If labour does decide not to renew trident in the run up to the next government would you vote labour?
More pointedly, would you vote labour knowing corbyn says he would never use them, which effectively makes them useless.
Is there anyone who would be more likely to vote labour if they stood on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons platform of non renewal and crucially a commitment not to use what we do have?
I'm often puzzled when commentators want to know whether we need Trident to blow ourselves to bits.
Who would gain from this outcome?
My guess is that the so-called super powers are keeping some of the more gullible people of the world in constant fear of an event, nuclear war, which will never really take place.
As for Jeremy Corbyn. His popularity is growing every day despite the criticisms from some sections of the press and other politicians.
He appears to be open and honest.
Would I vote for him? At the moment I would say 'yes'.
I'm often puzzled when commentators want to know whether we need Trident to blow ourselves to bits. Who would gain from this outcome?
My guess is that the so-called super powers are keeping some of the more gullible people of the world in constant fear of an event, nuclear war, which will never really take place.
As for Jeremy Corbyn. His popularity is growing every day despite the criticisms from some sections of the press and other politicians.
He appears to be open and honest.
Would I vote for him? At the moment I would say 'yes'.
That's his biggest asset, honesty, whatever gets thrown at him he doesn't need to rehearse owt in his head because he's essentially an honest bloke, so the answers are actually what he believs in, a refreshing change which folk seem to be connecting with.
Regarding the trident, i grew up through the 60s/70s as a kid with the cold war threat constant in the media, and even though i don't believe in nuclear weapons now, they seemed a reassurance back then, and that lingers. I cannot see anyone pressing that button, but having said that, the law of averages says that if something can happen, invariably at some point it will happen, it's a tough one, maybe we should get rid and use the cash for a fully equiped armed forces, and of course, sort the country out!!
The concept of having Trident is that it leaves you less likely to suffer a nuclear attack because you would have the capability to hit back...Thus attacking you would be suicidal.
Without a nuclear response then logic would suggest that you would be vulnerable to a nuclear attack or to nuclear bullying.
It seems a bit on the silly side if the Labour Party voted for Trident but the leader said that he would never press the nuclear button under any cir***stances.
It's a shame that anyone has nuclear weapons but we cannot uninvent them.
On Corbyn...He is growing on me but I still cannot envisage him as a Prime Minister in conference with say Obama or Merckel.
He can talk the talk but I am not convinced that he can walk the walk
Will middle class UK vote for Corbyn?......No chance!
-- Edited by Kempo on Thursday 1st of October 2015 01:25:03 PM
The only reason I hang on to the nuclear weapons we have is the idea that a stronger conventional force wont attack the UK.
Would I personally launch them if for example Russia or a Islamic coalition attacked us?
Yes, I would!
Would I regret it-definitely.
Its a no win situation which is exactly why we have them.
would I still vote for Corbyn if he believed they should be gone from British soil; yes, I would.
Its all very contradictory.
As for the Middles classes kempo, I think they would be very attracted to Corbyn.
The people I am more inclined to mix with are those post war baby boomers who boycotted Israel and the US and demonstrated for Castro and disarmament. Those very politically and socially active middle class citizens would fall over themselves to put the ex next to Corbyns labour party. After all, when labour had a membership of 1 million + it was when the middle classes could believe in them as a serious party of social change.;they supported the liberal agendas of anti racism, sexism, free and liberal education and nuclear disarmament.
of course, you are correct that the other middle classes wont go near him but I m not so sure they would vote labour under any cir***stances. -- Edited by ian on Thursday 1st of October 2015 02:07:40 PM
-- Edited by ian on Thursday 1st of October 2015 02:15:02 PM
The Trident issue will keep coming back but he has cleverly parked it for now. Lots of developed nations don't have nuclear missiles but they are no more vulnerable than we are to attack. I don't envisage Sweden being invaded any time soon for example. Corbyn hasn't put a foot wrong so far. The relentless trashing he gets from the Mail etc might ultimately help him. If he carries on talking sense enough voters might get the message and there might be an anti-establishment backlash. The last election result was the product of a freakish combination of factors. The Tories ended up with a big majority but they had no more real popular support than at the previous election. Corbyn does not have to win many if any votes from the Tories to beat them, although he may well do so. He may appeal to the disaffected who haven't voted at all recently (a huge constituency of available voters) because he is what we haven't had for decades - a straightforward politician. He should win back seats from the SNP. He also needs the Liberals to get their act together. An increased Liberal vote in key marginals at the expense of the Tories could mean Labour wins. Our electoral system throws out vastly different results on the strength of subtle changes in a small number of key seats. I think it is dawning on people that he could actually be a real force.
On balance I'm against Trident on cost grounds. Russia imo remains a threat but it would invoke a response from NATO. The most likely scenario for a nuclear attack is either from a "bonkers" state like North Korea or an unsophisticated weapon used by Islamic terrorists. Neither would be deterred by the thought of a Trident response and the latter would in any case not present a meaningful target.
No one has said why any country would want to nuke us...........Russia has been mentioned, but we need them more than they need us, we buy most of our gas from them and we supply convenient football clubs and very very nice properties in Kensington. Red China perhaps, oh but wait, we are now their best friend in the west.
So if it aint Russia or China, then who? India, Pakistan? where would the motive come from and in either case theres a good many of their own living over here. North Korea could I suppose but the USA would be top of their hit list and it would be all over bar the shouting before we got our Trident out
Trident is useless against Isil, the Taliban, the IRA, Sadam, trade unions, et al. A deterrent then, well it didn't deter the Argentinians did it. They didnt give a monkeys that we had a big banger.
Well I suppose it makes us feel as though we are still big players on the global scene, but even then there is absolutely no way, no way at all the Yanks would allow us to use it independently. So if anybody thinks for one minute that Corbyn would ever have the chance to 'push the button' then I'm afraid they should think again. Its there for egotistical reasons, so that we can kid ourselves we can play with the big boys.
All in all Trident is a useless heap of tosh, taking away the financial resources to provide and equip a conventional military that can respond to the modern world stage effectively. Get rid of Trident and you could drastically reduce or wipe out the deficit and end austerity in one go.
The Ridgeway Militia has developed a number of strategies for use in the event of a nuclear attack. The most popular and cost effective is shown below.
There are several factors to consider here, i list them below, but they all dont revolve around Trident.
1: Trident, lets get this off our shores, we have built submarines to accommodate them , but as towd-lad mentioned we wont be able to launch them independently, as we dont have the launch codes, they are sent from America (so i am led to believe) so for me a total waste of money.
2: Wars in the conventional sense of the word will not happen, there will be skirmishes and the like, Russia at the moment is bombing Syria, but keeps on flying into Turkish airspace, how long will it be before Turkey get a lock-on a Sukhoi and blow it up - just because they can.
Anyway back onto Corbyn.
3: BBC and the establishment - dont like him, because he doesn't use smoke and mirrors as a tactic to not answer a question, i watched him on the Andrew Marr show and normally i would turn over, but there is something about this man, which is refreshing, he doesn't deflect answering a question with asking a question, which is the normal parliamentary stance, he answers every one with conviction and purpose.
4: Yesterday 7000 people stood outside Manchester Cathedral to hear what JC was saying inside, nothing reported on BBC, or mainstream media, i think the guardian had a piece on their website, and Sky did a little spot of news about it.
5: He is appealing to the disenfranchised young people / Real labour supporters who feel they are not being heard, which leads to apathy at the ballot box, in some cases this has meant the status quo is not disrupted and the blues get in again, NOW this is the game changer, if all the labour voters men and women voted at the next General Election which is not inconceivable given the following the Labour party has at the moment i would be worried if i was a conservative.
We want proper council rented houses, railways owned by us, (technically they still are) to the tune of £4Bn a year handout by the taxpayer, its a win win.
Here is the scenario: Joe Bloggs pays 50% of his wage to a private landlord, but then is offered a council house (brand new) and he only has to pay 20% of his wage to the council, he then has more money to spend, he then buys a new car, white goods, clothes, goes out more (pubs wont close) etc etc win win for everybody.
Also why dont we create a national company that builds timber framed houses cheap, easy to put up and liveable within 13 weeks, yes 13 weeks, Ive done it as a site manager a few years back, you employ people, but the money stays in Britain, then you build a new community on an old RAF or Army site, the land is owned by the MOD (technically the Govt) so no cost there, and we then keep the money within ourselves not going to Big Private companies like Taylor Woodrow or Bloors etc.
It really is that simple, the hard bit is changing peoples minds and this is where JC is winning, slowly but surely.
I wholeheartedly support your post Worcester Miller, it makes complete sense, in addition the guy who buys a council house and only pays 20% of his wage, not only has more disposable income to keep the economy turning and indirectly others in work, but the 20% goes back into local government coffers, i.e back to us instead of into private hands.
They must be bricking it about JC or they wouldn't be trying to discredit and ridicule him at every turn.
Towdlad, it's a n unenviable task but someone has to bring a touch of class and intelligence to the forum.
I like the illustration Ridgeway, my quote comes from a John Wayne film , 'The Comancheroes' when as a Texas ranger he arrests a steam boat gambler, Paul Regret. I love a good Western, good shoot out at the end, cant beat it
Towdlad, it's a n unenviable task but someone has to bring a touch of class and intelligence to the forum.
I like the illustration Ridgeway, my quote comes from a John Wayne film , 'The Comancheroes' when as a Texas ranger he arrests a steam boat gambler, Paul Regret. I love a good Western, good shoot out at the end, cant beat it
I am also a fan of Westerns and have a pretty big collection. If you come across any good new ones let me know. The Salvation and Swee****er were two pretty good recent ones imo.
I see that David Cameron has wrapped himself in the same metaphorical flag that the Home Secretary was waving around yesterday. He has labelled Jeremy Corbyn a 'Britain Hater'. I suspect that the strategists at Tory HQ see a double whammy here - bash Corbyn but also try to woo back some of the instinctive Tories who defected to UKIP at the last election. That line is however as dangerous to Cameron as it is reckless and inflammatory. By all means criticise Mr Corbyn and his policies, but by resorting to the same sort of trash talk as the Mail resorted to by calling Ed Milliband's father a traitor just because he was a Marxist-leaning economist, Cameron is really making Corbyn's point for him. Just because Corbyn wants a different sort of Britain he is not 'anti-Britain'. That is obvious to all but an idiot. The faithful at the Tory Party Conference will lap up the sound-bite, but the sort of people who Corbyn is beginning to appeal to will see it for what it is - exactly the sort of hollow, spinning, trashy rhetoric that most of us are sick of. Keep at it Mr Cameron, and there will be a big wave on the horizon sooner than you think.
Completely agree Smiler, funnily enough ive come on to post pretty much the same thing, people are fed up to the back teeth of 'hate politics' regardless of political viewpoint, and Cameron is half-wittingly playing into JC's hands i think, keep it up Cameron, keep it up.
