Labour Leadership

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 400

Best post of the last page or so.

[Loz]

Meanwhile, back on topic, I think someone at Corbyn Central just lost their job...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/21/jeremy-corbyn-deletes-embarrassing-pig-gate-tweet-mentioning-diane-abbott_n_8171006.html

[Otta]

What a total moron.

[JohnL]

Some people use FAV to mark something they might sue for.

and retweet to stop people deleting the post.

Edit: Suppose it's best to say on your account Favs and Retweets do not signify endorsement.

[numbers]

was going to say that too that the favourite button on twitter is not very aptly named, it should be called the 'bookmark' or 'read later' button or similar.

i do hate it when people say that favourites and RTs are not endorsements in their twitter bio

[????]

tee hee...more fun in the Labour Party

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34331389

I especially like the 'bunch of old trotskyites' quote

[JohnL]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> tee hee...more fun in the Labour Party

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-343313

> 89

>

> I especially like the 'bunch of old trotskyites'

> quote

When two factions have a fight

Why does a third person call for unity then immediately join the fight

[Loz]

So the Labour conference has chucked out the first of Corbyn's big policies - Trident.

Honestly, if the left fought the right with half as much vigour as they fought each other, they might actually get somewhere.

[Otta]

I missed Corbyn on Andrew Marr this morning, but the live bbc feed featured tweets from a real mixed bag, all saying he did well. Even a Spectator columnist)

[Jah Lush]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/21/red-neoliberals-how-corbyns-victory-unmasked-britains-guardian/

[????]

Gordon Brown as a capitalist mole, indeed....back in the real world you are Dave Spart Jah and I claim my fiver.

[JohnL]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I missed Corbyn on Andrew Marr this morning, but

> the live bbc feed featured tweets from a real

> mixed bag, all saying he did well. Even a

> Spectator columnist)

He did do OK in my opinion

and McDonnell did Ok this morning too - even though one of the Sky ladies called him incongruous.

Definitely coming across better - that's a start.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/28/jeremy-corbyn-authentic-brighton-tories

[Jah Lush]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Gordon Brown as a capitalist mole, indeed....back

> in the real world you are Dave Spart Jah and I

> claim my fiver.

Tut tut... he is merely an occasional drinking partner of mine for I am Lunchtime O'Booze.

[Loz]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> and McDonnell did Ok this morning too - even

> though one of the Sky ladies called him incongruous.

His speech is on the Beeb right now - supposedly live?

It's a crowd pleaser to be sure, but mostly unsurprising stuff. By his own admission it was toned down from his normal desk-thumping rhetoric. Interesting to listen to the differing crowd reaction to what he said.

[ratty]

Slightly off topic, but can anyone explain to me the argument for keeping nuclear weapons and the huge expense that goes with it, as I cannot grasp it.

[????]

70 years without a World War is the argument...whether you buy that argument or not is up to you

[Otta]

Germany know a thing or two about the world wars and being sensible about nuclear weapons.

We on the other hand are desperate to play with the big boys and make out like any of them are remotely moved by what we have to say.

[JohnL]

Well Corbyn is ready - shorts and flip flops on according to a recent tweet :)

[david_carnell]

Quids - in what scenario would a sane British PM use nuclear weapons?

[Loz]

Trident is an interesting beastie. Four submarines - one or two on active duty, one in dry dock and the remaining on exercises. Each sub is armed with multiple missiles each with multiple individually targetable warheads.

No one knows where the active duty subs are, not even the PM. The captains are orders to go somewhere and hide, then come back in 3-4 months. They can receive communications but stay under strict radio silence. If the UK was to be attacked then they would launch only when ordered to by the PM (or a designated surviving official if the PM is dead).

But there is also one other way they can be launched. If the UK is functionally destroyed (and there are a number of protocols to establish this - including 'Radio 4 not being on the air') then the captain opens a safe in his cabin. Inside is another safe, which contains the 'Letter of Last Resort'. This is a letter written by the PM, usually just after being elected. Inside are orders as to what to do if the UK government has been destroyed.

The interesting thing is that the PM can order pretty much anything - the letters are destroyed/replaced on the PM leaving office, so no one ever knows what was ordered by any given PM. Civil services suggestions for orders include retaliate, don't retaliate, travel to Australia (if it still exists) and put the sub under the command of the Australian PM and... use your own discretion and do whatever you think is right under the circumstances.

[red devil]

Interesting stuff. Begs the question though, if retaliation is the order, who does the sub 'retaliate' against if there's no means of communication with the outside world? It's not just the big, bad Russkies who could obliterate us...

[Loz]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting stuff. Begs the question though, if retaliation is the order, who does the sub

> 'retaliate' against if there's no means of communication with the outside world? It's not

> just the big, bad Russkies who could obliterate us...

No means of communication with the UK. The subs can receive other communications like radio broadcasts from other sources.

[ratty]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 70 years without a World War is the

> argument...whether you buy that argument or not is

> up to you

I get that, the whole MAD thing, and I think that under the cold war there was probably some truth in it, although I am not sure that we needed them, as America, China and Russia seemed to be the big players. Like Keef says, Germany faired ok without them being under the NATO treaty where the ethos was an attack against one is an attack against all, if I am not very much mistaken.

I sort of meant nowadays really? I guess I am undecided on it, but it strikes me that they are a weapon that can only ever be used once everyone, or nearly everyone in the country is dead or dying or wiped out.

Just don't get what the point would be in using them under this scenario and therefore keeping them. Does NATO have the same ethos as the cold war?

[????]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quids - in what scenario would a sane British PM

> use nuclear weapons?

As a detterent for 70 odd years and counting maybe?

[maxxi]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Quids - in what scenario would a sane British

> PM

> > use nuclear weapons?

>

>

> As a detterent for 70 odd years and counting

> maybe?

35 years ago it was so simple...

It's a deterrent...

It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.

Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.

They probably do.

Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.

They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.

Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.

Now it is more like a sock stuffed down the pants of an old man - is that a hard-on or a truss?