Forum menu
I'm crap at maths but does £10 million per worker over 35 years sound alright then?
£285,714 pa
The point I was making is that first you decide whether Trident is necessary from a deterrent/defence pov. To make it about jobs is staggering.
Len McCluskey of Unite:
"Everyone would love the whole world to get rid of nuclear weapons - we understand the moral arguments and cost arguments in these days of austerity.
"However, the most important thing for us is to protect jobs. In the absence of any credible alternative to protect jobs and high skills we will vote against any anti-Trident resolution."
So surely you focus on securing 'a credible alternative' rather than assume that the only thing these people can do it create submarines and warheads!
That paragraph that I quoted on the previous page was actually a Unite amendment 2 years ago to a Communication Workers Union resolution at the TUC on economic policy. Here it is again :
[i]Insert new paragraph 4 as penultimate paragraph:
“Money saved by ending our nuclear weapons
system could be used to sustain the process of
defence diversification, vital to our manufacturing
future. Such a policy would need to ensure that the
jobs and skills of tens of thousands of workers in the
sector were preserved.” [/i]
It was passed at the TUC conference.
I think it's fair to say that there needs to be a proper debate on trident replacement, the Labour Movement's position at the present is a mess. I think everyone can agree on that. Except possibly the right-wing blairites.
Surely it's Unites job to defend their workers interests and in this case it is their member's jobs working on Trident. Not much point paying your money to a Union who are going to throw you under a bus.
"However, the most important thing for us is to protect jobs. In the absence of any credible alternative to protect jobs and high skills we will vote against any anti-Trident resolution."
I have to say I agree with this. I'd rather we didn't have Trident, but am happy to keep it to maintain the large number of highly skilled people who work on it and the associated supply chain etc. We'd lose a huge range of specialist skills if we just canned it over night and threw everyone on the doll.
You've never been to Barrow, have you?
The lucky bastard
ernie_lynch - Member
"epicyclo - Member
Retaining the ability to obliterate millions of ordinary working class people in faraway countries seems at odds with his declarations of the unity of the working classes."That silly and deliberately disingenuous comment could have come straight out of one of ninfan's posts, I doubt that even jambalaya would make such as crass comment.
What's crass is a weapon of mass destruction capable of frying millions of ordinary people, children included.
Meanwhile, the new Labour attitude:
[img] 
?oh=ddae070371ad7c9b6d98de11f073e63b&oe=5695BC11[/img]
Yeah as I said epicyclo ....... silly and deliberately disingenuous.
You are of course fully aware of Corbyn's position on Trident and that the decision not to debate the issue wasn't his.
But that didn't stop you from deliberately misrepresenting the situation by claiming :
[i]"Retaining the ability to obliterate millions of ordinary working class people in faraway countries seems [u]at odds with his declarations[/u] of the unity of the working classes."[/i]
He is not supporting retaining the ability to obliterate millions of ordinary working class people in faraway countries, as well you know.
It's a completely disingenuous comment of the sort that ninfan makes to score pathetic partisan points.
Maybe Corbyn might ask the Labour membership decide on Trident if its going to be this much of a thorny issue.
Corbyn has made it clear that the Labour Party itself will be deciding policy, not one man as previously was the case when the blairite right were in control :
It would however be very strange if the party didn't agree with Corbyn, after all he received 60% of the vote just a couple of weeks ago - the greatest level of support of any leader in Labour Party history.
So you have to assume that his opposition to austerity, trident, tuition fees, etc, has fairly widespread support in the party. To vote for someone whose opinions and views you don't agree with would be pretty daft.
I'd rather we didn't have Trident, but am happy to keep it to maintain the large number of highly skilled people who work on it and the associated supply chain etc. We'd lose a huge range of specialist skills if we just canned it over night and threw everyone on the doll.
If the point is to keep workers employed, then they could be employed on something more economically productive for the UK and better for the world than Trident.
If the point is to keep workers employed, then they could be employed on something more economically productive for the UK and better for the world than Trident.
But could they justify spending £100 billion on something which wasn't a weapon of mass destruction ?
I doubt it.
My understanding is that Unison and the GMB were for Trident which would have meant any motion would have been defeated - see [url= http://news.sky.com/story/1559870/inside-story-of-how-labour-fudged-trident-vote ]here[/url]
John McDonnell on Newsnight now. It really is remarkable the lack of bullshit spin in his delivery - much more like a conversation. Rather than saying 'we're great and the others are shit' he's just discussing it. And even answering questions by saying 'yes' and 'no'. That alone gets a huge amount of sympathy from me.
Of course, he'll need some answers to the bigger questions soon enough.
I like John McDonnell I have a lot of respect for him, and like him I consider myself to be a pragmatic idealist. But I can't say that I feel particularly comfortable with how much ground he's been giving.
No doubt he's receiving a lot of advice (although I think he's personally very competent to handle his economics brief) and I'm sure he's under pressure from Corbyn who is to the right of him.
Although to be honest I was originally concerned that he might be too enthusiastic rather than too cautious.
But could they justify spending £100 billion on something which wasn't a weapon of mass destruction ?I doubt it.
Four or five new nuclear power stations to replace decommissioned coal stations, end of life current nuke stations and reduce dependence on imported gas would cost 100Bn.
Retaining expertise is given as a justification for Trident. Meanwhile we are getting the French and Chinese at vast expense to build our next nuclear power station. Funny how when 10% of the population went to univ we built our own nuke power stations and now that 45% go to univ we seem to have lost the ability.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/27/hinkley-point-what-price-avoiding-humiliation
The today's Tories have a pathological (and ideological) hatred for British state-owned enterprises. As you would expect pathological hatred leads to completely irrational behaviour, so we end up with the ludicrous situation where French, Chinese, and other foreign state-owned enterprises, successfully secure UK government (read UK taxpayer funded/supported) contracts and franchises.
On the question of the UK allegedly lacking the technological skills to construct nuclear power stations it should be pointed out that Argentina, Argentina ffs, has designed and built a nuclear reactor for the Australian government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1480511.stm
I consider myself to be a pragmatic idealist.
Me too, and I don't know why Evan had such a problem with this idea.
TBH interviewers [ and i really only listen to the BBC] do seem to have got much more interrogative and I heard him the other day laugh and ask to be allowed to answer the question radio 4 - he was right as well.
they just seem to want to attack an imagined hole in an argument rather than just let folk explain their positions
Many positions are complicated and no one has all the answers so far better to get a feel for their "pragmatic idealism" than take one sound bite and run with it
tbh I think if the are going to fundamentally change the labour party, given current conditions, they are going to have to give a lot of ground.ernie_lynch - Member
that I feel particularly comfortable with how much ground he's been giving.
Essentially, sometimes you need to give ground to gain it back. Guess that's the art of compromise.
And I also suspect this is a required tactic if longevity is going to be a factor of the Corbyn leadership.
The make up of the party in a couple of years is probably the most important factor tbh.
they just seem to want to attack an imagined hole in an argument rather than just let folk explain their positions
Agree entirely Junkyard. Point out a flaw if you come from a position of knowledge, but their ego just seems to want to tie the interviewee in knots so that they can appear 'tough' of that 'they won'.
Andrew Neil did an awful one on Lucy Powell yesterday.
Although she needs to be better prepared to say why it's perfectly reasonable that the party doesn't have all the answers as hard policy yet.
Paxman wannabees basically. I like paxman but his interview style spawned a whole generation of belligerent interviewers that are shockingly bad.AlexSimon - Member
they just seem to want to attack an imagined hole in an argument rather than just let folk explain their positionsAgree entirely Junkyard. Point out a flaw if you come from a position of knowledge, but their ego just seems to want to tie the interviewee in knots so that they can appear 'tough' of that 'they won'.
It does need to be far more conversational to let them expound on their views rather than adversarial where they try to twist their words /meanings to use it against them and spin them back in twisted manner
Slightly OT, but I see this thing more and more, where someone posts a picture with some naive and simplistic slogan added in, as though it is a substitute for intelligent criticism. Maybe I need to re-calibrate my expectations (or, tbh, my Facebook friends).
[img] ?oh=ddae070371ad7c9b6d98de11f073e63b&oe=5695BC11[/img]
they just seem to want to attack an imagined hole in an argument rather than just let folk explain their positions
Sounds familiar, is Evan Davies on here? 🙂
Seriously though, the media are a joke, and if the Corbyn 'revolution' achieves one thing, it'll be to expose the hollow, personality driven egotism of the media and 'journalists' who prefer to be the story rather than simply reporting on it. The only one I've got any time for is Paul Mason.
I was just about to post the same thing dazh.
Corbyn may not make it to PM or even the election, but there's a chance his influence could completely change the political landscape. Imagine if interviewers came to discuss the issues rather than batter their interviewee... Jez seems to be able to subvert that by simply turning the other cheek.. OMG.. JC.. It's all becoming so clear now....
[i] Junkyard - lazarus
TBH interviewers [ and i really only listen to the BBC] do seem to have got much more interrogative and I heard him the other day laugh and ask to be allowed to answer the question radio 4 - he was right as well.[/i]
I heard that interview and he was far from correct but instead contradicted himself saying £120 bn of uncollected tax could be used to great effect. Only later, when pressed, did he then offer a figure of £20 bn was likely to be practicably collected.
To which the interviewer then, correctly pointed out he wasn't paying for all the thing you can with £120 bn when in reality you've only £20 bn.
The Conservatives are treated equally as combatively, ime.
However, if someone was looking for bias at the BBC, check how the BBC always refer to the Conservatives as "Tories" yet the BBC refer to Labour as "Labour"
They've been called Tories since the 18th century or something.
Is there an equivalent for Labour?However, if someone was looking for bias at the BBC, check how the BBC always refer to the Conservatives as "Tories" yet the BBC refer to Labour as "Labour"
Tory is in the dictionary as "a member or supporter of the Conservative Party" so it's not like it's slang, or defamatory.
(they seem to throw "Left-wing Labour..." around very freely)
I heard that interview and he was far from correct but instead contradicted himself saying £120 bn of uncollected tax could be used to great effect. Only later, when pressed, did he then offer a figure of £20 bn was likely to be practicably collected.To which the interviewer then, correctly pointed out he wasn't paying for all the thing you can with £120 bn when in reality you've only £20 bn.
That's how I heard it.
In addition to that McDonnel's been citing over 300bn IIRC, a number he got out of a newspaper.
Jeremy's got the stage to himself today to set out detailed policy without any interviewer butting in. Yet it seems he's avoiding disclosing policy to a large degree.
Having just read the last few pages of this thread....I've decided its a perfect parallel with rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic!
[quote=outofbreath said] Yet it seems he's avoiding disclosing policy to a large degree.
I guess because the policies haven't been agreed yet.
Seriously though, the media are a joke, and if the Corbyn 'revolution' achieves one thing, it'll be to expose the hollow, personality driven egotism of the media and 'journalists' who prefer to be the story rather than simply reporting on it.
I doubt it - Corbynmania is heavily reliant itself on the media, arguably a creation of it. Nothing new there - Farrage, Clegg etc, all hyped up by the media before the bubble burst.
The only one I've got any time for is Paul Mason.
Why is he any different - other than a particular view? All leading up to a book like most of them....
Corbynmania is heavily reliant itself on the media
Only in so far as that's how the message is propogated. It's not itself a creation of the media, in fact it's the complete opposite.
I would suggest that JC is not in it for a book deal. He's been in it for a bloody long time, seemingly because he's just doing what he thinks is right.
So yeah I would say he's different.
Corbynmania is heavily reliant itself on the media, arguably a creation of it.
That's probably the weirdest thing I've heard you say.
Well we can agree to differ mol! Its been a self-re-enforcing phenonemon. I think he has demonstrated an extremely high level of media-saviness, to his credit, including a very advanced understanding of the power of social media. For the papers, the panto element has been a godsend.
For all the so-called spin training, the others were very weak and held little for the media to get their teeth into either way.
Papers have pages to fill, TV has minutes to fill. And light entertainment is always a winner 😉 while the rest of us get on with work!!
You're making it sound like the media is creating Corbyn as a phenomenon, when it's very clear they were trying to shut him down. On both sides, for different reasons.
He's simply said what he believes in - that's not being media savvy. The opposite, in fact, since he stuck by what he believes in despite a media backlash.
No hint of compromise anywhere?
Why would you shut him down, its brilliant for circulation figures? They have lapped it up.
Watch this space as they say.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fb1ad42e-65c2-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3n7C1ENiK
Sets the context rather well IMO - although he is clearly no JC fan!
I think he is little different from the rest to be honest lots wishy, washy cr*p 'a new kinder politics' it means nothing, just sound bites.
Any ideas on how to tackle the big issues, anything on immigration, taxes, energy etc. nope.
I had to laugh at this comment on the Guardian:
He talked of helping the self-employed. Why don't the self-employed do their bit to help the economy by paying some bloody tax. I've had to use a number of local tradespeople lately, all cash in hand, no receipts.
I think he is little different from the rest to be honest lots wishy, washy cr*p 'a new kinder politics' it means nothing, just sound bites.
You really haven't been watching very closely then!
The Fabian conclusion
While the left of the party have been building, Labour’s mainstream has lazily relied on the strength of the party machine and the profile of the leader. It is not a coincidence that this summer the moderate candidates were swamped on social media by so called Corbynistas. They don’t have a gang to fight for them. Facing ‘movement politics’, they had only the strength of their argument. In politics, that is never enough.Jeremy Corbyn didn’t win this election thanks to miscreant entryists, he won a majority among members and among legitimate Labour supporters. [b]He didn’t win it because he’s personally charismatic. He didn’t even win it because Labour members suddenly surged to the left. He won because people were fed up with a tired status quo, and because Labour’s mainstream failed to organise and renew[/b].
molgrips - MemberYou're making it sound like the media is creating Corbyn as a phenomenon, when it's very clear they were trying to shut him down. On both sides, for different reasons.
He's simply said what he believes in - that's not being media savvy. The opposite, in fact, since he stuck by what he believes in despite a media backlash.
It is the job of the media to stir things up a bit or they will be made redundant ...
Like every other politicians JC (not Jesus Christ) is just another politician with his own views ... savvy or not is just a PR thing. Some adopt a soft image while others the hard man/woman.
Bottom line they want to become a full member of a bigger nanny state and they want to change the world! 😯
molgrips feel free to enlighten me then? Or does he just mean avoiding hard decisions?