Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s Trident review. Winning a battle but the losing th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s Trident review. Winning a battle but the losing the war?
Emily Thornberry, the new recruit to the Corbyn Shadow Cabinet has a sense of mischief and tells a great story about her General Election outing in 2001 in the safe Tory seat of Canterbury. Her opponent was Julian Brazier, who is proud of his family’s military heritage. His father was a lieutenant colonel and he spent 13 years as an officer the Territorial Army, five of them in the with the SAS.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Gee....I wonder what his findings might be.
At the end of the day, no-one knows who John McDonnell or Cat Smith are, their appointments don't hurt Labour in terms of public perception (away from those few who still read papers).
But Thornberry is a liability, even Lucy Powell hasn't had their public reputation shredded as badly as Lady Nugee has.
In response to @NickPalmer (who said this - Snipped):-
"The cover-up phenomenon is sometimes because extremists have already tried to exploit it, so you get authorities feeling that they mustn't get any kind of validation. But if a crime has been committed, the fact that someone we don't like has tried to exploit it unscrupulously doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prosecute it properly."
Your last paragraph is key, I think. Extremists will more likely be successful at exploiting something if the mainstream ignores the problem. That is why it is so important for the mainstream not to ignore the issue and to speak about it openly and honestly and put all the facts out there, however uncomfortable they may be.
To refuse to speak honestly for fear of extremism is more likely to feed extremism, not least because it displays utter contempt for the people.
We need to speak openly about the facts and we need to speak openly about values and culture, our own and that of others. The attached article is quite interesting in this regard: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/je-suis-charlie-then-challenge-the-islamophobia-industry/16455#.Vpj1Nmxi_X4.
Oh and a very good post from TSE (fpt).
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Really? How? How in God's name does one conduct a cyber attack against a system that is not connected to the internet?
He's just appointed Thornberry to defence - this is wishful thinking from Don.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6559603.stm
He assumes, I think, that Labour are likely to win an election anyway at some point and that it is better for it to be on a non-nuclear platform, even if that delays the victory. It's what @AlistairMeeks called the "We only have to be lucky once" strategy.
A move to ditch Trident would only have credibility if the leader were seen as someone who could be trusted to defend the country properly. Then the argument would be about means. But with Corbyn in charge the question is not about means but ends. Does he even want to defend the country?
Time for a replay of Lord Rooker's comments, perhaps:
"My party leader cannot be accused, like the prime minister, of misleading anyone. He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies – and he won't. We need to get rid of him before we face the electorate and have a leader fit and proper to offer themselves as our prime minister…."
"But Corbyn’s goal should surely not just to change party policy but to make it the policy of a Labour government"
The assumption being that Labour should make the best pitch to the electorate that is likely to win an election. I don't believe that is how Corbyn thinks. He will want as pure a manifesto as he can get from the Labour party and then try to persuade the country to back him. For the time being, given his experiences of 2015, there's little reason for him not to think like that.
The review has not been commissioned to produce an impartial conclusion; it exists to validate Corbyn's views. Might someone else - Browne - have come up more credibly with the same conclusion? Possibly, but why take the chance?
As first principle I am.
Given our financial position, and the cutting to the conventional forces, I'm tempted to spend the money on the conventional forces, maybe two full Airborne Air Assault Divisions.
This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF.
The bit I agree with Don was this bit
With all due respect, as they say, to Emily Thornberry and Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn might do well to sack them and hand over the review to a more credible convenor – for the good of the party and of the country.
The only decent thing he's ever done is the book on the Falklands war and that was probably down to Sir Max Hastings
Lord Janner 'abused 12 at children's homes'
Twelve former residents of children's homes say they were abused by Lord Janner, a BBC investigation has found, as criminal proceedings end.
Isn't it marvelous that Janner escaped prosecution while he was alive. Was it because he was a QC and a Lord, and therefore had clout and some power?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6559603.stm
"This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF."
For the same reasons we went away from the V force fifty years ago. As a deterrent, it don't work.
If one wants a nuclear deterrent then CASD is the only one that is, for the UK, viable. If one doesn't then argue for that, but this nonsense that there is some middle way that would provide a sufficient level of deterrence but cheaper has been done to death. Even the Lib Dems could not find a workable alternative.
It is. People are only thinking about the negative effects of plunging energy prices. It takes much longer for the benefits to flow through.
And to be pedantic, what the BBC has found are 12 residents of children's homes who are claiming that they were abused by Lord Janner. The BBC is in no position to make any finding of fact on criminal matters.
Pakistan are developing their own nuclear sub, I'm not confident in placing the security of this nation in the hands of another.
This paragraph, from Dan Hodges, is rather funny.
"In fact, “Why Labour Lost” could become a regular publication. Awaited with the same anticipation in the political world as a publication like Wisden, or the new edition of the Oxford English dictionary. “So what’s your favourite edition of “Why Labour Lost”?”. “Hard one. Have to say, I have a special fondness for the bound, Lisa Nandy, 2025 version."
We know why Labour lost. Labour lost because that’s just what Labour does these days. "
Why the f*ck did we get Nuclear weapons in the first place ! Great idea that was...
Why should I - as in investor - give even the slightest shit at what price people have exchanged bits of paper in the past?
All I care about is whether the net present value of dividends is greater or less than the price at which I can buy or sell shares.
Absolutely, if you want people to take you seriously, you've got to be packin'
But, in reality, the Treasury would take the money and piss it up the wall. If the Treasury had its way, we'd replace the armed forces with a recorded message saying "We surrender" in Arabic.
Too novel an idea ?
Our short term exit of the EU isn't really relevant to the long term goals that we share in terms of global defence.
- An accurate list of of all future dividends in perpertuity, or, more realistically, until you'll want to sell
- ... and therefore you need to know the date when you'll want to sell
- ... and the price at which you'll be able to sell
- Oh, and a complete list of future interest rates until the sale date in order to get the NPV.
Of these, the dominant figure is the price at which you'll be able to sell.
That's what I love about economics: you go through all the theory, and a complex calculation, not knowing what figures to input into the calculation, and finally you come out with the conclusion that it's easy to know whether to buy a share, provided you can predict the future.
I certainly think that if we did give up Trident, we should use the act as an argument for persuading others to cut down at the same time, and a fudge on the policy would be to say that we would be willing to give up Trident as part of a reduction agreed with others. That would still be open to the criticism that we'd be going down to zero while, say, Russia would merely drop by 20%, but it would be more obviously useful.
I don't think Don's idea of scrapping the current review is remotely on, but obviously Browne's input would be interesting. So indeed would Tony Blair's, since he says in his book that he's no longer sure what use Trident is.
If it still makes sense to buy it, great. If it doesn't, then you were probably trading rather than investing.
Do me a favour. Is the Labour Party for real?
Clinton 2 / 2.04
Trump 6.4 / 6.6
Rubio 7.6 / 8
Sanders 9.2 / 10
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419
* Corbyn-led Labour is in the worst possible position to make the argument. From them it will be (correctly) seen as doctrinaire pacifism.
* The issue is divisive for Labour and they have no practical influence. Why tear each other to bits over it?
"Is the Minister aware that everyone in Leicestershire will welcome the setting up of the inquiry into the regime of Frank Beck? There was, of course, not a shred of truth in any of the allegations of criminal conduct made against me during the trial by Beck and by 25 his accomplice, Winston. I hope to raise many important aspects of the matter in the House tomorrow evening, if I am fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
As my wife, my family and I have had a taste of the suffering that Beck can impose on innocent people, will the Minister join me in sending to the real sufferers, the individuals who endured Beck's homes and whose lives have been wrecked at his hands, the profound sympathy of us all?"
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1991/dec/02/child-abuse-leicestershire#S6CV0200P0_19911202_HOC_153
The bomb is not that expensive and we would not get meaningful conventional additions for the money. There is a difference between tactical and strategic needs.
First, never trust Perfidious France. Secondly, never trust Perfidious France. And thirdly, never trust Perfidious France.
When you look at what went before it, the total sum we have paid for nuclear weapons ensured peace since 1945 is cheap at four times the price.
I'm sure you're aware that this was basically Labour's policy in the 1930s too.
Please, Nick, you're a well-read, intelligent guy: this sort of thing is student gesture politics at its worst.
Every time the RAF launches a plane, whether over Syria or just a training flight, they are basically destroying Britain. Time to abolish them, too.
I'm also reliably informed that not all tanks are fuelled by hydrogen or battery power. So unless the army can prove that they are engaged in battle replanting the mangroves, protecting the rainforests and saving the rhinoceros, I'm not sure what we're paying them for either. What's the point?
Saudi Arabia - on the other hand - which has a nasty repressive government, funds Wahabbi groups around the world, has tens of millions of citizens, and has tonnes of space, would be both much more likely and much more serious.
In general I'm sceptical of establishment stitch-up theories - almost nobody will really tolerate a cover-up of a dreadful crime. But there is a tendency not to rush into the public eye with accusations, since they can destroy a reputation long before you get to the court case stage. (It's why I personally favour anonymity of defendants in all court cases until conviction, unless there is a substantial reason to seek further evidence or warn the public.)
Will never happen, Corbyn handpicked two anti-trident lackeys to get the result that he wanted, there'll be no handing over control to a more credible convenor, the damage is done.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10761208/democrats-doomed
Executive summary: It ain't quite as simple as you think
Would be interesting to know TimT's views as he is probably the most expert commentator on here.
I know Labour is in a very sad place but the idea that Des Browne is "more credible" than those currently holding the shadow post, even if it is true is deeply depressing.
In Scotland we have seen what happens when one of the natural governing parties self-destructs and leaves a government with no effective opposition. It is not pretty and does not lead to good governance. The temptation to simply laugh at the depth of the hole that Corbyn is still frantically digging should be resisted. It is not good for the country.
https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/g31291.jpg
I thought I remembered id...
I think England will want a lead of about 100 batting 4th on this pitch. In light of this the game is still pretty evenly matched but it has edged England's way. I hope we don't lose any more time though. Quite a lot of overs lost today.
Debt is running at colossal levels globally, where is demand going to come from?
has already been sackedwas never part of the Defence review