Jump to content

Recommended Posts

???? 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.

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.

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?

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.

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..

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But it was under our electoral system in 2019! This must be part of the right-wing media conspiracy that did for Corbyn....;-) Corbyn was very closely allied to Unite and Len....
    • Goose Green Ward Panel Meeting   Date: 24th of July 2025, 7pm Location: East Dulwich Picturehouse | 116A Lordship Lane | London SE22 8HD    Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) will be holding a ward panel meeting at East Dulwich Picturehouse on Thursday 24th July 2025 from 7pm. Please come along to talk about the priorities for the community and how local police can help.  
    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...