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

    • According to what I can see online, Dynamic Vines and Cave de Bruno sell totally different kinds of wine to each other.  Dynamic Vines  "work with independent winemakers who produce outstanding wine using sustainable practices in the vineyard and minimal intervention in the cellar".  Cave de Bruno specialises in French wines and spirits from small independent producers. So two different USPs, and no doubt two different but overlapping customer bases who can afford these wines. Probably different again to the people mainly  shopping for wine at Majestic or the Co op. On the other hand, the two empanada shops appear on the face of it to be selling virtually identical products. But time will tell, won't it? Let's see how they are both doing in - say - a couple of years' time. Impossible, of course, to compare that with how they would have done if there had been only one of them. I just feel more  sorry for the original one than for  the one which can apparently already afford to have a number of shops in places like Mayfair and Highgate. I'm tempted to buy something there every week, and I don't even like that kind of pastry 🤣
    • Not only can he turn olive oil into Vermouth, but also water into a wine. A true miracle worker.  I wouldn't say a wine shop sells a wide variety of things - and there are two right next to each other.  And once upon a time, upmarket pizza shops were very specific. So were burritos etc. These Argentinian cornish pasties are clearly becoming mainstream; we should consider ourselves lucky to be witnessing this exciting upward trend within our lifetimes and on OUR HIGH STREET. We can tell our grandkids that we remember when there was no internet and no empanadas.  I'm sure that if the family empanada people have a good business head, they'll be able to ride this wave of competition, just like Bruno has. 
    • Very economical. Are you available for events? I've got a gathering of 5000 coming up soon. What could you knock up with two little fishes and five loaves of bread? Cod in breadcrumbs? Fish finger sandwiches? Spanish-style croquetas de bacalao with a Romesco sauce? It's BYOB for beer, so there's no need to worry about that and I've managed to do an unbelievable deal on water and wine. Drop me a DM on here or ask for Dave or Jesus (pronounced 'Hay-Zooze') in The Herne, left hand side of the bar.
    • You may want to see if anyone on this site can help: http://www.camberwellboroughcouncil.co.uk/folletts-music-shop/
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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