It reminds me of the cop-killer who was here on asylum because he Somalia was too dangerous, and we later found him hiding in Somalia.
The asylum system as presently constituted is a joke. What began as a noble endeavour has been become a system full of holes which the most unpleasant in the world can exploit to gain residency and citizenship in the West.
We need to accept the international agreements are badly outdated and start applying our own criteria. A good character test would be a good place to start.
How much use are polls five years out from an election anyway? They weren't much use five days out from the last one, let alone....
I also query the value, other than as gossip fodder here of a hypothetical match up between Sajid Javid, say, an Jeremy Corbyn. Nobody knows who the hell the former is, let alone how he'd perform leading his party. It all just seems ludicrously early... I appreciate DC won't be the candidate, but the voting public know so little about who may be and what their pitch would be that the exercise seems worthless other than as a way for experienced gamblers to steal a few quid off those who overreact.
I agree with this, the future leader of the tories is unknown, so it would be silly dealing with the future unknown unknowns, and of very little value.
The positioning and stall which Osborne, Boris, Javid etc would make their play on would by its very nature effect how the public see them.
If we rearranged the order of the three contenders you mention, then use an acronym, an outsider winning the race could 'blow JOB away en route to success'
It reminds me of the cop-killer who was here on asylum because he Somalia was too dangerous, and we later found him hiding in Somalia.
The asylum system as presently constituted is a joke. What began as a noble endeavour has been become a system full of holes which the most unpleasant in the world can exploit to gain residency and citizenship in the West.
We need to accept the international agreements are badly outdated and start applying our own criteria. A good character test would be a good place to start.
I wanted to smack the TV. The best bit is we're building a prison there for 300 prisoners - they cost us £10m pa here and we're finally getting rid of them.
They can sod off. Be interesting to hear the Chairman's view on it, though.
What's ridiculous is the argument "More than 600 Jamaican nationals are in UK jails but cannot be deported because of Jamaica's poor prison conditions."
Why on Earth are we responsible for the poor quality of their prisons? If a citizen of that country has committed a crime, he should know he could be imprisoned in his own country and consider that when considering to harm others. A Jamaican shouldn't get the right to a better standard of prison because he commits a crime in Britain rather than his own country.
Thanks for that. Just looking at Corbyn, it strikes me how scruffy he looks. Maybe not too bad a look for a "man of the people", not sure it's an appropriate look for an aspiring PM.
I wanted to smack the TV. The best bit is we're building a prison there for 300 prisoners - they cost us £10m pa here and we're finally getting rid of them.
They can sod off. Be interesting to hear the Chairman's view on it, though.
What's ridiculous is the argument "More than 600 Jamaican nationals are in UK jails but cannot be deported because of Jamaica's poor prison conditions."
Why on Earth are we responsible for the poor quality of their prisons? If a citizen of that country has committed a crime, he should know he could be imprisoned in his own country and consider that when considering to harm others. A Jamaican shouldn't get the right to a better standard of prison because he commits a crime in Britain rather than his own country.
I don't really get the argument there. If another country houses its prisoners in the Ritz, would we be so keen to extradite?
If you do the crime in this country then you should do the time in this country. Then you should be extradited.
Dave will be gone by 2019 to give the next Tory leader an incumbency boost as PM.
I think Dave likes the position of being one of the few PMs who went at the time of their own choosing nor as he gone 'mad' in power as some PMs have.
I think Cameron will fight one more election if Corbyn is leader and could also stay for stability post EU ref
You mean you think Cameron lied to the electorate. Good job he doesn't represent a Scottish seat.
He never expected a majority or Labour to elect Corbyn
Even the Spanish Inquisition never expected Labour to elect Corbyn as leader. However I think Tory polling had a better idea than most about the state of play. It must be tempting for all concerned but I hope Cameron sticks to his guns, I believe it would be best in the long term.
On topic, the problem with non-Cameron/Corbyn options is that there are just so many - and they are of course only one variable (if a known unknown). While the 2005-7 polls naming Brown were helpful, they were also possible because he was the only likely successor and even then, they failed to predict the Brown Boom over the summer of 2007, which could have been critical had Brown opted for that early election.
By contrast, Cameron's successor might be Osborne or May or Boris or Javid, there's still a reasonable chance that it might be someone else. After all, very few people would have picked *any* of the Tory leaders since Eden four years out from when they won the crown.
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
I wanted to smack the TV. The best bit is we're building a prison there for 300 prisoners - they cost us £10m pa here and we're finally getting rid of them.
They can sod off. Be interesting to hear the Chairman's view on it, though.
What's ridiculous is the argument "More than 600 Jamaican nationals are in UK jails but cannot be deported because of Jamaica's poor prison conditions."
Why on Earth are we responsible for the poor quality of their prisons? If a citizen of that country has committed a crime, he should know he could be imprisoned in his own country and consider that when considering to harm others. A Jamaican shouldn't get the right to a better standard of prison because he commits a crime in Britain rather than his own country.
I don't really get the argument there. If another country houses its prisoners in the Ritz, would we be so keen to extradite?
If you do the crime in this country then you should do the time in this country. Then you should be extradited.
Think of it as out-sourcing. It's cheaper.
It's also why they are keen to set up refugee/asylum seeker camps closer to source.
It has some dangerous, historic connotations however.
Cameron's great legacy to the Tories will be Labour's post-GE implosion and the election of Jeremy Corbyn. After the EU election is out of the way, what more can he reasonably hope to achieve in politics? He will also not want to deal with the end of the Union, which will become a very live issue again after the Tory victory in 2020. Better to leave that to his successor.
As for Corbyn, the day after and his speech is even worse than it was yesterday. As he sees it, the UK is divided into the Tories and the desperately poor who are being shafted by them. What he genuinely does not seem to understand is that most people do not live in poverty and that the only way to do anything about the ones who do is to form a prospectus that has some relevance to the majority.
Spot on. As I keep saying, electorally Labour needs to appeal to the guy who works in a call centre in Swindon on an OK wage but not enough to buy a house - instead, it is constantly fighting for a better life for a family of Somali refugees.
I wanted to smack the TV. The best bit is we're building a prison there for 300 prisoners - they cost us £10m pa here and we're finally getting rid of them.
They can sod off. Be interesting to hear the Chairman's view on it, though.
What's ridiculous is the argument "More than 600 Jamaican nationals are in UK jails but cannot be deported because of Jamaica's poor prison conditions."
Why on Earth are we responsible for the poor quality of their prisons? If a citizen of that country has committed a crime, he should know he could be imprisoned in his own country and consider that when considering to harm others. A Jamaican shouldn't get the right to a better standard of prison because he commits a crime in Britain rather than his own country.
I think I am agreeing with what you say. Isn't the issue the restrictions of deportation? Assuming these people qualify for being deported then it is a disgrace we cannot deport them to a fellow commonwealth nation, all thanks to the stupidity of the judiciary.
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
You will not save anything. Leaving aside the arguments for Trident, all the money will have to be spent on the failing renationalised railway network and other renationalisations.
It reminds me of the cop-killer who was here on asylum because he Somalia was too dangerous, and we later found him hiding in Somalia.
The asylum system as presently constituted is a joke. What began as a noble endeavour has been become a system full of holes which the most unpleasant in the world can exploit to gain residency and citizenship in the West.
We need to accept the international agreements are badly outdated and start applying our own criteria. A good character test would be a good place to start.
To be fair the outrage would be if they were granted asylum, as it stands they have only applied.
And that's not his job anymore either. It's to be LotO - if he wants to spend his time campaigning for oppressed lesbians in Yemen - he's in the wrong one.
Mr. Eagles, bit like arguing over the best way to pronounce 'potato'.
The only significant difference I've ever heard between the 'two' conditions [as opposed to one with two names] is the suggestions psychopaths might be capable of genuine emotional empathy [but still able to switch it on and off as they please], whereas sociopaths are incapable of that on a permanent basis.
Cameron's great legacy to the Tories will be Labour's post-GE implosion and the election of Jeremy Corbyn. After the EU election is out of the way, what more can he reasonably hope to achieve in politics? He will also not want to deal with the end of the Union, which will become a very live issue again after the Tory victory in 2020. Better to leave that to his successor.
As for Corbyn, the day after and his speech is even worse than it was yesterday. As he sees it, the UK is divided into the Tories and the desperately poor who are being shafted by them. What he genuinely does not seem to understand is that most people do not live in poverty and that the only way to do anything about the ones who do is to form a prospectus that has some relevance to the majority.
Spot on. As I keep saying, electorally Labour needs to appeal to the guy who works in a call centre in Swindon on an OK wage but not enough to buy a house - instead, it is constantly fighting for a better life for a family of Somali refugees.
They get more and more ridiculous as time goes on, you have to wonder if they are as stupid as they make out.
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
You will not save anything. Leaving aside the arguments for Trident, all the money will have to be spent on the failing renationalised railway network and other renationalisations.
An easy read but the lack of rigour in the analysis is typified by this comment:
"There are quite a lot of people – I have no idea how many – who say they quite like this strange man Corbyn because he seems different, authentic and honest, even if they disagree with many of his views."
I imagine there is alot of 'British politeness' regarding Corbyn at the moment
(In my usual style, it was a purely accidental meeting and I did not realise who he was for a few minutes).
I must admit that I have a lot of time for Bernie. He made F1 into the worldwide success it has become....
Oh, THAT Bernie. This is PB, so we thought you were talking about Bernie Sanders, not some F1 bloke...
There was a while when Bernie Ecclestone was involved in the big political story of the day in British politics.
As an aside, before that Bernie (for Nick's benefit, we're talking Ecclestone) apparently was a Conservative supporter. In his mind, the way the Conservatives went after Blair and him about that million pound donation put him off the Conservatives as well.
It did lead to an expression: "doing a Bernie": donating a sum to achieve an aim, and then getting the aim achieved and the money back
Here is something to get the swivel-eyed in our midst foaming at the mouth:
"Almost £6bn of the UK’s foreign aid budget will be spent on tackling climate change in poor countries over the next five years, David Cameron has said, as Britain steps up its contributions by 50 per cent to help meet international targets."
Its certainly got me foaming at the mouth.
So you don't want to invest in flood defences in Bangladesh?
On psychopaths: I remember learning at university about a revolutionary approach in the US> They had a number of criminals, psychopaths, locked up and, in the late 60s or early 70s, decided talking in groups might work as therapy. So, they tried that, and then the criminals were let go.
After which they returned to a life of crime but were almost impossible to catch, because the highly intelligent miscreants had shared tips with one another in 'therapy' and then gone their separate ways.
Mr. Eagles, bit like arguing over the best way to pronounce 'potato'.
The only significant difference I've ever heard between the 'two' conditions [as opposed to one with two names] is the suggestions psychopaths might be capable of genuine emotional empathy [but still able to switch it on and off as they please], whereas sociopaths are incapable of that on a permanent basis.
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
You will not save anything. Leaving aside the arguments for Trident, all the money will have to be spent on the failing renationalised railway network and other renationalisations.
Trident is there to ensure we are not attacked. The key word is 'deterrent'. The point of multilateral disarmament is the acquiring of mutually assured 'trust' between the great nations (and France). We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons... they exist and we have to create a world where it will actually be safe enough to be assured they can be scrapped. That nutjobs like Corbyn, as opposed to the more sane members of the PLP, cannot see that then it simply shows how unsuited for office he is.
Over its lifetime Trident is not particularly expensive.
It's easy to imagine Corbyn pressing the button: the nuclear apocalypse would just replace the asteroid:
That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.
Here is something to get the swivel-eyed in our midst foaming at the mouth:
"Almost £6bn of the UK’s foreign aid budget will be spent on tackling climate change in poor countries over the next five years, David Cameron has said, as Britain steps up its contributions by 50 per cent to help meet international targets."
Its certainly got me foaming at the mouth.
So you don't want to invest in flood defences in Bangladesh?
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
You will not save anything. Leaving aside the arguments for Trident, all the money will have to be spent on the failing renationalised railway network and other renationalisations.
Trident is there to ensure we are not attacked. The key word is 'deterrent'. The point of multilateral disarmament is the acquiring of mutually assured 'trust' between the great nations (and France). We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons... they exist and we have to create a world where it will actually be safe enough to be assured they can be scrapped. That nutjobs like Corbyn, as opposed to the more sane members of the PLP, cannot see that then it simply shows how unsuited for office he is.
Over its lifetime Trident is not particularly expensive.
But the deterrent is bogus. It is only there hypothetically. If a foreign power were to destroy London, would the PM (or whoever was left alive) really feel they were justified in killing 5 million civilians in that country's capital "to get our own back"?
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
Here is something to get the swivel-eyed in our midst foaming at the mouth:
"Almost £6bn of the UK’s foreign aid budget will be spent on tackling climate change in poor countries over the next five years, David Cameron has said, as Britain steps up its contributions by 50 per cent to help meet international targets."
Its certainly got me foaming at the mouth.
So you don't want to invest in flood defences in Bangladesh? Or help them build less polluting factories?
Well said. I do think we should be somewhat self serving in out aid, providing it fulfills the generally expected purpose of aid. We should take advantage of aid to become bigger trading partners of its recipients, as well as hoping the rise out of poverty and disaster will increase growth in the poorer economies of the world. Personally I think if we could not properly spend the budget in any one year we should keep the balance in some sort of ... umm ... escrow(?) and give ourselves even more financial clout in the world.
The world's financial capital obliterated. Perhaps 10 million people dead (depending on the size and location of the strike). Swathes of southern England dangerously irradiated.
Back to psychopaths: there's an interesting line of thought that far from being a problem, the condition arose on an evolutionary basis. If your tribe of cavemen is led by a psychopath and the enemy by an incredibly nice chap, the odds are you'll win. Psychopaths are charming, intelligent, and decisive. They're also overwhelmingly male (although not 100%, so you do occasionally meet a lady psychopath).
Whilst Michelin's desire to provide more durable, faster tyres is obviously appealing, it had previously been reported that their demand for 17" rims was a major stumbling block.
1) Corbyn does best with under 35's - same losing demographic as Miliband; 2) The only non Con/Lab voters who prefer Corbyn are SNP; 3) A third of Labour voters do not affirm Corbyn as a better leader than Cameron;
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
You will not save anything. Leaving aside the arguments for Trident, all the money will have to be spent on the failing renationalised railway network and other renationalisations.
Trident is there to ensure we are not attacked. The key word is 'deterrent'. The point of multilateral disarmament is the acquiring of mutually assured 'trust' between the great nations (and France). We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons... they exist and we have to create a world where it will actually be safe enough to be assured they can be scrapped. That nutjobs like Corbyn, as opposed to the more sane members of the PLP, cannot see that then it simply shows how unsuited for office he is.
Over its lifetime Trident is not particularly expensive.
But the deterrent is bogus. It is only there hypothetically. If a foreign power were to destroy London, would the PM (or whoever was left alive) really feel they were justified in killing 5 million civilians in that country's capital "to get our own back"?
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
Of course there are, which is why we need it to prevent those circumstances happening . There are madmen about who possibly would use some sort of nuclear bomb. But please do pass on your argument to North Korea.
Your argument is a made up one which by its very scenario has assumed deterrence is bogus in that it says London has been destroyed but then jumps and says we would never retaliate.
But the deterrent is bogus. It is only there hypothetically. If a foreign power were to destroy London, would the PM (or whoever was left alive) really feel they were justified in killing 5 million civilians in that country's capital "to get our own back"?
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
We killed a huge number of civilians by bombing during the second world war. If we had had the means of destroying Dresden or Hamburg with a single bomb I have no doubt that we would have taken it.
The job of Leader of the Opposition is to be ready to take over as PM. It's not a campaigning role; it's a (potential) governing one. That's what the political class and the media do get and Corbyn's supporters don't.
Tried to have another look at the F1 page. Busy, and didn't look. Fair enough, except the BBC's graphic for extreme traffic appeared to be a freakish clown toy in front of a fireball. That's oddly apocalyptic.
We would not retaliate by killing millions of North Korean civilians. We can pretend that we would, in order to deter the bombing of London, but I maintain that no British PM would follow through with the threat to retaliate. Of course, we all hope that the theory does not have to be tested. Schrodinger's bomb, if you will.
The world's financial capital obliterated. Perhaps 10 million people dead (depending on the size and location of the strike). Swathes of southern England dangerously irradiated.
Back to psychopaths: there's an interesting line of thought that far from being a problem, the condition arose on an evolutionary basis. If your tribe of cavemen is led by a psychopath and the enemy by an incredibly nice chap, the odds are you'll win. Psychopaths are charming, intelligent, and decisive. They're also overwhelmingly male (although not 100%, so you do occasionally meet a lady psychopath).
I think that's right. In game theory, the psychopath usually wins by threatening convincingly to bring down the whole house on both parties.. That's the mistake the Greeks made. Schäuble was willing to risk the whole EU project to teach the Greeks a lesson.
In nuclear deterence, it would be more effective to have a computer in charge (rather than a psychopath) that was programmed to automatically retaliate a la Dr Strangelove. No bluffing there.
In nuclear deterence, it would be more effective to have a computer in charge (rather than a psychopath) that was programmed to automatically retaliate a la Dr Strangelove. No bluffing there.
We would not retaliate by killing millions of North Korean civilians. We can pretend that we would, in order to deter the bombing of London, but I maintain that no British PM would follow through with the threat to retaliate. Of course, we all hope that the theory does not have to be tested. Schrodinger's bomb, if you will.
Based on what? The RAF killed tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians in strategic bombing raids, using every means at their disposal. Nor is mass killing in warfare a rare event as history has repeatedly shown. And you really think if London is wiped from the map that no PM would retaliate?
But the deterrent is bogus. It is only there hypothetically. If a foreign power were to destroy London, would the PM (or whoever was left alive) really feel they were justified in killing 5 million civilians in that country's capital "to get our own back"?
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
We killed a huge number of civilians by bombing during the second world war. If we had had the means of destroying Dresden or Hamburg with a single bomb I have no doubt that we would have taken it.
The motivation for these killings was not retaliation. We can debate whether they were justified. However, I don't think we should open up that can of worms.
The world's financial capital obliterated. Perhaps 10 million people dead (depending on the size and location of the strike). Swathes of southern England dangerously irradiated.
Back to psychopaths: there's an interesting line of thought that far from being a problem, the condition arose on an evolutionary basis. If your tribe of cavemen is led by a psychopath and the enemy by an incredibly nice chap, the odds are you'll win. Psychopaths are charming, intelligent, and decisive. They're also overwhelmingly male (although not 100%, so you do occasionally meet a lady psychopath).
I think that's right. In game theory, the psychopath usually wins by threatening convincingly to bring down the whole house on both parties.. That's the mistake the Greeks made. Schäuble was willing to risk the whole EU project to teach the Greeks a lesson.
In nuclear deterence, it would be more effective to have a computer in charge (rather than a psychopath) that was programmed to automatically retaliate a la Dr Strangelove. No bluffing there.
Anyone else remembering the hit 80s film Wargames?
In Quarter 2 2015, GDP was estimated to have been 5.9% higher than the pre-economic downturn peak of Quarter 1 2008, having first exceeded this peak in Quarter 2 2013, returning to pre-downturn levels one quarter earlier than previously published.
Real household disposable income increased by 2.0% between Quarter 1 2015 and Quarter 2 2015.
Corbyn and Labour utterly irrelevant - a dying party.
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
You will not save anything. Leaving aside the arguments for Trident, all the money will have to be spent on the failing renationalised railway network and other renationalisations.
Trident is there to ensure we are not attacked. The key word is 'deterrent'. The point of multilateral disarmament is the acquiring of mutually assured 'trust' between the great nations (and France). We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons... they exist and we have to create a world where it will actually be safe enough to be assured they can be scrapped. That nutjobs like Corbyn, as opposed to the more sane members of the PLP, cannot see that then it simply shows how unsuited for office he is.
Over its lifetime Trident is not particularly expensive.
But the deterrent is bogus. It is only there hypothetically. If a foreign power were to destroy London, would the PM (or whoever was left alive) really feel they were justified in killing 5 million civilians in that country's capital "to get our own back"?
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
We would not retaliate by killing millions of North Korean civilians. We can pretend that we would, in order to deter the bombing of London, but I maintain that no British PM would follow through with the threat to retaliate. Of course, we all hope that the theory does not have to be tested. Schrodinger's bomb, if you will.
Trying to listen to it on iplayer I think this interview has, indeed, broken the internet as the BBC server is "encountering a problem".
There comes a point when trying to listen to some interviews of people like Corbyn becomes too painful... and I do not mean from the paroxysms of laughter. I think I will give this one a miss, the exasperation might boil over.
The motivation for these killings was not retaliation. We can debate whether they were justified. However, I don't think we should open up that can of worms.
When you drop thousands of unguided weapons on a city full of civilians, and particularly when you mix explosive and incendiary bombs, you know damn well that you will kill many thousands of civilians. That we in Britain pretend otherwise simply makes us look daft.
My concern over the replacement of Trident is whether it is the best solution for the 2030s and 2040s etc? The current Trident can have its life extended into the 2040s so why decide now? Each of these few submarines presents a large target that maybe untraceable today but could be traced and monitored with the technology of the 2020s and 2030s, e.g. very small maybe nano tech devices that transmit their location. A new generation of Trident swould presumably have less of a radar profile but its sheer size and small number place all our nuclear options in 3 to 4 places. Is a solution devised in the early 1960s really best for the 2040s? I doubt it.
A new generation of Trident swould presumably have less of a radar profile but its sheer size and small number place all our nuclear options in 3 to 4 places. Is a solution devised in the early 1960s really best for the 2040s? I doubt it.
Do you think a silo on land or aircraft will be harder to detect than a submarine?
FWIW I would favour two or more subs at sea at all times.
I wanted to smack the TV. The best bit is we're building a prison there for 300 prisoners - they cost us £10m pa here and we're finally getting rid of them.
They can sod off. Be interesting to hear the Chairman's view on it, though.
What's ridiculous is the argument "More than 600 Jamaican nationals are in UK jails but cannot be deported because of Jamaica's poor prison conditions."
Why on Earth are we responsible for the poor quality of their prisons? If a citizen of that country has committed a crime, he should know he could be imprisoned in his own country and consider that when considering to harm others. A Jamaican shouldn't get the right to a better standard of prison because he commits a crime in Britain rather than his own country.
I don't really get the argument there. If another country houses its prisoners in the Ritz, would we be so keen to extradite?
If you do the crime in this country then you should do the time in this country. Then you should be extradited.
If the originator country is willing to enter into an outsourcing contract when I'm fine with that as well.
I struggle to believe it costs £10m p.a. for 300 prisoners (I'm assuming that is very heavily loaded with overheads), but if it does then £100m investment, provided the relationship lasts for a minimum of, say, 15 years, is not unreasonable. Especially as it frees up capacity on our own system
My concern over the replacement of Trident is whether it is the best solution for the 2030s and 2040s etc? The current Trident can have its life extended into the 2040s so why decide now? Each of these few submarines presents a large target that maybe untraceable today but could be traced and monitored with the technology of the 2020s and 2030s, e.g. very small maybe nano tech devices that transmit their location. A new generation of Trident swould presumably have less of a radar profile but its sheer size and small number place all our nuclear options in 3 to 4 places. Is a solution devised in the early 1960s really best for the 2040s? I doubt it.
Isn't it a case that because it takes a long time to build the replacements we have to place the order now for it to be ready then?
The world's financial capital obliterated. Perhaps 10 million people dead (depending on the size and location of the strike). Swathes of southern England dangerously irradiated.
Back to psychopaths: there's an interesting line of thought that far from being a problem, the condition arose on an evolutionary basis. If your tribe of cavemen is led by a psychopath and the enemy by an incredibly nice chap, the odds are you'll win. Psychopaths are charming, intelligent, and decisive. They're also overwhelmingly male (although not 100%, so you do occasionally meet a lady psychopath).
I think that's right. In game theory, the psychopath usually wins by threatening convincingly to bring down the whole house on both parties.. That's the mistake the Greeks made. Schäuble was willing to risk the whole EU project to teach the Greeks a lesson.
In nuclear deterence, it would be more effective to have a computer in charge (rather than a psychopath) that was programmed to automatically retaliate a la Dr Strangelove. No bluffing there.
Anyone else remembering the hit 80s film Wargames?
@ToryTreasury: ONS: UK now estimated to have had the fastest growing economy in 2013 and 2014. Economy is 5.9% above its pre-recession peak
What! We have had Labour speaker after Labour speaker saying that the recovery is not good enough and Danny (5 million) Blanchflower said on BBC2 DP the other day that this was the "worst recovery in our history.... etc ... and it should have been better....."
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
You will not save anything. Leaving aside the arguments for Trident, all the money will have to be spent on the failing renationalised railway network and other renationalisations.
Trident is there to ensure we are not attacked. The key word is 'deterrent'. The point of multilateral disarmament is the acquiring of mutually assured 'trust' between the great nations (and France). We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons... they exist and we have to create a world where it will actually be safe enough to be assured they can be scrapped. That nutjobs like Corbyn, as opposed to the more sane members of the PLP, cannot see that then it simply shows how unsuited for office he is.
Over its lifetime Trident is not particularly expensive.
But the deterrent is bogus. It is only there hypothetically. If a foreign power were to destroy London, would the PM (or whoever was left alive) really feel they were justified in killing 5 million civilians in that country's capital "to get our own back"?
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
Do you press the nuclear button?
Why do you need to nuke the sub, rather than just destroy it using conventional means? (I appreciate that I might be missing the point of the question)
My concern over the replacement of Trident is whether it is the best solution for the 2030s and 2040s etc? The current Trident can have its life extended into the 2040s so why decide now? Each of these few submarines presents a large target that maybe untraceable today but could be traced and monitored with the technology of the 2020s and 2030s, e.g. very small maybe nano tech devices that transmit their location. A new generation of Trident swould presumably have less of a radar profile but its sheer size and small number place all our nuclear options in 3 to 4 places. Is a solution devised in the early 1960s really best for the 2040s? I doubt it.
Isn't it a case that because it takes a long time to build the replacements we have to place the order now for it to be ready then?
Has Osborne invited Chinese companies to invest in the project and/or bid for the contracts?
We would not retaliate by killing millions of North Korean civilians. We can pretend that we would, in order to deter the bombing of London, but I maintain that no British PM would follow through with the threat to retaliate. Of course, we all hope that the theory does not have to be tested. Schrodinger's bomb, if you will.
Based on what? The RAF killed tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians in strategic bombing raids, using every means at their disposal. Nor is mass killing in warfare a rare event as history has repeatedly shown. And you really think if London is wiped from the map that no PM would retaliate?
We would not retaliate by killing millions of North Korean civilians. We can pretend that we would, in order to deter the bombing of London, but I maintain that no British PM would follow through with the threat to retaliate. Of course, we all hope that the theory does not have to be tested. Schrodinger's bomb, if you will.
Based on what? The RAF killed tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians in strategic bombing raids, using every means at their disposal. Nor is mass killing in warfare a rare event as history has repeatedly shown. And you really think if London is wiped from the map that no PM would retaliate?
Problem is we're dealing with situations which no one really can put their mindset into, as we've had (in terms of the UK) 70 years of peace.
If we were in position of total war, akin to WW2, our attitudes and mindset would be utterly different. We would be doing things which we couldnt consider doing now by the very nature of it.
Corbyn has pulled out of interviews with ITV regions. Too tired and losing voice. Yesterday he said we must hold politicians to account.
Has anyone actually asked if he's got the energy for the next 5 years, let alone be PM?
He's 66, he'll be nearly dead or maybe actually dead if it's too much for him.
To be fair to him he has had a punishing schedule and it would be a lot for most people that are 10 years younger. Reminds me of the 65 year old yank hired for a FTSE Board and who chose to have 20+ direct reports around the world. He used to have 1 hour breaks between meetings...... A chocolate teapot type.
Mr. Eagles, sometimes men can prove surprisingly adept when thrust from obscurity to leadership (Julian the Apostate being a prime example. He only got promoted to Caesar on the basis that the Emperor had already killed off every other male relative).
Here is something to get the swivel-eyed in our midst foaming at the mouth:
"Almost £6bn of the UK’s foreign aid budget will be spent on tackling climate change in poor countries over the next five years, David Cameron has said, as Britain steps up its contributions by 50 per cent to help meet international targets."
Its certainly got me foaming at the mouth.
So you don't want to invest in flood defences in Bangladesh? Or help them build less polluting factories?
Well said. I do think we should be somewhat self serving in out aid, providing it fulfills the generally expected purpose of aid. We should take advantage of aid to become bigger trading partners of its recipients, as well as hoping the rise out of poverty and disaster will increase growth in the poorer economies of the world. Personally I think if we could not properly spend the budget in any one year we should keep the balance in some sort of ... umm ... escrow(?) and give ourselves even more financial clout in the world.
Self-serving is fine, but it shouldn't just be trade: there is also a role for trying to reduce future threats. For instance, women's education programmes in Ethiopia have been helpful in reducing radicalism...thereby reducing the risk of it becoming a failed state with the impact in terms of security risk and immigration.
To the extent that we can build these countries into desirable places to live, we benefit in many ways. Flood defences in Bangladesh would be part of that - and provided we get good value for money I have no problem working with British firms to implement policy.
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
You will not save anything. Leaving aside the arguments for Trident, all the money will have to be spent on the failing renationalised railway network and other renationalisations.
Trident is there to ensure we are not attacked. The key word is 'deterrent'. The point of multilateral disarmament is the acquiring of mutually assured 'trust' between the great nations (and France). We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons... they exist and we have to create a world where it will actually be safe enough to be assured they can be scrapped. That nutjobs like Corbyn, as opposed to the more sane members of the PLP, cannot see that then it simply shows how unsuited for office he is.
Over its lifetime Trident is not particularly expensive.
But the deterrent is bogus. It is only there hypothetically. If a foreign power were to destroy London, would the PM (or whoever was left alive) really feel they were justified in killing 5 million civilians in that country's capital "to get our own back"?
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
Do you press the nuclear button?
Why do you need to nuke the sub, rather than just destroy it using conventional means? (I appreciate that I might be missing the point of the question)
Depends how confident you could be in those convential means.
In the words of Hicks from Aliens 'Nuke it from Orbit, it's the only way to be sure'.
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
Do you press the nuclear button?
Basing a defence/nuclear strategy on what sounds like a particularly shite Steven Seagal movie? Well, it's a thought I suppose..
The world's financial capital obliterated. Perhaps 10 million people dead (depending on the size and location of the strike). Swathes of southern England dangerously irradiated.
Back to psychopaths: there's an interesting line of thought that far from being a problem, the condition arose on an evolutionary basis. If your tribe of cavemen is led by a psychopath and the enemy by an incredibly nice chap, the odds are you'll win. Psychopaths are charming, intelligent, and decisive. They're also overwhelmingly male (although not 100%, so you do occasionally meet a lady psychopath).
I think that's right. In game theory, the psychopath usually wins by threatening convincingly to bring down the whole house on both parties.. That's the mistake the Greeks made. Schäuble was willing to risk the whole EU project to teach the Greeks a lesson.
In nuclear deterence, it would be more effective to have a computer in charge (rather than a psychopath) that was programmed to automatically retaliate a la Dr Strangelove. No bluffing there.
Anyone else remembering the hit 80s film Wargames?
Absolutely!
Perhaps (well no perhaps) 'the' best film on the subject was indeed 'Dr Strangelove'.
My concern over the replacement of Trident is whether it is the best solution for the 2030s and 2040s etc? The current Trident can have its life extended into the 2040s so why decide now? Each of these few submarines presents a large target that maybe untraceable today but could be traced and monitored with the technology of the 2020s and 2030s, e.g. very small maybe nano tech devices that transmit their location. A new generation of Trident swould presumably have less of a radar profile but its sheer size and small number place all our nuclear options in 3 to 4 places. Is a solution devised in the early 1960s really best for the 2040s? I doubt it.
Isn't it a case that because it takes a long time to build the replacements we have to place the order now for it to be ready then?
It is so the US can start ripping us off as soon as possible.
My concern over the replacement of Trident is whether it is the best solution for the 2030s and 2040s etc? The current Trident can have its life extended into the 2040s so why decide now? Each of these few submarines presents a large target that maybe untraceable today but could be traced and monitored with the technology of the 2020s and 2030s, e.g. very small maybe nano tech devices that transmit their location. A new generation of Trident swould presumably have less of a radar profile but its sheer size and small number place all our nuclear options in 3 to 4 places. Is a solution devised in the early 1960s really best for the 2040s? I doubt it.
Isn't it a case that because it takes a long time to build the replacements we have to place the order now for it to be ready then?
To some extent, but the USA are considering extending some/all of theirs into 40 years and there is already an extension moving ours fom 25 to 30 years. We can have that 5 years using existing techniques. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme#Cold_War_policy
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
Do you press the nuclear button?
String out negotiations until the destroyers, sub-hunting planes and special forces get there.
Trying to listen to it on iplayer I think this interview has, indeed, broken the internet as the BBC server is "encountering a problem".
There comes a point when trying to listen to some interviews of people like Corbyn becomes too painful... and I do not mean from the paroxysms of laughter. I think I will give this one a miss, the exasperation might boil over.
It is, in all honesty, still very difficult to digest that we are actually here.
I don't believe Lab supporters, or Jezza for that matter, realise either. Or perhaps they do, which is more worrying still. I popped over to CiF yday for a feel for the mood and they are euphoric, just what this country needs, etc plus we have our very own NPXMPX2 here saying how well Jezza did.
I'm sorry to say I am still in the just can't f****ing believe it phase.
Comments
Nuclear deterrence 1980s style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESIJ_C9mUBI Famous Sir Humphrey Argument 1.45 in.
The asylum system as presently constituted is a joke. What began as a noble endeavour has been become a system full of holes which the most unpleasant in the world can exploit to gain residency and citizenship in the West.
We need to accept the international agreements are badly outdated and start applying our own criteria. A good character test would be a good place to start.
Indeed it was how Jemini got to go to Eurovision.
Once it was opened up to the public vote it just got worse and worse and the entries performed more and more poorly.
Why on Earth are we responsible for the poor quality of their prisons? If a citizen of that country has committed a crime, he should know he could be imprisoned in his own country and consider that when considering to harm others. A Jamaican shouldn't get the right to a better standard of prison because he commits a crime in Britain rather than his own country.
Just looking at Corbyn, it strikes me how scruffy he looks. Maybe not too bad a look for a "man of the people", not sure it's an appropriate look for an aspiring PM.
If you do the crime in this country then you should do the time in this country. Then you should be extradited.
It must be tempting for all concerned but I hope Cameron sticks to his guns, I believe it would be best in the long term.
Declaration of interest; he is a friend of mine.
His knowledge of the use of research in campaigning is legendary amongst those in the NGO/pressure group world.
Jeremy Corbyn: What The Media and Political Classes Don’t Get. It’s campaigning not politics as you know it.
http://threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org/?p=800
By contrast, Cameron's successor might be Osborne or May or Boris or Javid, there's still a reasonable chance that it might be someone else. After all, very few people would have picked *any* of the Tory leaders since Eden four years out from when they won the crown.
That is so funny because it is so near the truth! Brilliant writing.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/the-uk-interest-in-saudi-prisons-and-why-corbyn-opposes-it
It's also why they are keen to set up refugee/asylum seeker camps closer to source.
It has some dangerous, historic connotations however.
We all know that Cameron wouldn't push the button either. He isn't a psychopath who will kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. No sane leader would. For Trident to work you need a Prime Minister who is known or suspected to be a psychopath. If we go ahead with Trident we need psychopathy as a qualification to be Prime Minister - otherwise it is a waste of money. Not sure which prospective leader would qualify.
Corbyn has given another reason for him being elected. Then there is no need for Trident. Save billions that can be used on conventional defence.
You will not save anything. Leaving aside the arguments for Trident, all the money will have to be spent on the failing renationalised railway network and other renationalisations.
The only significant difference I've ever heard between the 'two' conditions [as opposed to one with two names] is the suggestions psychopaths might be capable of genuine emotional empathy [but still able to switch it on and off as they please], whereas sociopaths are incapable of that on a permanent basis.
"There are quite a lot of people – I have no idea how many – who say they quite like this strange man Corbyn because he seems different, authentic and honest, even if they disagree with many of his views."
I imagine there is alot of 'British politeness' regarding Corbyn at the moment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10280244/Translation-table-explaining-the-truth-behind-British-politeness-becomes-internet-hit.html
It did lead to an expression: "doing a Bernie": donating a sum to achieve an aim, and then getting the aim achieved and the money back
Or help them build less polluting factories?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy
On psychopaths: I remember learning at university about a revolutionary approach in the US> They had a number of criminals, psychopaths, locked up and, in the late 60s or early 70s, decided talking in groups might work as therapy. So, they tried that, and then the criminals were let go.
After which they returned to a life of crime but were almost impossible to catch, because the highly intelligent miscreants had shared tips with one another in 'therapy' and then gone their separate ways.
10 Professions That Attract the Most Sociopaths
http://mic.com/articles/44423/10-professions-that-attract-the-most-sociopaths
The only British prime Ministers I can imagine pressing the button are Thatcher and Blair who are probably the two greatest leaders of modern times.
Trident is there to ensure we are not attacked. The key word is 'deterrent'. The point of multilateral disarmament is the acquiring of mutually assured 'trust' between the great nations (and France). We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons... they exist and we have to create a world where it will actually be safe enough to be assured they can be scrapped.
That nutjobs like Corbyn, as opposed to the more sane members of the PLP, cannot see that then it simply shows how unsuited for office he is.
Over its lifetime Trident is not particularly expensive.
Sociopaths are driven to do the worst for you.
The two are not identical.
That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1255
Trying to listen to it on iplayer I think this interview has, indeed, broken the internet as the BBC server is "encountering a problem".
That nutjobs like Corbyn, as opposed to the more sane members of the PLP, cannot see that then it simply shows how unsuited for office he is.
Over its lifetime Trident is not particularly expensive.
But the deterrent is bogus. It is only there hypothetically. If a foreign power were to destroy London, would the PM (or whoever was left alive) really feel they were justified in killing 5 million civilians in that country's capital "to get our own back"?
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
I do think we should be somewhat self serving in out aid, providing it fulfills the generally expected purpose of aid. We should take advantage of aid to become bigger trading partners of its recipients, as well as hoping the rise out of poverty and disaster will increase growth in the poorer economies of the world.
Personally I think if we could not properly spend the budget in any one year we should keep the balance in some sort of ... umm ... escrow(?) and give ourselves even more financial clout in the world.
The fact that his thinking has not progressed or developed since that is especially telling.
The world's financial capital obliterated. Perhaps 10 million people dead (depending on the size and location of the strike). Swathes of southern England dangerously irradiated.
Back to psychopaths: there's an interesting line of thought that far from being a problem, the condition arose on an evolutionary basis. If your tribe of cavemen is led by a psychopath and the enemy by an incredibly nice chap, the odds are you'll win. Psychopaths are charming, intelligent, and decisive. They're also overwhelmingly male (although not 100%, so you do occasionally meet a lady psychopath).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34399289
Whilst Michelin's desire to provide more durable, faster tyres is obviously appealing, it had previously been reported that their demand for 17" rims was a major stumbling block.
A quick meander:
1) Corbyn does best with under 35's - same losing demographic as Miliband;
2) The only non Con/Lab voters who prefer Corbyn are SNP;
3) A third of Labour voters do not affirm Corbyn as a better leader than Cameron;
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
Of course there are, which is why we need it to prevent those circumstances happening . There are madmen about who possibly would use some sort of nuclear bomb. But please do pass on your argument to North Korea.
Your argument is a made up one which by its very scenario has assumed deterrence is bogus in that it says London has been destroyed but then jumps and says we would never retaliate.
Innocent face.
In nuclear deterence, it would be more effective to have a computer in charge (rather than a psychopath) that was programmed to automatically retaliate a la Dr Strangelove. No bluffing there.
In Quarter 2 2015, GDP was estimated to have been 5.9% higher than the pre-economic downturn peak of Quarter 1 2008, having first exceeded this peak in Quarter 2 2013, returning to pre-downturn levels one quarter earlier than previously published.
Real household disposable income increased by 2.0% between Quarter 1 2015 and Quarter 2 2015.
Corbyn and Labour utterly irrelevant - a dying party.
There are no circumstances in which Trident would ever be used by the British Government.
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
Do you press the nuclear button?
Not only does it save those other cities, it also teaches those who might try something similar what their fate will be.
Not that it's a good choice. But it's the less horrific of the two (in much the same way an Assad victory would be less awful than an ISIS victory).
There comes a point when trying to listen to some interviews of people like Corbyn becomes too painful... and I do not mean from the paroxysms of laughter. I think I will give this one a miss, the exasperation might boil over.
Corbyn u-turn number 11? He now says he's not in favour of re-opening coal mines #Lab15 http://t.co/fWPdGAgPY2
FWIW I would favour two or more subs at sea at all times.
I struggle to believe it costs £10m p.a. for 300 prisoners (I'm assuming that is very heavily loaded with overheads), but if it does then £100m investment, provided the relationship lasts for a minimum of, say, 15 years, is not unreasonable. Especially as it frees up capacity on our own system
Corbyn has pulled out of interviews with ITV regions. Too tired and losing voice. Yesterday he said we must hold politicians to account.
Has anyone actually asked if he's got the energy for the next 5 years, let alone be PM?
He's 66, he'll be nearly dead or maybe actually dead if it's too much for him.
All previous leaders have held Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet roles, he's not used to the pace of frontline politics.
Just look how crap he was with an autocue.
If we were in position of total war, akin to WW2, our attitudes and mindset would be utterly different. We would be doing things which we couldnt consider doing now by the very nature of it.
To the extent that we can build these countries into desirable places to live, we benefit in many ways. Flood defences in Bangladesh would be part of that - and provided we get good value for money I have no problem working with British firms to implement policy.
In the words of Hicks from Aliens 'Nuke it from Orbit, it's the only way to be sure'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme#Cold_War_policy
It is, in all honesty, still very difficult to digest that we are actually here.
I don't believe Lab supporters, or Jezza for that matter, realise either. Or perhaps they do, which is more worrying still. I popped over to CiF yday for a feel for the mood and they are euphoric, just what this country needs, etc plus we have our very own NPXMPX2 here saying how well Jezza did.
I'm sorry to say I am still in the just can't f****ing believe it phase.