SF So where do you see the massive inyer face gap in wealth...
Bishops' Avenue, Hampstead Town, South Kensington, Chelsea, Blackheath Village, Canary Wharf, at one end of the scale Seven Sisters, Peckham, Elephant & Castle, Mile End, Stonebridge Park, Colindale at the other. And within plenty of wards, luxury gated developments, and 18th century mansions, next to grotty social housing.
It's borne out in Alistair's figures. The highest GVA in the country along with the highest concentration of poverty.
It's true, in Hampstead there are massive gaps between millionaires and billionaires.
Swiss Cottage is a good example of a ward where you have blocks of social housing next to houses worth millions.
My street, Delancey, in Camden, must have one of the most vertiginous social divides in the UK, if not the world. At the junction, near the bottom, with Arlington Road, you've got several homeless hostels for drunks and junkies, literally the poorest in society. Across the road there's social housing. As you ascend the street this is interspersed with private Georgian terraced houses worth £2m. Go 200 yards to the top of the street and a three bed FLAT will cost you £2m. Go another 200 yards round the corner, to the Nash Terraces, and a decent house will cost you £15m. Or more.
Its a pity that you never resided in one of those hostels for drunks and junkies.
It would have made your rise to wealth more striking.
And it would have been very ironic if you'd been killed by the drunks and druggies during the 2011 riots.
Thanks.
The high tideline of the riots was exactly 20 yards from my flat. At the top of Parkway. I know this cause I followed the rioters' progress on Twitter, and I watched them getting nearer and nearer, and I was standing on my balcony ready to defend my property with a bottle of Rioja Gran Reserva, which i was going to drop on their heads. Or give away as a bribe.
I saw just one rioter. He reached the corner, looked around, shrugged, and went back down to Camden Town itself, where they were trashing the shops.
We still have a dozen muskets in the front entrance of our office in case we are need to protect it against rioters
Shadow Defence Secretary has just said Japan has capability to build "nuclear bomb or whatever" #bbcsp
Interestingly this is true.
The Japanese have a large nuclear industry. Due to work or reprocessing and fast breeder reactors, Japan has a very large stockpile of plutonium. Normally commercially produced plutonium is pretty useless for bombs (too much Pu-241), but some of their stock pile is quite old. So the 241 has decayed.. Not sure if they have processed the plutonium to remove the daughter decay products - but that would be simple chemistry.
So the Japanese have several tons of weapons grade plutonium, and a several very large solid fuel rockets.
All solid fuel is a strange choice for a space launcher - but required for a military weapon. Epsilon is designed to require a very small crew to launch it...
All this means that Japan has the capability to go nuclear very quickly. In fact this has been described as a deterrent deterrent - if the US withdraws it's protection of Japan, it will go nuclear. Which in turn would start an arms race in that part of the world. So everyone leaves the situation alone.
Yup, there's a lot to be said for nuclear latency, as opposed to actually having weapons. 1) It's cheaper than actually having nuclear weapons. 2) It avoids compromising your own or another country's safety if your internal security fails and an adversary gets control of your weapons. If this doesn't sound like a serious threat, note that the US nearly nuked North Carolina, and for 20 years they had their launch codes set to 00000000. And that's just the stuff we've heard about - nuclear weapons programs aren't big on freedom of information. 3) It avoids escalating unnecessarily and makes it easier for other countries to reduce their stockpiles. (Obviously this isn't working with North Korea, but nothing would work with North Korea)
Mr. Malmesbury, there is a bit more to a nuclear weapon than sticking some plutonium on the end of a rocket. Japan has a lot of very good engineers and the make up of a nuclear weapon is freely available. However, actually building one that can be guaranteed to work, that can withstand the stresses of launch and flight and will actually hit its intended target is not at all straightforward. I am a little sceptical that Japan for all it industrial and engineering prowess could manage all that "very quickly".
The common estimate is that it would take Japan a year or two to produce a weapon, and there's long been the suspicion that Japan may have done a lot of preparatory work so that a design is ready and waiting on the shelf.
Implosion using explosives is an industrial technique these days - look up explosive forging.
If they used enriched uranium in a gun type weapon - which Epsilon could deliver 5000 miles - it would take weeks, if that.
Remember, they have a launcher that can put *tons* into orbit. So putting an SOB device (500Kt) 5000 miles down the road would be much easier... The French got a big fission device to 250Kt with plutonium, IIRC.
A moderately advanced implosion design can be fully tested without any nuclear tests - just the explosives and depleted uranium. If they haven't done that yet, a couple of months.
A multi-stage design would require testing and time.
@BBCNormanS: Falkland Islanders shd have a big say - but no veto - over their future says Jeremy Corbyn @MarrShow
That's nice for the Falkanders.
Good and bad news for Brexit. Survation has Leave ahead 42% to 38%. But Gove has now become a fan of the EU.
The lily-livered flip-flopping of senior Conservatives over the EU has become one of the most disappointing features of this referendum campaign.
Putting their careers ahead of the prospects of future generations is disgusting.
Will be interesting to see how the Tory members react to their MPs becoming increasingly Europhile.
Even I can't believe what turncoat swine the tory MP's have become. All because they prefer their parliamentary seats to their supposed beliefs in leaving the EU. The whole British political class has turned on British history, British democracy, and the people.
Just watched the Corbyn interview (the Marr show is on iPlayer)...
£3 very well spent.
Actually, I think it's a disaster for the Conservatives.
It's not though, at least not in the short-medium term. Longer term... who knows.
The Labour Party, the people who voted for him, believe all this, they want it. Whoever leads them will peddle this stuff because thats what they want. Take a good look at Corbyn, he is representative of the Labour Party.
Something I'd like to ask re the doctors strike, as a result of Hunt's reforms will they be financially worse off?
And to clarify, please ignore conditions, hours etc, will the pay packet be cut.
It is a little hard to be certain as Hunt has been very vague on detail. Trainees in areas like dermatology or pathology who do not work unsocial hours will be better off with a 11% payrise. Doctors currently on a 50% banding such as Obstetricians, Anaesthetists, Neurosurgeons will lose their banding (33% of their income) but get an 11% rise. So the Docs who do already provide weekend services get a paycut while those who do not get a payrise!
There are some short term provisions for pay protection, which is where Hunts claim that only 1% will be worse off comes from. This is time limited and also does not apply to the Junior docs that move programmes. So for example the 8200 August vacancies for each of Foundation Trainees (the lowest grade) or ST1 (the first year of Specialist or GP Training) will not get pay protection and will be paid up to 22% less than their peers the year before.
Incidentally the recruitment round for August is well underway and applicants cannot judge whether they will be paid and expected to work the new contract. I suspect applications for emergency heavy specialities will be down in a big way. Emergency dept vacancies were already very frequently unfillable.
Thanks, so when all is said and done it's about money.
Sorry mate but you'll have little support among the wider public.
The financial parts of the contract are the "Not Fair" part, the other aspects are the "Not Safe" part of the BMA JDC slogan. In particular the alterations to permitted shift patterns, the removal of monitoring of hours worked, the penalisation of part time work and career breaks for research etc.
Contrary to Mr Hunt's claims there has not been agreement on the non-financial aspects of the contract.
"Not Fair".
Hmmh.
So it's fair to ask people who are paid a whole lot less than junior doctors to stump extra for them?
Something I'd like to ask re the doctors strike, as a result of Hunt's reforms will they be financially worse off?
And to clarify, please ignore conditions, hours etc, will the pay packet be cut.
My understanding is that approximately 99% of doctors will be better off, as the 11% pay increase offsets the rebanding of weekend late nights from "anti-social" premium rates to a normal hourly rate (as a result of the move to a 7 day roster).
There will be some doctors, i.e. those who work disproportionately during these premium hours, who will earn less under the new system but this is a very small number
I may well be wrong but isn't the maximum number of hours they can work being reduced from 91 to 72?
Prescott now keeps the pot boiling from last week.
Love the bit where he says Andrew Marr SHOULD GO AND JOIN THE DAILY MAIL
Labour are trolling themselves.
"All journalists should recognise the public wants to here what Labour's policies are for today. Not hypothetical positions on the issues of yesterday."
@RuthDavidsonMSP: Somebody please tell me that the leader of HM loyal opposition knows that Trident is the weapons system & Vanguard class are the subs? #Marr
That's a bit rich for someone who is hawking a leaflet saying that you should vote "Ruth Davidson" on the regional list vote for Holyrood.
Something I'd like to ask re the doctors strike, as a result of Hunt's reforms will they be financially worse off?
And to clarify, please ignore conditions, hours etc, will the pay packet be cut.
My understanding is that approximately 99% of doctors will be better off, as the 11% pay increase offsets the rebanding of weekend late nights from "anti-social" premium rates to a normal hourly rate (as a result of the move to a 7 day roster).
There will be some doctors, i.e. those who work disproportionately during these premium hours, who will earn less under the new system but this is a very small number
I may well be wrong but isn't the maximum number of hours they can work being reduced from 91 to 72?
Genuine question, no agenda
That's what I've seen in the press.
If true that knocks the whole patient safety argument on the head.
Cahrles..both you and SF must walk around other Cities with your eyes closed..
No - the extremes are there in NYC and LA as well, as well as Baltimore. I can't really comments on other cities as I don't know them as well, although both Paris and Bruxelles are fairly segregated
Interesting that you think in world rather than in UK terms when talking about cities other than London.
You are right though that similar extremes of wealth exist in such places.
Whereas they don't in secondary cities within the same country and even less so in medium sized towns.
Britain needs to be outward looking and compare itself to the best in the world.
Prescott now keeps the pot boiling from last week.
Honestly though I hate when any politicians whinge about this sort of thing. There will always be times I would prefer interviewers ask about different things, but when politicians complain about it, it comes out just as 'Why didn't you ask me what I wanted you to ask, how dare you?'
Prescott now keeps the pot boiling from last week.
Honestly though I hate when any politicians whinge about this sort of thing. There will always be times I would prefer interviewers ask about different things, but when politicians complain about it, it comes out just as 'Why didn't you ask me what I wanted you to ask, how dare you?'
Another massive (20%) Don't know figure for the EuroRef in an online poll.
If anything, 20% undecided sounds on the low side; in any event, I am one of them. Not only do I not know how I will vote, but I have absolutely no idea on what criteria I shall decide. Neither side has made a compelling case for anything at all, or even an uncompelling one.
Agree - I'm another "Don't know" - but as I suspect with you it's "I'm thinking about it and I don't yet know which way I'll jump" - whereas I suspect for a lot of voters it's "I haven't thought about it yet - why should I?" And on that basis 20% seems low....
Bit that is the paradox. The 'high' don't know figures are for online polls - which give a close result. Phone polls have a tiny don't know figure and have a comfortable Remain lead.
I'm not sure that's a paradox. If people are "don't know" because they haven't considered the matter, they may be more reluctant to admit that to a live interviewer. And in that case, the easy answer is to say "remain".
Remainers must be getting worried. And if they are not worried, they are being stupidly complacent - like the Unionists before indyref.
The polls already have Leave AHEAD. And we have a winter and spring of mass migration and Cologne style refugee sex sprees and potential euro-recession to get through.
It's hard to imagine better weather for Leavers.
It doesn't matter what Cameron brings home from Brussels, if there is refugee chaos across Europe, and blonde women being outraged in the Ruhr by duskier types, then LEAVE will win.
One Survation has Leave ahead, most other polls still have Remain ahead, the latest yougov has Remain ahead 51%-49%. The key swing voters in this referendum will be Tory voters, UKIP voters will be strongly for Leave, LD, Labour and SNP voters will mainly vote Remain, if Cameron can get some renegotiation and get Tory voters close to 50-50 Remain should win, if Tory voters are 60%+ for Leave then Leave should win
If the tabloids can whip up the voters into thinking LEAVE is a way to avoid mass immigration of terrorists and gang rapists, then LEAVE will win. it won't be very pretty, but it could work. The LEAVERS need some luck. Another Cologne in May another Paris in June, and very likely we're OUT. Sorry if that sounds ghoulish and flippant, but it is the case. From a europhile perspective, this is a very bad year to hold a referendum on EU membership.
My workplace provides newspapers in the breakout area. They are always from the right-wing section: always the Sun and the Mail, occasionally the Telegraph. The anti-EU sentiment from the Sun and the Mail has been anti-immigration for years, either directly or via proxy (e.g. the Human Rights Act preventing deportation). Recently it is wholly thus: anti-immigration and ferocious in its insistence. Allison Pearson's recent cri de coeur was only the latest in a long line, and I won't sully you with Rod Liddle's fetid dribbling[1].
I was shopping yesterday and whilst eating my nice burger from the van I eavesdropped on the "Vote Leave" stall nearby, The most overheard word was not "Lisbon" or "sovereignity", it was "migrants" (or "migration" or "them"). And sometimes it's polite, sometimes it isn't, but it was always the same: it's about immigration.
Many Eurosceptic people on this board are old hands and hail from its sovereignist or mercantile traditions, regarding law and trade. Fine (and arguable: see Three Eurosceptic Fallacies) but - in the nicest possible way - irrelevant. The Eurosceptic argument has been driven by Greece and anti-immigration sentiment since about 2011/12 and wholly anti-immigration for the past three-six months.
In short: it's immigration, immigration, immigration
So in conclusion: * The referendum will be about immigration, spoken or unspoken. * The media can easily drive this just by reporting the facts and are motivated to do so * The argument is being won by the Eurosceptics * LEAVE will win
It's not often that the lead story in a BBC news bulletin makes me burst into laughter, but the report that Corbyn has proposed Trident submarines with no warheads was an exception.
It's not often that the lead story in a BBC news bulletin makes me burst into laughter, but the report that Corbyn has proposed Trident submarines with no warheads was an exception.
Just watched the Corbyn interview (the Marr show is on iPlayer)...
£3 very well spent.
Mr Blue, I don't know if you saw from the other night, but I took a stab at answering your question about which cost more: building the Dreadnoughts or Trident. The rough answer, as you guessed, was the Dreadnought construction.
Ah, sorry, no I didn't! But will look it up now.
My calculation that our nuclear deterrent costs one-thousandth of our economy should be wheeled out time and time again. It's incredible value for money, considering it guarantees our security v. other great powers (and potentially dodgy middle powers such as Iran and N Korea).
Dreadnought itself didn't cost very much - it was roughly the same cost as building a pre-dreadnought. It was the arms race aspect that was the problem - going from 1-2 battleships a year to 4+ (and the concomitant expansion in other classes of ship + the battlecruisers)
In case someone has missed the news - the nuclear arms race is over. All the big players (including us) have downsized their weapons inventories. Hundreds of tons of plutonium has been turned into reactor fuel.
What we are talking about, with Trident replacement is replacing an old system on a pretty much 1-1 (or possibly *less*) basis.
I should learn not to doubt you on these matters: I thought you were wrong, but having had a quick check on Wiki, it's true: the Lord Nelson and King George VII class were both only slightly cheaper than Dreadnought (though the Swiftsure class were half the price).
Wasn't the problem that in 1900 the UK had a massive lead in the numbers of ships, if not quality. It was therefore hard for other countries like Germany to catch up. But when Dreadnought was launched, it set everyone back to the starting line? Therefore Germany only had to match our production rate, rather than try to catch up?
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
So it's fair to ask people who are paid a whole lot less than junior doctors to stump extra for them?
Would you accept a massive pay cut imposed unilaterally? I would start looking for other opportunities if it happened to me. I don't blame them for making a fuss over this. It's not right for such a huge pay cut to just be imposed because the PM made a stupid commitment without thinking through how much extra it would cost.
By your reckoning those of us who work in the City would be in pretty big trouble, is it right to ask banking customers and pensions fund holders, many of whom are poorly paid, to stump up for our high wages? Bringing morality or relative morality into the argument helps no one.
The market dictates that junior doctors should be paid the amount they are, we have a relative equilibrium where enough people are entering the field despite the massive debt it requires to train as a medic and enough of them stay in the country despite higher wages on offer elsewhere. The government are trying to go against the market and if they are successful the medical graduate retention rate will go down, meaning we will need to recruit from overseas while we subsidise medics here to the tune of £150k per student who then bugger off to Australia or America after they graduate, or end up in industries like ours where the pay is higher and the hours a little bit more sociable.
It's not often that the lead story in a BBC news bulletin makes me burst into laughter, but the report that Corbyn has proposed Trident submarines with no warheads was an exception.
Sadly enough people in the unions will live with that farcical situation and drop their opposition to him dumping Labour's support for Trident.
Just watched the Corbyn interview (the Marr show is on iPlayer)...
£3 very well spent.
Mr Blue, I don't know if you saw from the other night, but I took a stab at answering your question about which cost more: building the Dreadnoughts or Trident. The rough answer, as you guessed, was the Dreadnought construction.
Ah, sorry, no I didn't! But will look it up now.
My calculation that our nuclear deterrent costs one-thousandth of our economy should be wheeled out time and time again. It's incredible value for money, considering it guarantees our security v. other great powers (and potentially dodgy middle powers such as Iran and N Korea).
Take off your Blue specs and look at the real world. I fail to see how people can be so thick being happy to buy missiles and subs whilst people in the country are starving and sleeping on the streets. No doubt you think bombing civilians in Syria is perfectly acceptable as well, projecting our power what what.
I agree in part, obviously (and speaking as someone who has yet to decide how to vote). However i still think REMAIN will edge it. But if you'd asked me this two years ago I'd have said REMAIN would win very easily. Not any more. .
I thought Allison Pearson's article was interesting. She represents a large body of voters, sensible centrist women who warmed to Blair but also like Cameron, and who have no truck with the hard or far left. She reckoned Cologne could swing these women to LEAVE.
If she's right - who knows - it's game over and LEAVE will win.
Yup. Her phrasing was "let's get the hell out". Frustration, fear and written in anger. It will be difficult to persuade her to change to REMAIN...and nobody is trying.
Two questions for you to ponder: * When did the pro-EU side last win anything? * Who is arguing in public, passionately and with conviction, for REMAIN?
It's not often that the lead story in a BBC news bulletin makes me burst into laughter, but the report that Corbyn has proposed Trident submarines with no warheads was an exception.
Sadly enough people in the unions will live with that farcical situation and drop their opposition to him dumping Labour's support for Trident.
Why even build the subs? Just give those union members £50 billon over the next 40 years to do sweet F.A.
The way Labour are going we'll soon be able to have quizzes asking "is this Labour Policy, or something Lewis Carroll wrote?"
@RuthDavidsonMSP: Somebody please tell me that the leader of HM loyal opposition knows that Trident is the weapons system & Vanguard class are the subs? #Marr
That's a bit rich for someone who is hawking a leaflet saying that you should vote "Ruth Davidson" on the regional list vote for Holyrood.
Tories are desperate , and Scott is even more desperate. I bet he has union jack underpants.
It's not often that the lead story in a BBC news bulletin makes me burst into laughter, but the report that Corbyn has proposed Trident submarines with no warheads was an exception.
Sadly enough people in the unions will live with that farcical situation and drop their opposition to him dumping Labour's support for Trident.
Possibly, but in terms of electability, it's hard to imagine any policy more calculated to make Labour a complete laughing-stock, irrespective of one's views on the merits of Trident.
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
Not really my field or period, but from memory of my visit to HMS Warrior, was not she designed and built because the Frogs built an iron warship first? Even though we had not long before been at war as allies of the French*, the idea that they would have an advantage at sea was just not acceptable to the UK.
* A fact that the British Commander in the field had trouble coming to terms with - he kept describing the enemy as the French, and the French as the enemy.
Something I'd like to ask re the doctors strike, as a result of Hunt's reforms will they be financially worse off?
And to clarify, please ignore conditions, hours etc, will the pay packet be cut.
Thought they were getting an 11% pay rise but no more double time for weekends, so you cannot swap shifts and make a fortune by working every weekend.
That is not the way it works. Jr Drs do not fill in timesheets (though will need to do so with the new contract). The post is banded and the rota includes all the unsocial hours divided across the staff. So swapping to do a weekend instead of a wednesday does not get the Dr any extra pay.
Thanks for reply. Does that mean then that you can get the money for the band and swap all your "antisocial" shifts. Though that means you need to get someone who does not count them as same.
I wonder how they get round the legal stuff about timesheets at the moment? HR at various places have told me there is a legal requirement to keep records of hours worked - at least in the private sector....
No idea, must say I don't do timesheets or record hours I work, many have to though. I do far too many mind you.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
lt is also a somewhat of a deterrent to other states that might sell nukes to a non-state actor as we've said that in such a case we would hold the state that supplied the weapon responsible and might retaliate.
Just watched the Corbyn interview (the Marr show is on iPlayer)...
£3 very well spent.
Mr Blue, I don't know if you saw from the other night, but I took a stab at answering your question about which cost more: building the Dreadnoughts or Trident. The rough answer, as you guessed, was the Dreadnought construction.
Ah, sorry, no I didn't! But will look it up now.
My calculation that our nuclear deterrent costs one-thousandth of our economy should be wheeled out time and time again. It's incredible value for money, considering it guarantees our security v. other great powers (and potentially dodgy middle powers such as Iran and N Korea).
Dreadnought itself didn't cost very much - it was roughly the same cost as building a pre-dreadnought. It was the arms race aspect that was the problem - going from 1-2 battleships a year to 4+ (and the concomitant expansion in other classes of ship + the battlecruisers)
In case someone has missed the news - the nuclear arms race is over. All the big players (including us) have downsized their weapons inventories. Hundreds of tons of plutonium has been turned into reactor fuel.
What we are talking about, with Trident replacement is replacing an old system on a pretty much 1-1 (or possibly *less*) basis.
Indeed. Which is why Trident replacement is actually pretty cheap. And yet still delivers a credible nuclear deterrent for the next 40 years.
In 30-40 years' time there will be much better anti-ballistic defences available and then we might consider investing instead in such a defensive system. Until then, nukes-on-subs is the way to go.
The Dreadnought made all predreadnoughts obsolete so from a position of relative predreadnought superiority we went to equality and only had a short time to build up a superior fleet again. This certainly cost more money than simply maintaining the then current fleet numbers. Each succeeding class of dreadnought was itself superior to the last one. The plain fact is that huge resources were spent building up a large dreadnought fleet in a short time. It was our ultimate defence, not a deterrent against war but a deterrent against trying to invade us. Other countries were planning 'dreadnoughts' as well so the arms race was inevitable.
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
Not really my field or period, but from memory of my visit to HMS Warrior, was not she designed and built because the Frogs built an iron warship first? Even though we had not long before been at war as allies of the French*, the idea that they would have an advantage at sea was just not acceptable to the UK.
* A fact that the British Commander in the field had trouble coming to terms with - he kept describing the enemy as the French, and the French as the enemy.
It was the Gloire, but she was outclassed a year later by the Warrior.
As the first ocean-going ironclad, Gloire rendered obsolete traditional unarmoured wooden ships-of-the-line, and all major navies had no choice but to build ironclads of their own. However Gloire was soon herself rendered obsolete by the launching in 1860 of the British HMS Warrior, the world's first iron-hulled ironclad warship.
Prescott now keeps the pot boiling from last week.
Obviously new tag line...in addition to telling all MP and Labour supporters who express an objection to potential Corbyn policy "to f##k off and join the Tories"...now clearly the line to any media who ask a question of the great leader..."why don't you f##k off and join the Daily Mail".
I can see this being a great winner within the media world.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
lt is also a somewhat of a deterrent to other states that might sell nukes to a non-state actor as we've said that in such a case we would hold the state that supplied the weapon responsible and might retaliate.
This is precisely why the analysis which led to the Iraq war was wrong on its own terms. The risk of terrorist organisations being helped by rogue states was not new and did not require any new doctrine.
I'm quite pleased that Corbyn and co are so against nuclear weapons. I'd never be able to sleep at night if he ever became PM and he had his finger on the trigger. Chelsea could go at any time, and even my area might not be safe.
lt is also a somewhat of a deterrent to other states that might sell nukes to a non-state actor as we've said that in such a case we would hold the state that supplied the weapon responsible and might retaliate.
This is precisely why the analysis which led to the Iraq war was wrong on its own terms. The risk of terrorist organisations being helped by rogue states was not new and did not require any new doctrine.
But Saddam wasn't helping terrorists, he was keeping them at bay, as were Gadaffi and Assad. Had we been proposing to attack Saudi Arabia or even now Turkey there might have been an argument.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
The only thing that is ridiculous is your denial about the risks from IS.
They pose a major risk and it is not inconceivable that they will acquire enough tech to create weapons with a nuclear element. It need not be a full missile system. A dirty bomb would do enough damage. The sort that would, as Sean quite rightly suggests, kill 100,000.
@BBCNormanS: Falkland Islanders shd have a big say - but no veto - over their future says Jeremy Corbyn @MarrShow
That's nice for the Falkanders.
Good and bad news for Brexit. Survation has Leave ahead 42% to 38%. But Gove has now become a fan of the EU.
The lily-livered flip-flopping of senior Conservatives over the EU has become one of the most disappointing features of this referendum campaign.
Absolutely fuming about Gove.
The afternoon thread was about Gove being the right man to lead Leave, so had to scrap that.
Sorry to hear that - I agree: Gove would have been a good choice; someone has been whispering in his ear.
It only leaves May:
"One the biggest risks to Cameron’s security strategy is Theresa May. If the longest serving home secretary for more than a century were to declare herself an ‘outer’ on the grounds that being in the EU makes Britain less safe — backed by Liam Fox, Cameron’s first defence secretary — it would blow a big hole in the government’s case. But no one knows on which side Mrs May will come down: she seems to be the only person in Westminster who is actually waiting to see what the final renegotiated deal looks like"
I think he's done it out of loyalty to Dave, which I can sympathise with.
When Cameron bumped him down to Chief Whip he did it without rancour.
I think you're right, which is in some ways laudable, but it's also an example of the sort of indulgence that so frustrates people about our politicians.
This is politics. Moreover, it's about the future destiny of the whole country and its governance.
Fear of slighting a personal relationship shouldn't come into it.
There's only one reliably eurosceptic political party.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
The only thing that is ridiculous is your denial about the risks from IS.
They pose a major risk and it is not inconceivable that they will acquire enough tech to create weapons with a nuclear element. It need not be a full missile system. A dirty bomb would do enough damage. The sort that would, as Sean quite rightly suggests, kill 100,000.
To deny that risk is utterly ridiculous.
Great. Thanks for talking us out of Trident renewal. It seems all we need to have to threaten the world with nuclear disaster is youtube and a shed. How much will that set us back?
lt is also a somewhat of a deterrent to other states that might sell nukes to a non-state actor as we've said that in such a case we would hold the state that supplied the weapon responsible and might retaliate.
This is precisely why the analysis which led to the Iraq war was wrong on its own terms. The risk of terrorist organisations being helped by rogue states was not new and did not require any new doctrine.
But Saddam wasn't helping terrorists, he was keeping them at bay, as were Gadaffi and Assad. Had we been proposing to attack Saudi Arabia or even now Turkey there might have been an argument.
Quite. Nevertheless the argument at the time was that 9/11 meant that we could no longer tolerate the existence of a hostile regime which may be tempted to help an organisation like Al Qaeda.
The logic by which we consider Saudi Arabia to be friendly sits in a whole other category of wrong-headedness.
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
Not really my field or period, but from memory of my visit to HMS Warrior, was not she designed and built because the Frogs built an iron warship first? Even though we had not long before been at war as allies of the French*, the idea that they would have an advantage at sea was just not acceptable to the UK.
* A fact that the British Commander in the field had trouble coming to terms with - he kept describing the enemy as the French, and the French as the enemy.
It was the Gloire, but she was outclassed a year later by the Warrior.
As the first ocean-going ironclad, Gloire rendered obsolete traditional unarmoured wooden ships-of-the-line, and all major navies had no choice but to build ironclads of their own. However Gloire was soon herself rendered obsolete by the launching in 1860 of the British HMS Warrior, the world's first iron-hulled ironclad warship.
The great thing about the Warrior is that she is a beautiful ship. Form and function. If only they'd given her a bigger and powered rudder.
She is indeed beautiful, Mr. J, and in all respects. I remember very well marvelling at the engineering and skill that went into building her engines. Such small tolerances in such massive machines and all done in the early/mid-Victorian age with the technology that was then available.
Mind you I have always been in awe of the Victorians when it comes to engineering and the speed with which they could work given nothing more than a sheet of paper, some inkwell pens and a book of log tables. They had skills which we have long lost.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
The only thing that is ridiculous is your denial about the risks from IS.
They pose a major risk and it is not inconceivable that they will acquire enough tech to create weapons with a nuclear element. It need not be a full missile system. A dirty bomb would do enough damage. The sort that would, as Sean quite rightly suggests, kill 100,000.
To deny that risk is utterly ridiculous.
Great. Thanks for talking us out of Trident renewal. It seems all we need to have to threaten the world with nuclear disaster is youtube and a shed. How much will that set us back?
You are being utterly ridiculous.
Still, what else can we expect from someone who seems to want to be under Putin's thumb ?
I agree in part, obviously (and speaking as someone who has yet to decide how to vote).
However i still think REMAIN will edge it. But if you'd asked me this two years ago I'd have said REMAIN would win very easily. Not any more. .
I thought Allison Pearson's article was interesting. She represents a large body of voters, sensible centrist women who warmed to Blair but also like Cameron, and who have no truck with the hard or far left. She reckoned Cologne could swing these women to LEAVE.
If she's right - who knows - it's game over and LEAVE will win.
I'm a Remainist and not at all complacent. I think Leave is likely to win.
Regarding Cologne, I think one effect is that people who were thinking "I'm not keen on taking more people from North Africa but to think so makes me feel like a Nazi" instead think "Oh fuck it, we can't have this" and quash their doubts. It will push people from uneasy about migration to full-on anti.
However it's not just Cologne that makes me think Remain is in trouble. It's also the decades of negative coverage the EU has had, strong Leave sentiment in the over-60s and that some people at least will use it as a proxy to get at the Government.
If there is hope for Remain I think it's that the Government itself is very far from complacent.
Another massive (20%) Don't know figure for the EuroRef in an online poll.
If anything, 20% undecided sounds on the low side; in any event, I am one of them. Not only do I not know how I will vote, but I have absolutely no idea on what criteria I shall decide. Neither side has made a compelling case for anything at all, or even an uncompelling one.
Agree - I'm another "Don't know" - but as I suspect with you it's "I'm thinking about it and I don't yet know which way I'll jump" - whereas I suspect for a lot of voters it's "I haven't thought about it yet - why should I?" And on that basis 20% seems low....
Bit that is the paradox. The 'high' don't know figures are for online polls - which give a close result. Phone polls have a tiny don't know figure and have a comfortable Remain lead.
I'm not sure that's a paradox. If people are "don't know" because they haven't considered the matter, they may be more reluctant to admit that to a live interviewer. And in that case, the easy answer is to say "remain".
Remainers must be getting worried. And if they are not worried, they are being stupidly complacent - like the Unionists before indyref.
The polls already have Leave AHEAD. And we have a winter and spring of mass migration and Cologne style refugee sex sprees and potential euro-recession to get through.
It's hard to imagine better weather for Leavers.
It doesn't matter what Cameron brings home from Brussels, if there is refugee chaos across Europe, and blonde women being outraged in the Ruhr by duskier types, then LEAVE will win.
One Survation has Leave ahead, most other polls still have Remain ahead, the latest yougov has Remain ahead 51%-49%.
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
Not really my field or period, but from memory of my visit to HMS Warrior, was not she designed and built because the Frogs built an iron warship first? Even though we had not long before been at war as allies of the French*, the idea that they would have an advantage at sea was just not acceptable to the UK.
* A fact that the British Commander in the field had trouble coming to terms with - he kept describing the enemy as the French, and the French as the enemy.
It was the Gloire, but she was outclassed a year later by the Warrior.
As the first ocean-going ironclad, Gloire rendered obsolete traditional unarmoured wooden ships-of-the-line, and all major navies had no choice but to build ironclads of their own. However Gloire was soon herself rendered obsolete by the launching in 1860 of the British HMS Warrior, the world's first iron-hulled ironclad warship.
The great thing about the Warrior is that she is a beautiful ship. Form and function. If only they'd given her a bigger and powered rudder.
She is indeed beautiful, Mr. J, and in all respects. I remember very well marvelling at the engineering and skill that went into building her engines. Such small tolerances in such massive machines and all done in the early/mid-Victorian age with the technology that was then available.
Mind you I have always been in awe of the Victorians when it comes to engineering and the speed with which they could work given nothing more than a sheet of paper, some inkwell pens and a book of log tables. They had skills which we have long lost.
Yes. On the other hand they also built the Houses of Parliament which, following the conversation on here yesterday, seems to be rather a sick building. Beautiful (although I find Pugin's interiors too over-the-top), but troubled.
But Saddam wasn't helping terrorists, he was keeping them at bay, as were Gadaffi and Assad.
All of those regimes supported Palestinian terrorist groups. Libya supported the IRA. Maybe they weren't as keen on Islamists but they certainly didn't have clean hands.
But Saddam wasn't helping terrorists, he was keeping them at bay, as were Gadaffi and Assad.
All of those regimes supported Palestinian terrorist groups. Libya supported the IRA. Maybe they weren't as keen on Islamists but they certainly didn't have clean hands.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
Wouldn't nuking a UK target then getting the UK to nuke a fair sized M.E. city killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians be seen as a massive coup by a millenarian, jihadi death cult?
Corbyn reminds me quite strongly of Eugene McCarthy, another anti-war politician who I supported and who had the same mixture of slightly other-worldly idealism and gentle personal charm.
.
Though of course Eugene McCarthy ended up endorsing Ronald Reagan in 1980!
Corbyn reminds me quite strongly of Eugene McCarthy, another anti-war politician who I supported and who had the same mixture of slightly other-worldly idealism and gentle personal charm.
.
Though of course Eugene McCarthy ended up endorsing Ronald Reagan in 1980!
I was going to post something on social media about Corbyn's announcement...but didn't bother in the end as the policy will probably be changed by this afternoon
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
Wouldn't nuking a UK target then getting the UK to nuke a fair sized M.E. city killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians be seen as a massive coup by a millenarian, jihadi death cult?
Possibly. It would be the end of their Caliphate though. Also, whatever your ideology, there's always an appeal in not being vaporised.
George Osborne is menacing Tory ministers and MPs thinking about backing the Brexit with the following line: “So, are you supporting Leave or do you prefer to have a career?”
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
Wouldn't nuking a UK target then getting the UK to nuke a fair sized M.E. city killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians be seen as a massive coup by a millenarian, jihadi death cult?
Who, in military circles, would ever claim that Trident is a deterrent for ISIS?
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
The only thing that is ridiculous is your denial about the risks from IS.
They pose a major risk and it is not inconceivable that they will acquire enough tech to create weapons with a nuclear element. It need not be a full missile system. A dirty bomb would do enough damage. The sort that would, as Sean quite rightly suggests, kill 100,000.
To deny that risk is utterly ridiculous.
Where have I denied that risk? What I have denied is that ISIS (unless we plan to let them develop and grow over the next decades into something of the order of Iran or North Korea) and their threat cannot be combated by Trident. That should be obvious to anyone not being carried along by a wave of histrionics.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
You don't seem to understand that Trident doesn't have to be fired to be used.
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
Not really my field or period, but from memory of my visit to HMS Warrior, was not she designed and built because the Frogs built an iron warship first? Even though we had not long before been at war as allies of the French*, the idea that they would have an advantage at sea was just not acceptable to the UK.
* A fact that the British Commander in the field had trouble coming to terms with - he kept describing the enemy as the French, and the French as the enemy.
It was the Gloire, but she was outclassed a year later by the Warrior.
As the first ocean-going ironclad, Gloire rendered obsolete traditional unarmoured wooden ships-of-the-line, and all major navies had no choice but to build ironclads of their own. However Gloire was soon herself rendered obsolete by the launching in 1860 of the British HMS Warrior, the world's first iron-hulled ironclad warship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Gloire The great thing about the Warrior is that she is a beautiful ship. Form and function. If only they'd given her a bigger and powered rudder. I seem to remember that the Warrior was massively bigger more powerful better armoured than the Gloire and could have seen off the entire French fleet single-handed. All it did was spend its time patrolling the channel along with sister ship Black Prince. I guess the fact that it was totally iron built not just wooden iron clad allowed it not to rot away and be useful in reserve and so survive.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Mass picketing and secondary picketing are different things. Peaceful picketing at your place of work is permitted and protected in law to the extent that your employer cannot obtain injunctions to stop it.
Secondary picketing at a place other than your work is always illegal and can be dealt with by injunction or give rise to damages claims. Mass picketing, intending to intimidate, is also illegal whether it is at your place of work or not.
Secondary action arises where someone induces or seeks to persuade a person not employed by the employer in the dispute to breach their contract or to interfere with their performance of that contract. It is excluded from the legal protections given to primary action including peaceful picketing.
What would be the legal position if somebody turns up unsolicited on a picket line - eg if members of the public suddenly appeared outside hospitals to display their support for the doctors?
To move the argument on, it's a sobering thought that if ISIS do ever gain a nuclear capability - even just a few hundred dirty bombs, which they can credibly project abroad (by setting one off in Baghdad, say, to prove the point) - then that's it.
We will likely never get rid of them.
Unless they eat themselves, as it were. These kind of millenarianist cults have a habit of self-imploding don't they?
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
Wouldn't nuking a UK target then getting the UK to nuke a fair sized M.E. city killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians be seen as a massive coup by a millenarian, jihadi death cult?
Who, in military circles, would ever claim that Trident is a deterrent for ISIS?
No-one with an ounce of sense would claim it. Even David Cameron hasn't had the chutzpa to claim it yet, and you know he would if he thought for a minute he could get away with it.
Where is a terrorist attack based? ISIS is 'crowdsourcing' terror - they are not the product of one country, despite their pretensions to statehood, so why would or should an attack from them result in a Syrian or Iraqi city they're occupying being turned into a nuclear wasteland? Who is responsible? Can we be sure we're nuking the right people? Do you target the states who funded them, the states who abetted them, the states who sold them the material? Say you did want to target the states who sold them the material, you'd then come up against deterrence again, because presumably you'd be targeting another nuclear power, and have to expect reprisals.
In other words the entire concept is too farcical to even warrant discussion on a serious forum.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
It's nonsense, of course. Our defence budget is £40bn a year. The nuclear deterrent costs (and this includes all aspects of it) somewhere in the region of £2.5bn a year.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
I was going to post something on social media about Corbyn's announcement...but didn't bother in the end as the policy will probably be changed by this afternoon
I've not watched the broadcast yet. I'll settle down with some popcorn to watch the replay later. From what I see online though the public will have been given the following messages today:
* Under Labour there will be nuclear submarines but no nukes. * We might hand the Falklands to Argentina.
And you can still get Tories with most seats at 1.38 on Betfair.
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
Not really my field or period, but from memory of my visit to HMS Warrior, was not she designed and built because the Frogs built an iron warship first? Even though we had not long before been at war as allies of the French*, the idea that they would have an advantage at sea was just not acceptable to the UK.
* A fact that the British Commander in the field had trouble coming to terms with - he kept describing the enemy as the French, and the French as the enemy.
It was the Gloire, but she was outclassed a year later by the Warrior.
As the first ocean-going ironclad, Gloire rendered obsolete traditional unarmoured wooden ships-of-the-line, and all major navies had no choice but to build ironclads of their own. However Gloire was soon herself rendered obsolete by the launching in 1860 of the British HMS Warrior, the world's first iron-hulled ironclad warship.
I seem to remember that the Warrior was massively bigger more powerful better armoured than the Gloire and could have seen off the entire French fleet single-handed. All it did was spend its time patrolling the channel along with sister ship Black Prince. I guess the fact that it was totally iron built not just wooden iron clad allowed it not to rot away and be useful in reserve and so survive.
AIUI it was the combination of technology that went into it. For one thing, no weapon in the world could penetrate her hull for five years after she was built.
ISTR that the hull was actually composite: it was an iron plates, with 18" (I think) wood behind, then the iron hull. The wood gave good protection against cannon.
Although the ?Armstrong? breech loaders weren't very good, and she couldn't steer well at all.
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Fair enough, but this is what the debate boils down to. Does one believe in the idea of mutual deterrence or not?
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
That's a very poor argument. No single weapon can deter all threats. Nobody really knows what to do about terrorist groups with WMD. But just because we are stumped by that, it doesn't mean that we can abandon our deterrent.
We still have state level threats from belligerent nations like Russia (who seem to have their own view as to what constitutes a border) to consider, and we have good reason to think that at the very least nuclear weapons make states like Russia pause and think, the Cuban missile crisis being a good example.
Mass picketing and secondary picketing are different things. Peaceful picketing at your place of work is permitted and protected in law to the extent that your employer cannot obtain injunctions to stop it.
Secondary picketing at a place other than your work is always illegal and can be dealt with by injunction or give rise to damages claims. Mass picketing, intending to intimidate, is also illegal whether it is at your place of work or not.
Secondary action arises where someone induces or seeks to persuade a person not employed by the employer in the dispute to breach their contract or to interfere with their performance of that contract. It is excluded from the legal protections given to primary action including peaceful picketing.
What would be the legal position if somebody turns up unsolicited on a picket line - eg if members of the public suddenly appeared outside hospitals to display their support for the doctors?
Nothing at all. Providing there were no offences disclosed (intimidation, obstruction of the highway etc.) I can go and stand outside my local hospital all day long if I like.
I was going to post something on social media about Corbyn's announcement...but didn't bother in the end as the policy will probably be changed by this afternoon
And you can still get Tories with most seats at 1.38 on Betfair.
1.38 is quite short given we dont know who will be leading either of the 2 main parties in 2020 IMO
@iainmartin1: Perhaps the UK's empty submarines could go around delivering letters from Corbyn to ISIS etc asking them to stop it...
Do you really believe ISIS are deterred by our Trident submarines?
Yes.
The clue is in the word Islamic STATE.
They are a state, they want to be a state, they have plans for their state.
I have no doubt that if they got a nuclear capability - far from impossible - they would use it on their enemies. But would they use it on a nuclear power? Would they use it on us, knowing that if, say, they killed 100,000 Brits with a smuggled bomb - then we could and would retaliate by wiping out their capital, Raqqa and probably Mosul as well, rendering their state largely uninhabitable?
No. Why risk it? They'd attack a non-nuclear power instead. Probably one in the region. Shia Iraq perhaps.
So yes, our deterrent deters them.
Ridiculous post. How on earth would they deliver such a nuclear blow? And if they were to become capable of doing this, one wonders why we need to spend £100 billion to do the same.
Precisely my point. A dirty bomb in a briefcase. Sold or stolen nuclear material. None of these eventualities are covered by Trident. None. And you know it.
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
So, what do you want to do about a nuclear armed Russia?
Have a weapon that I believe we could actually use on them if we needed to, which isn't Trident.
Do you think we couldn't hit them with Trident, or just that we wouldn't dare to?
A huge part of the deterrent is that the enemy knows you'll use it if you have to. Which is why the PM is correct to say that Mr Corbyn is a threat to national security.
Mr. Blue, one of the councils round here (maybe Leeds) bleats about cuts and lack of flood defences, but is spending millions of pounds on a cycle route (think it's Leeds-Bradford).
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
It's nonsense, of course. Our defence budget is £40bn a year. The nuclear deterrent costs (and this includes all aspects of it) somewhere in the region of £2.5bn a year.
That's what I thought, Mr. Blue. But rather than call the person who made the claim a deranged loony, I thought it only fair to ask where he had got his figures from.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
Of course its not true. LG1983 could not be trusted to come up with the right answer if asked to count his toes. The only 'extra' cost to replacing Trident is the submarines and the missiles. We currently have the present generation running costs. Since the cost of the current generation of subs and missiles had to be borne over their life then the like cost of replacing them is minimal in comparison. The defence budget is planned to absorb these costs as with building 2 giant aircraft carriers and their aircraft. Well it is unless you are the labour party that plans several unaffordable projects at the same time.
Comments
https://twitter.com/redbrasco/status/688682240629432320
Trident forms one (and a crucial one) element of our defences.
Tackling ISIS will require other elements.
1) It's cheaper than actually having nuclear weapons.
2) It avoids compromising your own or another country's safety if your internal security fails and an adversary gets control of your weapons. If this doesn't sound like a serious threat, note that the US nearly nuked North Carolina, and for 20 years they had their launch codes set to 00000000. And that's just the stuff we've heard about - nuclear weapons programs aren't big on freedom of information.
3) It avoids escalating unnecessarily and makes it easier for other countries to reduce their stockpiles. (Obviously this isn't working with North Korea, but nothing would work with North Korea)
If they used enriched uranium in a gun type weapon - which Epsilon could deliver 5000 miles - it would take weeks, if that.
Remember, they have a launcher that can put *tons* into orbit. So putting an SOB device (500Kt) 5000 miles down the road would be much easier... The French got a big fission device to 250Kt with plutonium, IIRC.
A moderately advanced implosion design can be fully tested without any nuclear tests - just the explosives and depleted uranium. If they haven't done that yet, a couple of months.
A multi-stage design would require testing and time.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/carrier.asp
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1so6pca
Prescott now keeps the pot boiling from last week.
Hmmh.
So it's fair to ask people who are paid a whole lot less than junior doctors to stump extra for them?
hear?
I think he's a terribly limp interviewer, but he scored a goal today.
I was shopping yesterday and whilst eating my nice burger from the van I eavesdropped on the "Vote Leave" stall nearby, The most overheard word was not "Lisbon" or "sovereignity", it was "migrants" (or "migration" or "them"). And sometimes it's polite, sometimes it isn't, but it was always the same: it's about immigration.
Many Eurosceptic people on this board are old hands and hail from its sovereignist or mercantile traditions, regarding law and trade. Fine (and arguable: see Three Eurosceptic Fallacies) but - in the nicest possible way - irrelevant. The Eurosceptic argument has been driven by Greece and anti-immigration sentiment since about 2011/12 and wholly anti-immigration for the past three-six months.
In short: it's immigration, immigration, immigration
So in conclusion:
* The referendum will be about immigration, spoken or unspoken.
* The media can easily drive this just by reporting the facts and are motivated to do so
* The argument is being won by the Eurosceptics
* LEAVE will win
[1] not a metaphor.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/17/majority-americans-support-marijuana-legalisation/
Wasn't the problem that in 1900 the UK had a massive lead in the numbers of ships, if not quality. It was therefore hard for other countries like Germany to catch up. But when Dreadnought was launched, it set everyone back to the starting line? Therefore Germany only had to match our production rate, rather than try to catch up?
And didn't the same thing happen with HMS Warrior in 1860, when all our wooden ships essentially become obsolete overnight?
By your reckoning those of us who work in the City would be in pretty big trouble, is it right to ask banking customers and pensions fund holders, many of whom are poorly paid, to stump up for our high wages? Bringing morality or relative morality into the argument helps no one.
The market dictates that junior doctors should be paid the amount they are, we have a relative equilibrium where enough people are entering the field despite the massive debt it requires to train as a medic and enough of them stay in the country despite higher wages on offer elsewhere. The government are trying to go against the market and if they are successful the medical graduate retention rate will go down, meaning we will need to recruit from overseas while we subsidise medics here to the tune of £150k per student who then bugger off to Australia or America after they graduate, or end up in industries like ours where the pay is higher and the hours a little bit more sociable.
When will Labour MPs stop worrying about being deselected by activists and start worrying about being deselected by voters?
Two questions for you to ponder:
* When did the pro-EU side last win anything?
* Who is arguing in public, passionately and with conviction, for REMAIN?
The answers are disheartening for REMAIN.
The way Labour are going we'll soon be able to have quizzes asking "is this Labour Policy, or something Lewis Carroll wrote?"
Still, Corbyn is here to stay, until 2020.
"Whilst we are at it, why don't we build schools without teachers, hospitals without doctors, and train stations without tracks."
He really would be well-advised to have a week of complete media silence from the whole Labour movement. The more they say or do, the worse it gets.
* A fact that the British Commander in the field had trouble coming to terms with - he kept describing the enemy as the French, and the French as the enemy.
I do far too many mind you.
The plain fact is that huge resources were spent building up a large dreadnought fleet in a short time. It was our ultimate defence, not a deterrent against war but a deterrent against trying to invade us.
Other countries were planning 'dreadnoughts' as well so the arms race was inevitable.
The great thing about the Warrior is that she is a beautiful ship. Form and function. If only they'd given her a bigger and powered rudder.
I can see this being a great winner within the media world.
They pose a major risk and it is not inconceivable that they will acquire enough tech to create weapons with a nuclear element. It need not be a full missile system. A dirty bomb would do enough damage. The sort that would, as Sean quite rightly suggests, kill 100,000.
To deny that risk is utterly ridiculous.
The logic by which we consider Saudi Arabia to be friendly sits in a whole other category of wrong-headedness.
The great thing about the Warrior is that she is a beautiful ship. Form and function. If only they'd given her a bigger and powered rudder.
She is indeed beautiful, Mr. J, and in all respects. I remember very well marvelling at the engineering and skill that went into building her engines. Such small tolerances in such massive machines and all done in the early/mid-Victorian age with the technology that was then available.
Mind you I have always been in awe of the Victorians when it comes to engineering and the speed with which they could work given nothing more than a sheet of paper, some inkwell pens and a book of log tables. They had skills which we have long lost.
Still, what else can we expect from someone who seems to want to be under Putin's thumb ?
Regarding Cologne, I think one effect is that people who were thinking "I'm not keen on taking more people from North Africa but to think so makes me feel like a Nazi" instead think "Oh fuck it, we can't have this" and quash their doubts. It will push people from uneasy about migration to full-on anti.
However it's not just Cologne that makes me think Remain is in trouble. It's also the decades of negative coverage the EU has had, strong Leave sentiment in the over-60s and that some people at least will use it as a proxy to get at the Government.
If there is hope for Remain I think it's that the Government itself is very far from complacent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyf97LAjjcY
Mind you I have always been in awe of the Victorians when it comes to engineering and the speed with which they could work given nothing more than a sheet of paper, some inkwell pens and a book of log tables. They had skills which we have long lost.
Yes. On the other hand they also built the Houses of Parliament which, following the conversation on here yesterday, seems to be rather a sick building. Beautiful (although I find Pugin's interiors too over-the-top), but troubled.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25643103
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-falls-7-dubai-down-4-6-as-iran-plans-oil-export-boost-618859.html
https://twitter.com/RBS_Economics/status/687953275585490945
The Trident fans here are the irresponsible ones - they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon which will only ever be used in a Domesday scenario. Which mean we will be less able to operate militarily to counter the real threats we face in an effective fashion.
The great thing about the Warrior is that she is a beautiful ship. Form and function. If only they'd given her a bigger and powered rudder.
I seem to remember that the Warrior was massively bigger more powerful better armoured than the Gloire and could have seen off the entire French fleet single-handed.
All it did was spend its time patrolling the channel along with sister ship Black Prince. I guess the fact that it was totally iron built not just wooden iron clad allowed it not to rot away and be useful in reserve and so survive.
"... they're the ones who want to spend a quarter of our military budget on one weapon [Trident]"
An interesting statement. Would you please provide some figures to back it up? I only ask because if it were true then maintaining and renewing the CASD would be costing about £9 billion a year.
Where is a terrorist attack based? ISIS is 'crowdsourcing' terror - they are not the product of one country, despite their pretensions to statehood, so why would or should an attack from them result in a Syrian or Iraqi city they're occupying being turned into a nuclear wasteland? Who is responsible? Can we be sure we're nuking the right people? Do you target the states who funded them, the states who abetted them, the states who sold them the material? Say you did want to target the states who sold them the material, you'd then come up against deterrence again, because presumably you'd be targeting another nuclear power, and have to expect reprisals.
In other words the entire concept is too farcical to even warrant discussion on a serious forum.
I guess attitudes like mine are a problem more for remain than leave whose supporters are IMO more likely to vote.
* Under Labour there will be nuclear submarines but no nukes.
* We might hand the Falklands to Argentina.
And you can still get Tories with most seats at 1.38 on Betfair.
All it did was spend its time patrolling the channel along with sister ship Black Prince. I guess the fact that it was totally iron built not just wooden iron clad allowed it not to rot away and be useful in reserve and so survive.
AIUI it was the combination of technology that went into it. For one thing, no weapon in the world could penetrate her hull for five years after she was built.
ISTR that the hull was actually composite: it was an iron plates, with 18" (I think) wood behind, then the iron hull. The wood gave good protection against cannon.
Although the ?Armstrong? breech loaders weren't very good, and she couldn't steer well at all.
Thing is, a tour of many local authorities today is still like that, despite the cuts of recent years.
We still have state level threats from belligerent nations like Russia (who seem to have their own view as to what constitutes a border) to consider, and we have good reason to think that at the very least nuclear weapons make states like Russia pause and think, the Cuban missile crisis being a good example.
A huge part of the deterrent is that the enemy knows you'll use it if you have to. Which is why the PM is correct to say that Mr Corbyn is a threat to national security.
Mr. Blue, one of the councils round here (maybe Leeds) bleats about cuts and lack of flood defences, but is spending millions of pounds on a cycle route (think it's Leeds-Bradford).
Bleeding stumps indeed.
The only 'extra' cost to replacing Trident is the submarines and the missiles. We currently have the present generation running costs. Since the cost of the current generation of subs and missiles had to be borne over their life then the like cost of replacing them is minimal in comparison.
The defence budget is planned to absorb these costs as with building 2 giant aircraft carriers and their aircraft. Well it is unless you are the labour party that plans several unaffordable projects at the same time.