Jeremy Corbyn

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.
For me, this is arrogance on their part.

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.
Apart from that’s the first time I’ve heard anyone say that. I would say exactly the opposite. Apart from being a bit new to autoqueue, I thought he looked confident, relaxed, privileged, proud and looking forward to the challenge.

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

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?

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.

He has just been elected with a 60% vote, and he could resign because he does not like my shoes, but it is not going to happen in the very near future.

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.

well exactly, why has no-one nuked them? Why don’t they just nuke Syria right now? (or even just the ISIS strongholds?)

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 the Daily Mash (as usual).

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).

So who does the UK need to fear?

So who does the UK need to fear?

Anyone who encourages cutting back on the lucrative arms trade?

Surely, it the dominant superpowers cut back on weapons, tensions would decrease, rather than escalate as they do when you have vast military investment, nuclear or otherwise.

When was the last time the UK (or US for that matter) were invaded or attacked by another countries army?

When was the last time the UK (and US) didn’t have any active military forces in overseas conflicts?

Who supplied the weapons that sparked and fuelled those conflicts?

Who supplied the weapons that sparked and fuelled those conflicts?

The Queen ?

jivehoneyjive – Member
So who does the UK need to fear?
Anyone who encourages cutting back on the lucrative arms trade?

Surely, it the dominant superpowers cut back on weapons, tensions would decrease, rather than escalate as they do when you have vast military investment, nuclear or otherwise.

When was the last time the UK (or US for that matter) were invaded or attacked by another countries army?

When was the last time the UK (and US) didn’t have any active military forces in overseas conflicts?

Who supplied the weapons that sparked and fuelled those conflicts?

I do like that, we need nukes cause we keep selling the world all their weapons! 😆

Because they have mostly been wars between non-nuke states

Except, or course, the Falklands War, where our nukes were of no use whatsoever. “What nuke for liberating Port Stanley?”

Well apparently they were useful in the Falklands, but not in the way you are thinking, see this link

Guardian

I believe Prince Phillip runs the arms business side of the family.

see this link

“the psychoanalysis of François Mitterrand”

Yeah OK.

The British public didn’t believe that Britain would use nuclear weapons, the Argentine government and people didn’t believe that Britain would use nuclear weapons, the US administration, the UN, and the rest of the world didn’t believe that Britain would use nuclear weapons.

I doubt very much that François Mitterrand believed that Britain would use nuclear weapons, whatever someone who wants to sell a book likes to claim.

Quite apart from the obvious stupidity of such a move in 1982 the Monroe Doctrine was still very much alive. The Argentine fascist military dictatorship owed its very existence to the US administration – the Monroe Doctrine decreed that Argentina was part of America’s Backyard.

There is absolutely no way that the US would have allowed the UK to drop a nuclear device in its Backyard.

And just to prove the US’s dominance of its own Backyard over all others, including its allegedly closest ally the UK, a year after the Falklands War Ronald Reagan order the attack, invasion, and occupation, of a British Commonwealth country, Grenada, without even bothering to inform the British government beforehand.

Well its a good job Lynch that Great Britain gave the Argie Junta a good conventional ass whipping then isn’t it….
I wouldn’t trust Corbyn with the responsibilty of defending our country or any other ally we have….
The first obligation of any PM is the defence and security of the UK
Thanks but no thanks Comrade Jez

The first obligation of any PM is the defence and security of the UK

How’s that working out with Hameron? Are we more secure now he’s busy bombing Iraq and Libya? Or has it created a big danger for us, maybe?

I’d rather surrender completely than be nuked.

Thanks but no thanks Comrade Jez

Yeah but to be fair nora you are a self-confessed UKIP supporter. You can’t expect all UKIP supporters to warmly welcome Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the Labour Party leadership election. I would be worried if they did.

Bloody nora is john Wayne and I claim my ass whiping from him.

you are a self-confessed UKIP supporter

Is he 😀 ❓

Oh, I must have missed that! 😆

😆

And a bit more…

😆

Yes Nora has on here urged people to vote UKIP. Although TBF I think he/she leans a bit towards the EDL/BNP.

Maybe just getting a little less racist in his dotage.