The Politics Thread

[Rincewind]

I am and will continue to be a Green party member; this idea is about challenging policies Corbyn is against at a community level regardless of political affiliation (I expect to avoid alienating prospective Labour voters in the Green party and SNP).

Its something like that. Cameron had the Big Society but it  has failed because it was not big. This idea involves smaller community  groups. It could be people that volunteer as care workers or with sports like weekly football sessions with kids that would not normally have the chance.  The idea is to connect people and share ideas to make life better. Whether it will be a success I don;t know but is a step in the right direction.

I volunteer for the Real Junk Food Project. It would be great if one was set up in every major city. Not only does it save on food waste it may also feed a family struggling with finances and as one person said in a letter to our branch, 'it gave them a chance to go out as a family and meet other people in the community.'

[BlueSi13]

I think even Corbyn would have a smile at that then get on with the serious issues.

He even joked about the media saying that he would welcome an asteroid hitting earth and wiping mankind out. Shows how serious he takes the rubbish that is spouted about him.

 

Whoops!

 

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1255

[Captain...]

Just listening to the reaction to Corbyn's Trident comments, I think the Labour MPs are in such a flap because he actually gave a clear answer, rather than flip flopping around the issue so that they can change their mind later.

 

Refreshing to have an MP with a clear policy on something.

 

Personally I am strongly against Trident as I don't see any situation where it can be justifiably or morally used, we have the firepower with non nuclear weapons to destroy a city indiscriminately if we want (Dresden anyone), but without the devastating long lasting radiation sickness that poisons all life in the area.

 

That is ignoring the fact that we can only use Trident against other nuclear countries, 2 of which would wipe us off the map in seconds if we engaged in nuclear war, of the others France is the only threat in range and they are so close we would suffer badly from nuclear fall out.

 

The final point is, it is not a deterrent, it didn't stop any of the terrorist attacks in the UK, USA or France, it will not stop another country launching a nuclear missile at us, whereas not having nuclear weapons will, all nuclear powers, except North Korea have agreed that they would never use a nuclear weapon against a non nuclear power.

 

The astronomical cost of maintaining Trident could be used to defend the country against the kind of threats that we will likely face, and not to patrol the seas with an impotent force in what is little more than a dick swinging contest.

[BlueSi13]

I think it's a pretty crucial part of the development of the party.

 

I really don't see how Labour can support a nuclear deterrent whilst also campaigning for it's leader to become Prime Minister who openly says he would never press the button anyway whatever the situation. If Labour does come to a consensus they do want Britain to be a nuclear power I don't see how he could continue in his job.

 

Unless the nuclear alternative is coming out of Diane Abbott's arse, which would certainly make me think twice about engaging in warfare.

 

 

I think that map pretty much sums up why Corbyn will never be elected. I know it's early days but eleven groups set up, six of which are in London and then four others in Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham and Nottingham.

 

Are you setting up a Leicester branch Ken? We could do a FT debate night to kick it off in the King's Head.

 

When I heard about this I immediately thought 'has he begun writing his own resignation letter?'.  

 

For all the talk about party members debating and deciding policy, turns out it will just end up being Jeremy Corbyn throwing his toys out the pram, stomping his feet, crossing his arms, frowning & shaking his head saying 'I refuse to do it', if those debates and policies end up going against his 'personal beliefs'.  The guy isn't a leader of her Majesty's opposition, he's a low-level protestor at absolute best.  The sooner Labour end this crazy affair the better it will be for them because they truly risk oblivion if this continues for five years.

 

I swear Ed Miliband will go down as an absolute political leviathan compared to this abject lightweight.

[BlueSi13]

 

Just listening to the reaction to Corbyn's Trident comments, I think the Labour MPs are in such a flap because he actually gave a clear answer, rather than flip flopping around the issue so that they can change their mind later.

 

Refreshing to have an MP with a clear policy on something.

 

Personally I am strongly against Trident as I don't see any situation where it can be justifiably or morally used, we have the firepower with non nuclear weapons to destroy a city indiscriminately if we want (Dresden anyone), but without the devastating long lasting radiation sickness that poisons all life in the area.

 

That is ignoring the fact that we can only use Trident against other nuclear countries, 2 of which would wipe us off the map in seconds if we engaged in nuclear war, of the others France is the only threat in range and they are so close we would suffer badly from nuclear fall out.

 

The final point is, it is not a deterrent, it didn't stop any of the terrorist attacks in the UK, USA or France, it will not stop another country launching a nuclear missile at us, whereas not having nuclear weapons will, all nuclear powers, except North Korea have agreed that they would never use a nuclear weapon against a non nuclear power.

 

The astronomical cost of maintaining Trident could be used to defend the country against the kind of threats that we will likely face, and not to patrol the seas with an impotent force in what is little more than a dick swinging contest.

 

 

Sigh.  Without writing a long-arsed reply, as I've mentioned here before, you do realise nuclear weapons are the sole reason the world didn't erupt into WW3, or WW4 or WW5?  They have delivered the longest period of global peace between industrialised nations in history. 

 

As for 'astronomical cost', compared to what the government spends on other departments, our nuclear deterrent is absolute pittance.

[BlueSi13]

 

Just listening to the reaction to Corbyn's Trident comments, I think the Labour MPs are in such a flap because he actually gave a clear answer, rather than flip flopping around the issue so that they can change their mind later.

 

Refreshing to have an MP with a clear policy on something.

 

Personally I am strongly against Trident as I don't see any situation where it can be justifiably or morally used, we have the firepower with non nuclear weapons to destroy a city indiscriminately if we want (Dresden anyone), but without the devastating long lasting radiation sickness that poisons all life in the area.

 

That is ignoring the fact that we can only use Trident against other nuclear countries, 2 of which would wipe us off the map in seconds if we engaged in nuclear war, of the others France is the only threat in range and they are so close we would suffer badly from nuclear fall out.

 

The final point is, it is not a deterrent, it didn't stop any of the terrorist attacks in the UK, USA or France, it will not stop another country launching a nuclear missile at us, whereas not having nuclear weapons will, all nuclear powers, except North Korea have agreed that they would never use a nuclear weapon against a non nuclear power.

 

The astronomical cost of maintaining Trident could be used to defend the country against the kind of threats that we will likely face, and not to patrol the seas with an impotent force in what is little more than a dick swinging contest.

 

 

Sorry to add one more thing, but there is only once instance of an official nuclear country giving up it's deterrent.  That country was given secure assurances regarding it's independence and borders by the USA, UK & Russia upon it's nuclear disarmament.  That country was Ukraine.

[bmt]

Its something like that. Cameron had the Big Society but it  has failed because it was not big. This idea involves smaller community  groups. It could be people that volunteer as care workers or with sports like weekly football sessions with kids that would not normally have the chance.  The idea is to connect people and share ideas to make life better. Whether it will be a success I don;t know but is a step in the right direction.

I volunteer for the Real Junk Food Project. It would be great if one was set up in every major city. Not only does it save on food waste it may also feed a family struggling with finances and as one person said in a letter to our branch, 'it gave them a chance to go out as a family and meet other people in the community.'

 

Exactly, I strongly believe that grassroots activism and action has a huge place in the future of our country if progressive parties are to stand a chance against conservatism. We have one of those in Leeds too, I know it's really successful here!

[bmt]

Sigh.  Without writing a long-arsed reply, as I've mentioned here before, you do realise nuclear weapons are the sole reason the world didn't erupt into WW3, or WW4 or WW5?  They have delivered the longest period of global peace between industrialised nations in history. 

 

As for 'astronomical cost', compared to what the government spends on other departments, our nuclear deterrent is absolute pittance.

 

That is completely unprovable conjecture, surely.

[Guest MattP]

Whoops!

 

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1255

 

Oh my god They actually did this? I thought Corbyn was making a joke about something the press had said to him.

 

That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.

 

These two actually want the people to let them run the United Kingdom, fcuk me.

[Guest MattP]

 

Just listening to the reaction to Corbyn's Trident comments, I think the Labour MPs are in such a flap because he actually gave a clear answer, rather than flip flopping around the issue so that they can change their mind later.

 

Refreshing to have an MP with a clear policy on something.

 

Personally I am strongly against Trident as I don't see any situation where it can be justifiably or morally used, we have the firepower with non nuclear weapons to destroy a city indiscriminately if we want (Dresden anyone), but without the devastating long lasting radiation sickness that poisons all life in the area.

 

That is ignoring the fact that we can only use Trident against other nuclear countries, 2 of which would wipe us off the map in seconds if we engaged in nuclear war, of the others France is the only threat in range and they are so close we would suffer badly from nuclear fall out.

 

The final point is, it is not a deterrent, it didn't stop any of the terrorist attacks in the UK, USA or France, it will not stop another country launching a nuclear missile at us, whereas not having nuclear weapons will, all nuclear powers, except North Korea have agreed that they would never use a nuclear weapon against a non nuclear power.

 

The astronomical cost of maintaining Trident could be used to defend the country against the kind of threats that we will likely face, and not to patrol the seas with an impotent force in what is little more than a dick swinging contest.

 

I'm presuming the top bit here is tongue in cheek, he's barely gave a solid answer to anything he's been asked in the last two weeks, he keeps saying we will have a debate to everything, I'd like someone to explain to me how the Labour party as a whole can support Britain being a nuclear power and then ask us to elect as leader a man who says that under no circumstance would he press the button, it doesn't make any sense and defeats the whole point of having them.

 

You've completely missed the point of it though, it isn't there to deter terrorism, it's there to deter nation states, some nation states have been mental in the past, some are mental now and more will be mental in the future, ever since the US dropped the nuclear bomb we haven't had a major global conflict. I think it's fair to say it has acted as a deterrant given in that time we went through the cold war.

 

I like everyone else would like to see a nuclear free World but I can't actually think of a worse time than now to drop our own with the amount of instability this place is currently in.

 

Though as I've said before, it's being renewed, the country voted for that in the General Election so Labour getting in a mess over it really is daft.

 

When I heard about this I immediately thought 'has he begun writing his own resignation letter?'.  

 

For all the talk about party members debating and deciding policy, turns out it will just end up being Jeremy Corbyn throwing his toys out the pram, stomping his feet, crossing his arms, frowning & shaking his head saying 'I refuse to do it', if those debates and policies end up going against his 'personal beliefs'.  The guy isn't a leader of her Majesty's opposition, he's a low-level protestor at absolute best.  The sooner Labour end this crazy affair the better it will be for them because they truly risk oblivion if this continues for five years.

 

I swear Ed Miliband will go down as an absolute political leviathan compared to this abject lightweight.

 

It's so strange, everything is a debate, everything is a new politics, we've got Jeremy Corbyn saying he'll never press the button but we'll have a debate, we've got a defence secretary then saying his comments are unhelpful, then Diane Abbott saying her comments are unhelpful then Angela Eagle saying she thinks the whole debate is unhelpful. This is a major political party we are talking about, it's as big as shambles as I've seen and this lot are supposed to be the main opposition.

 

I think the whole "debates" thing about policy is a front, give Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott etc time to bed in and then the purge will start of all those who will try to stifle the policies they want, Corbyn hasn't gone through all this shit to sit there at the head of a party who wants to be in NATO, the European Union, have nuclear weapons etc

[BlueSi13]

That is completely unprovable conjecture, surely.

 

I take it you've never heard of something called the Cold War then?  But if you have, have you ever wondered why it never became hot?

[Captain...]

Sigh.  Without writing a long-arsed reply, as I've mentioned here before, you do realise nuclear weapons are the sole reason the world didn't erupt into WW3, or WW4 or WW5?  They have delivered the longest period of global peace between industrialised nations in history. 

 

As for 'astronomical cost', compared to what the government spends on other departments, our nuclear deterrent is absolute pittance.

 

And it would have been one of the main causes of it too, if Russia didn't develop nuclear technology there wouldn't have been an escalated cold war and the very near destruction of the whole the planet.

 

An absolute pittance? £17-24bn (conservative government estimates) That is the deficit, would you rather have no deficit or a nuclear deterrent we will never use?

 

Re: Ukraine, that is not going to happen to us, we don't have disputed territory in the same way.

 

I am not saying that the whole world should give them up (although it would be nice) but as a small nation with a comparative handful of nukes we are irrelevant and barely even a pawn in the US Russia power game. If we and France followed through with our pledge to disarm then it would be a great statement and a significant step towards removing these and give us a platform to approach other nuclear powers, specifically India and Pakistan to follow suit.

[Webbo]

 

 

I am not saying that the whole world should give them up (although it would be nice) but as a small nation with a comparative handful of nukes we are irrelevant and barely even a pawn in the US Russia power game. If we and France followed through with our pledge to disarm then it would be a great statement and a significant step towards removing these and give us a platform to approach other nuclear powers, specifically India and Pakistan to follow suit.

That'd happen.

[Guest MattP]

And it would have been one of the main causes of it too, if Russia didn't develop nuclear technology there wouldn't have been an escalated cold war and the very near destruction of the whole the planet.

 

An absolute pittance? £17-24bn (conservative government estimates) That is the deficit, would you rather have no deficit or a nuclear deterrent we will never use?

 

The deficit is about 80 billion last time I checked in May.

 

Trident is 60billion over 30 years isn't it? It's not actually that much when you think about it.

[Captain...]

I'm presuming the top bit here is tongue in cheek, he's barely gave a solid answer to anything he's been asked in the last two weeks, he keeps saying we will have a debate to everything, I'd like someone to explain to me how the Labour party as a whole can support Britain being a nuclear power and then ask us to elect as leader a man who says that under no circumstance would he press the button, it doesn't make any sense and defeats the whole point of having them.

 

You've completely missed the point of it though, it isn't there to deter terrorism, it's there to deter nation states, some nation states have been mental in the past, some are mental now and more will be mental in the future, ever since the US dropped the nuclear bomb we haven't had a major global conflict. I think it's fair to say it has acted as a deterrant given in that time we went through the cold war.

 

I like everyone else would like to see a nuclear free World but I can't actually think of a worse time than now to drop our own with the amount of instability this place is currently in.

 

Though as I've said before, it's being renewed, the country voted for that in the General Election so Labour getting in a mess over it really is daft.

 

It's not tongue in cheek, every time he tries to say something definite he gets reigned in and is clearly being told to not give any definite policies until it can be discussed, not a bad thing, but as soon as he says something definite they all go in a flap because they are too scared about being held to account over something rather than have a clear identity.

 

The country didn't vote for Trident to be renewed they voted for the 2 main parties that happened to have that as part of their manifesto, but that doesn't reflect the views of the country, or do you think we don't need a referendum on Europe as only 12% voted for an anti EU party?

 

Corbyn won the leadership with clear views such as not renewing Trident, so by your logic they should be opposed to Trident, but that is not how politics works, what would be good is to see a credible opposition that really force the Tories to justify their decision to renew it, and if they can get a huge amount of public support and maybe even force a referendum or possibly even defeat them in the commons, that would be huge and as a policy to pin their hat on for a couple of years it is not a bad one.

 

What I don't want from the opposition, is for them to spend five years posturing and not providing a decent opposition like they did last time.

[Captain...]

The deficit is about 80 billion last time I checked in May.

 

Trident is 60billion over 30 years isn't it? It's not actually that much when you think about it.

 

Ooops, looked at the wrong figure for deficit, the one off cost of replacing it is estimated at £17-24bn, then the running costs are around £2bn a year (the CND estimates it at £100bn over 40 years, but I didn't think that figure would be taken seriously on here). 

 

So maybe it wouldn't wipe out the deficit with a saving of £24bn, but it would make a huge difference.

[purpleronnie]

I do find it amusing that no Tories on here can write anything positive about Labour and vice versa.  Am I alone in agreeing with some Tory policy despite voting labour?  I just find it odd that voters can't bring themselves to disagree with their own parties policies or their parties MP's, it's like their political persuasion is akin to the football team they follow the blinkers go on and criticism is only given to their rivals.  Of course the ideologies of each political parties are different so I don't expect a lot of praise for the opposing parties but I would except some....or maybe I'm just weird.

[Webbo]

I do find it amusing that no Tories on here can write anything positive about Labour and vice versa. 

Why would you? We only talk about the things we disagree about.

[purpleronnie]

Why would you? We only talk about the things we disagree about.

 I've replied to tory policy that I agree with despite being a labour voter.

[Webbo]

 I've replied to tory policy that I agree with despite being a labour voter.

Something that we all agree on would have to be non controversial. The subject just wouldn't arise.

[Buce]

Ooops, looked at the wrong figure for deficit, the one off cost of replacing it is estimated at £17-24bn, then the running costs are around £20bn a year (the CND estimates it at £100bn over 40 years, but I didn't think that figure would be taken seriously on here).

So maybe it wouldn't wipe out the deficit with a saving of £24bn, but it would make a huge difference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32236184

[bmt]

I do find it amusing that no Tories on here can write anything positive about Labour and vice versa.  Am I alone in agreeing with some Tory policy despite voting labour?  I just find it odd that voters can't bring themselves to disagree with their own parties policies or their parties MP's, it's like their political persuasion is akin to the football team they follow the blinkers go on and criticism is only given to their rivals.  Of course the ideologies of each political parties are different so I don't expect a lot of praise for the opposing parties but I would except some....or maybe I'm just weird.

 

Even I have admitted when Tories get something right and I am vehemently anti Tory.

[Captain...]

Last time I fully agreed with a tory policy they did a bloody U-turn.

[Izzy]

 

Trident is 60billion over 30 years isn't it? It's not actually that much when you think about it.

Really? I've thought about it like you said, and the worlds gone mad if we think we can afford to piss away 2 BILLION pounds a year on something we'll never use. Imagine how many houses, hospitals and schools 2 BILLION a year could build. And I've never voted Labour in my life.

[bmt]

I take it you've never heard of something called the Cold War then?  But if you have, have you ever wondered why it never became hot?

 

Of course I know about the Cold War, there's no need to be sarcastic. In my opinion it was massively exacerbated by the presence of nuclear weapons. The world nearly ended, twice! There are plenty of other reasons it never became hot but you said, and I quote, "the sole reason the world didn't erupt into WW3, WW4 and WW5". Even a historian who had spent a lifes work trying to prove how beneficial nuclear weapons were in the conflict (which I can only assume you are not) wouldn't make that claim.

 

1000 posts, finally first team!