The labour Leader thread...

[Rroff]

A large number of people don't turn down free things...I'm assuming you mean with 'paid for' that someone else has paid for it?

But pay for it yourself, then people measure up the cost/benefit ratio, that's just normal.

What I mean is - over half of those 187 countries have never been in a position to obtain or develop nuclear weapons regardless of whether they feel the need for them or not - something Corbyn should be well aware of - his claim is blatant misrepresentation - from someone else I'd let it slide but hes the one talking up a new era of honest straight talking politics, etc.

 

[[TW]Fox]

A large number of people don't turn down free things...I'm assuming you mean with 'paid for' that someone else has paid for it?

But pay for it yourself, then people measure up the cost/benefit ratio, that's just normal.

He's right though, it is simply not true to say 187 countries do not 'feel the need'. Many of them probably DO feel the need but are simply unable to do anything to realise it as they lack either the skills or ability to develop them or the ability to purchase them (Which requires more than just funds).

 

[Jono8]

""I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible," he said."

Jesus Jeremy, you cannot just uninvent nuclear weapons and nuclear power!

The fact he believes it is possible is even more worrying.

 

[atpbx]

Wow...



From the guy who bleats on about straight talking... you offer those 187 countries a paid for, NATO, etc. permitted, nuclear weapons program and the larger number wouldn't be turning you down.

You would think someone who is aiming to be prime minister would know how many countries there are in the world.

 

[easyrider]

I'm only in favour of Trident if we are going to use it and actually get our moneys worth.

Eh?

 

[Freakbro]

What I mean is - over half of those 187 countries have never been in a position to obtain or develop nuclear weapons regardless of whether they feel the need for them or not - something Corbyn should be well aware of - his claim is blatant misrepresentation - from someone else I'd let it slide but hes the one talking up a new era of honest straight talking politics, etc.

He's right though, it is simply not true to say 187 countries do not 'feel the need'. Many of them probably DO feel the need but are simply unable to do anything to realise it as they lack either the skills or ability to develop them or the ability to purchase them (Which requires more than just funds).

True, I see what you meant now Rroff and I can't disagree that the nuance of the statement was a little disingenuous.

We seem to have got hung up on Trident though for some time, can't you guys start getting upset about other things...like the 50p tax rate for £50,000 earnings, or extending the right to buy to private tenants?

 

[Rroff]

True, I see what you meant now Rroff and I can't disagree that the nuance of the statement was a little disingenuous.

We seem to have got hung up on Trident though for some time, can't you guys start getting upset about other things...like the 50p tax rate for £50,000 earnings, or extending the right to buy to private tenants?

As per my post if it was anyone else I'd have just rolled my eyes at the somewhat disingenuous use and moved on but it kind of flies in the face of the placards of "Straight talking. Honest Politics." heh so I couldn't just let it stand.

Yeah trident is done to death a bit - my original post was actually more expressing an interest in what Corbyn had of substance as an alternative/reason as like a lot of stuff he is talking about at the moment it all seems extremely vague and/or activist type campaigning rather than grown up politics.

 

[Freakbro]

Yeah trident is done to death a bit - my original post was actually more expressing an interest in what Corbyn had of substance as an alternative/reason as like a lot of stuff he is talking about at the moment it all seems extremely vague and/or activist type campaigning rather than grown up politics.

Is there any rush to flesh out policies at this point though?

He seems to be putting together experienced and knowledgeable groups (especially with the economic committee) to get advice from and will solidify policy over time. Seems sensible to me.

 

[ubersonic]

You would think someone who is aiming to be prime minister would know how many countries there are in the world.

Technically he is correct, 187 + 5 (he mentioned five nuclear powers in addition to 187) = 192 which is one of the correct answers. Depending on the source there are 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195 or 196 independent countries in the world today.

 

[ethan]

""I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible," he said."

Jesus Jeremy, you cannot just uninvent nuclear weapons and nuclear power!

The fact he believes it is possible is even more worrying.

I can imagine certain aspects of the nuclear deterrent will eventually become irrelevant once the technology becomes available to shoot them down so why does the issue trouble you so much?

 

[Rroff]

Is there any rush to flesh out policies at this point though?

He seems to be putting together experienced and knowledgeable groups (especially with the economic committee) to get advice from and will solidify policy over time. Seems sensible to me.

Don't disagree on the second bit but when he/they are talking about big changes you'd expect it to be backed up with something more substantial i.e. (sorry to keep banging on the trident aspect but its the most ready I have to hand) its one thing to say "I would order a review of trident" and another to say "I would scrap trident definitely".

 

[ubersonic]

its one thing to say "I would order a review of trident" and another to say "I would scrap trident definitely".

That's the way old labour way did/do things.

 

[Rroff]

That's the way old labour way did/do things.

I know they are trying to avoid the whole "I would order" thing, etc. but on some of the more important stuff you are better off not committing if you don't have atleast something of substance to talk about.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

I can imagine certain aspects of the nuclear deterrent will eventually become irrelevant once the technology becomes available to shoot them down so why does the issue trouble you so much?

Someone will just develop a new generation of ICBM's to counter that new technology. Generally speaking offensive weapons always have the edge over defensive. T

 

[Jono8]

.............imagine.............eventually......

Exactly.

 

[MookJong]

""I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible," he said."

Jesus Jeremy, you cannot just uninvent nuclear weapons and nuclear power!

The fact he believes it is possible is even more worrying.

Silly argument which smells very much as an attempt to reinforce your own ideology.

There are plenty things the we used to do that do not need to be "un-invented" else they might come back. It's very possible that burning people at the steak for Witchcraft might make a return in England. It's very easier to do, a lot easier than creating a nuclear weapon. However I see many more scenarios where our society will not return to the practice.

Technology is moving faster than ever, the only reasons to want to hold onto Nuclear weapons in the long term are as I say Ideological and not practical.

 

[McBain]

I'm only in favour of Trident if we are going to use it and actually get our moneys worth.

 

[Jono8]

S
There are plenty things the we used to do that do not need to be "un-invented" else they might come back. It's very possible that burning people at the steak for Witchcraft might make a return in England. It's very easier to do, a lot easier than creating a nuclear weapon. However I see many more scenarios where our society will not return to the practice.

Are you actually serious with that?

P.S. mmmm steak

 

[aardvark]

Silly argument which smells very much as an attempt to reinforce your own ideology.

There are plenty things the we used to do that do not need to be "un-invented" else they might come back. It's very possible that burning people at the steak for Witchcraft might make a return in England. It's very easier to do, a lot easier than creating a nuclear weapon. However I see many more scenarios where our society will not return to the practice.

Technology is moving faster than ever, the only reasons to want to hold onto Nuclear weapons in the long term are as I say Ideological and not practical.

the ability to destroy an entire city in one go will always have practical value to someone.

 

[MookJong]

the ability to destroy an entire city in one go will always have practical value to someone.

True but it takes far more than a persons mind-set to develop a nuclear weapon. You cannot guarantee that future societies will be willing to facilitate these wishes.

The last few generations have normalised Nuclear weapons (me very much included) as just part of the way the world works. But you cannot guarantee that future generations will see it the same way....a bit like witch burning, votes for women, organised religion, capital punishment, gay marriage, etc etc.

Future generations will see them for what they are without any of the mystique that we were subject to.