Jeremy Corbyn

Depends who it was really doesn't it?

Really? You think some innocent civillians are ok to kill, and others aren't?

I think you may as well fire back on a point of principle.

Better to NOT fire on point of principle, surely?

Four paragraphs of semantics around the word 'stooge' before you get to the final and (only) relevant sentence.

I don't think I understand your mindset.

great advert for leadership: "shit inbound, I'm orf!"

Its not a great and coherent position he has on this issue and the tories will beat him to death with it

Better to NOT fire on point of principle, surely?

No, its better to fire on point of principle, because they knew that was the inevitable outcome

you also make the mistake of believing that "all out" is the only form of attack or response, rather than "flexible response" whereby your response is proportionate to the attack.

This scenario is absolutely begging for a representation in a Fast Show sketch.

True but is it any more absurd than saying you can't be Prime Minister unless you are potentially willing to murder millions of innocent civilians by making a phonecall?

As Ernie said above, deterrence is a game of bluff. The players do not need to prove that they would launch, just the capability of doing so is enough. Jeremy Corbyn's comments in a radio interview do not change that, so this entire debate is just another silly media-manufactured furore aimed at discrediting him.

that letter is really something, a quite remarkable intervention for an ambassador.

A very strong letter.

The left wing hand wringers seem to be in denial about how dangerous modern Russia still is.

I agree with a lot of what Corbyn says but just cannot come to terms with his nonsense defense policy.

A lot of people thought Spitfires, Hurricanes and radar stations were expensive and a complete waste of money in 1937.

Better to NOT fire on point of principle, surely?

Better, yes. But a PM who knows his family is about to be inevitably vaporized by (say) Russia might well be unhinged enough by the situation to retaliate against Russia without working through the extra logical step of reminding himself that nuking (say) Russia actually means nuking Russian kids/families/people. Or maybe a situation could arise where by retaliating we could protect an ally. (Eg in say a parrallel universe with where in WW2 German had nuked us, maybe we'd have decided to nuke Germany back to protect Russia/Europe/Africa.)

The proof would be if any 'letter of last resort' ever said, 'fire'. I thought some PMs *had* said to fire although I can't find a source for that now.

There are far better cases against 'independent' nukes for the UK than "We'd never retaliate.".

But by being Prime Minister there are many difficult decisions to make, that's what you get paid for. No one wants to kill innocent people and in an ideal world no one would, but we aren't in an ideal world.

Take Osama Bin Laden, JC still thinks he should have been tried in a court of law, now I accept that would have been the best 'ideal world' solution, but reality is the guy was barricaded in a house with a load of weapons, so you do what you have to do, to minimize casualties all around.

Wonder what JC's response to the Iranian embassy would have been?

A lot of people thought Spitfires, Hurricanes and radar stations were expensive and a complete waste of money in 1937.

Herein lies the truth

Its important to remember that its not nuclear forces [b]or[/b] conventional forces - nuclear weapons take up a small proportion of the defence budget (about 6%, possibly rising to about 9% with restructuring of conventional forces and introduction of trident replacement) conventional forces are hugely expensive (and lets remember that Jezza doesn't see any reason why we need them either, presumably we shouldn't have intervened in, say, Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Sierra Leone, or Cyprus?). Would a 10% bigger conventional military offer the type of deterrent effect that nuclear weapons have done in the past, and will continue to do so in the future?

Is not a policy of conventional weapons, with the terrible bombs raining down, with the missiles, with the aircraft, with the submarines, the torpedoes, with the tanks, also based upon threat of destruction and retaliation?

But by being Prime Minister there are many difficult decisions to make, that's what you get paid for. No one wants to kill innocent people and in an ideal world no one would, but we aren't in an ideal world.

Take Osama Bin Laden, JC still thinks he should have been tried in a court of law, now I accept that would have been the best 'ideal world' solution, but reality is the guy was barricaded in a house with a load of weapons, so you do what you have to do, to minimize casualties all around.

Wonder what JC's response to the Iranian embassy would have been?

JC has dropped principles for political expediency over and over again in only a few days of leadership. He doesn't appear to have any red lines at all. So I've no doubt if PM he would have cheerfully defended killing OBL without trial and taking the Iranian Embassy back by force. Consensus politics.

Is not a policy of conventional weapons, with the terrible bombs raining down, with the missiles, with the aircraft, with the submarines, the torpedoes, with the tanks, also based upon threat of destruction and retaliation?

Yes it is, which is why I don't support that and instead would rather the 100bn be spent on health, education, clean energy and communications.

JC has dropped principles for political expediency over and over again in only a few days of leadership.

Say tomorrow intelligence revealed that Russia was increasing military investment, what is the likely response?

Go on then. Apart from the media-manufactured ones, name some.

I started writing a list that began with Nato, Corbynomics, Trident but everything is up for grabs isn't it? Can you name a couple of lines in the policy sand that he simply won't compromise on? I'm struggling to think of anything.

On the EU and NATO he has changed his stance very quickly after becoming Leader.

On the EU and NATO he has changed his stance very quickly after becoming Leader

He's always said he'd listen to his party. And he's doing it.

Yes it is, which is why I don't support that and instead would rather the 100bn be spent on health, education, clean energy and communications.

100 billion, spread over 35 years to 2050 (although the trident replacement in service cost is actually planned out to 2060) is an annualised average of about 2.9 billion

Government spending is about 750 billion a year, the NHS alone costs about 115 billion a year to run - 2.9 billion wouldn't even cover the agency nurse bill. let alone leave anything left over for education, clean energy or communications.

the cost of Trident replacement is barely even a rounding error.

He's always said he'd listen to his party. And he's doing it.

I don't feel strongly about the terminology we use. If we'd prefer to use "listen to his party" as a euphenism for 'abandon he principles' I'm happy with that.

Here, I'll rewrite my post for you:

"JC has listened to his party for political expediency over and over again in only a few days of leadership. He doesn't appear to have any red lines at all. So I've no doubt if PM he would have cheerfully defended killing OBL without trial and taking the Iranian Embassy back by force. Consensus politics."

Now we're all in agreement.

So the tories on here still dont like him then....what a revelation.

Later shall we discuss if the Lefties like Dave as who could predict that answer to that question.

I don't like him, however, the Labour leader does matter as a stronger Labour party helps democracy works better. Look what that tool Blair got away with while the Tories imploded.

On that note, anyone notice Tom Watson completely 'forgot' to mention Blair and Brown in his speech the other day. Milliband and Smith got mentions, I find this airbrushing of history by certain sections of Labour weird. Are they trying to say Blair and Brown did nothing good for their party at all? In which case why did they support them for so long?

Every single member of the shadow cabinet (6 or 7 of them ?) the BBC interviewed at the conference publically disagreed with Corbyn. That's one of form of unity I suppose. They would well understand how that would look so I can only believe they where right royally hacked off about Corbyn dodging a debate on Trident. Far from encouraging democracy in the Labour party he's dodged an issue he knows he will most likely lose on and has tried to impose his will on the party !!

I see the SNP have picked up on yesterday's chaos, hardly surprising

@jhj the UK is the 6th richest country in the world with an economy roughly double that of Russia, whether that means you would be invaded or More likely threatened into submission, the nuclear weapons are a powerful deterrent.

Regarding Corbyn speech and having watched further parts of it he really really looked jaded, stumbling, tired and most of all OLD. Like it or not public persona is essential in politics today and Corbyn looks very much past it, even of a miracle happens and he makes it to 2020 he'll be 67 and an old 67. In "snap interviews" he is coming across as very grumpy indeed whilst trying to send a message about energy in the Labour party, a quality he most definitely does not have.

@dragon, Tom Watson is a pretty astute politician, the Labour Party and Cprbyn don't want to hear about Brown and Blair so he didn't speak about them. The fact is they cannot get used to the idea that Blair and Brown is what it took to get into power for 13 years.

@JY the point is the swing voters that Labour need to reclaim don't like Corbyn and his politics

the cost of Trident replacement is barely even a rounding error.

Funny how it's barely a rounding error when we're talking about buying/building weapons, yet when it's providing enough doctors and nurses, building hospitals or schools, or investing in clean energy or 21st century communications it's a sum that would break the nation's finances.

2.9 billion per year over 50 years would pay for an awful lot that we don't currently have, that would be directly useful and beneficial to everyone in the country.

Tom Watson will have knifed him in the back way before 2020. I don't see JC ever fighting a general election.

Look what that tool Blair got away with while the Tories imploded.

On that note, anyone notice Tom Watson completely 'forgot' to mention Blair and Brown in his speech the other day. Milliband and Smith got mentions, I find this airbrushing of history by certain sections of Labour weird. Are they trying to say Blair and Brown did nothing good for their party at all? In which case why did they support them for so long?

Perhaps like you they think he is a tool?

Its obvious from your every post that attacks labour,no matter what they do [ even agree with you] that you really care about them

Wipes tear from eye

Corbyn speech and having watched further parts of it he really really looked jaded, stumbling, tired and most of all OLD

Jesus Christ Jam - age discrimination now. A new low.

It is what it is. There are many vibrant 62 year olds, Corbyn isn't one of them.

dragon - Member

Tom Watson will have knifed him in the back way before 2020. I don't see JC ever fighting a general election.

He's probably going to have to live and die by the elections next May.

At the moment they can easily explain the popularity of Corbyn as activists who are joining the party, but who don't amount to enough country-wide votes to be of any significance.

jambalaya - Member

It is what it is. There are many vibrant 62 year olds, Corbyn isn't one of them.

I would say the opposite of jambalaya, being in your 40's is far too young to be running a country. In this case there's clearly no real world experience, working as a researcher does not equip one with breadth of experience. Just another non-job for a politician.

It is what it is. There are many vibrant 62 year olds, Corbyn isn't one of them.

You are only 93.94% right, he is 66

[quote=jambalaya opined]It is what it is. There are many vibrant 62 year olds, Corbyn isn't one of them.

Age discrimination and factually wrong.
He is 66 - I think this is where you tell us how well informed you are and how your job requires you to read tons and know loads of stuff

you then say how you are 100% correct and I have never managed to show an error in your thinking

I think the party will struggle to get rid of him when grassroots support is so high. How could they do this?

I think the party will struggle to get rid of him when grassroots support is so high. How could they do this?

Agree, but if he wanted to go he could pick any point of principle and claim to be resigning over that.Trident would be an obvious one.

As the lithuanian ambassador rightly points out, we are in NATO, there's a shedload of nukes within NATO, the UK's puny contribution means bugger all in that context of a defense alliance. They're a status symbol, nothing more.

Ergo, absolutely no need for them.

Saying that though, I'd still rather we spunked our cash on these useless items than spend more money on far more dangerous parts of the military.

On a side note, if not having nukes means you be nuke why haven't all these blue and yellow countries(beside Japan) been nuked?

[img] [/img]

but if he wanted to go he could pick any point of principle and claim to be resigning over that.Trident would be an obvious one.

On a side not, if not having nukes means you be nuke why haven't all these blue and yellow countries been nuked?

All the European countries are covered by NATO. Japan, Australia and Canada by the USA.

Then look how many wars their have been in Africa and the Middle East over the last 30 years.

As the lithuanian ambassador rightly points out, we are in NATO, there's a shedload of nukes within NATO, the UK's puny contribution means bugger all in that context of a defense alliance. They're a status symbol, nothing more.

Ergo, absolutely no need for them.

That's my take on it. Our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent at all. We'd only use it if Nato/USA were onside. In which case let them do it.

dragon - Member
Then look how many wars their have been in Africa and the Middle East over the last 30 years.

I think this is where you tell us how well informed you are and how your job requires you to read tons and know loads of stuff

Yeah Jambo, spout some more Jambabollox. 😀

On a side note, if not having nukes means you be nuke why haven't all these blue and yellow countries(beside Japan) been nuked?

I heard this great phrase on a few years back about doing a "tactical nuclear strike." Until someone pointed out there is nothing tactical about nuclear weapons. Anyone starts lobbing even a few of these around and the whole planet's hosed.

Their only value at the moment is political...top table of the Un- security council.

Age discrimination and factually wrong.

I disagree - it is factually correct that JC is not a 62 year old. I'm sure jamba will count that as part of his 100% record.

I think at this point, the absurdity of this whole discussion can be summed up by [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/leader-of-uk-must-be-prepared-to-kill-everyone-20151001102480 ]the Daily Mash (as usual)[/url].

why has no-one nuked them?

Because they have mostly been wars between non-nuke states and to be fair their have been a fair amount of illegal chemical weapons used. Pretty sure Iran want nukes to stop Russia, Israel and Iraq starting on them (again).

dragon - Member
why has no-one nuked them?
Because they have mostly been wars between non-nuke states and to be fair their have been a fair amount of illegal chemical weapons used. Pretty sure Iran want nukes to stop Russia, Israel and Iraq starting on them (again).