Ship of Fools: UK Labour Party (Under Corbyn)

Thread: UK Labour Party (Under Corbyn) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029623

Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :

The Labour Party. Broadly speaking, there are only two possibilities... 1) Due to the Corbynites, it's chances of reaching out again to voters who are not 'natural' Labour people is severely weakened. Those who appeal to the wider will of the party are going against the wider will of the country (an appeal led by 'entryists'). .. 2) Corbyn and Co. represent a marked shift in political activism in this country, and an increasing appetite for a real alternative to the post-Thatcher/post-Blair 'settlement'. The new intake into party membership should be properly welcomed and encouraged; and the parliamentary party must be prepared to toe a consistent line. ... I remain 'agnostic' on this. Your thoughts ??

Posted by Wild Organist (# 12631) on :

But then, what about those who were alienated by the rapid shift to the right that Blair imposed?

Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on :

I'm not a Labour Party supporter and never have been.

However I have been through his policies as stated and I would have to say that I completely agree with 90% of them. It's almost frightening. I wish he were a bit more robust about global warming. I see his brother is a denier which is worrying.

All a bit refreshing after Blair who has turned out more capitalist than any Tory ever was.

The way the national press is gunning for him is a disgrace in my opinion.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I wonder if Corbyn has ever watched this?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by toadstrike:
I'm not a Labour Party supporter and never have been.

However I have been through his policies as stated and I would have to say that I completely agree with 90% of them. It's almost frightening. I wish he were a bit more robust about global warming. I see his brother is a denier which is worrying.

All a bit refreshing after Blair who has turned out more capitalist than any Tory ever was.

The way the national press is gunning for him is a disgrace in my opinion.

The national press was no fan of Blair either and certainly not Brown. Few who treat the press seriously, except possibly for sports reporting, would ever consider voting Labour, whatever its policies, as the papers are with rare exceptions an integral part of the Tory party propaganda machine.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

There is a simple answer to those who say that the country will never vote for a left-wing Labour party: it wasn't that keen to vote for a right-wing one either in 2010, and arguably it's because Ed Miliband flunked the opportunity to be radical enough in 2015 that he lost again.
Who knows? Once Corbyn can manage to get his message across despite the conspiracies of the media (and the BBC is one of the worst offenders) people might begin to see what he can offer. He didn't want to do the job and he is still on a learning curve as they say, but give him a chance.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The national press was no fan of Blair either and certainly not Brown. Few who treat the press seriously, except possibly for sports reporting, would ever consider voting Labour, whatever its policies, as the papers are with rare exceptions an integral part of the Tory party propaganda machine.

Actually, for the most part the papers loved Blair, son of Thatcher that he is. Look at who the papers endorsed at each general election. The Times, Financial Times and Sun all backed Blair even in 2005.

Posted by Divine Outlaw (# 2252) on :

I hope for (2), agreeing with Angloid, but it's too early to say.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I can't see what the fuss is. Corbyn's policies seem to me to be the typical post war consensus in which I grew up - and which gave me as a working class child, with a serious childhood illness, the benefits of a national health service (could have died/been disabled otherwise) and a secondary education and grant-funded tertiary education. While the unions I joined during my working life were of the mildest, I appreciated (the more so from my experience in ununionised workplaces) the work they did in securing pay and conditions. Even when they couldn't protect me from redundancy (although getting me pretty decent terms) the benefit system I landed on was sufficiently humane to allow me to redirect and get back into employment that was actually suitable and not just some miserable McJob.

I have seen all the things I benefitted from in terms of health, education and employment degraded or destroyed and I don't think they oughter been. We need to refight the battles for justice and equality.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

I first heard of Corbyn in the eighties in the aftermath of the Brighton bomb.

The IRA did law abiding Irish people in Britain no favours, cloaking us in suspicion. Corbyn went out of his way to "understand" Sinn Féin while ignoring politicians that the rest of us supported.

I had no time for him then, and I have no time for him now.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I first heard of Corbyn in the eighties in the aftermath of the Brighton bomb.

The IRA did law abiding Irish people in Britain no favours, cloaking us in suspicion. Corbyn went out of his way to "understand" Sinn Féin while ignoring politicians that the rest of us supported.

I had no time for him then, and I have no time for him now.

Do you not think that it was understanding and talking to Sinn Fein that ultimately brought about the Good Friday agreement? Corbyn was just doing in public what the government was doing in private.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wild Organist:
But then, what about those who were alienated by the rapid shift to the right that Blair imposed?

Unless they stopped voting during that era or moved to other parties (?? where?), is this likely to have much effect on elections? And will it counterbalance floating voters who might drift away from a Corbynesque Labour Party?

To ask the question another way, were the Three Quid Voters, people who normally voted Labour but had not previously signed up to the party, or were they people who previously did not vote or previously voted for something else?

[ 10. January 2016, 07:53: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

If he gets elected as PM - it will be a major sea change because the newspapers will be seen to have lost their power as a "conservative" propaganda machine. I have to put that in "" because TonyB was supported by the papers because he supported the status quo with "big business". I see a lot of younger people much more media-savvy and able to smell a half truth.

Politics has gradually sunk into playing a bigger and bigger con/spin game, telling the public what they want to know and then doing something completely different. Corbyn is refreshingly honest, regardless of what you think of his policies - and most of which as has been noted above - make sense.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

To ask the question another way, were the Three Quid Voters, people who normally voted Labour but had not previously signed up to the party, or were they people who previously did not vote or previously voted for something else?

I can only speak for myself, and a few close friends and family members, but I voted Green, Green and SNP at the last 3 general elections. O paid my £3 to vote for Corbyn and have now joined the Labour Party and they'll get my vote and my money so long as Corbyn or someone like him is leader. 2 other members of my family joined in much the same way, and a lot of my friends, previously Greens or lib dems, have been singing the praises of their recently elected Corbynite MP. A lot of people abandoned Labour because of Blair, and Miliband brought some of them back but not nearly as many as Corbyn.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

The behaviour in the plp that is pissing me off, is mps writing in the tabloids or social media or giving interviews in which they are extremely rude about Corbyn personally. Then when called on it they say, extremely disingenuously, "oh I thought this was the new politics".

The difference between Hilary Benn and Pat McFadden, is Hilary Benn put a case for what he believed in (with which I happen to disagree), whereas McFadden put a blatant caricature of Corbyn's views in a "wouldn't the prime minister agree with me manner". Then when he was removed from his position, he gave the press an immediate statement spun in a similar way.

There is dissent, and there is taking the piss. Alice McGovern may (or may not) have resigned from post the shadow chancellor was in the process of offering her because she didn't like what he said about the resiging junior ministers. What did she expect him to say ? We are distraught we'll never cope ?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I first heard of Corbyn in the eighties in the aftermath of the Brighton bomb.

The IRA did law abiding Irish people in Britain no favours, cloaking us in suspicion. Corbyn went out of his way to "understand" Sinn Féin while ignoring politicians that the rest of us supported.

I had no time for him then, and I have no time for him now.
Do you not think that it was understanding and talking to Sinn Fein that ultimately brought about the Good Friday agreement? Corbyn was just doing in public what the government was doing in private.

I find the comparison between what British governments felt they had to do and what a backbench London MP chose to do rather facile.

The British Government didn't invite Sinn Fein/IRA members to Parliament shortly after the IRA tried to murder the Prime Minister, unlike Corbyn. The British Government has never hesitated to condemn IRA terrorism, unlike Corbyn. The British Government maintained dialogue of various kinds with all sides in the dispute, unlike Corbyn.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I first heard of Corbyn in the eighties in the aftermath of the Brighton bomb.

The IRA did law abiding Irish people in Britain no favours, cloaking us in suspicion. Corbyn went out of his way to "understand" Sinn Féin while ignoring politicians that the rest of us supported.

I had no time for him then, and I have no time for him now.
Do you not think that it was understanding and talking to Sinn Fein that ultimately brought about the Good Friday agreement? Corbyn was just doing in public what the government was doing in private.

No. Corbyn and the left who supported the Troops Out movement in the eighties were marginal players. It was the electoral backlash from the Enniskillen bombing that nudged the Republicans away from the terror campaign. The contradiction between running a terror campaign and seeking electoral mandates became too glaring even for the IRA.

[ 10. January 2016, 13:10: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

A few years either side and Corbyn wouldn't have needed to invite Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness to Parliament. That 1992-97 period was the only time in the recent past when there wasn't at least one Sinn Fein MP, fully entitled to be there.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I like Corbyn and I like most of his ideas. It's strange that he is considered hard left, when he strikes me as a moderate Keynesian, or fits in (as someone said earlier), with the post-war welfare settlement.

He has a tough furrow, as many Labour MPs are hostile to him, and most of the media.

I think also that Labour are going through a kind of post-Blair nervous breakdown, as parties often do. It's striking that the Blairites and Brownites seem bankrupt of ideas - well, I suppose they support war and benefit cuts.

[ 10. January 2016, 14:11: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think also that Labour are going through a kind of post-Blair nervous breakdown, as parties often do. It's striking that the Blairites and Brownites seem bankrupt of ideas - well, I suppose they support war and benefit cuts.

I think this is entirely it, like you I agree with a lot of Corbyn's ideas and don't think that the Labour Party under him are as hard left as those in the media would portray him to be. That said, he didn't win because of the strength of his ideas, but primarily because of the weakness of the opposition who were literally bereft of ideas - apart from the idea that they would do exactly what the Tories did but slightly less so [*]

So essentially they posed as the 'moderate and electable' wing of the Labour Party - except that they seem to be incapable of winning elections anyway.

... and since then, them and their fellow travellers have been in the throes of an extended hissy fit which further threatens their electability.

[*] In many ways they remind me of Nicola Murray from the TV Series 'The Thick of It' "I won't attack the opposition because that's what they'll expect me to do, and THAT will surprise them"

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I like Corbyn and I like most of his ideas. It's strange that he is considered hard left, when he strikes me as a moderate Keynesian, or fits in (as someone said earlier), with the post-war welfare settlement.

He has a tough furrow, as many Labour MPs are hostile to him, and most of the media.

I think also that Labour are going through a kind of post-Blair nervous breakdown, as parties often do. It's striking that the Blairites and Brownites seem bankrupt of ideas - well, I suppose they support war and benefit cuts.

I don't think it strange, I think it frightening. The center is moving and that is not good. Not quite America, yet, but...

ETA:Xpost with chris stiles who said it better.

[ 10. January 2016, 14:21: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, it is frightening, as everything has moved to the right. The Blairites want to compete over benefit cuts.

I wonder if Corbyn is actually holding the Labour party together, and a Blairite or Brownite leader would produce absolute mayhem.

I think he is here for the duration, as no right-winger dare challenge him.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo (emphasis mine):
Politics has gradually sunk into playing a bigger and bigger con/spin game, telling the public what they want to know and then doing something completely different. Corbyn is refreshingly honest, regardless of what you think of his policies.

I have no dog in this fight, but it strikes me that the latter does not, sadly, make for a good politician.

Without sinking into "con/spin games", I think politics requires an ability to be "economical with the truth".

An example of the perils of "refreshing honesty" from this thread would be talking to the IRA and letting it be known, as opposed to doing it privately.

Some people seem to manage to do that kind of thing with a clear conscience, others less so.

[ 10. January 2016, 14:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am hoping that many people will be glad that they can now choose an alternative to centre right parties.

Hopefully before the Tories have privatised the NHS and ruined everything else.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think Labour people have been traumatized by Blair, and his predilection for spin, which seemed to go beyond this into lying.

Hence the aversion to old Blairites and Brownites, who are seen by some members as bankrupt.

But then the Tories went through this after Thatcher - wilderness years.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@Enoch

quote:
To ask the question another way, were the Three Quid Voters, people who normally voted Labour but had not previously signed up to the party, or were they people who previously did not vote or previously voted for something else?

This three quidder voted Lib Dem in '97 because New Labour left me with no option other than a protest vote. Shamefully, not noticing the economically rightward shift the Orange Bookers were taking the Lib Dems, I voted for them in 2010. Never again.

As has been noted, Corbyn's policies would have been mainstream in pre-Thatcher days, but thanks to the shift in the Overton Window, today look somewhat different.

It's funny, really, in the mid seventies I was an International Socialist/SWP member. Now, as a Corbyn supporter, I'm still apparently a hard left nutcase, even though my younger self would have seen my drift with age towards social democracy as a hideous betrayal of left wing values.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If anyone can object to Jeremy Corbyn for cosying up to Sinn Fein then they must surely have even greater objections to the current government sucking up to the Saudi regime. Or do bona fide governments have some sort of free pass when it comes to violence?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Silly man. Sinn Fein don't have oil.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If anyone can object to Jeremy Corbyn for cosying up to Sinn Fein then they must surely have even greater objections to the current government sucking up to the Saudi regime. Or do bona fide governments have some sort of free pass when it comes to violence?

I don't know about you but I had my fill of ignorance about Ireland and the Irish in London in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We weren't all sympathisers. The UK left could afford to be dilettantes. We had to live with the consequences of IRA actions.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If anyone can object to Jeremy Corbyn for cosying up to Sinn Fein then they must surely have even greater objections to the current government sucking up to the Saudi regime. Or do bona fide governments have some sort of free pass when it comes to violence?
I don't know about you but I had my fill of ignorance about Ireland and the Irish in London in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We weren't all sympathisers. The UK left could afford to be dilettantes. We had to live with the consequences of IRA actions.

Believe me I know about that! My brothers have a different surname, a very Irish surname as a consequence of an Irish father and they had a hard time of it too, especially one bro' who lived in Birmingham in the 1970's. Amazingly they supported Corbyn then and now. Suppose it shows that the Irish aren't homogenous.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If anyone can object to Jeremy Corbyn for cosying up to Sinn Fein then they must surely have even greater objections to the current government sucking up to the Saudi regime. Or do bona fide governments have some sort of free pass when it comes to violence?
I don't know about you but I had my fill of ignorance about Ireland and the Irish in London in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We weren't all sympathisers. The UK left could afford to be dilettantes. We had to live with the consequences of IRA actions.
Believe me I know about that! My brothers have a different surname, a very Irish surname as a consequence of an Irish father and they had a hard time of it too, especially one bro' who lived in Birmingham in the 1970's. Amazingly they supported Corbyn then and now. Suppose it shows that the Irish aren't homogenous.

Well of course we aren't homogenous.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The behaviour in the plp that is pissing me off, is mps writing in the tabloids or social media or giving interviews in which they are extremely rude about Corbyn personally. Then when called on it they say, extremely disingenuously, "oh I thought this was the new politics".

Indeed. Leader of the Opposition was never going to be an easy job for Mr Corbyn but the Blairite wing of the PLP seems to be going out of its way to make it harder for him.

I don't think we need to blame a Tory conspiracy for the media portrayal of Mr Corbyn as a loonie-leftiw - that image was provided for them free of charge by Mr Blair and Lord Mandelson. Mr Cameron doesn't have to lift a finger to make Mr Corbyn look like an out-of-touch ideologue: the Blairites have already provided the script.

Mr Corbyn was supposedly nominated in order to 'broaden the debate'. But the debate never actually happened, because instead of defending PFI and academies (or whatever the Blairites stand for these days), and thus allowing the PLP to articulate an understanding of the relationship between state and private enterprise, they devoted their entire media campaign to 'Don't vote for Corbyn, he's a nutter'.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

ad hom character assassination is usually a sign of desperation in the face of potential defeat. The principle of gaining power by any means "so we can then help the people" is somehow worrying.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If anyone can object to Jeremy Corbyn for cosying up to Sinn Fein then they must surely have even greater objections to the current government sucking up to the Saudi regime. Or do bona fide governments have some sort of free pass when it comes to violence?
I don't know about you but I had my fill of ignorance about Ireland and the Irish in London in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We weren't all sympathisers. The UK left could afford to be dilettantes. We had to live with the consequences of IRA actions.

But how does that answer the point about the Saudis?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Grokesx. Mid '70s I was Monday Club. If I could have seen myself now, joining the Labour Party to vote for Jeremy and Tom, then ... that would make a good novel.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Ronald Binge, I have empathy for you. I know Irish people who have expressed similar sentiments about the effect of the IRA's terror campaign.

Interesting to hear these views on Corbyn. In Australia, the nihilists are still in firm control of the Labor party, the 'we're slightly better than the conservatives' mob. When will we get a labor leader who will free our refugees in offshore detention?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Grokesx. Mid '70s I was Monday Club. If I could have seen myself now, joining the Labour Party to vote for Jeremy and Tom, then ... that would make a good novel.

I thought people got more conservative when they got older :-)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

My father has become more liberal as he's aged.
Mum cannot get lost.
(She leans so far to the left, she walks in circles.)

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Ronald Binge, I have empathy for you. I know Irish people who have expressed similar sentiments about the effect of the IRA's terror campaign.

Interesting to hear these views on Corbyn. In Australia, the nihilists are still in firm control of the Labor party, the 'we're slightly better than the conservatives' mob. When will we get a labor leader who will free our refugees in offshore detention?

Thank you. It's nice to have that recognised.

Angloid - I detest the Saudis. Let them defend their indefensible regime. Disliking Corbyn doesn't mean I hold a whole slate of other opinions as well.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I would be more comfortable with Mr Corbyn's and Mr McDonnell's IRA links if either of them could show how they actually contributed to the peace process.

I think it's true that a.) though the IRA were bastards, they nonetheless had genuine grievances which would have to be addressed for any realistic chance of peace, and b.) if the government could not defeat the IRA, it would be necessary to negotiate, and you can't negotiate with someone without in some sense legitimising them.

And a.) and b.), as lots of people have said, are more or less what the UK government ended up doing. (I think technically the IRA are still counted as terrorists, but releasing prisoners at the ceasefire is closer to what you do to PoWs rather than criminals.) But they seem to have done so without reference to Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell. Which makes Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell ineffectual at best.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would be more comfortable with Mr Corbyn's and Mr McDonnell's IRA links if either of them could show how they actually contributed to the peace process.

I think it's true that a.) though the IRA were bastards, they nonetheless had genuine grievances which would have to be addressed for any realistic chance of peace, and b.) if the government could not defeat the IRA, it would be necessary to negotiate, and you can't negotiate with someone without in some sense legitimising them.

And a.) and b.), as lots of people have said, are more or less what the UK government ended up doing. (I think technically the IRA are still counted as terrorists, but releasing prisoners at the ceasefire is closer to what you do to PoWs rather than criminals.) But they seem to have done so without reference to Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell. Which makes Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell ineffectual at best.

There's also the point that the govet were of course also talking to the UFF, UDA, UVF, etc - because you have to talk to all sides.

Corbyn and McDonnell seem to have had a bit of a love-in with the nationalists, but been rather short on the cosy chats with the loyalist paramilitaries. Working hard to be friends only with the side you agree with does not a peacemaker make...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Look, there's long been a significant element in the British left that instinctively identifies with groups of people that a lot of the rest of us regard as actually or potentially the nation's enemies, viz Burgess and Maclean. Supporting the Provos has been only a more recent and blatant example. Whether this hatred for that from which one was sprung is because of resentments towards parents and teachers from childhood, or something else, who can say? Either you yourself likewise instinctively identify with that or not. It depends on subterranean instincts that you probably aren't even in touch with yourself.

Why, might be a very interesting topic for another thread. There's some anecdotal evidence that similar phenomena operate in some other countries. What, though, is more relevant for this thread is whether association with those emotional mainsprings is more or less likely to see a party run by Corbyn and McDonnell win an election or whether they are largely irrelevant?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Why, might be a very interesting topic for another thread.

Possibly, although for me that nice Mr Orwell nailed the English intellectual left's loathing of England back in February 1941 in "The Lion and the Unicorn" and there's not a lot more to add from the intervening years!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If anyone can object to Jeremy Corbyn for cosying up to Sinn Fein then they must surely have even greater objections to the current government sucking up to the Saudi regime. Or do bona fide governments have some sort of free pass when it comes to violence?

How many British cities have the Saudi regime bombed?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Look, there's long been a significant element in the British left that instinctively identifies with groups of people that a lot of the rest of us regard as actually or potentially the nation's enemies

I think it's very much a generational thing, relating to the what was seen as the 'great struggle of ideology' in that particular time. People were too willing to give a pass to those they felt were fellow travellers.

In the same way that some people on the intellectual right associated at the time with people (Pinochet, the South African regime etc) who are now regarded as beyond the pale from a human rights point of view.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

I think what happens next depends a lot on what happens to all the people who got Corbyn where he is.

Under the old style Labour leadership elections he wouldn't have got anywhere. So, of all the three pound voters, how many have converted to full membership of the Labour party, and are continuing to play an active roll in their local constituency?

He has the problem now of the disagreements within the party. There's been some discussion about how much deselection of MPs there will be before the next general election. All MPs have to be nominated by their local party. Ken Livingstone has said that it's inevitable that MPs who regularly defy Corbyn will face deselection. That deselection will need active party members to come about.

Labour are also reported today to be worried about losing millions of pounds in contributions from the unions, if changes to "opting in" for political funds are introduced as part of the trade union bill.

That might mean needing to raise much more dosh from the average party member.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]How many British cities have the Saudi regime bombed?

The correct analogy is: how many British citizens have died at the hands of Wahhabi-inspired extremists?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

Under the old style Labour leadership elections he wouldn't have got anywhere. So, of all the three pound voters, how many have converted to full membership of the Labour party, and are continuing to play an active roll in their local constituency?

Two points here; Corbyn won a majority even if the three pound voters are removed from the equation. So it was really the re-balancing of the voting weights of the membership vs the PLP that led to a Corbyn victory - so the question really is one of how many of the membership as a whole play an active roll.

[and yes, there is has also been a significant increase in the number of Labour party members - though there is no break down I could find as to how many of those have 'converted' on the back of signing up for voting in the leadership election]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How many British cities have the Saudi regime bombed?
The correct analogy is: how many British citizens have died at the hands of Wahhabi-inspired extremists?

No, because we're talking about a member of the British parliament unilaterally holding talks with a specific organisation that has the explicit purpose of attacking and killing British citizens. The Saudi government does not, so far as I am aware, match that description.

The initial comment I was replying to was presumably intended to say that one cannot criticise an MP who is on good terms with the IRA without also criticising an MP who is on good terms with the Saudi government, as both are violent. But that is to miss the key point that the IRA's violence is directed against British citizens, whereas the Saudi government's is not. That simple fact makes all the difference to how appropriate it is for an MP - someone who is supposed to represent and uphold the interests of British citizens - to be on good terms with either group.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
He has the problem now of the disagreements within the party. There's been some discussion about how much deselection of MPs there will be before the next general election. All MPs have to be nominated by their local party. Ken Livingstone has said that it's inevitable that MPs who regularly defy Corbyn will face deselection.

In other words, you mustn't dare disagree with him. It says something that there seems to be a continuous flow of resignations. Which are counterproductive: all that will do is open up vacancies for him to fill with people who won't argue with him. Why bother having a cabinet at all?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But that is to miss the key point that the IRA's violence is directed against British citizens, whereas the Saudi government's is not. That simple fact makes all the difference to how appropriate it is for an MP - someone who is supposed to represent and uphold the interests of British citizens - to be on good terms with either group.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Saudi-sponsored terror is a far graver, and more global, matter than our parochial dispute with the IRA ever was.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And a.) and b.), as lots of people have said, are more or less what the UK government ended up doing. ... But they seem to have done so without reference to Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell. Which makes Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell ineffectual at best.

There are probably hundreds of people, more likely thousands, who in some small way contributed to the Good Friday agreement. Small local community initiatives, churches, individuals who chose to forgive those who had injured or killed those they loved ... They rarely (if ever) get referenced when the UK government trumpets their success in radically reducing the threat of terrorism in and from NI. Many of them are probably totally unknown, some of them may be unaware of the influence they had. Does the fact that their names are unknown make their contribution ineffectual? Does the fact that their contributions were very small parts of the process mean they shouldn't be praised for what they did?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

If so, I think that makes Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell ineffective in a different way. If they can point to ways in which their IRA links made the peace agreements more feasible or more durable, then they should do so, because how are they going to win an election if they are unable to articulate their own achievements?

We all want politics without spin, but that doesn't mean politics where you don't talk about stuff you genuinely have done.

[ 11. January 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Although small early steps in a process are usually incredibly difficult to assess. It's easy to know who kicked the ball into the back of the net, but how do you judge whether the pass of another player a few minutes earlier was a crucial step in the chain of scoring the goal?

Corbyn is in a difficult position. If he over-eggs his involvement then, even if it was a crucial part of the process, he will not be able to conclusively support that claim. If he doesn't then he'll be labelled a "friend of terrorists" rather than an opener of effective dialogue.

IMO the best he can do is state that he believes in trying to find solutions through dialogue, that his Parliamentary career has demonstrated that, that as a back bencher his influence was limited and though he believes he helped advance peaceful resolutions that was too small an influence to be able to demonstrate, and that as leader of the Opposition and future PM his influence is greater and so he believes future initiatives will be more significant.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The thing is that Mr Corbyn's documented contribution to the peace process includes opposing the Anglo-Irish Agreement on the grounds that it strengthened the border between the North and the Republic.

Mr McDonnell's documented contribution includes telling An Phoblacht, i.e. the IRA's newspaper, that 'an assembly is not what people have laid down their lives for over thirty years' ... in reference to the assembly that became one of the foundations of the Good Friday Agreement.

The best one can say is that they opposed aspects of the peace process because they thought they could do it better. But I have not seen that either of them had any solutions of their own other than a united Ireland.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Find me a politician that hasn't at some time backed the wrong horse. One of the major failings of the UK media-howling political scene is that mistakes and apparent mistakes (and a lot of non-existant apparent mistakes) are far more important than achievements. In fact, it's getting to be a cultural thing.

"Let he who has never in his life committed a balls-up throw the first stone" could be the new motto of a responsible Fleet Street. The average age of reporters would drop to about 2yo - except that there might still be a few embarrassing photos in the family album. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Find me a politician that hasn't at some time backed the wrong horse.

I agree with the general sentiment, and I think the need to score points can sometimes obscure decent discussion, but the horse we're talking about here is an Armalite-carrying, semtex-laden one that plans to blow up British soldiers and bomb British cities. This is of a rather different order to deciding whether to put a penny on income tax.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Find me a politician that hasn't at some time backed the wrong horse.
I agree with the general sentiment, and I think the need to score points can sometimes obscure decent discussion, but the horse we're talking about here is an Armalite-carrying, semtex-laden one that plans to blow up British soldiers and bomb British cities. This is of a rather different order to deciding whether to put a penny on income tax.

That's the same horse that was involved in the Good Friday agreement and is now in power sharing with the DUP who, to be honest were as polarised as SF and had nasty friends too, some of whom wore uniforms.

[ 11. January 2016, 18:59: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As regards contribution to the Peace Process, a large part of the reason why the argument that Corbyn and McDonnell contributed to it isn't persuasive, is that a lot of people have the strong impression that they were consistently partisan. Is there evidence that either of them engaged in comparable advocacy, identification or conversations with the other side?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Find me a politician that hasn't at some time backed the wrong horse.

Sure, and if Mr Corbyn said something like 'In the 1980s I took an approach which I now think wasn't as helpful as I thought at the time', I would have less of an issue with him.

One of my favourite quotes from Mr Obama was simply: 'We fucked up'. I can't remember what scandal provoked that confession, but the honesty has stuck with me.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As regards contribution to the Peace Process, a large part of the reason why the argument that Corbyn and McDonnell contributed to it isn't persuasive, is that a lot of people have the strong impression that they were consistently partisan. Is there evidence that either of them engaged in comparable advocacy, identification or conversations with the other side?

I don't think they did.

My impression of Mr Corbyn is that he genuinely believed that British sovereignty over Northern Ireland was an injustice that needed to be rectified, and so the IRA were right in their objectives even if wrong in their methods. This contrasts with the Good Friday Agreement which was (I think) negotiated from the principle that questions of sovereignty are secondary to stopping people from killing each other.

Someone asked a while ago if Mr Corbyn had ever changed his mind about anything. Before the leadership election I'm pretty sure he stated he believes Irish unification is now purely a question for the people of Northern Ireland, which suggests he has indeed changed his mind about the issue. He would look a lot less evasive if he came out and said so explicitly.

Posted by HarryLime (# 18525) on :

As Nick Cohen has argued in his book 'What's Left?', Corbyn represents a strand of left-wing politics that is obsessed with opposing the West. So while he's very vocal in criticising the West's mistakes, his instinct is to gloss over atrocities committed in the name of anyone who takes on a Western government, from the IRA to ISIS.

This is ethics ad hominem. Corbyn is less interested in whether a deed is wrong than in who did it. With certain groups, he'll always seek to support; with others, always to oppose. The rights and wrongs of the deed itself appear to be secondary to him.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

He has repeatedly condemned terrorism and violence by all sides, so I don`t think this is a valid criticism.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
This is ethics ad hominem. Corbyn is less interested in whether a deed is wrong than in who did it. With certain groups, he'll always seek to support; with others, always to oppose. The rights and wrongs of the deed itself appear to be secondary to him.

The main problem with this, of course, is that he's seeking to become the person in charge of one of the groups he always opposes. Quite what that would mean for the future of said group were he to succeed is anyone's guess.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
As Nick Cohen has argued in his book 'What's Left?', Corbyn represents a strand of left-wing politics that is obsessed with opposing the West. So while he's very vocal in criticising the West's mistakes, his instinct is to gloss over atrocities committed in the name of anyone who takes on a Western government, from the IRA to ISIS.

This is ethics ad hominem. Corbyn is less interested in whether a deed is wrong than in who did it. With certain groups, he'll always seek to support; with others, always to oppose. The rights and wrongs of the deed itself appear to be secondary to him.

This reminds me of the old image of the slave and the slave-driver. The slave breaks his chains and kills his owner, and for a long time, the left used this image to highlight the non-equivalence of different acts of violence. You can find it in Trotsky's famous paper, 'Our Morals and Theirs', quote, "The fundamental feature of these approchements and similitudes lies in their completely ignoring the material foundation of the various currents, that is, their class nature and by that token their objective historical role."

Well, I must have another look at that, as it probably commits various logical fallacies, but I can't remember.

But then I think the law admits some degree of mitigation for certain acts of violence, e.g. by an abused wife. And I suppose the press use it in relation to British soldiers, who do something wrong, in 'the heat of battle'.

I don't see it as ethics ad hominem but as a kind of circumstantial ethics - often discussed for example by Chomsky. The French Resistance are often cited in this regard - do we excuse their violence?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Of course, that should be 'Their Morals and Ours'!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
As Nick Cohen has argued in his book 'What's Left?', Corbyn represents a strand of left-wing politics that is obsessed with opposing the West. So while he's very vocal in criticising the West's mistakes, his instinct is to gloss over atrocities committed in the name of anyone who takes on a Western government, from the IRA to ISIS.

This is ethics ad hominem. Corbyn is less interested in whether a deed is wrong than in who did it. With certain groups, he'll always seek to support; with others, always to oppose. The rights and wrongs of the deed itself appear to be secondary to him.

That's true of Corbyn, but who is it not true of? Pope Francis perhaps? Most of us turn a blind eye in one direction while taking a very clear view of the failings of others.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
... This is ethics ad hominem. Corbyn is less interested in whether a deed is wrong than in who did it. With certain groups, he'll always seek to support; with others, always to oppose. The rights and wrongs of the deed itself appear to be secondary to him.

If he does think that, he won't be the first or the last person to approach ethics that way. It's wrong, very wrong, but all too widespread. Viz the way in so much transatlantic debate (even on these threads) whether a person is black or white seems so often to trump all the rest of the facts, however significant.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

It seems to me reasonable - Christian, even - that We can do a lot more about Our sins than We can about Theirs. (Even where Us = the West and Them = everyone else.) So We cannot directly stop Farc or Hamas from being murdering bastards but We can refrain from backing dictators and joining unnecessary wars.

The problem with Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell's intervention in Northern Ireland is not that they were more concerned by Our sins than Theirs, but that they were taking sides between two different sets of Them. They cared more about Unionist sins than Republican sins.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
As Nick Cohen has argued in his book 'What's Left?', Corbyn represents a strand of left-wing politics that is obsessed with opposing the West. So while he's very vocal in criticising the West's mistakes, his instinct is to gloss over atrocities committed in the name of anyone who takes on a Western government, from the IRA to ISIS.

This is ethics ad hominem. Corbyn is less interested in whether a deed is wrong than in who did it. With certain groups, he'll always seek to support; with others, always to oppose. The rights and wrongs of the deed itself appear to be secondary to him.
That's true of Corbyn, but who is it not true of? Pope Francis perhaps? Most of us turn a blind eye in one direction while taking a very clear view of the failings of others.

Yes, and I think the left has often pointed out the violence of the West, and the ways in which this is condoned by politicians and the media, while the violence of the Other is excoriated. For example, Chomsky never tires of pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of US politicians in this regard.

I don't see anyone saying that IS are OK though, certainly not Corbyn. You do get the argument that in the context of the Iraq invasion, it was inevitable that insurgencies would develop, or if you like, blowback. The image of Frankenstein comes to mind, and his monster is AQ, IS, and so on. This doesn't mean that Western violence is the only cause of these movements of course.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
As Nick Cohen has argued in his book 'What's Left?', Corbyn represents a strand of left-wing politics that is obsessed with opposing the West. So while he's very vocal in criticising the West's mistakes, his instinct is to gloss over atrocities committed in the name of anyone who takes on a Western government, from the IRA to ISIS.

That's a fairly silly argument. A large part of the base level argumentation deployed by Western politicians is that our values are fundamentally different to those we oppose - and so therefore in that context it is appropriate to point out the hypocrises of our real-politick. It is perfectly possible to be very critical of the UK foreign policy wrt Saudi *and* oppose ISIS, in fact one might take the view that it is easier to do something about the former than the latter because it's more a matter of domestic politics.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's a consistent argument, if you accept that the Saudis have been sponsoring extremism for decades. But who hasn't?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Nick Cohen was a big supporter of the Iraq war, and my memory is that he excoriated the left for not supporting it. It's possible that he still does, I'm not sure.

But here is the standard disjunction - our violence is OK, in fact, it is sanctified, their violence is anti-civilization.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
As Nick Cohen has argued in his book 'What's Left?', Corbyn represents a strand of left-wing politics that is obsessed with opposing the West. So while he's very vocal in criticising the West's mistakes, his instinct is to gloss over atrocities committed in the name of anyone who takes on a Western government, from the IRA to ISIS.

This is ethics ad hominem. Corbyn is less interested in whether a deed is wrong than in who did it. With certain groups, he'll always seek to support; with others, always to oppose. The rights and wrongs of the deed itself appear to be secondary to him.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He has repeatedly condemned terrorism and violence by all sides, so I don`t think this is a valid criticism.

Well, up to a point he has. Corbyn is a man who, after joining in a minute's silence for dead IRA gunmen, said "I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland."

In August last year, he did the whole 'I hate all violence' thing and in doing so failed to give a straight answer to a question about whether he condemned IRA violence at least four times.

Now, perhaps you think that sort of thing is ok, but I think most people would expect a would-be British Prime Minister to begin their answer with 'yes' or 'of course'. And that is one of the reasons why he will lose.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

I don't know what his non-straight reply was. Mine would be that I condemn violence. I know an ex-republican irishman, and as a result have looked into something of the history of Ireland, and frankly, the more I learn the more I can see the justification for the 1917 uprising and why this continued in northern ireland. I doubt we even kept it to protect the NI protestants - we just wanted to keep the naval shipyards in Belfast. The history is a total mess. But a united Ireland with all those protestant ex-scots who were thrown off their land by the Enclosures Act? No - That is not so easy, and I agree that to expect unification of Ireland is asking a lot. A federal UK that allows NI to have close ties to Eire - that would be feasible. And might eventually lead to a reorganisation of the British Isles to unite Ireland on one country. Frankly, I'm more worried at the moment about the Laissez-faire and habitually careless way that the Scottish issue has been handled.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

In August last year, he did the whole 'I hate all violence' thing and in doing so failed to give a straight answer to a question about whether he condemned IRA violence at least four times.

Are you assuming that 'I hate all violence' means 'I hate all violence except that caused by the IRA.'? The former seems like a straight enough answer to my mind.

I am more disturbed by a Prime Minister who repeatedly condemns the violence of ISIS/Daesh while cosying up to the obnoxious and violent Saudi regime. Violence is violence, full stop.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

And, of course, believing that the existence of Northern Ireland is an anomaly of history, and should be reuinited with its southern part, is an entirely legitimate political position to take - one which many British citizens share.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And, of course, believing that the existence of Northern Ireland is an anomaly of history, and should be reuinited with its southern part, is an entirely legitimate political position to take - one which many British citizens share.

Of course it is, it's just extremely unusual for someone aspiring to lead the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and therefore deal with the real world to say so out loud, when a majority of people *in Northern Ireland* don't believe that.

Many citizens of the Republic of Ireland don't want the place either....

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

This is true. But there's an awful lot of pearl clutching that he dares to express such a sentiment.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is true. But there's an awful lot of pearl clutching that he dares to express such a sentiment.

Yes and no - at the moment it's a stick to beat him with for those of a beating mind who are looking for sticks.

In the event that he became PM, there would presumably be genuine issues of trust between him and the Unionists (otherwise known as the majority). I'm sure that they could be overcome (presumably by him refraining from making any public comment about it while in office), but whoever got the Northern Ireland Office under him might have a bumpier ride than many have of late.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

It would be a shame if someone who led the campaign against the UK getting involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria should ever lose an election to someone involved in getting us into these pointless, endless and futile adventures, on the basis of a few statements twenty years ago. One would almost think the Tories and their pals are actually worried that he might beat them.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

In August last year, he did the whole 'I hate all violence' thing and in doing so failed to give a straight answer to a question about whether he condemned IRA violence at least four times.
Are you assuming that 'I hate all violence' means 'I hate all violence except that caused by the IRA.'? The former seems like a straight enough answer to my mind.

I certainly wouldn't have assumed this save that, having said "I hate all the violence", he was then asked explicitly four times whether it could be taken from this assurance that he does therefore condemn the violence perpetrated by the IRA. Given that in the past it is alleged he has - many times and over many years - condoned IRA violence, it wasn't unreasonable to seek that clarification. His reaction to the question, put to him four times, was first of all to change the subject without answering (twice), on the third time of asking to say that he couldn't hear the question, and on the fourth occasion (in the absence of any background noise) to end the call without replying.

Posted by HarryLime (# 18525) on :

I think most of you have missed my point. Many of you refer to Corbyn as being anti-violence, but I don't hear him speaking out against the violence perpetrated by, say, Russia or Iran. In fact, I see him appearing as a pro-Russian, pro-Iran pundit on their state-run television channels. He has appeared as a pundit on the same Iranian show that claimed that Israel was responsible for the Paris attacks.

This is straightforwardly wrong and it alarms me that so many of you fail to see that.

I'm not arguing about Northern Ireland, by the way. I'm a Catholic of Irish descent and was brought up in a family that was very sympathetic to Irish republicanism. My own position is that the people of Northern Ireland know more about that conflict than I ever will and they are best placed to sort it out without the likes of me butting in. I support all those who want to sort it out peacefully and I'm happy to condemn violence in that struggle whether it comes from the republican or unionist side. I invite Comrade Jez to join me in that.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You catch more flies with honey. Iran has been critically tamed by being treated with respect. We should ALL try it with North Korea. Russia was treated like filth AFTER the fall of communism. Amends MUST be made. NATO was cretinous in the Ukraine. This is simple, basic playing by Corleone rules: keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
This is straightforwardly wrong and it alarms me that so many of you fail to see that.

It's ok, you're new. If you hang around long enough you'll get used to this kind of thinking.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
I see him appearing as a pro-Russian, pro-Iran pundit on their state-run television channels. He has appeared as a pundit on the same Iranian show that claimed that Israel was responsible for the Paris attacks.

What, specifically, are you alleging he said in these TV appearances ?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
I think most of you have missed my point. Many of you refer to Corbyn as being anti-violence, but I don't hear him speaking out against the violence perpetrated by, say, Russia or Iran. In fact, I see him appearing as a pro-Russian, pro-Iran pundit on their state-run television channels. He has appeared as a pundit on the same Iranian show that claimed that Israel was responsible for the Paris attacks.

This is straightforwardly wrong and it alarms me that so many of you fail to see that.

Ahh, I see the problem.

You think that for the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to be pro-Iran (in the sense that means to be anti-israel), to be pro-Russia (in the sense that means to condone Russia's violent expansionism) is wrong.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you here.

The thing is, that's not Mr Corbyn's position. So I suspect he agrees with you. You don't hear the things you talked about because of the way his comments are reported. You have to look a bit deeper.

A good example is his description of the death of Bin Laden as a 'tradegy.' Here is a good summary of how that was misrepresented and what Corbyn actually said.

AFZ [Paranoid]

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

I think it's less that the leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition holds views which are perceived as potentially disloyal but that the person who aspires to be leader of Her Majesty's Government appears to hold views that are incompatible with also having a duty to uphold and defend the territory and the people of the United Kingdom.

I agree that Jeremy Corbyn's views have frequently been misreported. And I detect some malice in that some of the time.

But he isn't always being misreported. There has been a reference on this thread already to his lifelong and partisan support for Irish Republicanism which has led him, even quite recently to condemn in the strongest terms instances of violence by the British Army but to decline repeated requests also to criticise instances of violence by the Irish Republican Army.

In this piece his view of the position in Ukraine is expressed in a way that many people would find incompatible with being the Prime Minister I think.

Yes, he acknowledges that "Russia has gone way beyond its legal powers [which are just] to use bases in the Crimea. Sending unidentified forces into another country is clearly a violation of that country’s sovereignty." "Violation of sovereignty" sounds like a small technical thing, a breach of etiquette, not like an "invasion" or anything like that.

Even this is prefaced by a number of paragraphs setting out a view of Crimea that accords with Russian foreign policy, to the effect that Crimea hasn't ever REALLY been part of Ukraine, that Ukraine had no business hanging on to it in the first place.

And then we get to the meat of things. The real issue, the thing that is "one of the big threats of our time" is that NATO has wilfully and disgracefully declined to disband. On the contrary, in his view (which is shared by the Russian foreign ministry but difficult to demonstrate objectively on a map) the big issue, the one which people have to be mobilised to campaign against, is not Russia's euphemised invasion but NATO's "attempt to encircle Russia".

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Unlike Alistair Cambpell and Tony Blair et al I see Labour under Corbyn as being very electable. Partly because the alternative is proving itself to be both childish and vicious. And Tony Blair's Thatcher-Lite is probably the worst thing that has happened to British politics in a very long time. It heralded in an era of increased power to bankers and spin and dishonesty and erosion of the principle of public service/servant which has been very happily taken up by the Neocons. With Jeremy Hunt's version of "subtle", the bankers still not properly reguilated and the Tax Office having been instructed to disband much of its tax avoidance branch, Corbyn's idiosyncracies look like a welcome change.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I think it's less that the leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition holds views which are perceived as potentially disloyal but that the person who aspires to be leader of Her Majesty's Government appears to hold views that are incompatible with also having a duty to uphold and defend the territory and the people of the United Kingdom.

That's simply a case for the status quo, and says far more about your innate conservatism than it does about his radical views.

You don't like his position. But you have to come up with arguments against it rather than just accuse him of treason.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I think it's less that the leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition holds views which are perceived as potentially disloyal but that the person who aspires to be leader of Her Majesty's Government appears to hold views that are incompatible with also having a duty to uphold and defend the territory and the people of the United Kingdom.
That's simply a case for the status quo, and says far more about your innate conservatism than it does about his radical views.

You don't like his position. But you have to come up with arguments against it rather than just accuse him of treason.

But I haven't accused him of treason. I have said that some of his views may make him seem to some voters like an inappropriate choice for leader of the nation. I'm sure I AM innately conservative (with a small C, I'm a bit of a tart at the ballot box, and I am not a member of any political party). I'm middle-aged, middle class, have been working in the same job for decades, living in the same house for quite a bit of that time.

But I'm not at all sure why that makes my point objectively invalid. Ignoring the spin around him, some of the things Jeremy Corbyn actually does say (or pointedly declines to say) reflect opinions which he is perfectly entitled to hold and share and indeed has done so for decades unmolested, which are not necessarily incompatible with being leader of the opposition, but could make it difficult for him to be Prime Minister.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:

On the contrary, in his view (which is shared by the Russian foreign ministry but difficult to demonstrate objectively on a map) the big issue, the one which people have to be mobilised to campaign against, is not Russia's euphemised invasion but NATO's "attempt to encircle Russia".

There are plenty of paleo conservatives who would similarly ask why NATO had to continue expand eastwards (and indeed to what coherent end). Come to that, I very much doubt that the average Brit would support the UK going to war with Russia to defend - say - Estonia.

[ 21. January 2016, 22:05: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You don't like his position. But you have to come up with arguments against it rather than just accuse him of treason.
But I haven't accused him of treason.

quote:
appears to hold views that are incompatible with also having a duty to uphold and defend the territory and the people of the United Kingdom

That bit, right there.

There's barely a credit card-width between that and the views of the senior army officer who threatened a coup if Corbyn came to power. Except he might have an armoured division or two behind him...

If it's the democratic will of the people of the UK to have JC as PM, then the government will be concordant with that will.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

There are plenty of people who say that Corbyn appears to say, do, be or think all sorts of things but they now, just a few months after he became leader of the Labour party, have only his support for Irish Republicanism to fall back on. I don't doubt many members of the government support organisations at least as bad as the worst of the PIRA and Provisional Sinn Fein, but they are usually 'real' governments so I suppose that's OK. Most governments do this as official policy.

As for Corbyn, his economic policies, notably the need for an alternative to the failed "austerity" policies, and even those on nuclear weapons are getting support from unexpected places.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There are plenty of people who say that Corbyn appears to say, do, be or think all sorts of things but they now, just a few months after he became leader of the Labour party, have only his support for Irish Republicanism to fall back on.

But he's the gift that keeps on giving: thanks to his recent Andrew Marr interview there's now nuclear subs without nuclear warheads and capitulation to Argentina to fall back on, too.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

There are such things as missiles without nuclear warheads you know - which makes more sense then paying for aircraft carriers with no planes.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... If it's the democratic will of the people of the UK to have JC as PM, then the government will be concordant with that will.

It cannot be described as "the democratic will of the people of the UK" to have David Cameron as PM when his party only got 37% of the vote or to have had Gordon Brown on 35% of it.

Don't ever forget those two figures.

One could say that of the Coalition, 59% of the voters had voted for part of it. Before that, the last administration that got anywhere near such a claim would be the Conservatives in 1959 with 49%.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I've campaigned for a more representative voting system. I'll continue to do so.

Until then, however, no matter how broken it might be, the system we have is still better than setting about each other with broken bottles in the street.

But yes, those elected on threadbare mandates need to remember that hardly any bugger voted for them. Jezza will, of course, surge to victory on a wave of popular acclaim... [Big Grin]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There are plenty of people who say that Corbyn appears to say, do, be or think all sorts of things but they now, just a few months after he became leader of the Labour party, have only his support for Irish Republicanism to fall back on.
But he's the gift that keeps on giving: thanks to his recent Andrew Marr interview there's now nuclear subs without nuclear warheads and capitulation to Argentina to fall back on, too.

You do remember that it was the decision not to replace HMS Endurance that gave Argentina the idea that Britain didn't give a toss about the Falklands (and the Falklanders)? We also had interceptor aircraft with no target rader - the early Tornado F3 had the infamous "Blue Circle" radar.

Nuclear weapons with no warhead would be a serious matter if they were independent and the incessant doublespeak from the MoD shows that they aren't - at least, not until it is no longer a deterrent at which point it's all academic.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You don't like his position. But you have to come up with arguments against it rather than just accuse him of treason.
But I haven't accused him of treason.
quote:
appears to hold views that are incompatible with also having a duty to uphold and defend the territory and the people of the United Kingdom
That bit, right there.

There's barely a credit card-width between that and the views of the senior army officer who threatened a coup if Corbyn came to power. Except he might have an armoured division or two behind him...

If it's the democratic will of the people of the UK to have JC as PM, then the government will be concordant with that will.

But I haven't accused Jeremy Corbyn of doing anything treasonous and just repeating the assertion doesn't make it so. And I certainly haven't suggested that if he were to be elected (on "a wave of popular acclaim" as you hope or otherwise) then the appropriate response would be a coup!

I do think that anyone who holds certain of his opinions would find it extremely difficult to do the job expected of a Government minister in general, and a Prime Minister in particular.

In commenting on his opinions I have referred exclusively to his own words (or words that he has been unprepared to utter when asked), not the malicious drivel about him that is spouted in the Telegraph.

Do you disagree that those do represent his views on (in these instances) the campaigns of the IRA over the years and Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Can you direct me to anything he has said more recently that indicates he now holds a different opinion, or has perhaps always held a more nuanced opinion on those issues than his cited words (or pointed silence) would indicate?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
there's now nuclear subs without nuclear warheads

There's nothing unusual about nuclear powered subs without nuclear warheads. The reactor allows extended operation at depth (a diesel powered sub would need to spend considerable time at shallow depth for the snorkel) where they can remain undetected. There are a large number of scenarios where a hidden launch platform for non-nuclear weapons would be of a military benefit - for example to attack enemy shipping, or as we've seen to launch cruise missiles following the Baghdad A-Z. Though probably for those scenarios the boat you'd want isn't an ICBM launch platform, an conventionally armed ICBM would be able to take out multiple individual buildings - but, other nuclear powers will probably not respond well to an unexpected launch of multiple ICBMs.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes. The first nuclear submarine, the USS "Nautilus" was commissioned in 1955. It had conventional weaponry AFAIK. The first Polaris submarine, "George Washington", wasn't commissioned until 1960. The majority of the US submarine fleet today consists of "Attack" submarines armed with both torpedoes and "Tomahwak" cruise missiles - it seems that these latter no longer carry nuclear warheads but other forms of "nasty" instead.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There are plenty of people who say that Corbyn appears to say, do, be or think all sorts of things but they now, just a few months after he became leader of the Labour party, have only his support for Irish Republicanism to fall back on.
But he's the gift that keeps on giving: thanks to his recent Andrew Marr interview there's now nuclear subs without nuclear warheads

A sub without nuclear warheads is inherently better than one with.

I remain utterly amazed how many people are willing to threaten mass murder of civilian populations as a defence policy. I can't get my head around it. It's especially hypocritical when those people get their knickers in a twist over sympathies Corbyn is reported to have with the IRA.

[ 22. January 2016, 11:15: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I do think that anyone who holds certain of his opinions would find it extremely difficult to do the job expected of a Government minister in general, and a Prime Minister in particular.

That's a little bit non-specific. For a start it probably makes some assumptions about the expectations of the job of Prime Minister, and there may well be people who disagree with those assumptions. But, here's my list of what the PM (and the government they head) should be doing:

Represent the people of the UK. I believe that fundamentally, the people of the UK want the following:

Enact policies that protect the people from exploitation by business, especially non-UK based business. Ensure the people are well educated, have access to quality health care, have an adequate income in retirement or in the event of illness or injury restricting their ability to work, have police and justice systems that keep criminal activity to a minimum, protect the environment for our children and their children.
Represent the UK in international relations. Support international aid efforts, including providing sanctuary to refugees. Promote fairness in international relationships and trade.
In the event of war, provide political leadership with guidance from the military leadership who have the relevant expertise.

So, as I see it, the only question about the suitability of Corbyn as PM rests with number 3, and specifically if that was a war with a nuclear armed state where the possibility of a nuclear exchange becomes a real possibility. Since that scenario is incredibly unlikely his position on the use of nuclear weapons irrelevant.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
... Can you direct me to anything he has said more recently that indicates he now holds a different opinion, or has perhaps always held a more nuanced opinion on those issues than his cited words (or pointed silence) would indicate?

You mentioned his (reported) views on IRA terrorism. I can point you to this comment on terrorism from Jeremy Corbyn:

quote:
I am absolutely not in favour of terrorism of any sort – it is absolutely appalling and disgraceful that civilian life should be taken by random acts of terrorism, as happened in Paris.

He made it clear that he is "absolutely" against "terrorism of any sort". Yet people continue to talk as if he doesn't oppose some terrorism. So what is happening? Looking at the comments below the article in which that quote appeared, I was struck by this one (which, at the time of writing, has the most 'likes'):

quote:
As a Western politician, if you utter the line "I'm not in favour of terrorism, but..." you've already lost the next election.

There's a problem with that. Mr Corbyn didn't say 'I'm not in favour of terrorism, but'. He said 'I'm not in favour of terrorism of any sort - it is absolutely appalling and disgraceful that civilian life should be taken by random acts of terrorism'. Yet the most-liked comment on the article was by someone who (despite being able to check very easily) claims that he said 'but'.

For me, that's Mr Corbyn's problem in a nutshell: whatever he says, people hear what they expect to hear. I agree with you that his views have often been misrepresented and that this sometimes seems malicious. After all of this misreporting, it seems that some people 'hear' him saying the opposite of what he actually says.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There are plenty of people who say that Corbyn appears to say, do, be or think all sorts of things but they now, just a few months after he became leader of the Labour party, have only his support for Irish Republicanism to fall back on.
But he's the gift that keeps on giving: thanks to his recent Andrew Marr interview there's now nuclear subs without nuclear warheads
A sub without nuclear warheads is inherently better than one with.

I remain utterly amazed how many people are willing to threaten mass murder of civilian populations as a defence policy. I can't get my head around it. It's especially hypocritical when those people get their knickers in a twist over sympathies Corbyn is reported to have with the IRA.

Until now Corbyn has been, at best a bit of a nuisance on the government backbenches. Contrast that with his predecessors as Labour leaders who cravenly followed the U.S. into Gulf II. Afghanistan had some backing from the UN but FFS, do people learn nothing from history? The British Empire's scoreline there is two losses, one bloody draw and one retreat. We should know better by now. That North-West Frontier was well named.

As for the current governmnt and the coalition, well they have carried on the chickenhawk policy with no good reason and no idea what was to occur in Libya after Gaddafi (just like Iraq after Hussein). I'll bet they are at a loss what to do if and when Assad falls in Syria. You can add to that Austerity which through initiatives like the withdrawl of Disability Living Allowance is killing people as surely, if not as deliberately, as the PIRA ever did. If Ian Duncan-Smith and George Osborne think this is not so why do they block an enquiry into these excess deaths?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The irony is that Labour took us into Iraq, which cost who knows how many lives, and partly led to the collapse of the social fabric, thus empowering the militants. Ah but Corbyn is the irresponsible one!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've campaigned for a more representative voting system. I'll continue to do so.

Until then, however, no matter how broken it might be, the system we have is still better than setting about each other with broken bottles in the street.

But yes, those elected on threadbare mandates need to remember that hardly any bugger voted for them. Jezza will, of course, surge to victory on a wave of popular acclaim...

Fair enough. But it's the phrase "the democratic will of the people of the UK" that I'm objecting to. A Labour administration led by Jeremy Corbyn with the sort of share of the vote that I was talking about, would have no more genuine right to claim to be "the democratic will of the people of the UK" than either the present one or Gordon Brown's.

The fact that you, or anyone else, might have more sympathy with one administration that has scraped into government through the unrepresentative defects of our electoral system than with another, does not give the one you agree with any more legitimacy than one your don't.

If a Labour team led by Jeremy Corbyn were to "surge to victory on a wave of popular acclaim", that would put a different complexion on things, but how likely do you really think that is to happen? Unless one moves in a very limited social circle, it should be evident that just as there is a swathe of people who think that he and all he stands for are fantastic, there is another swathe who detest both.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

How likely it will be will probably depend on how you define "surge to victory on a wave of popular acclaim". Thatcher won her elections on not that great a share of the vote (not too dismilar to Blair or Cameron) and it was acclaimed using similar language. Somehow I expect a victory by Corbyn with similar share of the vote would not be greeted with such acclaim.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That's a little bit non-specific. For a start it probably makes some assumptions about the expectations of the job of Prime Minister, and there may well be people who disagree with those assumptions. But, here's my list of what the PM (and the government they head) should be doing:

Represent the people of the UK. I believe that fundamentally, the people of the UK want the following:

Enact policies that protect the people from exploitation by business, especially non-UK based business. Ensure the people are well educated, have access to quality health care, have an adequate income in retirement or in the event of illness or injury restricting their ability to work, have police and justice systems that keep criminal activity to a minimum, protect the environment for our children and their children.
Represent the UK in international relations. Support international aid efforts, including providing sanctuary to refugees. Promote fairness in international relationships and trade.
In the event of war, provide political leadership with guidance from the military leadership who have the relevant expertise.
So, as I see it, the only question about the suitability of Corbyn as PM rests with number 3, and specifically if that was a war with a nuclear armed state where the possibility of a nuclear exchange becomes a real possibility. Since that scenario is incredibly unlikely his position on the use of nuclear weapons irrelevant.

I haven't mentioned nuclear weapons. I'm undecided in my own mind what would be the best option. However one proposal I can confidently disagree with is Jeremy Corbyn's, which seems to be that we abandon the nuclear missiles themselves but press on with building the immensely expensive successors to the Vanguard ballistic missile submarines that are specifically designed as a platform for ICBMs. I'm sure he can see some political advantages in saving the jobs of the shipbuilders and the support of their union, but those would be unbelievably costly votes. I think the US have converted some of their Ohio ballistic missile boats to serve as cruise missile submarines, but that's because they had them already; they didn't set out to build ballistic missile submarines only to use them for something that a much cheaper vessel could do, and in fact would do better!

I'm sure that we could each come up with our own list of "Duties of Government", not identical because they would be shaped by our own priorities, politics and experiences, but necessarily with a fair bit of overlap. However that list is constituted though, I think that Jeremy Corbyn PM would face some really uncomfortable decisions. For instance, he is very strongly sympathetic to the point of view of some people who are implacably hostile to the interests of the UK or of some of its people (examples have been given above).

Please don't think I am blindly hostile to Jeremy Corbyn. I agree with some of his views (on Europe for instance and on education) and disagree with others. At the moment I'm relatively unlikely to vote for him because I doubt his competence and because I'm very uncomfortable with the "class war" flavour of some of the policy ideas he seems to be promoting. I'm old enough to remember how divisive and damaging secondary strikes and secondary picketing could be, for example.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

a sailor writes...

the problem with Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons on the Marr programme is that it has all the hallmarks of having drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by people with no idea what they're talking about.

Given the green lighting for replacement boats is likely to be in this parliament, we're looking at a situation where he appears to be arguing that the RN will get the submarines without the missiles. (which is most of the cost).

The submarines are not designed to fire any other sort of missile from their silo - so to be any use at all (and his stance is that they will be built and paid for) means we've either got to spend billions redesigning the entire central section of the boat for new siloes, or designing enormous (to fit in the silo) non nuclear missiles - the problem you've then got is that the sig of a fired missile of that size is broadly the same whether nuclear or not.

Essentially, therefore, you're asking any enemy to act on the basis that it isn't nuclear from launch to impact without retaliating...

as I see it, there are 2 equally valid lines to take on nuclear weapons:
1) you have them, in a posture of continuous at sea deterrence
2) you don't have them

anything else, any other "third way" like building the things without the missiles (or indeed any missiles) as suggested by Corbyn is a demonstrable waste of money by any yardstick.

The very worst is the previous LibDem preference of having the weapons, but not routinely deploying them unless it becomes necessary because we've entered a time of global tension.

Because what a time of global tension really needs like a hole in the head is one state actor ramping things up by sending nuclear weapons to sea when that's not what they're doing normally.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yes, it seems to be an ill-thought through position. Mostly a resigned acceptance that by the time he's elected PM construction of the subs would already have commenced and rather than scrap the programme he would want to explore an alternative, non-nuclear weapon, option. It's just that the option he's picked won't work.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
a sailor writes...

the problem with Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons on the Marr programme is that it has all the hallmarks of having drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by people with no idea what they're talking about.

He's far from being alone and you have a big advantage over most. Still, we all get a vote.

My #1 reservation as everyone probably knows is that the things aren't ours. AFAICT this "Independent Nuclear Deterrent" is a pretence. The boats may be ours but the missiles, ie the active part, are assigned to NATO. We are also beholden to the USA for many supplies and much of the servicing of the missiles.

Another issue is that the Royal Navy, although it has far fewer ships than not so long ago can't recruit still less retain personnel to operate them, train and take their leave entitlement and the rest. That may anecdata, but it really is! Operating some part of a ship is a skilled job that takes time to learn, and one never really stops. Still, if you are going to keep your sailors operational for longer and depress their pay and conditions in the interest of "fairness" what do you expect? TBH I'd rather have more surface ships which appear a lot more use than either the nuclear boats or the carriers, which may (or may not) have anything to carry, when they enter service.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
a sailor writes...

the problem with Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons on the Marr programme is that it has all the hallmarks of having drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by people with no idea what they're talking about.

He's far from being alone and you have a big advantage over most. Still, we all get a vote.

I use defence (which I do know about) as the yardstick to credibility on what I don't. I do the same with newspapers - if they can get defence right then I trust them on what they report about other things. My parents, both of whom were teachers, did the same thing with education. I'm sure to an extent everyone does.

I'm afraid on defence at the moment Labour comes across as so much moonhowling. Charitably this is because the people at the top have spent decades thinking they'd got the subject weighed off by being a member of CND. However now, conventional or nuclear, they've got to start thinking it through - or at least thinking before they speak.

*If* defence on the other hand is in any way representative of the level of thinking they've given to other departments of state then I can only hope they don't get anywhere near power. You can do so much in 5 years to prepare, but I can't help thinking that they've got so much preparing to do from where they are now.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, we were so much better off with Blair, in terms of defence and the military. Look how much he has transformed the Middle East!

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, we were so much better off with Blair, in terms of defence and the military.

the 1997 strategic defence review which Blair ordered was the single best post war review (IMO) in terms of coherent conclusions, joined up thinking, and a willingness to ask "what are we for?" whilst not being beholden to sacred cows. It put objectives, and the ability to meet those objectives whilst looking out for the welfare of servicemen and women front and centre. It knocked 1992's dreadful "Options for Change" into a cocked hat (and Tom King should have known better).

It's just a shame that it wasn't properly funded or followed through, and its author was kicked upstairs to the Lords.

Nevertheless, as someone that doesn't usually vote for the red team, that review, and George Robertson, were deeply good things.

*Then* it went spectacularly wrong, obviously.

[ 22. January 2016, 14:14: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There's an quote about how the armed forces are always prepared to fight the last war.

What Whitehall need to do is hire a bunch of sf writers and get them to wargame scenarios with the staff officers. Even if none of them involved invasion from space, I'm reasonably certain we could come up with a dozen ways to bring the country to its knees in 72 hours, given the current distribution of defence spending.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. Trident is a defence against the last enemy. Meanwhile, the stuff that makes a difference *now* is falling apart. Hopefully Thornberry can drive that point home to those who currently see nuclear weapons as totemic.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's an quote about how the armed forces are always prepared to fight the last war.

What Whitehall need to do is hire a bunch of sf writers and get them to wargame scenarios with the staff officers. Even if none of them involved invasion from space, I'm reasonably certain we could come up with a dozen ways to bring the country to its knees in 72 hours, given the current distribution of defence spending.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. Trident is a defence against the last enemy. Meanwhile, the stuff that makes a difference *now* is falling apart. Hopefully Thornberry can drive that point home to those who currently see nuclear weapons as totemic.

Interestingly, it's only relatively (ie I think Osborne made the decision) recently that the nuclear deterrent has been part of the defence budget. Before that it was centrally allocated funding for which the MOD was custodian. So the way the defence budget is allocated has usually been a conversation outwith nuclear weapons.

I wait to be pleasantly surprised, but AFAICT Thornberry has no opinions about defence beyond "trident bad" and has indicated that beyond that apparently necessary-now-to-hold-the-post conviction she is bemused as to why she has been given the portfolio.

My gut feel (and as I say I wait to be pleasantly surprised) is that the emerging Labour policy on conventional defence is unlikely to be any more coherent than Corbyn's recent stream of consciousness approach to not renewing trident.

You make a perfectly reasonable cases for not having nuclear weapons. Why didn't Corbyn? Instead of coming out with an utter dog's breakfast which doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny - beyond at least having the dubious virtue of being a make-work for the relevant unions....? It's not like he hasn't had 30-odd years to be thinking about what he would do if he could make the country dance to his tune.

I'd actually have had more respect for him (and her) if they just came out and said "the policy is unilateral disarmament, vote for us." Instead they're having yet another review about possible alternatives (the last one the Lib Dems ran *in government* and spoke to all the same people on all sides that Labour are going to before going rather quiet when oddly enough an alternative other than Continuous At Sea Deterrent or disarmament didn't emerge).

Why don't they just read that and then make their mind up? Smaller warheads/longer notice to fire/3 boats instead of 4/air launched missiles instead didn't exist as a sensible plan 2 years ago, and don't now.

The leg work has been done *in the last couple of years* - just come out and have the courage of your convictions Labour leadership!

At the moment we know what Jeremy thinks, what Thornberry thinks, what answer they want to get to, and all we get is vacillating and thrashing about wooliness attempting to square a circle to which there are only 2 credible answers - the one the Labour party and the Tories have historically had a consensus on, and unilateral disarmament. The problem, as ever, is that most Labour MPs, and certain unions don't agree with the leadership on this one. The GMB in particular has been very forthright...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But I think Blair has poisoned the well. Maybe he had a good defence review, but he helped bring about a collapse of the social fabric in Iraq. This is a terrible crime, and its consequences are still unravelling in terrible ways.

Labour have been scarred by Iraq. This wasn't because of any military miscalculation, but political insanity. Well, I suppose the paraphrase for that is 'looking after British interests'.

So people in Labour are (understandably) wary of any more right wing gits with delusions of grandeur.

[ 22. January 2016, 15:17: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

So people in Labour are (understandably) wary of any more right wing gits with delusions of grandeur.

I genuinely get that, I just wonder if the solution is left wing gits with delusions of competence... Competent gits of any wing might be step forward at the moment!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, I think Labour are in ruins after Blair. It's not pretty to watch, of course. I don't see any alternative to Corbyn - the Blairites are utterly bankrupt. Probably eventually, somebody will emerge, although looking at the blue eyed boys, such as Jarvis and Starmer, I have my doubts. We will have to let the Tories vandalize the country.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, we were so much better off with Blair, in terms of defence and the military.
the 1997 strategic defence review which Blair ordered was the single best post war review (IMO) in terms of coherent conclusions, joined up thinking, and a willingness to ask "what are we for?" whilst not being beholden to sacred cows. It put objectives, and the ability to meet those objectives whilst looking out for the welfare of servicemen and women front and centre. It knocked 1992's dreadful "Options for Change" into a cocked hat (and Tom King should have known better).

It's just a shame that it wasn't properly funded or followed through, and its author was kicked upstairs to the Lords.

Nevertheless, as someone that doesn't usually vote for the red team, that review, and George Robertson, were deeply good things.

*Then* it went spectacularly wrong, obviously.

To be strictly accurate, the failing in Iraq are not in terms of strategic defence thinking but in terms of foregin policy. The two are, of course related but not quite the same.

The decision to put Trident into the Defence budget is a subtle but important one.

The notion of keeping the submarines but not carrying warheads does on first inspection sound ridiculous but probably warants some deeper thought.

If you don't believe in the value of a nuclear deterrent and are anti-nuclear down the line it has the value of being a policy in line with one's views. So why keep the boats? Well by doing so, you are not tying future governments to said policy and meaning that at very short notice (as we lease the missiles from the US) the UK could rearm. I think it deserves some looking at rather than being dismissed out of hand.

However it is appalling politics. It means offending everyone and as far as I can see is a lose-lose all round.

FWIW, I disagree with Sioni above, it IS an independent nuclear deterrent - for better or worse - but we've gone over that a few times on other threads.

AFZ

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, we were so much better off with Blair, in terms of defence and the military.
the 1997 strategic defence review which Blair ordered was the single best post war review (IMO) in terms of coherent conclusions, joined up thinking, and a willingness to ask "what are we for?" whilst not being beholden to sacred cows. It put objectives, and the ability to meet those objectives whilst looking out for the welfare of servicemen and women front and centre. It knocked 1992's dreadful "Options for Change" into a cocked hat (and Tom King should have known better).

It's just a shame that it wasn't properly funded or followed through, and its author was kicked upstairs to the Lords.

Nevertheless, as someone that doesn't usually vote for the red team, that review, and George Robertson, were deeply good things.

*Then* it went spectacularly wrong, obviously.
The notion of keeping the submarines but not carrying warheads does on first inspection sound ridiculous but probably warants some deeper thought.

If you don't believe in the value of a nuclear deterrent and are anti-nuclear down the line it has the value of being a policy in line with one's views. So why keep the boats? Well by doing so, you are not tying future governments to said policy and meaning that at very short notice (as we lease the missiles from the US) the UK could rearm. I think it deserves some looking at rather than being dismissed out of hand.

AFZ

sorry, no.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty specifically says if you disarm you can't re-arm. Losing it means losing it, and unless a future government went utterly rogue, it does indeed tie future governments. Genuinely, we either continue to have it, or we stop having it.

Having it but not having it on patrol just means, as I said above, that if you start patrolling again then that's an escalation.

On a slightly more technical note, while we're not doing any of these things, how do we keep the skills? Since we've not had carriers we've had RN personnel flying USN jets off USN carriers, and flight deck crew posted likewise. Are Labour going to go for a non-nuclear policy which doesn't bind future governments because they're sending our lads to sea with the US deterrent? I really don't think so.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

On a slightly more technical note, while we're not doing any of these things, how do we keep the skills? Since we've not had carriers we've had RN personnel flying USN jets off USN carriers, and flight deck crew posted likewise. Are Labour going to go for a non-nuclear policy which doesn't bind future governments because they're sending our lads to sea with the US deterrent? I really don't think so.

That's a good point but just how many aircrew and flight deck/hangar crew do we have? Isn't it going to be a drop in the ocean once we have two bomb magnets of our own?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

betjemaniac - just to say I concur on virtually all your points. I'd certainly make the case for disarmament: I believe it's the moral choice, and I'd use the money to procure planes that worked, surface ships that don't have targets painted on the sides, and highly mobile ground combat forces. Also, hardening UK infrastructure against cyberwarfare. But neither of us are career politicians...

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

On a slightly more technical note, while we're not doing any of these things, how do we keep the skills? Since we've not had carriers we've had RN personnel flying USN jets off USN carriers, and flight deck crew posted likewise. Are Labour going to go for a non-nuclear policy which doesn't bind future governments because they're sending our lads to sea with the US deterrent? I really don't think so.
That's a good point but just how many aircrew and flight deck/hangar crew do we have? Isn't it going to be a drop in the ocean once we have two bomb magnets of our own?

Actually no - the cadres are such that the ground schools for handlers etc are already spinning up again and by the time we need them we'll be fully self-generated again.

If you want to be really impressed (open source), do some googling around the RAF's "seed corn" project which has kept full MPA crews going since the cancellation of Nimrod. Not only have we been flying US, Canadian and NZ planes for them, but apparently our crews have been wiping the floor with the others on exercise. It's genuinely impressive what we've been doing with other people's kit...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

At the moment we know what Jeremy thinks, what Thornberry thinks, what answer they want to get to, and all we get is vacillating and thrashing about wooliness attempting to square a circle to which there are only 2 credible answers - the one the Labour party and the Tories have historically had a consensus on, and unilateral disarmament. The problem, as ever, is that most Labour MPs, and certain unions don't agree with the leadership on this one. The GMB in particular has been very forthright...

The real problem is that the leadership can't change party policy, even if they wanted to. The review is a tool to justify conference re-examining the issue and hopefully persuade enough people to support the leadership.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How likely it will be will probably depend on how you define "surge to victory on a wave of popular acclaim". Thatcher won her elections on not that great a share of the vote (not too dismilar to Blair or Cameron) and it was acclaimed using similar language. Somehow I expect a victory by Corbyn with similar share of the vote would not be greeted with such acclaim.

Nonsense, It would be greeted by at least comparable acclaim, of a very similar nature, but by a completely different set of people.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
sorry, no.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty specifically says if you disarm you can't re-arm. Losing it means losing it, and unless a future government went utterly rogue, it does indeed tie future governments. Genuinely, we either continue to have it, or we stop having it.

Having it but not having it on patrol just means, as I said above, that if you start patrolling again then that's an escalation.

[/QB]

Ok fair point. I'd forgotten the non-proliferation treaty issues. What I was reaching for is that our subs don't ever carry a full compliment of missiles. So not carrying any is a smaller step than one might imagine. But you're right about the escalation that occurs if you do carry them.

I didn't vote for Corbyn as my first choice and I am desperate for proper opposition to the current shower. I think he's trying to reconcile being a lifelong CND supporter with looking to lead a country that seems to want to stay a nuclear power. And it's a bit of a hard sell.

AFZ

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Second post

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The real problem is that the leadership can't change party policy, even if they wanted to. The review is a tool to justify conference re-examining the issue and hopefully persuade enough people to support the leadership.

A question to which I haven't heard a sensible answer yet, is how a person - any person, not just Mr Corbyn, could lead a party effectively - should it turn out that the party has decided not to adopt a policy which which its own leader has closely identified him or herself. A party leader is more than just a chairman or woman.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I find it difficult to believe that submarines patrol, constantly and do *nothing* other than wait in case they need to commit genocide in a last act of vengeance from a dead island.

Surely they transport things/people, gather intelligence and carry weapons to down ships ?

[ 22. January 2016, 19:46: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I find it difficult to believe that submarines patrol, constantly and do *nothing* other than wait in case they need to commit genocide in a last act of vengeance from a dead island.

Surely they transport things/people, gather intelligence and carry weapons to down ships ?

That is precisely why until recently it didn't come out of the MOD's budget. They do none of the things in your second paragraph beginning with "surely", and exactly what you say in your paragraph beginning "I."

The on-patrol bomber boat leaves the Clyde, dives, sits somewhere only the CO and navigator know for x months, then returns to the Clyde. In that time, the world continues to turn, the ship's company's relatives die, leave them, etc and they're not told until they get back to base. If someone is critically ill on board then they do their best to treat them, but if they die they die, and get put in the freezer til the end of the patrol.

Seriously, that's what the deterrent patrol is, and what it has been since it started in 1968.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

That is beyond futile.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

The on-patrol bomber boat leaves the Clyde, dives, sits somewhere only the CO and navigator know for x months, then returns to the Clyde. In that time, the world continues to turn, the ship's company's relatives die, leave them, etc and they're not told until they get back to base. If someone is critically ill on board then they do their best to treat them, but if they die they die, and get put in the freezer til the end of the patrol.

That's why the most important members of the crew are arguably the surgeon and the cook. I know an ex-boat cook and while he isn't a brilliant cook he is a very safe cook. You don't want a Trident crew getting food poisoning.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Just as long as there are two separate freezers.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
a sailor writes...

the problem with Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons on the Marr programme is that it has all the hallmarks of having drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by people with no idea what they're talking about.

He's far from being alone and you have a big advantage over most. Still, we all get a vote.

I use defence (which I do know about) as the yardstick to credibility on what I don't. I do the same with newspapers - if they can get defence right then I trust them on what they report about other things. My parents, both of whom were teachers, did the same thing with education. I'm sure to an extent everyone does.

I'm afraid on defence at the moment Labour comes across as so much moonhowling. Charitably this is because the people at the top have spent decades thinking they'd got the subject weighed off by being a member of CND. However now, conventional or nuclear, they've got to start thinking it through - or at least thinking before they speak.

*If* defence on the other hand is in any way representative of the level of thinking they've given to other departments of state then I can only hope they don't get anywhere near power. You can do so much in 5 years to prepare, but I can't help thinking that they've got so much preparing to do from where they are now.

As an aside the homily at Mass this morning mentioned people in an unnamed country in South America grumbling about money spent on defence rather than on poverty. That's right, the only thing preventing the eradication of poverty is defence spending. Right. Just like all those cows and sheep who will be transformed into picturesque pets when everyone gives up eating meat.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
As an aside the homily at Mass this morning mentioned people in an unnamed country in South America grumbling about money spent on defence rather than on poverty. That's right, the only thing preventing the eradication of poverty is defence spending. Right. Just like all those cows and sheep who will be transformed into picturesque pets when everyone gives up eating meat.

If it was Brazil (quite possible) then the biofuel industry would make a big difference to hunger too. I don't think one poorly-aimed homily counts for much.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The word 'only' there is interesting. Who has said that defence spending is the only thing that prevents anti-poverty measures? It's possible that some party or politician has said this, but it sounds rather a blanket statement.

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :

If everyone gave up eating meat the existing cows and sheep might not become pets, but neither would there be so many bred and slaughtered on such a vast scale as we currently have. Given that 56 billion animals are killed each year for human consumption, we are artificially inflating their populations for our own diets.

And if we ate fewer sheep and cows there would be less CO2 equivalent going into the atmosphere (meat production puts out a lot of our CO2 emissions), and going over to plant based diets would allow us to sustain more humans. Growing crops to feed to cows which we then feed to humans is not a very efficient way of creating nutrients. Best to cut out the middle cow wherever possible, especially with the world population we currently have.

If you're concerned about climate change and world hunger, eat less meat.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That is beyond futile.

Is it futile for a poison dart frog to be so toxic that anything that eats it will be killed? The poison in its skin takes a fair amount of energy to produce and maintain, and by definition it will only ever be used against a predator once the frog itself is dead.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

That's good for the species. The frog dies, but in the process removes a predator who would have eaten other frogs, and the predators that don't eat the frogs dominate the gene pool reaching a point where they instinctively don't eat those frogs.

It's not quite the same thing as a "mess with me and it'll result in the death of all predators and all frogs".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

It's an illustration of how deterrence works. If enemies (or predators) know that killing you would mean they die as well, they are much less likely to try to kill you.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

That's assuming they are sane and have some degree of self-control. Given the people I've worked with in life, I'd say that's a very large IF.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That's assuming they are sane and have some degree of self-control.

Or indeed never make a mistake - which is very germane when we start speaking about the times at which there was *nearly* a nuclear war

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That's assuming they are sane and have some degree of self-control. Given the people I've worked with in life, I'd say that's a very large IF.

Fortunately it looks like the people at the Sharp End are actually reluctant to press the button. Here are just five of them.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's an illustration of how deterrence works. If enemies (or predators) know that killing you would mean they die as well, they are much less likely to try to kill you.

Except that the retaliatory strike would be pointless so why would we do it? So the enemy doesn't know that killing us would mean he'd die as well, because at that point killing him would be futile.

I certainly could not condone a revenge genocide which does no good to anyone, so nor can I condone the threat of such. That's why I morally and logically have to be a unilaterist.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's an illustration of how deterrence works. If enemies (or predators) know that killing you would mean they die as well, they are much less likely to try to kill you.

It's a poor illustration. There are significantly more frogs than predators, so if all the predators decided to eat frogs that would devastate the predator population, but make a relatively small impact on the frog population. There's no mutuality about the destruction. So, possibly more akin to what Reagan wanted out of Star Wars - the ability to reduce the impact of a nuclear strike on the US to "survivable" while retaining the ability to destroy the Soviets.

And, of course, the analogy also fails because we aren't comparing a predator-prey scenario. In nuclear deterrance the scenario is predator-predator. Don't kid yourself that during the Cold War we were the "good guys" who would be the innocent victims (prey) of a strike by the "evil Soviets" (predator). The Cold War was a struggle between predators to determine who would be top of the food chain.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

It also assumes there is no other deterent. One of the reasons nations do not attack us often - though they have continued to do so despite the fact we have nuclear weapons - is because we have a large well trained and well equipped standing army/navy/airforce.

(Of course the other reason we do not go to war often is because we engage in diplomacy.)

[ 26. January 2016, 10:23: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except that the retaliatory strike would be pointless so why would we do it? So the enemy doesn't know that killing us would mean he'd die as well, because at that point killing him would be futile.

We need to guarantee that we'll launch a retaliatory strike, because without that guarantee there's no deterrent, and with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us.

Um, that's bullshit.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Don't kid yourself that during the Cold War we were the "good guys" who would be the innocent victims (prey) of a strike by the "evil Soviets" (predator). The Cold War was a struggle between predators to determine who would be top of the food chain.

Oh, I heartily agree - we're all Bad Guys trying to get as much for ourselves as we can. Unilaterally disarming might turn us into a Good Guy, but it would also leave us defenceless against all the other Bad Guys. And personally I'd rather be a Bad Guy who's alive than a Good Guy who's a rapidly-expanding cloud of radioactive gas.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It also assumes there is no other deterent. One of the reasons nations do not attack us often - though they have continued to do so despite the fact we have nuclear weapons - is because we have a large well trained and well equipped standing army/navy/airforce.

Those forces wouldn't last long against Russia, the US or China.

quote:
(Of course the other reason we do not go to war often is because we engage in diplomacy.)

Diplomacy only works if you're on a reasonably level footing with the other country. We are strong in diplomacy precisely because we are a nuclear nation - it's that that makes China, Russia, etc. listen to us.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us.
Um, that's bullshit.

What else do you think is stopping them?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: What else do you think is stopping them?

For starters, and I know this may sound strange, there are countries that don't want to launch nuclear missiles against the UK. I guess what's stopping them is human decency, their conscience or — I realise this is hard to imagine — some countries may actually *like* the UK.

Something that is also stopping them is that the UK is actively building relationships with other countries. Through diplomacy, participation in international organisations, development aid, trade ...

You literally said "with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us". There are actually a lot of things stopping "anyone else".

[ 27. January 2016, 10:20: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us.
Um, that's bullshit.
What else do you think is stopping them?

What's stopping them from launching a nuclear strike against Vietnam or Nigeria?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: What else do you think is stopping them?
For starters, and I know this may sound strange, there are countries that don't want to launch nuclear missiles against the UK. I guess what's stopping them is human decency, their conscience or — I realise this is hard to imagine — some countries may actually *like* the UK.

Something that is also stopping them is that the UK is actively building relationships with other countries. Through diplomacy, participation in international organisations, development aid, trade ...

You literally said "with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us". There are actually a lot of things stopping "anyone else".

So basically, minus a nuclear deterrent we're reliant on everybody else staying friendly? That doesn't sound like a viable defence strategy to me.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What's stopping them from launching a nuclear strike against Vietnam or Nigeria?

Those countries have allegiances with nuclear powers who protect them.

Now, I guess some might say that we should ditch all our own nukes and trust in our allegiances with the US and France to maintain our deterrent. I see that as problematic for two reasons - firstly it would render us beholden to those countries, and secondly it would still be a doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction in which anyone who destroys us is destroyed themselves, but without our own fingers on the trigger.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: So basically, minus a nuclear deterrent we're reliant on everybody else staying friendly? That doesn't sound like a viable defence strategy to me.

You're moving the goalposts (in fact it is a school example of a false dichotomy).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except that the retaliatory strike would be pointless so why would we do it? So the enemy doesn't know that killing us would mean he'd die as well, because at that point killing him would be futile.
We need to guarantee that we'll launch a retaliatory strike, because without that guarantee there's no deterrent, and with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us.

Of course there's a deterrent, it's just not a nuclear deterrent.

Scenario: nation A has nukes, nation B doesn't (and, has no treaty arrangements with any other nuclear armed nation). Is nation B safe from nuclear attack just because nation A does not face the prospect of an immediate nuclear counter strike? I would say that they almost certainly are safe. What is the deterrance? International opinion - if nation A launched a nuclear attack they would be an international pariah, they would lose international trade, their citizens would not be able to travel (except as refugees from a clearly brutal government), no cultural exchanges or participation in international sporting events ... There would be an enormous cost to their own people. And, they would gain very little. Nation A would only launch a nuclear attack in either very extreme circumstances (eg: while engaged in a very costly conventional war where the only other option available would be an invasion with a vast loss of life on both sides) or if the government where certifiably insane (in which case they would likely disregard the deterrance of a nuclear counter strike anyway).

Basically, no sane person would launch a nuclear first strike except in extremis (and, if we reach the level of a conventional war where that might apply we're screwed anyway). Therefore, we only have nukes to deter a mad man, and a mad man probably wouldn't care.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except that the retaliatory strike would be pointless so why would we do it? So the enemy doesn't know that killing us would mean he'd die as well, because at that point killing him would be futile.
We need to guarantee that we'll launch a retaliatory strike, because without that guarantee there's no deterrent, and with no deterrent there's nothing to stop anyone else launching a strike against us.

Exactly. The entire doctrine is based on willingness to commit the worst war crime, the worst act of mass murder, the world has ever known. I'm not willing to be party to that.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What's stopping them from launching a nuclear strike against Vietnam or Nigeria?
Those countries have allegiances with nuclear powers who protect them.

Who does Nigeria have an allegiance with that would be willing to launch a nuclear counter strike?

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

This thread seems to have moved rather a long way from the OP, but then it kind of illustrates the self-inflicted mess Labour has made for itself.

As a Liberal-leaning floating voter, I watched the meteoric rise of Jeremy Corbyn with some bemusement, although once Jarvis and Johnson declined to stand, and given the profound mediocrity of the other candidates, there was a certain inevitability about it. I was quite prepared to give Corbyn a chance: what I wanted from him was some innovative thinking on re-balancing the economy, and a vigorous demolition of the "labour caused the recession" myth, perhaps making use of the social media know-how that Corbyn's team is alleged to possess. Also maybe a round of reassuring media appearances to say "I may be a bit of a lefty but I have some ideas that I think you'll like."

What was most definitely NOT called for was to kick off another Labour civil war along its ancient faultline of unilateralism. It's natural Tory territory, it generates all sorts of unnecessary negative headlines and Labour has torn itself apart over it at least twice before without any benefit to anyone except people who enjoy endless dead-horse style moral arguments.

I think it matters little to the average voter that a few dozen of the many thousands of nukes in the world have union jacks painted on them. It matters greatly that she has two jobs but still struggles to pay her rent, that her children can't afford anywhere to live at all and that her elderly parents can no longer manage at home but are being failed by care and health services. Labour needs to connect with real people on real issues, not play fantasy global strategy games.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't see that it's either/or. I mean, that Labour can criticize the govt for its austerity programme, and its overall neo-liberal policies, and also criticize Trident.

I noticed today that Corbyn was attacking Cameron on the question of Google taxes. I would think that any Labour leader has to tackle issues of low pay, cuts in services and so on.

But I don't think the thinking is, OK, we're developing policies about the economy, better lie low on defence and immigration. That sounds like Blairism again, no thanks.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think it matters little to the average voter that a few dozen of the many thousands of nukes in the world have union jacks painted on them. It matters greatly that she has two jobs but still struggles to pay her rent, that her children can't afford anywhere to live at all and that her elderly parents can no longer manage at home but are being failed by care and health services. Labour needs to connect with real people on real issues, not play fantasy global strategy games.

Of course, by the same measure, the calls to renew the Trident launch platforms could just as easily be called playing "fantasy global strategy games" - in fact, IMO, even more so as it plays to the fantasy that the UK is a global military big-hitter and needs to be in the big-boys club with all the big-boys toys.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think it matters little to the average voter that a few dozen of the many thousands of nukes in the world have union jacks painted on them. It matters greatly that she has two jobs but still struggles to pay her rent, that her children can't afford anywhere to live at all and that her elderly parents can no longer manage at home but are being failed by care and health services. Labour needs to connect with real people on real issues, not play fantasy global strategy games.
Of course, by the same measure, the calls to renew the Trident launch platforms could just as easily be called playing "fantasy global strategy games" - in fact, IMO, even more so as it plays to the fantasy that the UK is a global military big-hitter and needs to be in the big-boys club with all the big-boys toys.

I agree, and I suspect that most of our politicians do also, in private. The only argument I've heard for retaining the independent deterrent that makes any kind of sense is that if The US were to become isolationist, Russia might start throwing its weight around in Europe and might subject us to nuclear blackmail given the opportunity. But how this remote contingency would play out in practice is unclear to me and I don't think it was very clear to the person who put it to me (a military man). My worry for Labour (not that I have any personal stake in that organisation) is that another fight over unilateralism will be at best a strength-sapping distraction from more important things, at worst the beginning of the end.

Possibly if Corbyn hadn't made it into a thing, Osborne would have found reasons to keep kicking the Trident can down the road until it died the death, or at least until he was out of office. He is at heart a parsimonious pragmatist.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Corbyn... the man you can trust. Unless you are Diane Abbott of course.
Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn 'showed off' naked Diane Abbott to impress Left-wing friends

Pass the mind bleach.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I wondered when someone was going to publish a biography of Mr Corbyn. Ms Prince must've been working hard since he only got elected as party leader a few months ago.

FWIW, though, I don't particularly want to imagine any politician in an 'intimate' state. Mr Corbyn and Ms Abbott are no exception. (TBF, though, Mr Cameron and his pig require even more brain bleach, surely.)

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Corbyn... the man you can trust. Unless you are Diane Abbott of course.
Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn 'showed off' naked Diane Abbott to impress Left-wing friends

Except the actual quotes make that headline claim rather shaky.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Corbyn... the man you can trust. Unless you are Diane Abbott of course.
Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn 'showed off' naked Diane Abbott to impress Left-wing friends
Except the actual quotes make that headline claim rather shaky.

Hmmm, the political editor of the Toryograph writes a book about a left-leaning figure and you think it might contain bias?
You are a cynic, aren't you?

And nice sexism, deano, BTW. Two for one shot, good show.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Apologists for Corbyn in spite of his hypocrisy. I would never of thought it of the Ship!

How will you excuse him if he turns up as a session player on a recording of "A Flute For Fifty Pence" I wonder. "But he was only giving sectarian balance" or some such.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Apologists for Corbyn in spite of his hypocrisy. I would never of thought it of the Ship!

How will you excuse him if he turns up as a session player on a recording of "A Flute For Fifty Pence" I wonder. "But he was only giving sectarian balance" or some such.

What the hell are you talking about? What hypocrisy? The behaviour, if true, is a bit loutish but I'm not aware of Corbyn taking a strong stand on traditional sexual mores. The incident as described seems to involve an awful lot of reading in motivations that are not remotely apparent from the alleged facts. Even with the facts as reported, it's up to Abbot to have a problem with Corbyn's behaviour (which past evidence has shown she's perfectly capable of doing). The torygraph really is getting desperate.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And nice sexism, deano, BTW.

I don't quite follow this bit, can you help?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0