Labour Leadership

[david_carnell]

???? 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?

No. That's not using them. I mean in anger.

[Jeremy]

If it's never going to be used, can't we just pretend we have nukes?

In fact, can't we just pretend we've invented something even more destructive? Like some kind of awesome giant space laser?

[JohnL]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

>

> No. That's not using them. I mean in anger.

In the 80s I always got the impression we were really close

If the USSR tanks had started moving west.

A few ex army/navy types hint we were really close too.

[JohnL]

Anyway

Back on topic

Corbyns speech was a stormer :)

[????]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> ???? 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?

>

> No. That's not using them. I mean in anger.

But that's the point? Do you not see? it's a Nuclear DETERRENT

[????]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Anyway

> Back on topic

>

> Corbyns speech was a stormer :)

It was percieved as different* and he's not that much of a speaker in the sense that we are used to recently so that works in the anti-spin, authentic sense and works well for now as it did in the leadership contest...but there is a limited mileagae in that for him I reckon. The substance, where there was some, was preaching to the converted. No soundbites works well in a limited timeframe as it will be reported as 'different' read authentic but at some point he'll need a new angle to get on the news.....where most of the electorate get their views.

*Although some of it has been lifted from a rejected speech written for Ed Milliband apparently?

[Otta]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> If it's never going to be used, can't we just

> pretend we have nukes?

No, because then we'd have to attack ourselves.

[Loz]

So, did Jezza go all Ron Burgundy and read the autocue stage direction?

https://audioboom.com/boos/3632585-strong-message-here-part-of-the-script-or-did-corbyn-read-out-a-stage-direction

[Blah Blah]

I think you might be right ????, but I kind of hope you are not (for the nicest of reasons).

I enjoyed his speech. I didn't agree with everything but I really liked the spirit of what he said. I'm happy to see something like Mental Health being championed for example. That IS something that needs attention. I was left with an impression of caring politics. He may well be preaching to the converted but don't all parties do that at their conferences? A rally call to the foot soldiers to go forth and spread the message? The real task then becomes one of shifting wider public consciouness.

There are lots of parallels between his election and Thatcher's election as leader of the Conservatives. She was an antithesis to the way many Tory MPs thought at the time. She started out with a cabinet of mixed views from all sides of the party too (before having to shuffle out the most opposed to her policies). The point is that Tories went through a radical transition themselves which is not too disimilar to the transition that Corbyn will have to bring about. The idea that that in itself makes any party unelectable isn't proven historically. It will depend on many things over the next four years as to how it pans out.

Whilst I think most people would probably agree that Corbyn being able to swing Southern floating voters is a challenge too far, there's no doubting that in the North and Scotland, he is speaking for many people formerly disillusioned with politicians. The SNP in Hollyrood last year voted against a living wage introduction for example, so there are already cracks in their claim that they are an anti-austerity party. I think Corbyn can reclaim ground there, and let's face it, without those Scottish seats back, Labour have no chance of winning a majority ever. It's going to be an interesting four years.

[Jeremy]

Interesting Thatcher comparison. Read this yesterday, and Robert Peston (like him or loathe him) pointed out that both Corbyn and Thatcher recruited renowned economists to flesh out their policies, and to validate a non-mainstream approach.

Note that this doesn't mean I agree with the economic policies of either of them.. economists come in a whole spectrum of flavours, it's not hard to find one that agrees with you..

[JohnL]

This morning on Sky News

Eamonn - is it true you swapped ties for your speech with a colleague

Corby - yes - we decided as a group on the best tie (paraphrasing)

Eamonn - it was red - what was the colour of the original

Corby - Another shade of red :)

[DulwichFox]

Corbyn says he would NEVER press the Nuclear Button..

Surely he cannot be that na?ve to believe that the decision to press the Nuclear Button would be down to him ?

DulwichFox

[Jeremy]

Well apparently there will be a military coup if Corbyn comes into power, so it's a moot point!

[JohnL]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Corbyn says he would NEVER press the Nuclear

> Button..

>

> Surely he cannot be that na?ve to believe that

> the decision to press the Nuclear Button would be

> down to him ?

>

> DulwichFox

I read that as in the letter of last resort he wouldn't say retaliate.

Dangerous to let everybody know that.

[Alan Medic]

Off topic. But why is it the 'in crowd' get to decide who else can have nuclear weapons or not as may be the case? A bit cliquey isn't it?

[Jeremy]

On nukes, I think there's a wider question. Whether we want to continue in this pseudo-American "World's Policeman" role, enforcing regime change, taking sides in civil wars, etc. Or whether we should be taking a step back.. and why exactly it is that we feel we need a nuclear deterrent, while other countries do not.

[Otta]

That's what I was getting at earlier. It's like we're still reeling from the loss of the empire and being a genuine big player in the world. I think a lot of people in or close to power just want nuclear weapons so that they can feel important at UN meetings.

[Loz]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Corbyn says he would NEVER press the Nuclear Button..

>

> Surely he cannot be that na?ve to believe that the decision to press the Nuclear Button would be

> down to him ?

Whilst the PM is alive, he/she is the ONLY person that can launch Trident.

[DulwichFox]

America has stated 'You are either with us or against us..'

When America says 'PRESS' we are going to 'PRESS'

Or else..

DulwichFox

[Jeremy]

Plenty of (wealthy) counties are broadly "with" America without needing a nuclear arsenal though.

[Blah Blah]

I don't really know where I stand on nuclear weapons. They have kept a peace of sorts between superpowers, but done little to stop other forms of conflict, often backed by the superpowers. There's no doubting that nuclear weapons in the wrong hands would be a disaster for the world. But I also don't think a world free of nuclear weapons is possible either.

[JohnL]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> I don't really know where I stand on nuclear

> weapons. They have kept a peace of sorts between

> superpowers, but done little to stop other forms

> of conflict, often backed by the superpowers.

> There's no doubting that nuclear weapons in the

> wrong hands would be a disaster for the world. But

> I also don't think a world free of nuclear weapons

> is possible either.

In the 80s we really believed it was just a matter of time before

a mistake happened and we were all done.

Government used to post around these "protect and survive" booklets

at the most dangerous points. Anyone remember them ?

[DulwichFox]

No Nuclear deterrent is going to stop any terrorist group that were to get hold of them ..

How could any country retaliate against such a group?

DulwichFox

[Blah Blah]

Yes I just about remember the public information films John.

I think the likelihood of a terrorist group getting hold of anything nuclear is slim Fox. You need scientists and facilities (costing billions) to operate and maintain a nuclear weapon. And from what I understand, the idea of a single button to launch a weapon is a myth too. There's a whole process of buttons and codes etc.

[Jah Lush]