Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media

[nino_savatte]

Jenkins is right about Trident, as is Corbyn, but most of the electorate are still wedded to the idea that we'd all be doomed without our 'independent' nuclear deterrent and they're never going to vote to remove it, at least not for a long time yet.

This isn't an argument: it's confused mush. Furthermore, you can't claim that "most of the electorate" want Trident without providing some numbers to support your claim. Can you do that?

 

[teqniq]

...Trident is a white elephant; a waste of money. It has no use value beyond its employment as virility symbol and magick amulet that allegedly wards off evil spirits.

What about all the 'defence' contractors, mostly American who stand to make vast sums out of it should it be renewed? to them I imagine it is very useful indeed, perhaps even considered necessary.

 

[existentialist]

Possible I suppose. I don't know.

No, I suppose you wouldn't. Rather unwise, surely, to go around agreeing with things you don't really know, though...?

 

[existentialist]

in the future don't make yourself look stupid by posting rubbish like this

Pah, that's just the whipped cream of stupid, layered onto a complex trifle of fuckwit, idiot, and clueless. With little flakes of the Toasted Almonds Of WTF.

 

[existentialist]

Here we go. Exactly the same style as those who seek to make the Labour Party unelectable.

In case you didn't notice the result of the last election, and the one before that, the Labour Party has already made itself unelectable. Whatever Corbyn might do, he certainly can't make the situation any worse - do these apologists for "New" Labour really think that, having been comprehensively shown the door by the electorate twice, more of the same is somehow going to magically work next time?

I'd have recommended original thinking to you, rather than merely parrotting the party line of others, only I fear that you'd find it impossible.

 

[nino_savatte]

What about all the 'defence' contractors, mostly American who stand to make vast sums out of it should it be renewed? to them I imagine it is very useful indeed, perhaps even considered necessary.

As a weapon of war, it is of little practical use. It is, as you point out, a massive source of income for 'defence' contractors, companies and their rentier chums.

 

[teqniq]

As a weapon of war, it is of little practical use. It is, as you point out, a massive source of income for 'defence' contractors, companies and their rentier chums.

I wasn't trying to be nit-picky. I just think that people can easily overlook the vast sums of money involved in what is indeed a white elephant and a vanity project.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Minor league compared to what is happening within a few weeks of Corbyn's election.

The Labour Party has been heading left since 1997. More and more of the members think politics is about them, rather than the electorate. Hence we have the Tories guaranteed power until well into the 2020s.

1. What is actually happening as opposed to what is being speculated on - and how is it 'minor league' when compared to the changes to the Labour Party from the mid 1980s onward? Remember history didn't begin in 1997.

2. The members are part of the electorate so politics is about them; you should be seeking to enfranchise more people in the policy making process rather than fewer.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Whereas I think they should be answerable to the electorate. i.e. the 9 million who voted for them, not the few who just joined the Labour Party to ruin it.

As I said all sections of the Labour party barring the PLP voted for Corbyn, so are they all wreckers like the 'few who just joined the Labour Party to ruin it'? Or are you just ignoring inconvenient facts?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[MarkyMarrk]

In case you didn't notice the result of the last election, and the one before that, the Labour Party has already made itself unelectable. Whatever Corbyn might do, he certainly can't make the situation any worse - do these apologists for "New" Labour really think that, having been comprehensively shown the door by the electorate twice, more of the same is somehow going to magically work next time?

I'd have recommended original thinking to you, rather than merely parrotting the party line of others, only I fear that you'd find it impossible.

It's you that is parroting the party line.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

This isn't an argument: it's confused mush. Furthermore, you can't claim that "most of the electorate" want Trident without providing some numbers to support your claim. Can you do that?

Poll: 25 of Brits and 48 of Scots think UK should scrap Trident

 

[MarkyMarrk]

This isn't an argument: it's confused mush. Furthermore, you can't claim that "most of the electorate" want Trident without providing some numbers to support your claim. Can you do that?

FactCheck: Does Britain want to scrap Trident?

 

[MarkyMarrk]

This isn't an argument: it's confused mush. Furthermore, you can't claim that "most of the electorate" want Trident without providing some numbers to support your claim. Can you do that?

HuffPost Labour Conference Poll: Little Support For Scrapping Trident

 

[existentialist]

It's you that is parroting the party line.

Care to explain how? (I shan't hold my breath...)

Because, from here, that response looks like no more than "No, you smell"...

 

[MarkyMarrk]

Care to explain how? (I shan't hold my breath...)

Because, from here, that response looks like no more than "No, you smell"...

It is you backing the current Labour leadership in every post on the Labour party.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's you that is parroting the party line.

contradiction not argument.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is you backing the current Labour leadership in every post on the Labour party.

it should not be news to you that contradiction not argument.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Jenkins is right about Trident, as is Corbyn, but most of the electorate are still wedded to the idea that we'd all be doomed without our 'independent' nuclear deterrent and they're never going to vote to remove it, at least not for a long time yet..

What do you base this judgement on? Nobody has ever been given a vote on whether or not to remove nuclear weapons.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

I'm guessing that those numbers will be dismissed because they're inconvenient.

 

[Pickman's model]

As a weapon of war, it is of little practical use. It is, as you point out, a massive source of income for 'defence' contractors, companies and their rentier chums.

tbh it is of no practical use against many of the foes this country is likely to have in the next 20 years, few of whom will be 'traditional' states like russia or china and more of whom will be 'non-state' actors like isis and al-qaeda.

 

[existentialist]

It is you backing the current Labour leadership in every post on the Labour party.

If that's how you're interpreting my posts, then I don't think there's much hope for you.

 

[Pickman's model]

That is wingnuttery. It's like everyone is ignoring Putin, and the fact that we have no idea who will be threatening us in 10 years.
Mutually assured destruction is the only thing that stopped mutual destruction during the cold war, so I heard someone convincingly argue the other day. It appears that if CND had their way in Britain and the US, we wouldn't be here.

despite my previous pleas you appear hellbent on appearing a 'wingnut', to use your term. do you have a shred of evidence that the campaign for nuclear disarmament organised in the united states?

 

[Pickman's model]

If that's how you're interpreting my posts, then I don't think there's much hope for you.

tbh i am - albeit reluctantly - coming to the conclusion that MarkyMarrk is not doing his damndest to appear stupid despite being a well-read and intelligent young man but that he is stupid and wilfully ignorant.

 

[nino_savatte]

HuffPost Labour Conference Poll: Little Support For Scrapping Trident

Groovy but what those numbers don't tell us is why people think that way. Obviously, you would be unwilling to admit that the reason why people believe Trident to be important is because the incredibly weak case for renewing it is constantly spouted by pro-nuke politicians and their ill-informed lackies in the media. Therefore the range of permitted opinion on Trident is narrow and the field of discourse is almost always skewed in favour of pro-nuke types. As I said to you earlier, it doesn't occur to you to question the motives of the pro-nuke politicians and the media.

I seriously doubt anyone wakes up in the morning and says "Thank G*d for Trident and G*d bless our politicians for keeping us safe".

 

[nino_savatte]

HuffPost Labour Conference Poll: Little Support For Scrapping Trident

Great, you can prove stuff with numbers. How about constructing a coherent argument? Is that beyond your ken?

 

[nino_savatte]

Poll: 25 of Brits and 48 of Scots think UK should scrap Trident

Yeah, but who did they ask? It's funny but whenever these [push] polls are conducted, they always seem to miss out people like me. You do realise that the press routinely cherry picks poll data, don't you?

 

[irf520]

What do you base this judgement on? Nobody has ever been given a vote on whether or not to remove nuclear weapons.

It's quite likely that they would vote to keep them since the media never misses an opportunity to say Putin would nuke us all if he got the chance.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's quite likely that they would vote to keep them since the media never misses an opportunity to say Putin would nuke us all if he got the chance.

being as putin has more, bigger and indeed better nuclear weapons than the united kingdom, it's not like our puny 16 or 32 or whatnot are really going to deter him. he could turn all the united kingdom and northern ireland and the bits and bobs of empire into smoking irradiated wastes and still have hundreds of bombs left over: whereas we'd still be within the a's on our target list when our last bomb exploded.

 

[irf520]

being as putin has more, bigger and indeed better nuclear weapons than the united kingdom, it's not like our puny 16 or 32 or whatnot are really going to deter him. he could turn all the united kingdom and northern ireland and the bits and bobs of empire into smoking irradiated wastes and still have hundreds of bombs left over: whereas we'd still be within the a's on our target list when our last bomb exploded.

Not to mention the question of what he would gain by nuking us.
But all that would be irrelevant. The 'argument' would be Putin can't nuke us now because we can nuke him back; if we got rid of Trident we wouldn't be able to do that. Most of the electorate won't analyse the situation further.

 

[Pickman's model]

Groovy but what those numbers don't tell us is why people think that way. Obviously, you would be unwilling to admit that the reason why people believe Trident to be important is because the incredibly weak case for renewing it is constantly spouted by pro-nuke politicians and their ill-informed lackies in the media. Therefore the range of permitted opinion on Trident is narrow and the field of discourse is almost always skewed in favour of pro-nuke types. As I said to you earlier, it doesn't occur to you to ask question of the motives of the pro-nuke politicians and the media.

I seriously doubt anyone wakes up in the morning and says "Thank G*d for Trident and G*d bless our politicians for keeping us safe".

tomorrow morning i will wake up and exclaim 'thank the lord for trident, to which we can tie MarkyMarrk and launch him from a submarine'.