The labour Leader thread...

[Nutella33]

Instead of buiding weapons, how about we use those people and skills to make things that benefit human kind, rather than destroying it? E.G trains, planes, renewable energy equipment, transitional high tech manufacturing etc.

The skills and processes are complimentary, without requiring an either or choice. The irony of you attempting to argue shutting down a rare and world leading industry of Britain due to cost for supporting funding industry in Britain is bizzare.

I'd also note many of those industries you list rely on armed forces trained leavers to sustain services and expansion. The military is a breeding ground of technical apprenticeships and experience.

 

[Danthus]

The skills and processes are complimentary, without requiring an either or choice. The irony of you attempting to argue shutting down a rare and world leading industry of Britain due to cost for supporting funding industry in Britain is bizzare.

I'd also note many of those industries you list rely on armed forces trained leavers to sustain services and expansion. The military is a breeding ground of technical apprenticeships and experience.

It seems bizarre to fund an industry where you will never use the product.

 

[Nutella33]

It seems bizarre to fund an industry where you will never use the product.

The submarines are in constant use. Which is what is made at Barrow.

They also make none nuclear submarines, like the astute.

It's almost as if you have a very narrow ideologically driven demand without understanding its full implications.

 

[scorza]

It seems bizarre to fund an industry where you will never use the product.

Like buying insurance, you hope you never use the product.

We need to decide what sort of armed forces Britain needs - do we need a force that can travel around the world projecting British hard power and peacekeeping capabilities? do we a force ready to defend Europe from a resurgent Russia? or do we just need a force that'll blow our enemies to **** in the event of an external invasion? At the moment the politicians want all three, but are only prepared to fund two (arguably one and a half in reality).

 

[cheesyboy]

It seems bizarre to fund an industry where you will never use the product.

Communism

 

[Nutella33]

At the moment the politicians want all three, but are only prepared to fund two (arguably one and a half in reality).

True, however each individual option requires a submarine capability, nukes or not.

Corbyns fall back of "trident will fund it" doesn't work as tridents cost is actually minimal. Cancelling it wouldn't even fund half of hs2.

 

[Danthus]

The submarines are in constant use. Which is what is made at Barrow.

They also make none nuclear submarines, like the astute.

It's almost as if you have a very narrow ideologically driven demand without understanding its full implications.

Why do we need to replace Trident?

 

[Tunney]

Paddy Power have paid out on Corbyn. A mate of mine has netted £2000 on a £25 bet!

 

[eatcustard]

Why do we need to replace Trident?

Getting old and out of date

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Getting old and out of date

Do we get to fire the old missiles off before their shelf life expires?

 

[Nutella33]

Why do we need to replace Trident?

I'm not saying we have to. If you notice I said the capability to build the submarines (the bit Barrow does) needs to be kept whether we put nukes on or not.

I was arguing about the loss of capability that Barrow gives and pointing out trident is not quite the cash cow some seem to think it is, not the ideological battle of tridents existence

 

[Danthus]

Getting old and out of date

Out of date?

 

[Nutella33]

Out of date?

Yes. There is a reason why the politicians hands are being forced (as everyone would rather kick the issue under the carpet, as its happened several times)

The submarines are reaching lifeex, the support systems are the same and missiles need upgrading to counter new advances in anti ballistic missile tech.

The latter two can be put off by ever increasingly expensive maintenance, the first one can't however and is the ideal time to baseline the latter two. its also the most expensive thing to update and the main cost associated with a trident update.

The issue isn't just a lump of radioactive material and a bit of rocket fuel and whether we own it or not.

And again to get on topic again, this understanding that trident is some cash cow to fund all projects is wrong. It simply doesn't take up enough cash reserves to act as such.

 

[Dimi]

Sept 12th couldn't come soon enough, finally someone who will lead.

Challenging the austerity agenda should be his number 1 priority, trickle down economics my ass. Helping the few at the top at the expense of the rest.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Like buying insurance, you hope you never use the product.

We need to decide what sort of armed forces Britain needs - do we need a force that can travel around the world projecting British hard power and peacekeeping capabilities? do we a force ready to defend Europe from a resurgent Russia? or do we just need a force that'll blow our enemies to **** in the event of an external invasion? At the moment the politicians want all three, but are only prepared to fund two (arguably one and a half in reality).

I don't think we need any of those three.

I'd be happy to see our armed forces cut back to around 10% of thier current size and expand the territorial reserves (which would need to include increased employment protection for reservists etc) to be called up in the event of a direct external threat. I see no need for a large standing army anymore.

The sooner we have a one world government and no borders the better imho.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

I don't think we need any of those three.

I'd be happy to see our armed forces cut back to around 10% of thier current size and expand the territorial reserves (which would need to include increased employment protection for reservists etc) to be called up in the event of a direct external threat. I see no need for a large standing army anymore.

Scrapping Trident I actually agree with Corbyn about, we don't need it and who and what are we going to use them against, terrorists armed with explosives strapped to their bodies? The US has enough nuclear firepower to lay waste to the whole of Russia if they chose. Trident and any replacement are just nationalistic willy waving.

 

[Basher]

I don't think we need any of those three.

I'd be happy to see our armed forces cut back to around 10% of thier current size and expand the territorial reserves (which would need to include increased employment protection for reservists etc) to be called up in the event of a direct external threat. I see no need for a large standing army anymore.

The sooner we have a one world government and no borders the better imho.

That sounds like a very reactive approach. Personally, using the armed forces in a more proactive role to minimise the threat would seem more sensible to me.

Also, I can only imagine more conflicts with a 'one world government''.

 

[silversurfer]

I see no need for a large standing army anymore.

Thats good because we dont have it. Iran has 13 million in its 'standing army', thats large

The uk has about 10% more troops then the free syrian army

 

[scorza]

I don't think we need any of those three.

I'd be happy to see our armed forces cut back to around 10% of thier current size and expand the territorial reserves (which would need to include increased employment protection for reservists etc) to be called up in the event of a direct external threat. I see no need for a large standing army anymore.

The sooner we have a one world government and no borders the better imho.

I thought you prided yourself on being 'looney left'? You've basically asked for a British version of these guys: http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/

 

[RDM]

I don't think we need any of those three.

I'd be happy to see our armed forces cut back to around 10% of thier current size and expand the territorial reserves (which would need to include increased employment protection for reservists etc) to be called up in the event of a direct external threat. I see no need for a large standing army anymore.

Not sure 9,000 troops would be enough to do even peacekeeping especially when you consider that not many of them would be front line infantry.

The sooner we have a one world government and no borders the better imho.

We seem to be moving in the opposite direction so I doubt a one world government will happen in your lifetime if ever.