person at the top evolved with our help into a great leader, and the project was delivered on time and to budget.

Obviously we could have spent our time slagging off the leader to the client, our competitors, senior management, taken time off from delivery to plot, hold votes of no confidence, etc. However if we had done this the project would have been doomed.

It rather depends what kind of staff you employ, or, if you are a new leader, are saddled with....

In reply to BnB:

Under this analogy MPs are more equivalent to members of the board of a public company. Corbyn is the chairman and the party members are the shareholders.

In a situation where the chairman has huge support from the shareholders but the board has become dysfunctional it's entirely plausible that the board could be replaced.

In reply to Trevers:



I would if it was one or two in isolation. If it's 80% I'd sack the manager.

To explore the analogy further, when Chelsea FC hit the ropes at the start of last season and it became clear Mourinho, the fans' favourite, had lost the dressing room, he was removed perfunctorily, despite his obvious abilities and track record.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

and lets remember to factor in that those 230 MPs were voted for by xxxx no. of voters, technically on the basis of a published manifesto.

In reply to mullermn:


Chairman don't lead companies, CEOs do. The National Executive is the Chairman here and, as we all know, the Chairman of a Plc has but one responsibility, to hire and fire the CEO.

PS It's my analogy do I get to choose

In reply to John_Hat:

Good for you. But do you expect the same outcome in this instance?

In reply to John_Hat:



What if it was clear that the team were not about to stop slagging off the leader to all and sundry, but the project absolutely needed to succeed NOW. I'd reluctantly want someone in who could command the respect of the team and put aside repurcussions until later, because some projects are too important to be held to ransom (on purpose or by incompetence) by one person.

In reply to John_Hat:


We live in a parliamentary democracy, it's the electorate that 'saddle' the party with MPs. I will happily 'saddle' the Labour party with my excellent local MP again, and if she is deselected vote for her under as an independent or under another banner.

In reply to Removed UserBnB :

Prattle on with you analogies all you want, but you're ignoring the glaring fact that the Labour Party is not like a corporate company. What company has all their employees being voted in by the shareholders? That's the important bit here.

Also do some reading up, the opposition to Corbyn is being played up by the Media as many of the major opposing MPs have high up links to them. It's a propaganda war.

In reply to cander:


No, it really doesn't.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

No, it really doesn't.

I'm guessing that a lot of younger people would agree with you and that a lot of older ones wouldn't.
It's easy to say now that the UK having a nuclear deterrent in the cold war was pointless, but I lived through the tail end of it and I certainly saw the need for it.

In reply to FactorXXX:



That's an interesting point. I suspect a huge portion of Corbyn's fan-base weren't around during the Cold War and therefore also not around during the multitude of 1970's strikes, domineering unions and left-wing activism that virtually crippled the country!

In reply to BnB:


No, just accept it's a crap analogy. Corbyn can't deselect MPs. So he can't sack them. So your analogy doesn't work.

In reply to Scarab9:


Pick the answer you prefer:

a) No, the important bit here is that the Labour party is on the point of splitting because Corbyn values his role as leader more than he values the party, the project or his political ideals

b) I do apologise for criticising your leader by means of a simple analogy intended to illustrate the consequences of Corbyn's failings in the leadership role. With such open-minded support from you and others he must clearly be beyond all reproach. Where do I join?

In reply to BnB:


I don't think that's quite right: in this case it is the shareholders that are the problem. It is as if Pizza Hut shareholders thought the company should chuck in the Pizzas and sell Tacos instead and installed a new CEO but the kitchen staff and customers aren't interested in changing.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Sounds like we're the same sort of age.

What I'm saying is that maintaining that MAD stalemate situation in perpetuity puts us at unacceptable risk. While these weapons exist they will eventually be deployed, likely by mistake and there will be no coming back from that. At some point we have to step back from the brink and rethink a strategy that ultimately dooms us all. I think now is as good a time as any to start.

edit: sorry, realised I've slightly confused two threads but hope the post still makes sense
jk

In reply to jkarran:
What I'm saying is that maintaining that MAD stalemate situation in perpetuity puts us at unacceptable risk.

The statement of yours that I replied to was about UK's Nuclear Deterrent during the Cold War, so what is going on today is irrelevant. To reinforce the age thing, unless you're over 45 or so, then I can't see you having really experienced the uncertainty that was part and parcel of the Cold War.

While these weapons exist they will eventually be deployed, likely by mistake and there will be no coming back from that. At some point we have to step back from the brink and rethink a strategy that ultimately dooms us all. I think now is as good a time as any to start.

There's the same argument for keeping them now as there was in the Cold War. i.e. the MAD stalemate that you refer to. The only way to have disarmament, is if everyone disarms and if that doesn't happen, I don't want the UK to be the one that does it unilaterally.

Edit: Like you, I seem to have gone off topic bit. However, from a political viewpoint, it was agreed before the Front Bench speeches, that the official Labour policy be made clear by Corbyn: 'Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear capability, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. We will actively work to increase momentum on global multilateral disarmament efforts and negotiations, and look at further reductions in global stockpiles and the numbers of weapons.’. He didn't, so it could be argued, that he deliberately went against the will of the Labour Party as a whole.

In reply to BnB:



OK let's try this, if you want a business analogy, your shareholders say they want Chairman X because Ms. X is a know environmentalist and champion for human rights and is against exploiting the workers, she is also against child labour. They also think this ethos fits in with the companies customer base.

Members of the board have decided they don't want Ms.X they'd rather have someone else, maybe not someone who's all for child labour, but thinks the company should move in a different direction to the one it was originally set up for.

What are the customers supposed to do? They're not even being asked?

Should the board change the leader because some of the board don't like her?

In your shareholders analogy, who are the shareholders and who are the board members?

In reply to FactorXXX:


Why?

What do you get from knowing that should the worst happen and someone launches a nuclear weapon at us, either intentionally or by accident, that a load more innocent people will die too?

I really don't understand the link here, the closest I can get is vengeance, and your vengeance isn't even effecting the people who fired first.

I read somewhere, there have been about 17 fires in our nuclear facility it doesn't really fill me with confidence.


As a final topper to the moral justification, the financial one doesn't make sense either, "Trident is Britain’s sea-based nuclear weapons system located on the River Clyde in Scotland. It is owned by neither the navy nor the government, and its maintenance, design, and testing all come via US companies. According to official estimates, its renewal will end up draining away at least £179bn of government money over its lifetime."

So the money is ending up outside of our country, shouldn't we be investing in our own services.

In reply to krikoman:

Why?
What do you get from knowing that should the worst happen and someone launches a nuclear weapon at us, either intentionally or by accident, that a load more innocent people will die too?
I really don't understand the link here, the closest I can get is vengeance, and your vengeance isn't even effecting the people who fired first.

Why not?
The MAD factor appears to have worked in the past, why change it?
The whole idea is not of vengeance, but of deterrent.

In reply to krikoman:






With apologies to anyone terminally bored of the analogy, the shareholders are the Labour membership, including all those new members drummed up last year. But the MPs are not the board, that's Corbyn, John McDonnel, Seamus Milne and other cronies. The MPs are equivalent to the staff who, since the company got taken over and a new board installed, no longer want to work for the senior management. They are worried that the company is being taken in a direction which threatens their job security and they are thinking hard about forming their own company and going it alone.

As it happens I've bought and sold a few companies over the years and the single biggest risk in any takeover is that the staff will not be inspired by the new owners/management. Unfortunately, in a world where hearts and minds are worth more than hands and feet, getting this wrong is almost always extremely expensive.

In reply to FactorXXX:

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/hair-trigger-alert/close-calls#.V44-I...
This has to stop.
jk

In reply to BnB:

I'm enjoying the analogy. In fact, i have tried to actually apply a company to the Labour party and have come up with.....

Nokia

Started as a Finnish paper mill in 1865. the second mill opened on the Nokianvirta river, which inspired the company name we know today. Nokia created a wide variety of products throughout the 20th century including rubber goods, electronics and telecommunications devices, and eventually their first mobile phone in 1992. They decided in the same year to focus exclusively on their mobile devices , and sold off all other divisions of the company. After a period of domination they have become increasingly irrelevant to the point of trying to reinvent themselves (again)

Anyone come up with any others?

In reply to jkarran:

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/hair-trigger-alert/close-calls#.V45Ax...
This has to stop.

I agree, near releases shouldn't happen and I would hope the advancement in technology would prevent such events happening again, but the real question to ask is: 'What would have happened if only one side had nuclear capability at time'?
No one knows, but I'm pretty sure if only the Soviets had them, then the world would be a very different place to what it is now. Time seems to have made people forget how tenuous the whole situation was back then...

In reply to FactorXXX:


Technology won't save us, it'll get better but mistakes will always be possible.


Back then. The world *is* different now.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Back then. The world *is* different now.

To be honest, I don't know what time period you're referring to, as you seem to be referring to both and picking the 'best bits' to further your argument...

In reply to FactorXXX:

Now is now, I assume that was clear. 'Back then' merely mirrors your reference which I presume was to the tenser moments of the cold war, predominantly the 1960s although any time in which the USSR was a credible nuclear armed fighting force colonizing much of eastern europe and with designs on more teritory would do. That'd be late 40s to late 80s, ie not now.
jk

In reply to BnB:


Well if that's you analogy it's a shit one, because the staff have no say in where a company goes, it's the board that make those decisions or at least delegate those decision to the staff (which would be civil servants - if you really want to go there).

They, the PLP, are trying even harder to make it a corporate analogy because if you pay your £25 (or buy some shares) you then get to vote for your leader. You STILL don't get to pick members of the board or even your STAFF, if you're insisting on with your analogy.

But the fact is, it's a democratic process there were rules and a system, when they the PLP realised that meant ordinary people would have their say, and what they said they didn't like, they then started to block any good work that could be done and instead have ended up destroying what could have been something fantastic.

So now he have people changing what they say on a daily basis, confirming to the electorate, they can't be trusted.

The ONLY person who's been consistent though all of this is JC.

In reply to FactorXXX:




Yes well there's always that isn't there?

Of course if we didn't have nuclear weapons, we wouldn't be a target for mishaps like that to happen in the first place.

The first targets are each others nuclear capability.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Isn't the nirvana fallacy the same one, but in reverse, that the pro-trident brigade use? They won't kill us 'cos we'll kill them!

Which bit of MAD is implausible? Or are you saying there could never be a nuclear war between any two countries?

In reply to krikoman:

>
No, because it's not claiming to be a perfect "solution", just an achievable situation which will decrease the risk of nuclear destruction. The removal of all such weapons is implausible.


I don't know. You are the one saying MAD is implausible so you should answer your question. Those who believe in MAD are not saying it is perfect or foolproof, only that it is plausible.

In reply to jkarran:

Now is now, I assume that was clear.

You're the one that mentioned what was going on in the Cold War in your reply to Cander at 1410 and at other times since...
Do you think that the UK should have had a deterrent during the Cold War and if so, was the risk of a mistake acceptable?
Or, do you think the risk was always too great to have the deterrent?
I personally think that the value of the deterrent (now and then) outstrips the chance of an accident, especially with modern technology.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I wasn't saying if we got rid, everyone else would (the perfect solution), I was saying if we get rid of ours it doesn't make us any less safe.

And I don't think us killing thousands of innocent people is a great idea, just because we've had thousands of our people killed.


Once again, you don't provide any solutions you just keep asking questions, I don't know why I bother with you, this is your default tactic on here.

In reply to krikoman:

Of course if we didn't have nuclear weapons, we wouldn't be a target for mishaps like that to happen in the first place.
The first targets are each others nuclear capability.

Is that based on the current situation, or on the Cold War period as well?

In reply to krikoman:


I'm amused at the way you and your co-Corbynites can take a simple analogy intended to shine a light on the perils of weak leadership and, by a sequence of obtuse misapprehensions and wilfully obfuscatory diversions, contrive to avoid a single instance of introspection or to question your messiah in any manner.

Corbyn has been consistent alright. Consistently clueless since the day he took over. New kind of politics my arse. Looks like the same old, sad story of a good man promoted beyond his level of competence and spending the rest of his days clinging to a job he isn't fit for.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>> And one of those "tough" decisions would be to kill thousands of innocent people, I don't think that's a tough decision at all.



I've re-read my post, can you tell me where the "false" dichotomy is here.

If someone fire a nuclear weapon at us and kills thousand of innocent people ( or don't innocent people die ?)
( or no one will fire a nuclear weapon at us ).

We would retaliate and fire our weapon at them, (or don't we retaliate? - in which case why have them?), this would then kill thousands of innocent people ( or the people aren't innocent, or we only kill the bad guys ).

Which is the implausible part?

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

You've got to wonder why so many Tories are so vociferous about Corbyn and why he's so bad for the country.

I see Angela's step to one side after telling us she was the best choice for leader and that she wouldn't be stepping aside.

In reply to BnB:


I kind of agree. But then I think to myself - he hasn't lied. He hasn't said one thing and done another. He hasn't said something because it would make him look good. He hasn't said or done something because it might please someone else. He hasn't schemed. He hasn't plotted. He is basically, everything we want our politicians to be and we hate him for it.

It is genuinely a bizarre thing. By contrast, the bare faced lying, two faced, manipulative, power playing Boris Johnson is going to save the country. Did I say he was a liar?

I am not a Corbyn fan, but I can't really figure out what exactly is going on.

In reply to krikoman:



The false dichotomy is in Corbyn's position which is simply that he is "against nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear free world" as if anybody who supports trident renewal is against a nuclear free world.


You asked about MAD, which, as you know, is the theory of "mutually assured destruction". You asked what was implausible about that theory. You are now answering a different question. I don't know why you are doing that.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't follow your argument, When I stopped smoking I could have said the same thing, " I'm against tabs. I want to see a smoke free world".

I doesn't mean because I gave up, I expect the rest of the world to, although it might encourage others to quite too.

Surely one less smoker, if I was the only one to quit, is a better world.

There no false dichotomy there, there isn't even a dichotomy, unless your insisting t on making one.

Unless you magically take them all away at once, how are you ever going to have a nuclear free world?

Surely the journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.

In reply to ByEek:




This is exactly why so many people backed him first time around, it wasn't leftie nutters ( at least the one's I know or have spoken to aren't ), it was people sick to death of being lied to or at the very least misled.

They saw someone with an integrity who seemed to be an honest man with principles. So far he's the only one who still seems to have any.

Boris, Gove, Farage, Cameron, Eagle and Smith have all in the past month or so said they were, or weren't going to do something which in they end they didn't.

It's hardly surprising people have a poor opinion of our politicians, and don't believe a word of what they are being told.

I keep saying this and I keep getting shot down for it ( 'cos I'm a Leftie Trotskyist usually), but it's not Corbyn it's the possibility of change that people like, he just happens to be the bloke people trust.

In reply to krikoman:

Unless you magically take them all away at once, how are you ever going to have a nuclear free world?

Precisely!
If nuclear weapons hadn't been invented - brilliant.
If all nuclear weapons could magically disappear - brilliant.
However, none of the above are going to happen. So, you are left with a dilemma, does the UK decide to risk not having a nuclear deterrent and hope for the best. Or, does it stick to the tried and tested option of having one?
I'm siding with the tried and tested as I've seen it has appeared to work in some dire times...

In reply to krikoman:

Boris, Gove, Farage, Cameron, Eagle and Smith have all in the past month or so said they were, or weren't going to do something which in they end they didn't.

Well yes, Corbyn as per usual has said very little, therefore, it's hardly surprising that he hasn't said anything contradictory...

In reply to krikoman:


It's easy to claim that you'll keep your promises when you're in opposition and unlikely to be elected

In reply to FactorXXX:



What about all the other countries that don't have nuclear weapons, where's their working deterrent.

You might as well say, "We haven't got nuclear weapons and we haven't been attacked, in the last 70 years, so we're going to stick with this thanks". It's just as valid as your statement for having them, if that's your argument.

In reply to timjones:


But he's already doing what he said he would, while the PLP MPs change their minds and what they've said they re going to do every couple of days or so.

In reply to krikoman:


With regard to Ukraine, yes, indeed, where is it?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Do you really think nukes would have stopped them?
They would have either kept it at the mostly deniable level which would have made it rather hard for Ukraine to respond. What would they nuke?
Alternatively the Ukraine military would have woken up to find a shedload of Russia special forces at their nuclear bases.

In reply to KevinD:

We'll never know I guess. But no nuclear armed state has yet engaged in direct armed confrontation aimed at negating the others nuclear capabilities, for obvious reasons. I find it hard to believe this would have been the first; more likely a stand offlike India and Pakistan.

Counterfactual, and unprovable as a result; but my scenario fits with the way nuclear states have previously engaged

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


So once again, what's the point of having them, no one's used them, no one's likely to use them, if they do, where's the advantage of killing loads of innocent people!!

In reply to krikoman:

so once again, they are a deterrent; no one is likely to use them because the consequences would be so severe; that's not to say they have done nothing. how many 70 year periods in human history before the current one can you point to where the major world powers of the time didn't engage in armed conflict with each other? open war between major nations is now impossible, as its is unwinnable. the 70 year period before the nuclear era began should leave no uncertainty that this is a good thing.

In reply to krikoman:


We'll get a real measure of his integrity if he ever becomes PM and has to start making real decisions. Until then it's very easy to posture when you're in opposition.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


I am not quite sure what you are arguing here?
If we use the India and Pakistan situation there have been multiple flareups including some heavy skirmishing despite both states having nuclear weapons. If you look at the Russian involvement it was already kept sort of low key in order to try and avoid sanctions/escalation. I cant see nukes changing the scenario much. I cant see many politicans choosing nuclear destruction to retain some land.

In reply to KevinD:

that's the point- the sort of confrontations between india and Pakistan are the sort of thing that could have readily escalated towards a full scale war; with nuclear weapons, that is not an option for them, as you point out. it stays at skirmishing level. would it do so if there were no nuclear weapons? we have no way of knowing, but there is historical precedent to say that dramatic escalation would be a clear possibility

not sure what you mean by Russian involvement being low key- do you mean in Ukraine? if so seizure of ? 25% of the landmass of Ukraine, shooting down a commercial airliner, and atrocities visited by both sides on civilians is not what most people would consider low key

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


There is also historical precedent to say dramatic escalation would be avoided.


If you look at their involvement they have tried fairly hard to portray it as primarily internal rebels as opposed to dedicated Russian support.
As opposed to rolling over the border enmass.

In reply to krikoman:
Alot depends on how what you mean by lying.

I am sure that in any politician's life they change their minds ( which can be described by opponents as lying or misstatements). I would be extremely disappointed if JC had not changed his stance on a particular issue either because of better information /facts or just a change of view due to reasoned argument or because he is human ( we all do it).

To paint him as a man of impeccable virtue and principles does him no good as to me it looks like he cannot adapt alter to reasoned arguments against his " principles".

What is the saying " to err is to be human".

I am personally very wary of anybody who is portrayed as virtuous and a person of principle. History shows that at some stage those people are torn down in a big fall. Better for him in the long run if people are circumspect. Otherwise it is usally tears when the truth eventually comes out.

Oh and by the way a Mr Farage had a reputation amongst journalists for not being able to lie.

In reply to KevinD:


sure, every confrontation doesn't lead to open war; but over 50 years of continuous high tension, with remarkable degrees of antipathy buttressed by religious differences and historical atrocities, the chance of one spark setting a fire must have been pretty high.



plenty of evidence of direct support, of Russian military on the ground; and they must have got the BUK from somewhere. but Putin is a master at spreading a thin veneer of plausible deniability across Russian actions. no it wasn't a direct large scale invasion; but why do that, when the outcome is achievable by other means?

In reply to neilh:



Of course everyone has the right to change there mind, but it's how they do it, and when we're sitting watching them spout there shite, expecting us to lap it up, when we know it's not going to happen. It's quite insulting, which is why people are losing patience with politicians.

Angel told us her office had been attacked by Corbynistas or at least one of them, brick through their window, except it wasn't their window it was A window in a shared office in a stairwell. The Labour party office window, with a Labour Party sticker in it, wasn't broken. No one know who or why it was broken, their office is in an area known for vandalism and the police haven't caught anyone in relation to the crime, so how is she SO sure who broke the window? ( small example but it's representative )




Like Gandhi?

to lie.

More fool the journalists if you ask me, how was he not ABLE to lie?

In reply to krikoman:

Because you've compared Jeremy to Gandhi I've given your post a like

In reply to krikoman:
What I am saying to you is be very carefull what you pin your hopes on. History has a habit of proving that those who get portrayed as the great political person of principle later gets shot to pieces.

You can still be a supporter, but do not put any politican on a pedestal like a God which is what you seem to do. Otherwise you will be bitterly disappointed.Be circumspect and treat every politican with a pinch of salt

It is really upto you whether you heed the advice. I am not bothered either way.

In reply to neilh:

Well since we know he's had a tumble with Diane Abbott, I'm pretty sure he's fallen exhausted off any pedestal he might have been on.

In reply to neilh:



OK thanks, but I have to say it again, it's NOT the man, it's the changes he's after, his ethos of not engaging in the political "banter" and his apparent honesty. I like his policies and I think he has a real care for the traditional Labour voter and for the less advantage people of our country. I can't see anyone that matches what's he's saying.

I also like his lack of political ambition and his loyalty to the people that elected him a weaker man would have crumbled under the media pressure alone.

I don't think he's the messiah and he obviously has some faults ( he's not the best orator ) but it's the substance of the man that gets my vote.

John McDonnell quote to the coup MPs "This coup isn’t about Jeremy Corbyn. This coup isn’t about him, this is about you…
This is the 1% telling the 99% to ‘get back in your place.’"

Which is why JC got a lot of support from members.

Remember this the SWP has 6,000 members, the leadership contest last year saw 300,000 people joining up to vote in the last month over 100,000 people sign up. these can't all be rabid communists we're being told they are, the numbers don't make sense.

It's people finding they DO have a political voice and with JC at the helm they might have a bigger one.

In reply to krikoman:

Are the people signing up, the dissaffected of Sunderland and other 'working class' of labour heartland? Are they the wavering voters of the tory seats? I'm not so sure. If all you are doing is preaching to the converted socialists, it isn't going to win the next election,and my fear is that the voters above will go to UKIP and May Tories respectively, leaving Labour with less of a voice. To win power you have to hold onto your power base, and convert enough of the tory vote (which Blair did). I don't personally think JC labour can do either in this political climate.

As a labour voter I am not convinced by JC in the slightest. Don't get me wrong... he seems like an ok chap, but not a party leader in a million years. Even less so by McDonnell. Sorry I can't buy into all this brother and comrade sh*t.

In reply to Bellie:


It's the Blair policies, that lost the last election, over the years Labour have become Tory Lite, in fact the Convervatives have become Tory Lite in some instances.

It's not much good chasing floating voters, when you've lost you core supporter, which is why Corbyn, was seen as a god send to a lot of traditional Labour voters, they now have 500,000 members the highest number EVER. All you telling me these are all converted Socialist, because I wasn't and a lot of people I know weren't.

People thought they were without a voice, they see JC as a chance to regain that voice.

The very fact the PLP argued and got a £25 fee, shows how out of touch they've become with their core supporters. They are supposed to be a party for the disadvantaged and the poorer section of our community, asking £25 doesn't really give that impression, does it?

Socialism is being bandied around like some bad thing ( even within the Labour party!! )
remember the Labour party was built on Socialism and that why we have an NHS (at the moment at least).

In reply to krikoman:
Well, I have to disagree, and I hope I'm wrong, but I think this version of socialism will get hammered at the election.

Blair policies I think were well watered down and mixed by the time Brown, then Milliband had been at the reins.

Shame it all went to pot - I remember the first cabinet under Blair. Some good MPs.

In reply to Bellie:


Sadly it's true, unfortunately those good MPs have been replaced by some not so good one's. Since Blair first took over the Labour party has steadily lost touch with it's core support and their policies become more and more Tory like.

Not only that, but Blair turned the whole field of politics into one of spin and denial, even now he's still doing it!!
"I'm sorry our intelligence wasn't good enough", I'm sorry HE wasn't good enough, take some responsibility.

I don't expect our "leaders" to be squeaky clean and never make mistakes or change their minds, but it would be nice if they could to responsibility.

The whole JC "thing2 has got a lot of people involved in politics, precisely because they can see there might be a away to get some democracy, to have people working for THEM and THEIR issues, instead of paying lip service and carrying on as normal.

There really should be any Labour MPs advocating privatising any part of the NHS. If there are things that could be done better then it's the NHS that needs improving not privatising.

If a good number of PLP MPs hadn't been plotting against JC since day one, then it would be a different matter. As it is it appears to me they've been trying to make him fail since day one, so they've hardly given him a chance to prove himself as leader because he's always been fighting against his "team". If they'd tried and it didn't work then fair enough but they didn't, and a lot of people can see that, which only increases his support.

The other thing is calling his supporters left wing nutters doesn't help either, 500,000 people can be bothered to give their support and the get called nutters!

In reply to krikoman:

You come across in all your posts as being a JC messiah, suggest you tone it down a bit and conectrate on his policies. In all honesty apart from being anti nuclear I reckon most people have not got a clue what they are.And I get annoyed with this oft repeated view that policticians do not listen and do not care and JC is the only one.. It smacks of ignorance of what virtually all of them do ( and that is on all sides of the political spectrum).