Next Leader of the Opposition

[Guest MattP]

Nukes are not the answer for anything. I wouldnt even want us to retaliate a nuclear strike with one of our own. It would just rip the rug right off our civilization. 

 

Yeah because the World will just be a bastion of civilisation left to the people who decided to nuke everybody first.

[Sir Fynwy]

People still think the sky is going to fall in if MPs like this guy

 

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/simon-danczuks-gravy-train.html

 

have a leader that reigns them in?

[Christoph]

Yeah because the World will just be a bastion of civilisation left to the people who decided to nuke everybody first.

 

Erm world war 2?? USA nuked first? No retaliation and in the end it ended the war...

 

What would the world loook like if Japan retaliated with a nuke? How many more people would die? What kind of environmental impact would there be if there were multiple nukes thrown from both sides? 

 

I would not want to go into a nuclear war with Russia in any circumstances. I doubt they're leaders would give up as easily as Japan. 

[Sir Fynwy]

Erm world war 2?? USA nuked first? No retaliation and in the end it ended the war...

 

What would the world loook like if Japan retaliated with a nuke? How many more people would die? What kind of environmental impact would there be if there were multiple nukes thrown from both sides? 

 

I would not want to go into a nuclear war with Russia in any circumstances. I doubt they're leaders would give up as easily as Japan. 

That's not really an effective point because only the USA had a nuclear bomb in 1945 and they would have bombed Japan flat before Japan could develop a bomb themselves.

[Guest MattP]

Erm world war 2?? USA nuked first? No retaliation and in the end it ended the war...

 

What would the world loook like if Japan retaliated with a nuke? How many more people would die? What kind of environmental impact would there be if there were multiple nukes thrown from both sides? 

 

I would not want to go into a nuclear war with Russia in any circumstances. I doubt they're leaders would give up as easily as Japan. 

 

For a start google Pearl Harbor.

 

Secondly only the US had those sort of weapons back then.

[Rincewind]

That's a fair point, I guess.

 

I don't want to denigrate new members, in fact I wish to welcome them with open arms, but any member telling other members that they're Tory scum and other pejoratives needs to pipe down, whether they've been in the party for twenty years or twenty days. 

 

Labour's a broad church, and we all want the same thing - a Labour government. 

Yes exactly. I have said the same thing in groups  I am in. They have called  the  other three all sorts of things. Many of them said they would  not vote Labour at the GE because they were 'red Tory' and as  I pointed out we now have  five more years of Tories as a result.  If  the Labour party are disfunctional now how  are they going to govern?

However the Tory press must be  loving this  and hyping it up to extremes. Corbyn may not be as left wing as  people are saying. It is  just he  has  not changed his values and stands by the principles that made him join the Labour party and stand for a MP.

That alone has to be admired.

[Guest MattP]

Yes exactly. I have said the same thing in groups  I am in. They have called  the  other three all sorts of things. Many of them said they would  not vote Labour at the GE because they were 'red Tory' and as  I pointed out we now have  five more years of Tories as a result.  If  the Labour party are disfunctional now how  are they going to govern?

However the Tory press must be  loving this  and hyping it up to extremes. Corbyn may not be as left wing as  people are saying. It is  just he  has  not changed his values and stands by the principles that made him join the Labour party and stand for a MP.

That alone has to be admired.

 

Surely that's the whole point of what they are saying, they don't see any difference between the two.

 

Given the political pieces you have posted from some of the groups you are alligned to I'd imagine Caroline Lucas is a 'Green Tory' though.

[Christoph]

For a start google Pearl Harbor.

 

Secondly only the US had those sort of weapons back then.

 

 

That's not really an effective point because only the USA had a nuclear bomb in 1945 and they would have bombed Japan flat before Japan could develop a bomb themselves.

 

 

Fair enough. I'll take that one. 

 

But I don't believe nuclear bombs makes us any safer. IF two country's go at each other with nuclear weapons it's only a matter of time until one tries it. I wouldn't want our country to be responsible for killing so many innocent people even if they lived in a country with an oppressive regime with nukes. 

[Sir Fynwy]

Fair enough. I'll take that one. 

 

But I don't believe nuclear bombs makes us any safer. IF two country's go at each other with nuclear weapons it's only a matter of time until one tries it. I wouldn't want our country to be responsible for killing so many innocent people even if they lived in a country with an oppressive regime with nukes.

Nukes aren't a decent defence option, having a well funded and equipped army, navy and airforce is far more effective than having a weapon you would never use as a first instance and would be very reluctant to use in retaliation does nothing to make us safer. If you read the rules that apply to the use of 'British' (actually leased US) nuclear weapons they state that even in retaliation for a first strike the responsible people have to consider if an attack would actually be effective.

[leicsmac]

Nukes aren't a decent defence option, having a well funded and equipped army, navy and airforce is far more effective than having a weapon you would never use as a first instance and would be very reluctant to use in retaliation does nothing to make us safer. If you read the rules that apply to the use of 'British' (actually leased US) nuclear weapons they state that even in retaliation for a first strike the responsible people have to consider if an attack would actually be effective.

That's right. Read about the Letters of Last Resort, for instance.

In any case, I believe in the case of even just one nuclear weapon being used that can be traced back to a nation state using it in anger that escalation and subsequent holocaust is inevitable.

[Finnegan]

Nukes are so ridiculously old fashioned. You could cripple a country with the internet, trade embargoes or cutting off natural resources if you wanted to. Not to mention dirty bombs, black ops tactics, etc.

Nobody wants to be the first to disarm but I'm pretty sure most of us are extremely confident a nuke won't ever be used in our lifetime.

[Stadt]

I'm going to personally drop a nuke on Sean Dyche

[The Railway Man]

On the subject of national security Cameron couldn't serious allow Corbyn into the cabinet could they like they did with Miliband given his history.....

[Guest Bilo]

I'm getting quite an undemocratic vibe from the more right wing labour supporters. If the people want corbyn and a chance at proper left wing politics instead of what is, let's face it, tory-lite, then that's what the people should get. There's a lot of insults being aimed at corbyn fans in the same way as insults are being thrown at the right wing labour lot. Ultimately labour should be a left wing party. I get the feeling a lot of those opposed to corbyn are so for very selfish reasons, which isn't left wing at all.

 

The moderate MPs nominated Corbyn to encourage a broader debate. That's democracy.

The moderate Labour Party members who aren't voting Corbyn generally want a mature, sensible and constructive debate. That's also democracy.

Telling people that they're Tory moles and that they should leave the party because they dare to exercise their democratic right to vote for a moderate candidate? Not really democracy.

 

I assure you that the overwhelming majority of the abuse and, frankly, hatred isn't coming from the Burnham, Cooper and Kendall supporters.

 

The myth that Labour and the Tories are the same is the go-to excuse of the uninformed when they say they don't want to vote. Even the Blair government, which was far more right-wing than anything on offer in this election, was a vastly different political animal to any Tory government I've ever seen. The NMW, Surestart, tackling child poverty, NHS Direct, record investment in public services to name but a few things that were decidedly un-Tory. Burnham wants to renationalise the railways, bring Social Care under the arm of the NHS, introduce rent controls and zero deposit mortgages to enable people to get on the housing ladder, extend the NMW to everyone over 18 and introduce a UCAS and Student Finance for Apprenticeships. Nothing Tory about those plans, yet Burnham is being referred to as such. It shows how politically ignorant some within the debate actually are.

 

It's bizarre that the election has almost become McCarthyist in its smears, innuendos and divisiveness with the question 'Are you now or have you ever been a Blairite?' intended to stifle debate through smearing. The Corbynites certainly talk a big game when it comes to democracy, but they're not exactly big on free speech and open debate. It's a worry, because you have to think what happens when we have to take this message to the people who didn't vote Labour at all when there's this much spite and bile among Labour Party members. 

[Guest Bilo]

I'm going to personally drop a nuke on Sean Dyche

 

That would cost many, many pound notes.

[Sir Fynwy]

The moderate MPs nominated Corbyn to encourage a broader debate. That's democracy.

The moderate Labour Party members who aren't voting Corbyn generally want a mature, sensible and constructive debate. That's also democracy.

Telling people that they're Tory moles and that they should leave the party because they dare to exercise their democratic right to vote for a moderate candidate? Not really democracy.

 

I assure you that the overwhelming majority of the abuse and, frankly, hatred isn't coming from the Burnham, Cooper and Kendall supporters.

 

The myth that Labour and the Tories are the same is the go-to excuse of the uninformed when they say they don't want to vote. Even the Blair government, which was far more right-wing than anything on offer in this election, was a vastly different political animal to any Tory government I've ever seen. The NMW, Surestart, tackling child poverty, NHS Direct, record investment in public services to name but a few things that were decidedly un-Tory. Burnham wants to renationalise the railways, bring Social Care under the arm of the NHS, introduce rent controls and zero deposit mortgages to enable people to get on the housing ladder, extend the NMW to everyone over 18 and introduce a UCAS and Student Finance for Apprenticeships. Nothing Tory about those plans, yet Burnham is being referred to as such. It shows how politically ignorant some within the debate actually are.

 

It's bizarre that the election has almost become McCarthyist in its smears, innuendos and divisiveness with the question 'Are you now or have you ever been a Blairite?' intended to stifle debate through smearing. The Corbynites certainly talk a big game when it comes to democracy, but they're not exactly big on free speech and open debate. It's a worry, because you have to think what happens when we have to take this message to the people who didn't vote Labour at all when there's this much spite and bile among Labour Party members.

There may be some trolls out there going too far but they are being goaded by a mainstream media that is totally behind the status quo much like the reaction to the media in Scotland at the referendum and GE, if you push the anyone but Jez line you can expect to be targeted by the idiot fringe. The PLP swimming against a mainstream shift in activism looks anti democratic and frankly out of touch, a situation you'd say they've been in for at least the last decade.

[Guest Bilo]

There may be some trolls out there going too far but they are being goaded by a mainstream media that is totally behind the status quo much like the reaction to the media in Scotland at the referendum and GE, if you push the anyone but Jez line you can expect to be targeted by the idiot fringe. The PLP swimming against a mainstream shift in activism looks anti democratic and frankly out of touch, a situation you'd say they've been in for at least the last decade.

 

In all honesty, the ABC campaign is just as childish and I certainly wouldn't subscribe to such negative tactics. 

 

I do feel that to a large extent the PLP should stay out of the debate more than it has done, but we have to face facts and realise that Corbyn faces an uphill battle to control his party. He struggled massively to gain enough nominations, and his learning curve having never had so much as a Junior Minister position will be so steep as to be vertical. The growth of interest in the party has been great to see, my own CLP has seen over 40 new members in a constituency where we came a very distant third in the GE, but winning retweets and Facebook Likes is a very different kettle of fish to winning a General Election and the PLP are at least in tune with this aspect of politics. We have to look at who can win in 2020, not who's flavour of the month thanks largely to social media in 2015. It's very important not to be short termist here.

 

The notion that a country who've just handed the Tories a majority secretly yearns for a socialist government for the first time in over 40 years doesn't seem particularly on the pulse of public opinion either. The problem, I think, is that the election has been too inward looking. I joined the Labour Party because I believe in its ideals and want a fairer, more just Britain but I understand that we don't live in a single party state, that there are millions for whom socialism is anathema to their beliefs and that we must compromise to win power just as the Tories probably have. How many of the blue rinses and retired Colonels from Tunbridge Wells actually wanted to see gay marriage legalised for example? Political parties must modernise or die, and the thoughts and feelings of floating voters and the general consensus needs to be taken into account as well as the views of the grassroots members. If we simply spend all our time preaching to the converted, we'll keep getting the same result ad nauseam and will therefore be prevented from changing anything.

[The Horse's Mouth]

It's getting worse.

 

 

omfg, just spat tea over my laptop

[Sir Fynwy]

In all honesty, the ABC campaign is just as childish and I certainly wouldn't subscribe to such negative tactics. 

 

I do feel that to a large extent the PLP should stay out of the debate more than it has done, but we have to face facts and realise that Corbyn faces an uphill battle to control his party. He struggled massively to gain enough nominations, and his learning curve having never had so much as a Junior Minister position will be so steep as to be vertical. The growth of interest in the party has been great to see, my own CLP has seen over 40 new members in a constituency where we came a very distant third in the GE, but winning retweets and Facebook Likes is a very different kettle of fish to winning a General Election and the PLP are at least in tune with this aspect of politics. We have to look at who can win in 2020, not who's flavour of the month thanks largely to social media in 2015. It's very important not to be short termist here.

 

The notion that a country who've just handed the Tories a majority secretly yearns for a socialist government for the first time in over 40 years doesn't seem particularly on the pulse of public opinion either. The problem, I think, is that the election has been too inward looking. I joined the Labour Party because I believe in its ideals and want a fairer, more just Britain but I understand that we don't live in a single party state, that there are millions for whom socialism is anathema to their beliefs and that we must compromise to win power just as the Tories probably have. How many of the blue rinses and retired Colonels from Tunbridge Wells actually wanted to see gay marriage legalised for example? Political parties must modernise or die, and the thoughts and feelings of floating voters and the general consensus needs to be taken into account as well as the views of the grassroots members. If we simply spend all our time preaching to the converted, we'll keep getting the same result ad nauseam and will therefore be prevented from changing anything.

The Labour Party needs to look further than the next taxi on the rank candidate and reform the party for the long term in my opinion, just looking at what they think might win the next election after being wrong with the last few attempts isn't long term thinking it's head in the sand politics. Polls are showing that there is appetite for change across a wide range of age and social groups, Corbyn might not be the right choice but at least from the outside he looks like a change.

[Guest MattP]

It's just absolutely incredible anyone can offer up any sort of logical argument that Corbyn might be elected from a country looking for change, it's just absolutely bonkers, I can't even begin to imagine how out of touch you would have to be to seriously think it, this country has never wanted that sort of politics and I'd imagine never will.

If Labour can't win being Tory lite, can anyone explain this voting map for me from the Blair years?

 

Of course if they want they go to Corbyn they can look at what happened under Michael Foot (voting map below) and as Blair rightly says, under Corbyn the result would be even worse.

 

 

This is maybe one we could see under Jeremy Corbyn, that little pocket of South Wales still makes me chuckle, they even still voted Labour when they opnely admitted they weren't fit to govern.

 

[BlueSi13]

Nukes aren't a decent defence option, having a well funded and equipped army, navy and airforce is far more effective than having a weapon you would never use as a first instance and would be very reluctant to use in retaliation does nothing to make us safer. If you read the rules that apply to the use of 'British' (actually leased US) nuclear weapons they state that even in retaliation for a first strike the responsible people have to consider if an attack would actually be effective.

 

Nukes were the sole reason why the world didn't erupt into World War 3, or subsequently World War 4 or World War 5.  They have been instrumental in delivering the longest period of world peace between industrialised nations in Earths history.  

 

For sure we all dream of a world without war, but we are probably centuries away from that reality.  Instead, what we have is weapons of mass destruction, and when all the big boys have them, it means politicians are sure to keep their dicks in their pants rather than risk literally everything.  

 

Besides, what we spend annually on our nuclear fleet is absolute pittance to what the government spends elsewhere, and as somebody pointed out, if we were to ditch them, we'd only have to re-arm with larger fleets of jets, ships and tanks to make up for our significantly weaker deterrent anyway.

 

In a world that sees regimes like Russia, North Korea, an increasingly unstable Pakistan and soon Iran possess these weapons, I feel it would be absolutely bonkers to rid ourselves of arguably our biggest bargaining chip.

[leicsmac]

Nukes were the sole reason why the world didn't erupt into World War 3, or subsequently World War 4 or World War 5.  They have been instrumental in delivering the longest period of world peace between industrialised nations in Earths history.  

 

For sure we all dream of a world without war, but we are probably centuries away from that reality.  Instead, what we have is weapons of mass destruction, and when all the big boys have them, it means politicians are sure to keep their dicks in their pants rather than risk literally everything.  

 

Besides, what we spend annually on our nuclear fleet is absolute pittance to what the government spends elsewhere, and as somebody pointed out, if we were to ditch them, we'd only have to re-arm with larger fleets of jets, ships and tanks to make up for our significantly weaker deterrent anyway.

 

In a world that sees regimes like Russia, North Korea, an increasingly unstable Pakistan and soon Iran possess these weapons, I feel it would be absolutely bonkers to rid ourselves of arguably our biggest bargaining chip.

 

I wrote this a while ago...think it still applies as a reply here.

 

"I'm not advocating that the entire Western world gives up its nukes (the NK's or Iran - who don't have any and won't for a long time - won't give up theirs), I'm saying that our deterrent is too big and too expensive. And we're always going to be aligned with a nuclear power anyway, so why do we need such a large amount of missiles? What exactly are we deterring against? 

 

At the present time if someone launched a nuke at the UK they'd probably launch at the US too and the US would respond in kind. Even if they just launched at us and didn't launch at the US as well the US would be treaty-bound to respond on our behalf (if we had no nukes). And if in the future we have some kind of falling out with the US and lost that treaty (not that I think that'll happen), we'd either align ourselves with another nuclear power or assert total neutrality. And if that happened - again if someone was launching at the UK, they'd be launching at other places too and everyone would be screwed.

 

I think a massive nuclear deterrent in this country is a massive anachronistic waste of money in this day and age because both the threat of widespread nuclear war is really really small, and if it does break out everyone is going to get involved and whether we have nukes or not isn't going to matter to the survivors of the resultant holocaust.

 

The only reason I can think of for keeping it is the research and military jobs it sustains."

[johnny the fox]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKdknYaSHgE  In the first 90 seconds Mama Cass sums it all up ...whatever happens...

[Guest MattP]

So one SNP MP already outed on the Ashley Madison hack

 

What a shame it wasn't big Al or Nicola.

[Wymsey]

Alex will always stay, unfortunately.