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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 191 of 464 < 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 >

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Jul 16 8.11am
The Labour leader candidates campaigning by calling for another referendum are pitiful. Not only is it a transparent political manoeuver to place Labour as the party of the whining Remainers, it also tries to make a mockery of our democracy. Labour have had no real focus in recent years and this is their pathetic insulting attempt to appeal to a certain section of society and distance themselves from the left of their party. Could they get any more embarrassing?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Jul 16 8.11am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

The Labour leader candidates campaigning by calling for another referendum are pitiful.

Not only is it a transparent political manoeuver to place Labour as the party of the whining Remainers, it also tries to make a mockery of our democracy.
Labour have had no real focus in recent years and this is their pathetic insulting attempt to appeal to a certain section of society and distance themselves from the left of their party.

Could they get any more embarrassing?

Alert a moderator to this post

Slimey Toad Karsiyaka, North Cyprus 14 Jul 16 11.40am
The way I remember it (back in the 80s anyway, with motions and composite motions at conference) is the power structure of the LP was thus: Party Conference NEC CLPs Where did Parliamentary MPs fit in all that? Basically delegated to implement conference decisions, ratified by the NEC and which were originally put forward by constituency members. That sums up the contempt Corbyn has for the ordinary voter. Edit: maybe contempt is too strong. It certainly smacks of disinterest. Edited by Slimey Toad (14 Jul 2016 11.41am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Slimey Toad

Karsiyaka, North Cyprus 14 Jul 16 11.40am

The way I remember it (back in the 80s anyway, with motions and composite motions at conference) is the power structure of the LP was thus:

Party Conference
NEC
CLPs

Where did Parliamentary MPs fit in all that? Basically delegated to implement conference decisions, ratified by the NEC and which were originally put forward by constituency members.

That sums up the contempt Corbyn has for the ordinary voter.

Edit: maybe contempt is too strong. It certainly smacks of disinterest.

Edited by Slimey Toad (14 Jul 2016 11.41am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 14 Jul 16 1.13pm
Originally posted by Slimey Toad The way I remember it (back in the 80s anyway, with motions and composite motions at conference) is the power structure of the LP was thus: Party Conference NEC CLPs Where did Parliamentary MPs fit in all that? Basically delegated to implement conference decisions, ratified by the NEC and which were originally put forward by constituency members. That sums up the contempt Corbyn has for the ordinary voter. Edit: maybe contempt is too strong. It certainly smacks of disinterest. Edited by Slimey Toad (14 Jul 2016 11.41am) Another view of the same thing is to note that it's the thousands of members who have more of a say in policy that a couple of hundred MPs..... Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 14 Jul 16 1.13pm

Originally posted by Slimey Toad

The way I remember it (back in the 80s anyway, with motions and composite motions at conference) is the power structure of the LP was thus:

Party Conference
NEC
CLPs

Where did Parliamentary MPs fit in all that? Basically delegated to implement conference decisions, ratified by the NEC and which were originally put forward by constituency members.

That sums up the contempt Corbyn has for the ordinary voter.

Edit: maybe contempt is too strong. It certainly smacks of disinterest.

Edited by Slimey Toad (14 Jul 2016 11.41am)

Another view of the same thing is to note that it's the thousands of members who have more of a say in policy that a couple of hundred MPs.....

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 12.27pm
The loon cakes of the Labour, SNP and others actually thinking about voting against a Trident replacement are naive fools who live in a fantasy world. It's not only Corbyn and his cronies who has delusions about the chances of uniliteral disarmament but a disturbingly large amount of supposedly intelligent people. it's like 70 years of avoiding nuclear war never happened. Oh wait, I forgot. That was because of the EU. Loony alert.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

18 Jul 16 12.27pm

The loon cakes of the Labour, SNP and others actually thinking about voting against a Trident replacement are naive fools who live in a fantasy world.

It's not only Corbyn and his cronies who has delusions about the chances of uniliteral disarmament but a disturbingly large amount of supposedly intelligent people.
it's like 70 years of avoiding nuclear war never happened.

Oh wait, I forgot. That was because of the EU.

Loony alert.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 18 Jul 16 1.06pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The loon cakes of the Labour, SNP and others actually thinking about voting against a Trident replacement are naive fools who live in a fantasy world. It's not only Corbyn and his cronies who has delusions about the chances of uniliteral disarmament but a disturbingly large amount of supposedly intelligent people. it's like 70 years of avoiding nuclear war never happened. Oh wait, I forgot. That was because of the EU. Loony alert. Go for it then Hrolf - if we don't have Trident, who's going to come and either invade or nuke us? No ifs ands or buts - who are we actually, really deterring? Straight question. Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 18 Jul 16 1.06pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The loon cakes of the Labour, SNP and others actually thinking about voting against a Trident replacement are naive fools who live in a fantasy world.

Oh wait, I forgot. That was because of the EU.

Loony alert.

Go for it then Hrolf - if we don't have Trident, who's going to come and either invade or nuke us?

No ifs ands or buts - who are we actually, really deterring? Straight question.

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 1.16pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle Go for it then Hrolf - if we don't have Trident, who's going to come and either invade or nuke us? No ifs ands or buts - who are we actually, really deterring? Straight question. Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

18 Jul 16 1.16pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

Go for it then Hrolf - if we don't have Trident, who's going to come and either invade or nuke us?

No ifs ands or buts - who are we actually, really deterring? Straight question.

Seriously?

All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it.
This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft.
Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 1.25pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm) And there is the crux of the matter. Reality and the denial of it, (in favour of some self designed lefty utopia full of unicorn farts and same sex parents). Is what drives the more lunatic lefty fringe these days. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 1.25pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Seriously?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

And there is the crux of the matter. Reality and the denial of it, (in favour of some self designed lefty utopia full of unicorn farts and same sex parents). Is what drives the more lunatic lefty fringe these days.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Jul 16 1.31pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm) Hrolf I stand "Four square" behind you on this matter.
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Jul 16 1.31pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Seriously?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

Hrolf

I stand "Four square" behind you on this matter.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 18 Jul 16 1.32pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm) That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 18 Jul 16 1.32pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Seriously?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies?

MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent?

I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge.

I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers.

If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument.

Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm)

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Jul 16 1.39pm
[Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Jul 16 1.39pm

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 1.42pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 1.42pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies?

MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent?

I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge.

I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers.

If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument.

Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm)

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jul 16 1.44pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Seriously? All potential enemies with nuclear capability and those who might acquire it. This is not a debate I'm going to involved in because it is so daft. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 70 years and to come up with some revisionist, idealist claptrap to deny that reality is beyond bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm) I do think the UK needs a nuclear capability, its one of those things that maybe if we didn't have it, I wouldn't be keen on pursuing it, but as we are a nuclear power, giving it up without significant gains in return seems pointless. I'm not sold on the idea that Trident is the best solution, I think its probably the cheapest most politically convenient solution, and that a lot of people haven't really thought too hard about the implications of making it a modern nuclear deterrent that is better than a land based missile solution. In reality, I think there are maybe only three nuclear powers capable of ensuring the destruction of the UK in which Trident would be a 'MAD' solution (France, the US and maybe Russia). Other countries have nuclear capability, but very limited and the distances involved would make such a strike very detectable in time for retaliation (and its very debatable whether Russia or the US, could launch a sufficiently destructive strike to wipe out the UK's capacity for retaliation. Trident is very much last years man being dressed up in a nice new suit. Problem of Trident has always been the range of its missile capability. During the 60s the UK lagged behind in solid state fuel technology and was incapable of developing long range intercontinental ballistic missiles - and went with trident, which made sense, but never invested in developing those technologies necessary for ICBM capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Truth probably is, that the only way the UK can even pretend to have a nuclear deterrent, is Trident. But it won't be a 'MAD' solution, except for one nation at a time "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Jul 16 1.44pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Seriously?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 1.17pm)

I do think the UK needs a nuclear capability, its one of those things that maybe if we didn't have it, I wouldn't be keen on pursuing it, but as we are a nuclear power, giving it up without significant gains in return seems pointless.

I'm not sold on the idea that Trident is the best solution, I think its probably the cheapest most politically convenient solution, and that a lot of people haven't really thought too hard about the implications of making it a modern nuclear deterrent that is better than a land based missile solution.

In reality, I think there are maybe only three nuclear powers capable of ensuring the destruction of the UK in which Trident would be a 'MAD' solution (France, the US and maybe Russia). Other countries have nuclear capability, but very limited and the distances involved would make such a strike very detectable in time for retaliation (and its very debatable whether Russia or the US, could launch a sufficiently destructive strike to wipe out the UK's capacity for retaliation.

Trident is very much last years man being dressed up in a nice new suit. Problem of Trident has always been the range of its missile capability. During the 60s the UK lagged behind in solid state fuel technology and was incapable of developing long range intercontinental ballistic missiles - and went with trident, which made sense, but never invested in developing those technologies necessary for ICBM capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

Truth probably is, that the only way the UK can even pretend to have a nuclear deterrent, is Trident. But it won't be a 'MAD' solution, except for one nation at a time

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 191 of 464 < 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Jeremy Corbyn

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors