Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Will Absolute]

Im not asking why they dont have nuclear weapons. Im pointing out that many countries dont have them and feel safe from nuclear attack. Therefore it is wrong to suggest we need our own nuclear weapons to be safe from attack. If that point was true, NPT wouldnt work, as every country would be scrambling to build their own.

Nuclear deterrence isn't about things as they are right now, this very minute. That shows a lack of imagination. The world is volatile - a glance at the history of the last 100 years shows that an apparently stable international order can change suddenly and unexpectedly.

For instance, a future in which Europe became semi-detached from America, and could no longer depend on its protection, is by no means impossible. With potential enemies in Eastern Eurasia, some of whom, Russia and China, already possess nuclear weapons, and some of whom, Iran, are moving towards their possession, it seems sensible that Europe should be capable of defending itself rather than depending on an ally thousands of miles away who, when push comes to shove, may be unwilling to sacrifice its citizens to save those of Western Europe.

The value of nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of national security is obvious. If Britain had developed an atomic bomb in 1939 rather than 1952, it wouldn't have faced an existential threat from Nazi Germany in 1940 and 1941. There would have been no 'we will fight them on the beaches' speeches, no Battle of Britain, no threat of a German invasion.

A variation of the Blaise Pascal argument for belief in God may apply to nuclear weapons. Even though the probability of the future existence of a nuclear attack is low, the infelicity of annihilation is so great that the product of the two is a substantial number. It's best to believe.

 

[berbatrick]

Nuclear weapons are not just deterrents against nuclear attacks. They are a deterrent against attacks in general. If Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have invaded it over the last 18 months.

But it hasn't worked that way in practice:
For the smaller example, Gaza routinely shells Israel.
For a much bigger one, 2 nuclear-armed states have fought a full-on war, India and Pakistan at Kargil in 1999. Both continue to have routine border skirmishes. So do India and China. So did the USSR and Mao's China.
The only effective nuclear deterrent right now I would guess is North Korea.

 

[Jippy]

Its part of their NATO membership.

I would imagine they get that right as part of the fact that they would be staging point for any NATO land operations against the former USSR.

I also cant remember if this is something I've said on here in the past or not so bear with me:

The reason there is no will to really give up the NATO nuclear deterrent is quite simple and it stems right the back to the start of the cold war.
NATO believed it could not win a conventional war against the former USSR, it was that cut and dry, the USSR had SO many troops, and SO much hardware that the NATO forces in Europe couldn't kill enough enough of them quickly enough to stop any concerted effort by the USSR to move into western Europe, a conventional war would be over before you know it NATO resistance would be utterly crushed in days.

The only realistic option to stop them would be the threat of nuclear weapons which is why there is no rush to get rid of them.

People still fear the old USSR, they fear the arab nations developing a meaningful nuclear arsenal, there really isnt an option to sit round the table and all be friends unfortunately.

My father used to fly vulcans back in the 60s and 70s when they were the nuclear deterrent, and he has some stories to tell about just how bad things were, for real.

He used to get scrambled at random times during the day or night, loaded with live ordinance waiting for the order to attack his target in the USSR. Which back then, was a one way mission, the Vulcan couldnt carry enough fuel for the return trip, and IF he made it to the target and got out, there would be nobody left to come back to.

His orders were to head to Cypress and if that was gone, to attempt to ditch in the sea and take it from there.
Nasty stuff all round really.

Bloody hell, must fray the nerves knowing that every time you flew off.

 

[Sir Matt]

But it hasn't worked that way in practice:
For the smaller example, Gaza routinely shells Israel.
For a much bigger one, 2 nuclear-armed states have fought a full-on war, India and Pakistan at Kargil in 1999. Both continue to have routine border skirmishes. So do India and China. So did the USSR and Mao's China.
The only effective nuclear deterrent right now I would guess is North Korea.

1. Israel nuking Gaza. Have any neighboring states invaded or attacked Israel since they "obtained" nuclear weapons?
2. India and Pakistan will not fight a full on war because of nuclear weapons. The Kargil War was fought with a small number of troops over a small area in an already contested area. The risk of the war expanding was one of the factors in Pakistan pulling out. Neither side is going to build up arms and invade Kashmir trying to take it once and for all because each has a nuclear deterrent. The same thing limited the Sino-Soviet conflict to a few hundred casualties.

It's a deterrent against war. Small scale conflicts can still happen, but they're limited by the risk of getting into an extended and more bloody war.

 

[berbatrick]

1. Israel nuking Gaza. Have any neighboring states invaded or attacked Israel since they "obtained" nuclear weapons?
2. India and Pakistan will not fight a full on war because of nuclear weapons. The Kargil War was fought with a small number of troops over a small area in an already contested area. The risk of the war expanding was one of the factors in Pakistan pulling out. Neither side is going to build up arms and invade Kashmir trying to take it once and for all because each has a nuclear deterrent. The same thing limited the Sino-Soviet conflict to a few hundred casualties.

It's a deterrent against war. Small scale conflicts can still happen, but they're limited by the risk of getting into an extended and more bloody war.

Is there any argument against arming every country/bloc with nukes? No war ever after that!

EDIT: For the 1st part,I would think the threat of using nukes against the West Bank would have been enough rather than the counterproductive nuking of Gaza.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

But it hasn't worked that way in practice:
For the smaller example, Gaza routinely shells Israel.
For a much bigger one, 2 nuclear-armed states have fought a full-on war, India and Pakistan at Kargil in 1999. Both continue to have routine border skirmishes. So do India and China. So did the USSR and Mao's China.
The only effective nuclear deterrent right now I would guess is North Korea.

What? And how do you think the tiny and loathed state of Israel continues to survive surrounded by enemies?

 

[Sweet Square]

What? And how do you think the tiny and loathed state of Israel continues to survive surrounded by enemies?

They make a cracking hummus that's got to count for something.

 

[Untied]

Watching John McTernan on Newsnight is enough to make anyone hate Blairism/New Labour

 

[Sir Matt]

Is there any argument against arming every country/bloc with nukes? No war ever after that!

Most arguments are against universal proliferation. A few political scientist (like Waltz) would suggest that it's a good thing since it assures MAD everywhere, but it would fail emphatically in reality. Very few states have the ability to securely and reliably store or maintain nuclear weapons, which would risk nuclear weapons getting into the hands of non-state actors (I would argue that two current nuclear powers are or have been at times risks for an Empty Quiver scenario). Other nations don't have the political institutions or military institutions to prevent potential misuse of nuclear weapons (i.e., easily corruptible governments or populations susceptible to extremism). It would also further solidify the UN's inability to act in crisis.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

What? And how do you think the tiny and loathed state of Israel continues to survive surrounded by enemies?

American aid won them the war of 67***. But the nukes are the ultimate deterrent for a direct war between two countries. Countries with nukes will hesitate before going to war with each other -- usually they won't go to war at all, at least not directly. You'll see proxy wars like Vietnam or Afghanistan (or Syria one might argue).

*Actually, I'm thinking of the Yom Kippur war of 73.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Addressing hundreds of delegates, Mr McCluskey said: “Let me make one thing clear, whatever the law says, I will be on the picket line when Unite members are on strike and I will not be wearing the armbands with the red triangle, like the trade union prisoners.

“Remember that’s what the Nazis did to trade unionists in the concentration camps at Dachau.”

Mr Corbyn also hugged a Labour delegate after she had refer to the “gas chambers” in relation to Conservative plans to reform the Human Rights Act in a speech to the main conference hall.

Sioux Blair-Jordan, from Colchester, said: “I stay in Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn… If Cameron does his Bill of Rights, we might as well walk into the gas chambers today.”

A new politics, a kinder politics.

 

[Sweet Square]

A new politics, a kinder politics.

Nick am I right in saying your not a Corbyn fan then ?

 

[Shamwow]

A new politics, a kinder politics.

When even Conservative MPs are comparing the bill to something that would happen under General Franco you know it's completely fecked up.

Obviously socialists are more scary than fascists which is why we haven't seen any reports of Cameron riding a Mussolini style bicycle.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Nick am I right in saying your not a Corbyn fan then ?

If he were actually the visionary figure some profess him to be, i imagine that my respect for this new politics would be greater. Corbyn's perspective may be different but he spins like all the rest. I await some original policies too.

 

[Ducklegs]

A new politics, a kinder politics.

It really is scary the kind of language that they use.

Its even more scary that there are people actually buying that clap trap.

 

[Silva]

It really is scary the kind of language that they use.

Its even more scary that there are people actually buying that clap trap.

Yeah right, the tories do everything they can to make unions useless, make workers rights a thing of the past and remove what what rights we have, but it's the language from labour that's scary.

 

[Ducklegs]

Yeah right, the tories do everything they can to make unions useless, make workers rights a thing of the past and remove what what rights we have, but it's the language from labour that's scary.

But they aren't doing that.
I work for a living, my rights are not being eroded, your rights are not being eroded.

Comparing what the conservatives want to do to make strike action more representative of the wishes of its members to fecking genocide IS mental talk.

Just think about what they are saying for a second, it couldn't be any more absurd if they tried.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

When even Conservative MPs are comparing the bill to something that would happen under General Franco you know it's completely fecked up.

Obviously socialists are more scary than fascists which is why we haven't seen any reports of Cameron riding a Mussolini style bicycle.

Which of the proposed details (of which there are few presently) surrounding a British Bill f Rights are comparable to the the Holocaust?

Yeah right, the tories do everything they can to make unions useless, make workers rights a thing of the past and remove what what rights we have, but it's the language from labour that's scary.

Whist the armbands sound unnecessary and a bit silly, part of the problem is that neither side will engage reasonably on the matter. I think many voters would have sympathy with the notion of ballot thresholds for example, whereas unions are highly unlikely to countenance any form of restriction.

 

[Ubik]

Which of the proposed details (of which there are few presently) surrounding a British Bill f Rights are comparable to the the Holocaust?




Whist the armbands sound unnecessary and a bit silly, part of the problem is that neither side will engage reasonably on the matter. I think many voters would have sympathy with the notion of ballot thresholds for example, whereas unions are highly unlikely to countenance any form of restriction.

To counter that, the Tories have denied the possibility of utilising technology like online balloting of union members as a means of increasing turnout. The proposals on union funding are also squarely aimed at crippling Labour financially.

 

[sun_tzu]

To counter that, the Tories have denied the possibility of utilising technology like online balloting of union members as a means of increasing turnout. The proposals on union funding are also squarely aimed at crippling Labour financially.

technology has to be incorporated into the democratic process moving forwards... I think perhaps the big worry is not that it could help increase union turnout but that if it engaged a chunk of the non voting population at election time it could disrupt the current system - and I believe all parties are frightened of that

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I would like to thank the tooth fairy for her hard work and loyal service in combating child poverty.

 

[Ducklegs]

To counter that, the Tories have denied the possibility of utilising technology like online balloting of union members as a means of increasing turnout. The proposals on union funding are also squarely aimed at crippling Labour financially.

I agree with the fact that there should be every means possible for people to express their desires to their union, whether its online, post, phone, carrier pigeon, smoke signal, email what ever.
People lead busy lives, its only fair that every avenue of communicating their members wishes is allowed.

In regards to Union funding of the labour party, I view curtailing that as fair game, just the same as I view reviewing of constituency boundary's as fair game by which ever party that does it.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Lower emissions and improve energy security by opening coal mines and opposing nuclear power.

The Coalition produce more new council homes between 2010-2015, than did Labour over thirteen years. But does Corbyn intend to override planning laws (weak that they now are thanks to Cameron) and the wishes of local communities with the creation of this housing stock?

Refugees welcome, but no mention of numbers.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

I agree with the fact that there should be every means possible for people to express their desires to their union, whether its online, post, phone, carrier pigeon, smoke signal, email what ever.
People lead busy lives, its only fair that every avenue of communicating their members wishes is allowed.

In regards to Union funding of the labour party, I view curtailing that as fair game, just the same as I view reviewing of constituency boundary's as fair game by which ever party that does it.

Would you also say that rich folks and corporations should be barred from donating to the Tories?

 

[sun_tzu]

1. Israel nuking Gaza.
.

I am no nuclear weapons expert but http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ is very handy... and id suggest Israel better be hoping for strong and steady winds from the south should they ever try that

 

[bishblaize]

I agree with the fact that there should be every means possible for people to express their desires to their union, whether its online, post, phone, carrier pigeon, smoke signal, email what ever.
People lead busy lives, its only fair that every avenue of communicating their members wishes is allowed.

In regards to Union funding of the labour party, I view curtailing that as fair game, just the same as I view reviewing of constituency boundary's as fair game by which ever party that does it.

There's always been an agreement in politics that funding reviews would be bipartisan, what the Tories did just isn't cricket. Constituency boundaries however, unfortunately Labour has benefited from the wonky boundaries for some time, so they can't really complain.

 

[bishblaize]

Man, Corbyn is a really awful speaker.

 

[Ducklegs]

Would you also say that rich folks and corporations should be barred from donating to the Tories?

Of course, why wouldn't I?

If labour got into power and decided on funding caps, fair play to them.

 

[Untied]

It really is scary the kind of language that they use.

Its even more scary that there are people actually buying that clap trap.

Whilst I think it was a completely unnecessary remark, this was a disabled CLP member making a speech about issues that affect her personally. Clearly feeling undervalued, and under attack by this government. Also Nick should stop quoting the Telegraph without making clear his source.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

What did you all think of Corbyn's speech then?

In a deviation from what some might expect from me, i am about to offer some praise for Jeremy . I very much agree with his raising of the matter of mental health; all too easily the pledge of parity could be ushered into the shadows, so the opposition parties should return to the topic regularly (with both means of funding as well as fresh ideas).

Whilst I think it was a completely unnecessary remark, this was a disabled CLP member making a speech about issues that affect her personally. Clearly feeling undervalued, and under attack by this government. Also Nick should stop quoting the Telegraph without making clear his source.

In the vast majority of cases i do provide a link, however on occasion i am either n a rush or posting a quick direct quote. If i had taken words out of context in an effort to mislead that would be quite wrong, however i feel that both passages cited were accurate in their representation. I did attempt to source a video of the speech about a UK Bill of Rights, but none had thus far been uploaded to YouTube or the like.

 

[Untied]

What do people think of the Corbyn speech then?

In a deviation from what some might expect from me, i am about to offer some praise for Jeremy . I very much agree with his raising of the matter of mental health; all too easily the pledge of parity could be ushered into the shadows, so the opposition parties should return to the topic regularly (with both means of funding as well as fresh ideas).




In the vast majority of cases i do provide a link, however on occasion i am either n a rush or posting a quick direct quote. If i had taken words out of context in an effort to mislead that would be quite wrong, however i feel that both passages cited were accurate in their representation. I did attempt to source a video of the speech about a UK Bill of Rights, but none had thus far been uploaded to YouTube or the like.

It was more of a jibe at the Telegraph than you. I think it should be made clear that the speaker in question is talking as a disabled person who feels as if the government places no value on her life. I don't think her remark was appropriate but the Telegraph report makes no mention of her personal circumstances.

 

[DOTA]

I liked it. It felt like a rally to opposition, which at the moment is what I'd want Labour to be focusing on.

 

[bishblaize]

What did you all think of Corbyn's speech then?

A love letter to his supporters, and an irrelevance for most other people.

I mean ffs, in May we fell to our worst defeat since before the second world war, our vote dissolved in Scotland, middle England, pretty much every rural area in the country, and we took a big hit from UKIP in places like Manchester. We got hammered on too much immigration, too much welfare, too much spending, the deficit, being weak on the economy and being anti-business. Listening to that speech you'd think it never happened.

Corbyn should really be addressing these issues. I mean really should be. There is simply no more important issue for Labour right now than understanding why we're on the wrong side of so much public opinion. He doesn't need policies, or to even make decisions. A simple recognition that these issues matter to voters, and a promise to reflect on the reasons why, that would have been something. Instead he just talked to his supporters for an hour or about the things that mattered to him personally.

 

[Smores]

A love letter to his supporters, and an irrelevance for most other people.

An irrelevance? Bloody hell

You really think we should be spending the next five years fighting the tories over why we lost the last one, things that the tories will always poll better on.

If Labour win it'll be on fixing the tories mess and injusticies and investing towards a better future. People aren't going to endlessly want austerity, it simply isn't aspirational.

On immigration I agree, it's the one thing I want us to form a solid fair plan on and to spend the next 5 years shouting about it.

 

[Redlambs]

A love letter to his supporters, and an irrelevance for most other people.

I mean ffs, in May we fell to our worst defeat since before the second world war, our vote dissolved in Scotland, middle England, pretty much every rural area in the country, and we took a big hit from UKIP in places like Manchester. We got hammered on too much immigration, too much welfare, too much spending, the deficit, being weak on the economy and being anti-business. Listening to that speech you'd think it never happened.

Corbyn should really be addressing these issues. I mean really should be. There is simply no more important issue for Labour right now than understanding why we're on the wrong side of so much public opinion. He doesn't need policies, or to even make decisions. A simple recognition that these issues matter to voters, and a promise to reflect on the reasons why, that would have been something. Instead he just talked to his supporters for an hour or about the things that mattered to him personally.

Exactly, they lost so many people like me but don't even seem close to beginning to understand or even care why.

And I don't care what some hippy throwback thinks about fighting 'the man', or some opinionated woman trying to convert us all to her vegan beliefs, I just want to know how Labour intend to run the country.

 

[bishblaize]

An irrelevance? Bloody hell

You really think we should be spending the next five years fighting the tories over why we lost the last one, things that the tories will always poll better on.

If Labour win it'll be on fixing the tories mess and injusticies and investing towards a better future. People aren't going to endlessly want austerity, it simply isn't aspirational.

On immigration I agree, it's the one thing I want us to form a solid fair plan on and to spend the next 5 years shouting about it.

Which of the issues mentioned won't matter about as much in 2020?

 

[sun_tzu]

At some point (soon) they need to start putting proper policies out... With numbers and an explanation as to where the money is actually coming from

 

[Untied]

Which of the issues mentioned won't matter about as much in 2020?

Immigration and the deficit. Most people concerned about immigration are concerned about the EU's freedom of movement: We'll have had a referendum on that. The deficit should be significantly reduced by 2020.

 

[bishblaize]

Immigration and the deficit. Most people concerned about immigration are concerned about the EU's freedom of movement: We'll have had a referendum on that. The deficit should be significantly reduced by 2020.

On immigration, quite possibly. If the EU vote outcome is to remain, then it'll be as you were and immigration will still be a hot topic. UKIP won't disappear just like the SNP won't. But if we leave, well, its very hard to say what the effect will be on politics, so its possible that immigration may disappear, but who can say?

The deficit though, I very much doubt that won't still be a thing. Its not whether or not we'll have a deficit by that point, its that borrowing has now become taboo. In the 70s we had 20% inflation and for the next 15 years inflation was the thing the public worried about in the economy. Then after the ERM debacle it was interest rates everyone become obsessed with, which everyone worried about until the mid 2000s. Now its the deficit that's the cause celebre. Historically these things take a decade or more of being a non-issue before they're forgotten.

 

[sun_tzu]

On immigration, quite possibly. If the EU vote outcome is to remain, then it'll be as you were and immigration will still be a hot topic. UKIP won't disappear just like the SNP won't. But if we leave, well, its very hard to say what the effect will be on politics, so its possible that immigration may disappear, but who can say?

The deficit though, I very much doubt that won't still be a thing. Its not whether or not we'll have a deficit by that point, its that borrowing has now become taboo. In the 70s we had 20% inflation and for the next 15 years inflation was the thing the public worried about in the economy. Then after the ERM debacle it was interest rates everyone become obsessed with, which everyone worried about until the mid 2000s. Now its the deficit that's the cause celebre. Historically these things take a decade or more of being a non-issue before they're forgotten.

When (if) the deficit gets to zero then the big question will be the debt... (tackle it or leave it)