Next Leader of the Opposition

[Guest MattP]

He will, filthy Nicola having a "shy Tory" would have been something special though.

[Guest Bilo]

So one SNP MP already outed on the Ashley Madison hack

 

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

 

Superb!

 

Let's be honest though, you could have had Big Al lapping at Cameron's fart box under Thatcher's statue and he'd still get the 45% queuing up to cup his balls.

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Really mustn't laugh at Labour internally ripping itself apart.....oh go on then 

[Guest MattP]

lol Did you see that poll this week? Only 26% of Scots think the SNP are doing a good job yet 60% intend to vote for them next year, how do you even get into that? Nationalism has no logic does it?

 

I heard it in my local tonight and thought of you, playing petangue and one of the other team said during a conversation, "there are all Tories now anyway Labour" - had a chuckle to myself before having a convo with him over dinner and he said he voted Green in May.

 

If you don't stop this it's actually going to become one of those those untruths that just becomes the norm along the lines of things like "things even themselves out" - the legacy of Ed Miliband could be this, no wonder he's fcuked off to Australia until it's over.

[Guest MattP]

Really mustn't laugh at Labour internally ripping itself apart.....oh go on then 

 

Cameron is one month away from lighting a cohiba and sitting crossed legged for 5 years doing nothing.

 

He won't even have to shout "Michael Foot" at the box during PMQ's, the Labour backbenchers will do it for him

[Guest Bilo]

lol Did you see that poll this week? Only 26% of Scots think the SNP are doing a good job yet 60% intend to vote for them next year, how do you even get into that? Nationalism has no logic does it?

 

I heard it in my local tonight and thought of you, playing petangue and one of the other team said during a conversation, "there are all Tories now anyway Labour" - had a chuckle to myself before having a convo with him over dinner and he said he voted Green in May.

 

If you don't stop this it's actually going to become one of those those untruths that just becomes the norm along the lines of things like "things even themselves out" - the legacy of Ed Miliband could be this, no wonder he's fcuked off to Australia until it's over.

 

I've said it before and I've said it again, the SNP are a bunch of flip-flopping populists who'll go with anything to get elected. Tartan Tories in the 80s, fighters against austerity today and goodness knows what in 2020. The problem is that nationalist voters tend not to adhere to political logic and are willfully blind to these facts, it's a long road back to open peoples' minds again.

 

We can only stop the kind of talk you've heard tonight if we unify, and that looks as far off as a General Election win. That's why we BADLY need to unify under the new leader, whoever it is, and kill the lie dead. Unfortunately, the infighting and slander has taken priority for some people, and the one leadership candidate I do feel could unite both the PLP and the grass roots has become the underdog in this fight. 

 

I think Miliband had good intentions in going for OMOV rather than the electoral college system, but it's been handled appallingly. The only thing I hope is that when the next leadership election comes along (possibly in 12-18 months if we're realistic), that the £3 voter idea is scrapped and the vote becomes members only. I'm almost tempted to say that I'd restrict it further by saying that you have to have been a member for a minimum of six months to vote to avoid entryism and bandwagon jumpers, but it'd go down badly with the grass roots. An awful lot of £3 voters will bugger off when they get bored and the next internet trend comes along, whereas people prepared to sign up for actual membership are more likely to stick around. 

[Guest Bilo]

Cameron is one month away from lighting a cohiba and sitting crossed legged for 5 years doing nothing.

 

He won't even have to shout "Michael Foot" at the box during PMQ's, the Labour backbenchers will do it for him

 

My hope is that if Corbyn is elected and fairly quickly removed, which is a likely scenario, that the PLP are rather more picky with who they put forward. There was a fairly large grassroots shift towards Jarvis before he ruled himself out, and if he feels more ready to stand in 18 months owing to what would be the parlous state of the party, then I think Cameron would have a little more on his plate.

 

It's a shame that some seem prepared to take the party to its lowest ebb before it can actually rise again though.

[BoneDog]

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.

 

Spot on. Britain has way too much leverage in lots of fields to need more nukes. Plus, if push came to shove, we're in NATO so have mutual defence treaties with some big dogs.

[davieG]

A pensioner has accused Labour of "ageism" after his application to vote in the party's leadership election was rejected because he had paid by cheque.

Retired bricklayer David Arloff and two friends sent the party cheques for £3 to become registered supporters.

But the cheques were returned with a letter explaining they could only pay online by credit or debit card.

Mr Arloff said the men "haven't got computers and we are not au fait with the internet".

The 72-year-old, from Stevenage, in Hertfordshire, said: "We are being denied the right to partake in this vote because we are not young and up and coming. It is ageism.

"There are people bragging that they are Conservatives and they are getting two or three votes, but genuine left-wing people like us are being denied the the opportunity.

"I am not a member of the London Federation of Anarchists or the Socialist Workers Party.

"I am just a former Labour Party member who wants to have a say."

Registration deadline

He added: "There must be hundreds of people like us. I bet if I sent a cheque for a £100 as a donation, they wouldn't send it back."

The Labour Party does accept cheques from people who want to be full members, which costs £46.50 a year.

But a party spokeswoman said they did not accept cheques from people wanting to become registered supporters, because it was a new process.

She added: "We want the widest number of supporters to have their say in Labour's leadership contest.

"To apply for a ballot paper through the new registered supporters scheme there were a number of ways supporters could have donated their £3 including, using a debit or credit card to pay over the telephone, online or by completing and returning a paper form or via text message.

"Out of the 120,000 people who applied to be a register supporter, less than 50 attempted to do so via cheque."

Mr Arloff and his friends, aged 78 and 80, had sent their cheques on 5 August, but the letter from the party had arrived after Friday, 15 August's registration deadline, he told BBC News, so even if they had wanted to pay over the telephone they would not have been able to.

Mr Arloff said he had left the Labour Party during the Blair years and had voted Conservative at this year's general election to send the party a message.

He been planning to vote for the veteran left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership contest, he added.

 

So they're  not all bandwagoners

[BlueSi13]

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."

 

I really wouldn't be so sure if I were you.  It's not beyond the realms of complete fantasy that the UK would be nuked as a "warning" to the USA just as the USA nuked Japan as a warning to the Soviet Union in 1945.  

 

I'm sorry but as the worlds fifth largest economy, it would be completely preposterous to hinge our safety on hiding behind other people and the kindness of foreign taxpayers.  Besides if we were to scrap Trident and made that point to NATO, it would be completely reasonable for the USA or the French to demand that we pay a % for the upkeep of their nuclear arsenal anyway.

 

As a % of annual spending, they cost precious little, so I'd rather we had them and not need them, than need them and not have them.

[Sir Fynwy]

I really wouldn't be so sure if I were you.  It's not beyond the realms of complete fantasy that the UK would be nuked as a "warning" to the USA just as the USA nuked Japan as a warning to the Soviet Union in 1945.  

 

I'm sorry but as the worlds fifth largest economy, it would be completely preposterous to hinge our safety on hiding behind other people and the kindness of foreign taxpayers.  Besides if we were to scrap Trident and made that point to NATO, it would be completely reasonable for the USA or the French to demand that we pay a % for the upkeep of their nuclear arsenal anyway.

 

As a % of annual spending, they cost precious little, so I'd rather we had them and not need them, than need them and not have them.

That's a stupid statement since Japan and Germany do exactly that and are bigger economies than the UK, Nukes are just willy waving for nations.

 

Also read our rules for firing missiles and you'll see that even if we are hit as a first strike option it is highly unlikely our subs would return fire.  I'm glad you have £2b/year (as a very low estimate) to  chuck away but I'm not sure that the UK does.

[BlueSi13]

That's a stupid statement since Japan and Germany do exactly that and are bigger economies than the UK, Nukes are just willy waving for nations.

 

Also read our rules for firing missiles and you'll see that even if we are hit as a first strike option it is highly unlikely our subs would return fire.  I'm glad you have £2b/year (as a very low estimate) to  chuck away but I'm not sure that the UK does.

Japan and Germany were the defeated powers of World War 2, they'd have never been allowed the bomb even if they wanted it.  So instead both nations forged a path of fierce neutrality since that time (not that they had a choice), the UK never had that luxury.  However both are becoming increasingly nervous with Russia's actions not far from Germany, and China's increasingly assertive operations near Japan (indeed Japan just changed a law which stipulated their military forces can't fight abroad).  Both are now increasing defence spending quite rapidly.

 

If you really think the UK would be struck by a nuclear bomb and not retaliate then that's just silly quite frankly.  When nukes start being dropped, rules will no longer apply.

[Sir Fynwy]

Japan and Germany were the defeated powers of World War 2, they'd have never been allowed the bomb even if they wanted it.  So instead both nations forged a path of fierce neutrality since that time (not that they had a choice), the UK never had that luxury.  However both are becoming increasingly nervous with Russia's actions not far from Germany, and China's increasingly assertive operations near Japan (indeed Japan just changed a law which stipulated their military forces can't fight abroad).  Both are now increasing defence spending quite rapidly.

 

If you really think the UK would be struck by a nuclear bomb and not retaliate then that's just silly quite frankly.  When nukes start being dropped, rules will no longer apply.

If Russia attacked the UK with a nuclear weapon either the USA would retaliate in a far more effective way than our few missiles could and our sub will sit it out waiting to see what happens or the USA will decide to hold fire and the UK would be required to as well, you are deluded if you think that the UK has it's own nuclear weapons capability.

[leicsmac]

I really wouldn't be so sure if I were you. It's not beyond the realms of complete fantasy that the UK would be nuked as a "warning" to the USA just as the USA nuked Japan as a warning to the Soviet Union in 1945.

I'm sorry but as the worlds fifth largest economy, it would be completely preposterous to hinge our safety on hiding behind other people and the kindness of foreign taxpayers. Besides if we were to scrap Trident and made that point to NATO, it would be completely reasonable for the USA or the French to demand that we pay a % for the upkeep of their nuclear arsenal anyway.

As a % of annual spending, they cost precious little, so I'd rather we had them and not need them, than need them and not have them.

Fair enough, but my second point still stands. If one nuke flies, it's highly likely that all of them do, and everyone is screwed, nukes or no nukes.

[BlueSi13]

If Russia attacked the UK with a nuclear weapon either the USA would retaliate in a far more effective way than our few missiles could and our sub will sit it out waiting to see what happens or the USA will decide to hold fire and the UK would be required to as well, you are deluded if you think that the UK has it's own nuclear weapons capability.

 

I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree with you on all of this.  

 

We currently have four nuclear subs (at least one always on patrol 24/7) that each carries 16 missiles that have 3 warheads apiece, each one has 8x the power of the bomb that struck Hiroshima and can be fired from over 7,500 miles away from the target.  That is an absolutely fierce deterrent and perfectly adequate for 21st century.

 

If you seriously think the UK would sit and twiddle it's thumbs while it comes under nuclear assault then that's a bit daft.  Sure if the USA were to withdraw it's support from the British Trident programme then yes the shelf-life of the weapon would be reduced comprehensively (however the USA relies on a lot of British military technology through BAE systems, Babcock, Qinetiq, Rolls-Royce etc so they would also be effected) but the UK would need only a fraction of the time to deploy the required payload for effective retaliation.

[BlueSi13]

Fair enough, but my second point still stands. If one nuke flies, it's highly likely that all of them do, and everyone is screwed, nukes or no nukes.

 

Exactly, and the whole world knows it, hence why the major powers have refrained from conflict which is why we can spend our Saturday afternoons cheering on the Foxes rather than being stationed in a forward outpost just outside St Peterburg 

[Sir Fynwy]

I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree with you on all of this.  

 

We currently have four nuclear subs (at least one always on patrol 24/7) that each carries 16 missiles that have 3 warheads apiece, each one has 8x the power of the bomb that struck Hiroshima and can be fired from over 7,500 miles away from the target.  That is an absolutely fierce deterrent and perfectly adequate for 21st century.

 

If you seriously think the UK would sit and twiddle it's thumbs while it comes under nuclear assault then that's a bit daft.  Sure if the USA were to withdraw it's support from the British Trident programme then yes the shelf-life of the weapon would be reduced comprehensively (however the USA relies on a lot of British military technology through BAE systems, Babcock, Qinetiq, Rolls-Royce etc so they would also be effected) but the UK would need only a fraction of the time to deploy the required payload for effective retaliation.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this but I'd prefer to rely on first hand knowledge from a former MD at BAE Systems about our reaction than the idea that the UK wouldn't defer in the instance of a limited attack.

 

Also only 1 missile boat actually has active nuclear weapons loaded at any time, 3 boats with dummy missiles or in refit can't launch anything tactical.

[Guest MattP]

I really wouldn't be so sure if I were you.  It's not beyond the realms of complete fantasy that the UK would be nuked as a "warning" to the USA just as the USA nuked Japan as a warning to the Soviet Union in 1945.  

 

I'm sorry but as the worlds fifth largest economy, it would be completely preposterous to hinge our safety on hiding behind other people and the kindness of foreign taxpayers.  Besides if we were to scrap Trident and made that point to NATO, it would be completely reasonable for the USA or the French to demand that we pay a % for the upkeep of their nuclear arsenal anyway.

 

As a % of annual spending, they cost precious little, so I'd rather we had them and not need them, than need them and not have them.

 

Spot on, great post.

 

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this but I'd prefer to rely on first hand knowledge from a former MD at BAE Systems about our reaction than the idea that the UK wouldn't defer in the instance of a limited attack.

 

Also only 1 missile boat actually has active nuclear weapons loaded at any time, 3 boats with dummy missiles or in refit can't launch anything tactical.

 

PM me the name of the guy you know, I know someone on the board of BAE and this doesn't tally up at all with what they have told me.

[leicsmac]

Exactly, and the whole world knows it, hence why the major powers have refrained from conflict which is why we can spend our Saturday afternoons cheering on the Foxes rather than being stationed in a forward outpost just outside St Peterburg

Well then...if that's the case, why do we ourselves need nukes? Surely just two major powers with opposing ideologies would be enough to maintain that equilibrium without us getting involved?

[Guest MattP]

My hope is that if Corbyn is elected and fairly quickly removed, which is a likely scenario, that the PLP are rather more picky with who they put forward. There was a fairly large grassroots shift towards Jarvis before he ruled himself out, and if he feels more ready to stand in 18 months owing to what would be the parlous state of the party, then I think Cameron would have a little more on his plate.

 

It's a shame that some seem prepared to take the party to its lowest ebb before it can actually rise again though.

 

I don't see Jarvis, Hunt or Umanna being interested that early. the reason they withdrew this time is because they probably see 2020 as a losing election and they must be far too shrewd to clean up the mess than Corbyn would leave to take the job straight away.

 

In fact under a Corbyn leadership I can see Tristram and Liz etc being booted out the party full stop.

 

Cameron will be delighted with current events, in places like Liverpool, North London, South Wales and the North East I think Labour's vote might increase but they are seats the Tories can't win anyway, it's places like Bury, Plymouth, Nuneaton and Watford where elections are won and lost and they'll be more blue than a smurf after Jezza has had his way with them.

[Rincewind]

[Guest MattP]

Number crunching.

Elections won by Tony Blair - 3.

Elections won by hard left candidates - 0.

[Guest Bilo]

I don't see Jarvis, Hunt or Umanna being interested that early. the reason they withdrew this time is because they probably see 2020 as a losing election and they must be far too shrewd to clean up the mess than Corbyn would leave to take the job straight away.

 

In fact under a Corbyn leadership I can see Tristram and Liz etc being booted out the party full stop.

 

Cameron will be delighted with current events, in places like Liverpool, North London, South Wales and the North East I think Labour's vote might increase but they are seats the Tories can't win anyway, it's places like Bury, Plymouth, Nuneaton and Watford where elections are won and lost and they'll be more blue than a smurf after Jezza has had his way with them.

 

I don't think Umunna is leadership material myself. He looks good on camera, says the right things but lacks a bit of gravitas for me. It all depends on their viewpoint really, loyalty to the party and the willingness to drag it up from what would be its lowest ebb or passing on the job to a more experienced pair of hands to begin repairs, expecting to lose in 2020, and then one of the up-and-coming stars take over immediately after with a view to winning in 2025.

 

Tristram and Liz etc being booted out would be disastrous - their faction is small but powerful, and I expect that any attempt to boot people within that faction out of the party would lead to all out civil war, one that I can't see Corbyn surviving. 

 

I take your point on the venues as well - when Corbyn is filling halls in places like you've mentioned, we can really sit up and take notice. There's not much point in making what is already an ultra-safe Labour seat a little safer still.

[Guest Bilo]

 

Worth pointing out that around three quarters of that figure is Registered and Affiliated Supporters, who will have nothing to do with the party after September 10th unless they take on full membership.

[Guest MattP]

Worth pointing out one of them is me.