You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 25 2024 7.54pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 134 of 464 < 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 >

  

Stuk Flag Top half 18 Jan 16 4.03pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.24pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 3.15pm

He's had possibly his most retarded weekend so far.

I don't even think he'll make it to the general election.


Don't say that. There are at least a dozen 'safe' Labour seats Farage could win if Corbyn keeps this up until the next election.


That's why I think they'll oust him. Quite a few high profile Labour MPs would be at risk of losing their seats to someone else.

 

Optimistic as ever
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
npn Flag Crowborough 18 Jan 16 4.14pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote dannyh at 18 Jan 2016 2.25pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jan 2016 2.19pm

Corbyn must realise that this situation is ridiculous.

He must know that the vast majority in England will never vote for giving up nuclear weapons.....The lefties in Scotland and half in Wales perhaps but it is simply never going to happen in England.

Corbyn has led his party to irrelevance and I may be Ukip but I still have respect for some old Labour values.....But this one was always bats*** crazy and Corbyn just looks like a fool.

Everytime he opens his mouth he distances himself from more and more of the electorate, we all know that the tories are piss taking bastads, but Corbyn and his bunch of crusty lesbians and hippys are unelectable.

So I ask what do voters do in this case, no one is going to vote UKIP, lets be honest here, they just aren't. So it's either hand GB over to which ever agressive economic power decides to take over first, or vote the robbing bastads that are the tories back in again.

What a crock of s***.


Sad but true.

There really is the need for a "none of the above" box at the moment - there's just nobody I want to give my vote to. Corbyn's a joke, the Tories are desperately trying to live up to the nasty party title, UKIP are nowhere near electable (in my opinion), the Lib Dems don't have a chance in hell, the Greens would run us into the ground. Come back Screaming Lord Sutch, all is forgiven (in fact I reckon the Natural Law party would have a chance for my vote at the moment).

I've actually just sent of my postal ballot for the local elections and, for the first time in my 50 years, voted Lib Dem (because there weren't any independents standing)

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 18 Jan 16 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 18 Jan 16 4.18pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.


He can't definitely say anything. He's not in power, and he's never going to be.

Keith dickhead Vaz made the same mistake after Corbyn's bungle.

However, former minister and senior backbencher Keith Vaz said he had changed his mind on Trident.
"I think Jeremy Corbyn has persuaded me. He has made it very clear when he is prime minister that he is not going to be able to use these weapons, so what is the point in having them?"

 

Optimistic as ever
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
npn Flag Crowborough 18 Jan 16 4.26pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)


I'm unsure on the whole nuke thing (as I really don't think anyone would ever be crazy enough to actually use them), but there is no point having conventional weapons on a nuclear sub in this way. The whole point is "yes, you have the capacity to obliterate our nation, but if you do, be sure you'll cop the same back". With conventional weapons it becomes "yes, you may obliterate us, but if you do, be aware that you'll have a couple of months of rebuilding work to some of your key buildings ahead of you".

If you lose the nukes, you really may as well lose the subs (or at least those type of subs - there's still a place for hunter/killer types). To keep the subs would purely be to keep the jobs - you may as well split those people in two groups, get one lot digging holes, and the other lot filling them in again.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 18 Jan 16 4.47pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

You haven't answered my key point above. What is point of creating something costly that is useless because it placates the unions? I maintain that if Osbourne proposed something similar, you would be up in arms.

And given Corbyn's remarks yesterday that Trident doesn't deter the threats to Britain, he sited 9/11 as an example how would a non-nuclear trident deter threats, such as 9/11, to Britain?

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 18 Jan 16 5.00pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 4.18pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.


He can't definitely say anything. He's not in power, and he's never going to be.

Keith dickhead Vaz made the same mistake after Corbyn's bungle.

However, former minister and senior backbencher Keith Vaz said he had changed his mind on Trident.
"I think Jeremy Corbyn has persuaded me. He has made it very clear when he is prime minister that he is not going to be able to use these weapons, so what is the point in having them?"

Because the next prime minister might need them. Whilst some people talk a big game on the 'nuclear option' its very easy to do so from a point given that no one has ever had to act on it, or even remotely act on it.

Its one thing to say you'd never use them, but its another thing to actually not use them, say, following a nuclear attack on London, that's killed 100,000 people, destroyed the UK economy and potentially will render the UK a third world country in the coming weeks.

In response to a nuclear attack I suspect the only person in history that wouldn't retaliate in kind, even after talking big, is Ghandi, and even then I think its probably 50-50.

Hypothetical vs Reality is often the left wings delusion; the assumption that we can retain a rational distance from the context and events.

A big irony, and shock for the Labour government, was the discovery that in the cold war turning hot, that NATO almost certainly would be the first side to resort to using chemical, nuclear and/or biological weapons.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
on me shed son Flag Krakow 18 Jan 16 5.07pm Send a Private Message to on me shed son Add on me shed son as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.00pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 4.18pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.


He can't definitely say anything. He's not in power, and he's never going to be.

Keith dickhead Vaz made the same mistake after Corbyn's bungle.

However, former minister and senior backbencher Keith Vaz said he had changed his mind on Trident.
"I think Jeremy Corbyn has persuaded me. He has made it very clear when he is prime minister that he is not going to be able to use these weapons, so what is the point in having them?"

Because the next prime minister might need them. Whilst some people talk a big game on the 'nuclear option' its very easy to do so from a point given that no one has ever had to act on it, or even remotely act on it.

Its one thing to say you'd never use them, but its another thing to actually not use them, say, following a nuclear attack on London, that's killed 100,000 people, destroyed the UK economy and potentially will render the UK a third world country in the coming weeks.

In response to a nuclear attack I suspect the only person in history that wouldn't retaliate in kind, even after talking big, is Ghandi, and even then I think its probably 50-50.

Hypothetical vs Reality is often the left wings delusion; the assumption that we can retain a rational distance from the context and events.

A big irony, and shock for the Labour government, was the discovery that in the cold war turning hot, that NATO almost certainly would be the first side to resort to using chemical, nuclear and/or biological weapons.



You've obviously not played Civilization then.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 18 Jan 16 5.08pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 4.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

You haven't answered my key point above. What is point of creating something costly that is useless because it placates the unions? I maintain that if Osbourne proposed something similar, you would be up in arms.

And given Corbyn's remarks yesterday that Trident doesn't deter the threats to Britain, he sited 9/11 as an example how would a non-nuclear trident deter threats, such as 9/11, to Britain?

There is no deterrent to terrorist attacks. Trident doesn't really serve as a deterrent per se only as a means of assuring that an attack, no matter how devastating on the UK, would result in an equally devastating attack (its a form of deterrent).

It didn't mean the soviet union wouldn't attack the west - only that the UK would retain nuclear capability even if every single UK base fell in the first few minutes.

At the time of course, Trident wasn't the UKs only nuclear option, we had a fleet of Vulcan bombers and US missiles at Greenham Common etc They were the deterrent. Trident was about assurance of Mutually Assured Destruction. These other options where phased out in the 80s, by the Conservatives, with Trident being retained. But really since the collapse of the soviet union, Trident has largely been pointless.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 18 Jan 16 5.11pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.00pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 4.18pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.


He can't definitely say anything. He's not in power, and he's never going to be.

Keith dickhead Vaz made the same mistake after Corbyn's bungle.

However, former minister and senior backbencher Keith Vaz said he had changed his mind on Trident.
"I think Jeremy Corbyn has persuaded me. He has made it very clear when he is prime minister that he is not going to be able to use these weapons, so what is the point in having them?"

Because the next prime minister might need them. Whilst some people talk a big game on the 'nuclear option' its very easy to do so from a point given that no one has ever had to act on it, or even remotely act on it.

Its one thing to say you'd never use them, but its another thing to actually not use them, say, following a nuclear attack on London, that's killed 100,000 people, destroyed the UK economy and potentially will render the UK a third world country in the coming weeks.

In response to a nuclear attack I suspect the only person in history that wouldn't retaliate in kind, even after talking big, is Ghandi, and even then I think its probably 50-50.

Hypothetical vs Reality is often the left wings delusion; the assumption that we can retain a rational distance from the context and events.

A big irony, and shock for the Labour government, was the discovery that in the cold war turning hot, that NATO almost certainly would be the first side to resort to using chemical, nuclear and/or biological weapons.


Exactly. Should the unfathomable actually occur and someone has to follow Corbyn.

 

Optimistic as ever
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 18 Jan 16 5.12pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 4.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

You haven't answered my key point above. What is point of creating something costly that is useless because it placates the unions? I maintain that if Osbourne proposed something similar, you would be up in arms.

And given Corbyn's remarks yesterday that Trident doesn't deter the threats to Britain, he sited 9/11 as an example how would a non-nuclear trident deter threats, such as 9/11, to Britain?

There is no deterrent to terrorist attacks. Trident doesn't really serve as a deterrent per se only as a means of assuring that an attack, no matter how devastating on the UK, would result in an equally devastating attack (its a form of deterrent).

It didn't mean the soviet union wouldn't attack the west - only that the UK would retain nuclear capability even if every single UK base fell in the first few minutes.

At the time of course, Trident wasn't the UKs only nuclear option, we had a fleet of Vulcan bombers and US missiles at Greenham Common etc They were the deterrent. Trident was about assurance of Mutually Assured Destruction. These other options where phased out in the 80s, by the Conservatives, with Trident being retained. But really since the collapse of the soviet union, Trident has largely been pointless.



Still doesn't answer the questions, not that I did ask you to respond.

You have to let those who are asked answer questions answer, not launch constantly into your tangent. I find it irritating, patronising and disrespectful.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 5.13pm)

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 18 Jan 16 5.17pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 4.03pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.24pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 3.15pm

He's had possibly his most retarded weekend so far.

I don't even think he'll make it to the general election.


Don't say that. There are at least a dozen 'safe' Labour seats Farage could win if Corbyn keeps this up until the next election.


That's why I think they'll oust him. Quite a few high profile Labour MPs would be at risk of losing their seats to someone else.

I think for Labour, at the next election, its either going to be a victory or a humiliating landslide defeat with Corbyn in charge. I don't think it can sit in between as a 'close run thing'. I wouldn't rule him out as assured defeat. That's the same thing a lot of people were saying about UKIP because they didn't like them, and they did exceptionally well at the election (arguably polling third nationally).

With leaders that are 'love or hate' its impossible to be sure. Its notably that most of the people who seem to hate Corbyn with Passion, wouldn't have been voting for Labour anyhow.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 134 of 464 < 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn