Jeremy Corbyn

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 136 of 464 < 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 >

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 Jan 16 9.46pm
Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm 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? I can see why the unions are concerned that thousands of jobs are at risk if trident doesn't get the go ahead. Fact is though, we'd spend loads of money on something that on the face of it, we won't have much control over anyway. In some respects, and answering yourpoint in creating something useless, that's basic Keynesian economics. if it's employment we're worried about - as employment = wages = spending = good for the economy, then perhaps we'd be better off using the keynesian model of burying a s*** load of money deep deep underground so that people are paid to dig the money out. Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway. I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways. Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks? Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm) Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer? Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS. Which is it? Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 18 Jan 16 9.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm

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?

I can see why the unions are concerned that thousands of jobs are at risk if trident doesn't get the go ahead. Fact is though, we'd spend loads of money on something that on the face of it, we won't have much control over anyway.

In some respects, and answering yourpoint in creating something useless, that's basic Keynesian economics. if it's employment we're worried about - as employment = wages = spending = good for the economy, then perhaps we'd be better off using the keynesian model of burying a s*** load of money deep deep underground so that people are paid to dig the money out.

Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway.

I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways.

Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks?

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm)

Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer?

Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS.

Which is it?

Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security.

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 19 Jan 16 4.16am
Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm 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? I can see why the unions are concerned that thousands of jobs are at risk if trident doesn't get the go ahead. Fact is though, we'd spend loads of money on something that on the face of it, we won't have much control over anyway. In some respects, and answering yourpoint in creating something useless, that's basic Keynesian economics. if it's employment we're worried about - as employment = wages = spending = good for the economy, then perhaps we'd be better off using the keynesian model of burying a s*** load of money deep deep underground so that people are paid to dig the money out. Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway. I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways. Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks? Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm) Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer? Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS. Which is it? Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security. No I am not. You are supporting Corbyn's policy of replacing trident with convention warheads and saying in turn that we need to confront iSIS. Seems to me that this policy you support doesn't add up. "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 a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 19 Jan 16 4.16am

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm

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

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.

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)

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

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?

Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway.

I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways.

Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks?

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm)

Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer?

Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS.

Which is it?

Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security.

No I am not. You are supporting Corbyn's policy of replacing trident with convention warheads and saying in turn that we need to confront iSIS. Seems to me that this policy you support doesn't add up.

"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 a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 9.13am
Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 4.16am Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm 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? I can see why the unions are concerned that thousands of jobs are at risk if trident doesn't get the go ahead. Fact is though, we'd spend loads of money on something that on the face of it, we won't have much control over anyway. In some respects, and answering yourpoint in creating something useless, that's basic Keynesian economics. if it's employment we're worried about - as employment = wages = spending = good for the economy, then perhaps we'd be better off using the keynesian model of burying a s*** load of money deep deep underground so that people are paid to dig the money out. Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway. I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways. Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks? Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm) Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer? Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS. Which is it? Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security. No I am not. You are supporting Corbyn's policy of replacing trident with convention warheads and saying in turn that we need to confront iSIS. Seems to me that this policy you support doesn't add up. Not supporting, saying it's an option in order to keep jobs. We do need to deal with ISIS, not with missiles though.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 9.13am

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 4.16am

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm

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

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.

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)

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

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?

Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway.

I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways.

Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks?

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm)

Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer?

Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS.

Which is it?

Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security.

Not supporting, saying it's an option in order to keep jobs.

We do need to deal with ISIS, not with missiles though.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Jan 16 9.59am
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jan 2016 8.41pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm 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. How can you seriously say that Jamie? Nuclear upgrades take a long time to plan for and there are possible existential threats to us from China, Russia, North Korea, pakistan, Iran.....Saying that these or other countries wouldn't be a nuclear threat to us in the years ahead is an unknowable and hence negligent thinking. How can you seriously say there are no possible nuclear threats to this country in the future? This is playing with national security. Trident would be useless against China, pakistan and North Korea, as the operation range of the submarines is too limited, given the number of submarines in service (3 or four). There are nuclear threats, and we shouldn't have no nuclear option, its just that the Trident solution is not fit for that purpose. The problem is with how Trident is designed to work and operates. Its not designed to deal with an unknown threat, it designed to ensure the destruction of a known threat. Realistically the UK needs to move to a land based system, or to revamp the submarines to operate as part of a navy fleet. In which case it would probably be more sensible to mount the missiles into a warship than a submarine. Incidentally, the Sun is wrong, Nuclear submarines do not need to have nuclear weapons, the nuclear aspect relates to its power source. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 19 Jan 16 9.59am

Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jan 2016 8.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm

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.

How can you seriously say that Jamie? Nuclear upgrades take a long time to plan for and there are possible existential threats to us from China, Russia, North Korea, pakistan, Iran.....Saying that these or other countries wouldn't be a nuclear threat to us in the years ahead is an unknowable and hence negligent thinking.

How can you seriously say there are no possible nuclear threats to this country in the future? This is playing with national security.

Trident would be useless against China, pakistan and North Korea, as the operation range of the submarines is too limited, given the number of submarines in service (3 or four).

There are nuclear threats, and we shouldn't have no nuclear option, its just that the Trident solution is not fit for that purpose.

The problem is with how Trident is designed to work and operates. Its not designed to deal with an unknown threat, it designed to ensure the destruction of a known threat.

Incidentally, the Sun is wrong, Nuclear submarines do not need to have nuclear weapons, the nuclear aspect relates to its power source.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Jan 16 10.04am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 18 Jan 2016 9.43pm Quote -TUX- at 18 Jan 2016 9.15pm Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 17 Jan 2016 10.43pm I do feel sorry for myself sometimes. Completely unable to make my own mind up on any decision unless I am told by the politicians and media what to think. Thank god there's a group of people, many of whom frequent this forum, that can save people like me from ourselves. Anyway, back to nuclear weapons. The point of having them is so that they're never used. Do you think Kruschev would have pulled back in 62 if America couldn't match the russkies? Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (17 Jan 2016 10.44pm) There's nothing to think about as nothing happened. And it never will. Exactamundo The Soviets were deploying missiles to Cuba in response to the US deploying missiles in Turkey across the Black Sea Curiously, the US removed their missile installations in Turkey shortly after the Soviet Fleet turned back. Which arguably seems like a fairly reasonable action and solution. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 19 Jan 16 10.04am

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 18 Jan 2016 9.43pm

Quote -TUX- at 18 Jan 2016 9.15pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 17 Jan 2016 10.43pm

I do feel sorry for myself sometimes. Completely unable to make my own mind up on any decision unless I am told by the politicians and media what to think.

Thank god there's a group of people, many of whom frequent this forum, that can save people like me from ourselves.

Anyway, back to nuclear weapons. The point of having them is so that they're never used. Do you think Kruschev would have pulled back in 62 if America couldn't match the russkies?

Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (17 Jan 2016 10.44pm)

There's nothing to think about as nothing happened. And it never will.

Exactamundo

The Soviets were deploying missiles to Cuba in response to the US deploying missiles in Turkey across the Black Sea

Curiously, the US removed their missile installations in Turkey shortly after the Soviet Fleet turned back.

Which arguably seems like a fairly reasonable action and solution.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish Burgess Hill 19 Jan 16 10.08am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Jan 2016 9.59am Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jan 2016 8.41pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm 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. How can you seriously say that Jamie? Nuclear upgrades take a long time to plan for and there are possible existential threats to us from China, Russia, North Korea, pakistan, Iran.....Saying that these or other countries wouldn't be a nuclear threat to us in the years ahead is an unknowable and hence negligent thinking. How can you seriously say there are no possible nuclear threats to this country in the future? This is playing with national security. Trident would be useless against China, pakistan and North Korea, as the operation range of the submarines is too limited, given the number of submarines in service (3 or four). There are nuclear threats, and we shouldn't have no nuclear option, its just that the Trident solution is not fit for that purpose. The problem is with how Trident is designed to work and operates. Its not designed to deal with an unknown threat, it designed to ensure the destruction of a known threat. Realistically the UK needs to move to a land based system, or to revamp the submarines to operate as part of a navy fleet. In which case it would probably be more sensible to mount the missiles into a warship than a submarine. Incidentally, the Sun is wrong, Nuclear submarines do not need to have nuclear weapons, the nuclear aspect relates to its power source. Interesting points. Anyone know why we opted for subs in the first place and whether the arguments used then still apply? Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish

Burgess Hill 19 Jan 16 10.08am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Jan 2016 9.59am

Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jan 2016 8.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm

How can you seriously say there are no possible nuclear threats to this country in the future? This is playing with national security.

Trident would be useless against China, pakistan and North Korea, as the operation range of the submarines is too limited, given the number of submarines in service (3 or four).

There are nuclear threats, and we shouldn't have no nuclear option, its just that the Trident solution is not fit for that purpose.

The problem is with how Trident is designed to work and operates. Its not designed to deal with an unknown threat, it designed to ensure the destruction of a known threat.

Realistically the UK needs to move to a land based system, or to revamp the submarines to operate as part of a navy fleet. In which case it would probably be more sensible to mount the missiles into a warship than a submarine.
Incidentally, the Sun is wrong, Nuclear submarines do not need to have nuclear weapons, the nuclear aspect relates to its power source.

Interesting points. Anyone know why we opted for subs in the first place and whether the arguments used then still apply?

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 19 Jan 16 10.28am
Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 9.13am Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 4.16am Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm 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? I can see why the unions are concerned that thousands of jobs are at risk if trident doesn't get the go ahead. Fact is though, we'd spend loads of money on something that on the face of it, we won't have much control over anyway. In some respects, and answering yourpoint in creating something useless, that's basic Keynesian economics. if it's employment we're worried about - as employment = wages = spending = good for the economy, then perhaps we'd be better off using the keynesian model of burying a s*** load of money deep deep underground so that people are paid to dig the money out. Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway. I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways. Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks? Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm) Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer? Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS. Which is it? Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security. No I am not. You are supporting Corbyn's policy of replacing trident with convention warheads and saying in turn that we need to confront iSIS. Seems to me that this policy you support doesn't add up. Not supporting, saying it's an option in order to keep jobs. We do need to deal with ISIS, not with missiles though. So you are supporting the spending of billions on something that is useless to preserve jobs and placate the unions (Labours paymasters)? "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 a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 19 Jan 16 10.28am

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 9.13am

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 4.16am

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm

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

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.

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)

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

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?

Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway.

I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways.

Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks?

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm)

Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer?

Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS.

Which is it?

Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security.

Not supporting, saying it's an option in order to keep jobs.

We do need to deal with ISIS, not with missiles though.

So you are supporting the spending of billions on something that is useless to preserve jobs and placate the unions (Labours paymasters)?

"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 a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Jan 16 11.21am
Quote Catfish at 19 Jan 2016 10.08am Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Jan 2016 9.59am Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jan 2016 8.41pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm 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. How can you seriously say that Jamie? Nuclear upgrades take a long time to plan for and there are possible existential threats to us from China, Russia, North Korea, pakistan, Iran.....Saying that these or other countries wouldn't be a nuclear threat to us in the years ahead is an unknowable and hence negligent thinking. How can you seriously say there are no possible nuclear threats to this country in the future? This is playing with national security. Trident would be useless against China, pakistan and North Korea, as the operation range of the submarines is too limited, given the number of submarines in service (3 or four). There are nuclear threats, and we shouldn't have no nuclear option, its just that the Trident solution is not fit for that purpose. The problem is with how Trident is designed to work and operates. Its not designed to deal with an unknown threat, it designed to ensure the destruction of a known threat. Realistically the UK needs to move to a land based system, or to revamp the submarines to operate as part of a navy fleet. In which case it would probably be more sensible to mount the missiles into a warship than a submarine. Incidentally, the Sun is wrong, Nuclear submarines do not need to have nuclear weapons, the nuclear aspect relates to its power source. Interesting points. Anyone know why we opted for subs in the first place and whether the arguments used then still apply? Trident submarines were designed to sit at the bottom of the north sea for long periods of time, armed with medium range nuclear missiles to provide the UK with a absolute guarantee of being able to retaliate to a Soviet strike, even if that strike wiped out the UK. The submarines had pre-set targets and stayed out of radio communications with the mainland UK. If the UK was attacked the Prime Minister or Nuclear Deputies could issue a retailtory strike to the commander and issue the launch authority. Failing that if the UK ceased to exist, the commander also had a safe with orders in it from the Prime Minister (whether to launch, along with launch codes etc). In response Trident could guarantee the delivery of x number of multi warhead missiles to a number of soviet targets (probably cities). In addition the UK also had airborne nuclear capability designed to deal with a more specific problem such as a single retaliatory strike. When designed Trident was not a solution to provide the UKs nuclear capacity, only to ensure that the UK could always deploy its nuclear capability at the Soviet Union. The location of the submarines when randomised, so that prior to setting out, the crew and commander wouldn't know their location, and nor would command - making it almost impossible for the Soviets to locate them except by accident. The basic operation of a Trident submarine is to lurk in range of the enemy country, under total communication silence, awaiting orders. The problem of updating systems on the fly, is that the vessel would likely give its location away in confirming orders and the transfer of data and be sunk by enemy submarine hunters (because it lacks any real capacity to protect itself and operates without naval or air support to protect it). It was a very elegent solution for the Cold War, where the enemy was 'reasonably close' and known. But it lacked the range for China, North Korea and probably Iran. However, its not a very flexible solution. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 19 Jan 16 11.21am

Quote Catfish at 19 Jan 2016 10.08am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Jan 2016 9.59am

Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jan 2016 8.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm

How can you seriously say there are no possible nuclear threats to this country in the future? This is playing with national security.

Trident would be useless against China, pakistan and North Korea, as the operation range of the submarines is too limited, given the number of submarines in service (3 or four).

There are nuclear threats, and we shouldn't have no nuclear option, its just that the Trident solution is not fit for that purpose.

The problem is with how Trident is designed to work and operates. Its not designed to deal with an unknown threat, it designed to ensure the destruction of a known threat.

Interesting points. Anyone know why we opted for subs in the first place and whether the arguments used then still apply?

Trident submarines were designed to sit at the bottom of the north sea for long periods of time, armed with medium range nuclear missiles to provide the UK with a absolute guarantee of being able to retaliate to a Soviet strike, even if that strike wiped out the UK.

The submarines had pre-set targets and stayed out of radio communications with the mainland UK. If the UK was attacked the Prime Minister or Nuclear Deputies could issue a retailtory strike to the commander and issue the launch authority. Failing that if the UK ceased to exist, the commander also had a safe with orders in it from the Prime Minister (whether to launch, along with launch codes etc).

In response Trident could guarantee the delivery of x number of multi warhead missiles to a number of soviet targets (probably cities).

In addition the UK also had airborne nuclear capability designed to deal with a more specific problem such as a single retaliatory strike.

When designed Trident was not a solution to provide the UKs nuclear capacity, only to ensure that the UK could always deploy its nuclear capability at the Soviet Union.

The location of the submarines when randomised, so that prior to setting out, the crew and commander wouldn't know their location, and nor would command - making it almost impossible for the Soviets to locate them except by accident.

The basic operation of a Trident submarine is to lurk in range of the enemy country, under total communication silence, awaiting orders. The problem of updating systems on the fly, is that the vessel would likely give its location away in confirming orders and the transfer of data and be sunk by enemy submarine hunters (because it lacks any real capacity to protect itself and operates without naval or air support to protect it).

It was a very elegent solution for the Cold War, where the enemy was 'reasonably close' and known. But it lacked the range for China, North Korea and probably Iran. However, its not a very flexible solution.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 11.25am
Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 10.28am Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 9.13am Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 4.16am Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm 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? I can see why the unions are concerned that thousands of jobs are at risk if trident doesn't get the go ahead. Fact is though, we'd spend loads of money on something that on the face of it, we won't have much control over anyway. In some respects, and answering yourpoint in creating something useless, that's basic Keynesian economics. if it's employment we're worried about - as employment = wages = spending = good for the economy, then perhaps we'd be better off using the keynesian model of burying a s*** load of money deep deep underground so that people are paid to dig the money out. Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway. I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways. Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks? Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm) Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer? Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS. Which is it? Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security. No I am not. You are supporting Corbyn's policy of replacing trident with convention warheads and saying in turn that we need to confront iSIS. Seems to me that this policy you support doesn't add up. Not supporting, saying it's an option in order to keep jobs. We do need to deal with ISIS, not with missiles though. So you are supporting the spending of billions on something that is useless to preserve jobs and placate the unions (Labours paymasters)? I'd actually set up manufacture of something different to preserve jobs. For instance the latest generation of solar and wind power is a lot more cost effective and efficient. Imagine the savings if we could roll out solar panels for all new housing . Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 11.29am)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 19 Jan 16 11.25am

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 10.28am

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 9.13am

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 4.16am

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm

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

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.

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)

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

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?

Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway.

I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways.

Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks?

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm)

Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer?

Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS.

Which is it?

Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security.

Not supporting, saying it's an option in order to keep jobs.

We do need to deal with ISIS, not with missiles though.

So you are supporting the spending of billions on something that is useless to preserve jobs and placate the unions (Labours paymasters)?

I'd actually set up manufacture of something different to preserve jobs. For instance the latest generation of solar and wind power is a lot more cost effective and efficient. Imagine the savings if we could roll out solar panels for all new housing .

Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 11.29am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Alexi_the_Eagle Newton-le-Willows 19 Jan 16 11.29am
Corbyn still wants to debate with ISIS, does he? Then why doesn't he head out to Syria with his white flag and bag of Werther's Originals to negotiate. I'd give him at least a nano-second before he's paraded around in an orange jumpsuit. He's so hopelessly out of touch that it's unbelievable. There's only one way to deal with ISIS, and that's a few missiles fired where the sun don't shine. "Look at that. Accident blackspot? These aren't accidents! They're throwing themselves into the road gladly! Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness!"
Alert a moderator to this post

Alexi_the_Eagle

Newton-le-Willows 19 Jan 16 11.29am

Send a Private Message to Alexi_the_Eagle

Corbyn still wants to debate with ISIS, does he? Then why doesn't he head out to Syria with his white flag and bag of Werther's Originals to negotiate. I'd give him at least a nano-second before he's paraded around in an orange jumpsuit.

He's so hopelessly out of touch that it's unbelievable. There's only one way to deal with ISIS, and that's a few missiles fired where the sun don't shine.

"Look at that. Accident blackspot? These aren't accidents! They're throwing themselves into the road gladly! Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness!"

Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 19 Jan 16 11.55am
From The Guardian On the subject of opinion polls, the Press Association has published an analysis of the latest polling figures saying Labour is doing worse at this point in the electoral cycle than at any time since the second world war. This is from the Press Association’s Ian Jones. Labour has failed to achieve any bounce in the polls since Jeremy Corbyn became leader and the party has not performed this badly in the aftermath of any election since the second world war. It is currently trailing the Conservatives by an average of eight points. This is the biggest poll deficit recorded by Labour eight months after an election defeat since regular opinion polls began in Britain in the late 1940s, analysis by the Press Association shows. At this stage in the last parliament, the party was ahead of the Tories by an average of five points. And eight months after losing the 1992 election, Labour had opened up a lead of 10 points. The last time the party was still polling behind the Conservatives this long after an election defeat was in 1988, when it trailed by five points. But it is impossible to find any record since the Second World War of a gap bigger than eight points at this stage in any electoral cycle. To add to Labour’s woes, the party has failed to come first in any opinion poll published since the Tories won the general election in May 2015. Some pollsters have warned that Labour’s current ratings may even be too high. Commenting on the latest poll from ICM, which shows the Tories on 40% and Labour on 35%, ICM director Martin Boon said: “This may be overstating Labour strength. 35% is probably too high. We can see in the small print of this poll that we’ve still got too many respondents who recall voting Labour.” ICM has adjusted its methods since the general election in an attempt to better reflect the views of people who decline to reveal their intention. Labour’s current poll deficit of eight points is not the biggest the party has experienced while in opposition. The Tories enjoyed a 10-point lead just 12 months after winning the 1959 election, for example. A gap of eight points has never opened up this quickly, however. Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (19 Jan 2016 11.55am) the dignified don't even enter in the game
Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 19 Jan 16 11.55am

From The Guardian

On the subject of opinion polls, the Press Association has published an analysis of the latest polling figures saying Labour is doing worse at this point in the electoral cycle than at any time since the second world war. This is from the Press Association’s Ian Jones.

Labour has failed to achieve any bounce in the polls since Jeremy Corbyn became leader and the party has not performed this badly in the aftermath of any election since the second world war.

It is currently trailing the Conservatives by an average of eight points.

This is the biggest poll deficit recorded by Labour eight months after an election defeat since regular opinion polls began in Britain in the late 1940s, analysis by the Press Association shows.

At this stage in the last parliament, the party was ahead of the Tories by an average of five points.

And eight months after losing the 1992 election, Labour had opened up a lead of 10 points.

The last time the party was still polling behind the Conservatives this long after an election defeat was in 1988, when it trailed by five points.

But it is impossible to find any record since the Second World War of a gap bigger than eight points at this stage in any electoral cycle.

To add to Labour’s woes, the party has failed to come first in any opinion poll published since the Tories won the general election in May 2015.

Some pollsters have warned that Labour’s current ratings may even be too high.

Commenting on the latest poll from ICM, which shows the Tories on 40% and Labour on 35%, ICM director Martin Boon said: “This may be overstating Labour strength. 35% is probably too high. We can see in the small print of this poll that we’ve still got too many respondents who recall voting Labour.”

ICM has adjusted its methods since the general election in an attempt to better reflect the views of people who decline to reveal their intention.

Labour’s current poll deficit of eight points is not the biggest the party has experienced while in opposition. The Tories enjoyed a 10-point lead just 12 months after winning the 1959 election, for example.

A gap of eight points has never opened up this quickly, however.

Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (19 Jan 2016 11.55am)

the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 19 Jan 16 12.23pm
Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 11.25am Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 10.28am Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 9.13am Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 4.16am Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm 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? I can see why the unions are concerned that thousands of jobs are at risk if trident doesn't get the go ahead. Fact is though, we'd spend loads of money on something that on the face of it, we won't have much control over anyway. In some respects, and answering yourpoint in creating something useless, that's basic Keynesian economics. if it's employment we're worried about - as employment = wages = spending = good for the economy, then perhaps we'd be better off using the keynesian model of burying a s*** load of money deep deep underground so that people are paid to dig the money out. Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway. I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways. Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks? Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm) Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer? Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS. Which is it? Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security. No I am not. You are supporting Corbyn's policy of replacing trident with convention warheads and saying in turn that we need to confront iSIS. Seems to me that this policy you support doesn't add up. Not supporting, saying it's an option in order to keep jobs. We do need to deal with ISIS, not with missiles though. So you are supporting the spending of billions on something that is useless to preserve jobs and placate the unions (Labours paymasters)? I'd actually set up manufacture of something different to preserve jobs. For instance the latest generation of solar and wind power is a lot more cost effective and efficient. Imagine the savings if we could roll out solar panels for all new housing . Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 11.29am) Do you support or not Corbyn's plans to build a useless missile system for the sole purpose of retaining jobs? Very simple question. "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 a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 19 Jan 16 12.23pm

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 11.25am

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 10.28am

Quote nickgusset at 19 Jan 2016 9.13am

Quote matt_himself at 19 Jan 2016 4.16am

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 9.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 9.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm

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

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.

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)

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

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?

Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway.

I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways.

Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks?

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm)

Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer?

Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS.

Which is it?

Didn't say military actions - you are imagining things. Money could be spent on home security.

Not supporting, saying it's an option in order to keep jobs.

We do need to deal with ISIS, not with missiles though.

So you are supporting the spending of billions on something that is useless to preserve jobs and placate the unions (Labours paymasters)?

Edited by nickgusset (19 Jan 2016 11.29am)

Do you support or not Corbyn's plans to build a useless missile system for the sole purpose of retaining jobs?

Very simple question.

"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 a moderator to this post

Page 136 of 464 < 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Jeremy Corbyn

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors