politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s Trident review. Winning a battle but the losing th
Options
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
Comments
-
I agree with Don0
-
Good piece, but I must say that I'm struggling with the concept that someone who argues against Trident renewal on the basis that it is no deterrent against climate change can be seen as a serious player on the international stage.0
-
Third like Labour in Scotland.0
-
So give them to someone who's signed up to 'non-profit international initiative for the elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide.'
Gee....I wonder what his findings might be.0 -
In terms of the public perception, the appointment of Emily Thornberry is almost certainly the most toxic thing that Corbyn has done.
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.0 -
FPT (and because of the curse of the new thread):-
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).0 -
Lord Browne of Ladyton, a 'serious player on the world stage'
You couldn't make this stuff up.0 -
Thought you were in favour of Trident myself...TheScreamingEagles said:I agree with Don
0 -
" .... vulnerability of nuclear submarines to cyber attacks ..."
Really? How? How in God's name does one conduct a cyber attack against a system that is not connected to the internet?0 -
Hmm, IANAE on nuclear subs, someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but the threat of cyber attack is basically nil. The Vanguard class subs aren't able to connect to the internet and the chain from the Queen, to the PM, to the defence chief then to the captain of the sub is secure in that is just uses an antiquated system.0
-
"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."
He's just appointed Thornberry to defence - this is wishful thinking from Don.0 -
0
-
I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.0
-
This rather assumes that Corbyn wants to achieve credibility for a Labour government. My impression is that he wants (a) people who agree with him; and (b) to change the policy.
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…."0 -
The key line is this:
"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?0 -
@MichaelLCrick: Ken Livingstone says he decided to give up Lab defence review after pub lunch w E Thornberry last Fri where agreed for 90 mins on everything0
-
It's difficult to take seriously anyone who uses the phrase "I outrank you" at an election hustings, even if it was meant as some sort of joke.0
-
I'm and I'm not.Pulpstar said:
Thought you were in favour of Trident myself...TheScreamingEagles said:I agree with Don
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.0 -
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
0 -
It is even more difficult to take seriously a person who proposes something as a threat that is physically impossible. .AndyJS said:It's difficult to take seriously anyone who uses the phrase "I outrank you" at an election hustings, even if it was meant as some sort of joke.
0 -
Simon Jenkins is always wrong.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
The only decent thing he's ever done is the book on the Falklands war and that was probably down to Sir Max Hastings0 -
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528
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?0 -
@PolhomeEditor: Labour sources say confusion over Ken Livingstone's defence review role show why they need to change the party's rules. Cunning.0
-
"The first military judgement I heard on Des Browne, a year ago now, isn't printable. The then new secretary of state was visiting Afghanistan."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6559603.stm0 -
'cycling enthusiast' is that now just a euphemism for sex?
0 -
We'd be like Canada and Australia. In terrible danger, I guess.MaxPB said:
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
0 -
@TSE
"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.0 -
And that, in a rather convoluted nutshell, is one reason I'll be voting Remain: I trust the French more than the Americans. That's where we should look to build a replacement missile system - our interests and capabilities are much more matched so the chances of one pulling out are much lower. Is it necessary to be in the EU to do that? Theoretically, no. Practically, I don't see how the French would trust us if we'd just withdrawn.MaxPB said:
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
0 -
Perhaps Labour could commit to a policy of multi-lateral disarmament. It's not something we've heard a lot about.0
-
Great time to buy.
It is. People are only thinking about the negative effects of plunging energy prices. It takes much longer for the benefits to flow through.0 -
It was because the CPS did not do their job properly, as they have admitted.MikeK said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528
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?
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.
0 -
Cheers.HurstLlama said:@TSE
"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.0 -
I put an order for a monkey's worth of Vanguard 80:20 in with my broker yesterday.MikeK said:0 -
Ton up for Joe.0
-
Neither Canada nor Australia are a globally relevant defence power. We still are and are still a very high profile target both for Islamist groups and rogue nations who either have nuclear weapons or have the ambition to acquire/develop them.Pulpstar said:
We'd be like Canada and Australia. In terrible danger, I guess.MaxPB said:
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
Pakistan are developing their own nuclear sub, I'm not confident in placing the security of this nation in the hands of another.0 -
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. "
0 -
I was pointing out that selling because the price has gone down makes no sense. Just as buying because the price has gone up makes no sense.MikeK said:
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.0 -
Pakistan are developing their own nuclear sub, I'm not confident in placing the security of this nation in the hands of another.
Absolutely, if you want people to take you seriously, you've got to be packin'0 -
I can see the argument for using the money to beef up conventional defences.MaxPB said:
Neither Canada nor Australia are a globally relevant defence power. We still are and are still a very high profile target both for Islamist groups and rogue nations who either have nuclear weapons or have the ambition to acquire/develop them.Pulpstar said:
We'd be like Canada and Australia. In terrible danger, I guess.MaxPB said:
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
Pakistan are developing their own nuclear sub, I'm not confident in placing the security of this nation in the hands of another.
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.0 -
I have an idea Janner had a standing ovation from MPs when he appeared in the Commons after the first accusation was made. I seem to remember it that way.0
-
How about just not spending it on ... anything, reducing the debt/deficit with it ?Sean_F said:
I can see the argument for using the money to beef up conventional defences.MaxPB said:
Neither Canada nor Australia are a globally relevant defence power. We still are and are still a very high profile target both for Islamist groups and rogue nations who either have nuclear weapons or have the ambition to acquire/develop them.Pulpstar said:
We'd be like Canada and Australia. In terrible danger, I guess.MaxPB said:
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
Pakistan are developing their own nuclear sub, I'm not confident in placing the security of this nation in the hands of another.
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 ?0 -
We just don't have the air capability for second strike response that Trident gives us. Having a continuous deterrent is one of the few advantages of Trident. Keeping planes in the air safe from being attacked isn't easy and having them on the ground doesn't give us the ability to strike back since they can be destroyed.TheScreamingEagles said:This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF.
0 -
I think it's desirable to have some kind of credible military capability.Pulpstar said:
How about just not spending it on ... anything, reducing the debt/deficit with it ?Sean_F said:
I can see the argument for using the money to beef up conventional defences.MaxPB said:
Neither Canada nor Australia are a globally relevant defence power. We still are and are still a very high profile target both for Islamist groups and rogue nations who either have nuclear weapons or have the ambition to acquire/develop them.Pulpstar said:
We'd be like Canada and Australia. In terrible danger, I guess.MaxPB said:
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
Pakistan are developing their own nuclear sub, I'm not confident in placing the security of this nation in the hands of another.
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 ?0 -
Dow opens up 2.12% and 347 points down, wiping out all gains made yesterday and continuing the downward slide that started on Jan 4th,0
-
I think a mutual nuclear defence pact with the French makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure that EU membership really matters in this instance though. Our global outlook is very similar to that of France and we both have crumbling ex-empire's and overseas territories which we would like to protect. No other EU nation really has the same profile. Plus it would give the French a reason to ensure that their deterrent is kept out of the hands of any EU-wide defence force that may or may not happen.david_herdson said:
And that, in a rather convoluted nutshell, is one reason I'll be voting Remain: I trust the French more than the Americans. That's where we should look to build a replacement missile system - our interests and capabilities are much more matched so the chances of one pulling out are much lower. Is it necessary to be in the EU to do that? Theoretically, no. Practically, I don't see how the French would trust us if we'd just withdrawn.MaxPB said:
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
Our short term exit of the EU isn't really relevant to the long term goals that we share in terms of global defence.0 -
That got a #snort
Sean_F said:
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. "0 -
-
Yes, so all you need to do the calculation is:rcs1000 said: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.
- 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.0 -
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.Pulpstar said:0 -
When I was an MP we had Margaret Beckett round for a fund-raiser, IIRC soon after she stepped down as Foreign Secretary. She argued that multilateralism was too often seen as a euphemism for doing nothing,and that there was genuine scope for aggressive multilateral initiatives, since countries were no longer particularly keen on a position where various people could wipe them out and the only remedy was to wipe them out as well.TheWhiteRabbit said:Perhaps Labour could commit to a policy of multi-lateral disarmament. It's not something we've heard a lot about.
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.0 -
I thought that was a bit odd too. Maybe he meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winterRichard_Nabavi said:Good piece, but I must say that I'm struggling with the concept that someone who argues against Trident renewal on the basis that it is no deterrent against climate change can be seen as a serious player on the international stage.
0 -
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !david_herdson said:
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.Pulpstar said:0 -
That last sentence is lamentably accurate. Especially under Osborne.Sean_F said:
I can see the argument for using the money to beef up conventional defences.MaxPB said:
Neither Canada nor Australia are a globally relevant defence power. We still are and are still a very high profile target both for Islamist groups and rogue nations who either have nuclear weapons or have the ambition to acquire/develop them.Pulpstar said:
We'd be like Canada and Australia. In terrible danger, I guess.MaxPB said:
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
Pakistan are developing their own nuclear sub, I'm not confident in placing the security of this nation in the hands of another.
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.0 -
My philosophy with investing is: assume you will never be able to sell this shareRichard_Nabavi said:
Yes, so all you need to do the calculation is:rcs1000 said: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.
- 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.
If it still makes sense to buy it, great. If it doesn't, then you were probably trading rather than investing.0 -
Long term threats? Climate change!
Do me a favour. Is the Labour Party for real?0 -
Next POTUS, Betfair:
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/1.1073734190 -
I agree that that is a good way of looking at things.rcs1000 said:My philosophy with investing is: assume you will never be able to sell this share
If it still makes sense to buy it, great. If it doesn't, then you were probably trading rather than investing.0 -
-
I'm quite strongly in favour of keeping Trident myself. However I think the electorate might accept an anti argument, with the proviso that:
* 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?0 -
Hansard, 2nd December 1991:PAW said:I have an idea Janner had a standing ovation from MPs when he appeared in the Commons after the first accusation was made. I seem to remember it that way.
"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_1530 -
They are not mutially exclusive. I am not sure of now but I thought France had both planes and ICBMs in the not too distant past.MaxPB said:
We just don't have the air capability for second strike response that Trident gives us. Having a continuous deterrent is one of the few advantages of Trident. Keeping planes in the air safe from being attacked isn't easy and having them on the ground doesn't give us the ability to strike back since they can be destroyed.TheScreamingEagles said:This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF.
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.0 -
-
I'm amazed that David Herdson thinks that a nuclear alliance with the French would be a good thing.
First, never trust Perfidious France. Secondly, never trust Perfidious France. And thirdly, never trust Perfidious France.0 -
''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.''
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.0 -
The accusations and others may be true but how do we know? Did the BBC go looking? On the face of it it all seems pretty nasty. Equally we have seen cases which have turned out to be spurious.Cyclefree said:
It was because the CPS did not do their job properly, as they have admitted.MikeK said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528
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?
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.0 -
He just did through. Pathetic innit?runnymede said:Lord Browne of Ladyton, a 'serious player on the world stage'
You couldn't make this stuff up.0 -
When states like Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons, not to mention Russia, it's sensible for us to do so too.Pulpstar said:
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !david_herdson said:
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.Pulpstar said:0 -
In what possible way would it be useful to disarm ourselves against a potential enemy (indeed, any potential enemy) which is only slightly less armed?NickPalmer said:
When I was an MP we had Margaret Beckett round for a fund-raiser, IIRC soon after she stepped down as Foreign Secretary. She argued that multilateralism was too often seen as a euphemism for doing nothing,and that there was genuine scope for aggressive multilateral initiatives, since countries were no longer particularly keen on a position where various people could wipe them out and the only remedy was to wipe them out as well.TheWhiteRabbit said:Perhaps Labour could commit to a policy of multi-lateral disarmament. It's not something we've heard a lot about.
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'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.0 -
I also wouldn't be surprised to see either Qatar or Saudi Arabia secretly acquire the bomb and neither are to be trusted.david_herdson said:
When states like Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons, not to mention Russia, it's sensible for us to do so too.Pulpstar said:
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !david_herdson said:
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.Pulpstar said:0 -
The Working Tax Credit on the other hand is a serious threat to British national security. It increases consumer spending, and puts CO2-emitting, planet-destroying personal transportation machinery within the budget of people who would otherwise have used public transport or foot. We must scrap WTC altogether forthwith, or we must all fry.Richard_Nabavi said:Good piece, but I must say that I'm struggling with the concept that someone who argues against Trident renewal on the basis that it is no deterrent against climate change can be seen as a serious player on the international stage.
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?0 -
Qatar has about 250,000 citizens and no nuclear power plants. It's also not a very big place. Building a nuclear facility without anybody noticing would be tricky.MaxPB said:
I also wouldn't be surprised to see either Qatar or Saudi Arabia secretly acquire the bomb and neither are to be trusted.david_herdson said:
When states like Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons, not to mention Russia, it's sensible for us to do so too.Pulpstar said:
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !david_herdson said:
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.Pulpstar said:
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.0 -
Before my time, but I doubt the ovation - when Blair got one on leaving, it was seen as quite unprecedented. I expect there were lots of supportive murmurs - generally, if someone you know as a pleasant colleague is accused of something dreadful, you'll tend to murmur sympathetically when he says it's a horrible business. It's like the old question of the difference in attitude towards a suspected murderer who rescues you from drowning (you still feel ambiguous) and someone who rescues you from drowning and is then accused of a murder (you think he's probably innocent).AndyJS said:
Hansard, 2nd December 1991:PAW said:I have an idea Janner had a standing ovation from MPs when he appeared in the Commons after the first accusation was made. I seem to remember it that way.
"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
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.)0 -
And, as has been pointed out many times, there will be exactly the same number of buyers as sellers.Pulpstar said:0 -
-
I don't understand why Lab are spending so much time going on about Trident when it is obvious the Government are going to renew it. Unless they are saying they are going to cancel it after it has been commissioned, in which case billions of pounds would go down the drain.0
-
You're behind the times; I posted that at 3am this morning!Pulpstar said:0 -
I prefer to base defence and foreign policy on mutual interests rather than charity or waffle. France would have such a mutual interest. That's enough.MikeK said:I'm amazed that David Herdson thinks that a nuclear alliance with the French would be a good thing.
First, never trust Perfidious France. Secondly, never trust Perfidious France. And thirdly, never trust Perfidious France.0 -
And the RAF don't have any aircraft capable of carrying bomb loads the distances required. Developing such would waste billions, probably more than new submarines if the MoD's record is anything to go by.MaxPB said:
We just don't have the air capability for second strike response that Trident gives us. Having a continuous deterrent is one of the few advantages of Trident. Keeping planes in the air safe from being attacked isn't easy and having them on the ground doesn't give us the ability to strike back since they can be destroyed.TheScreamingEagles said:This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF.
0 -
A good article on the political impact of long-term demographic change in the US:
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10761208/democrats-doomed
Executive summary: It ain't quite as simple as you think0 -
Sack Emily Thornberry and Ken Livingstone from the Defence Review?
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.
0 -
I feel Donald Brind's pain. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn can sack anyone else in the short term. Ken Livingstone's retrospective non-involvement is as much as can practically be done now.0
-
Dow Jones droped under 16,000 - minus 400 points0
-
A Saudi bomb becomes ever more likely if they doubt the seriousness of international commitment to effectively monitoring/dissuading Iran from the same. (Iran have their own problems, including - as they would see it - deterring any threat of American or Israeli aggression, and the fact they border nuclear-armed Pakistan and not so long ago came close to a "hot" war against them. Iran is therefore strongly motivated to continue to pursue the bomb regardless of the relationship with Saudi Arabia. For the Saudis, an Iranian bomb is a red line.)rcs1000 said:
Qatar has about 250,000 citizens and no nuclear power plants. It's also not a very big place. Building a nuclear facility without anybody noticing would be tricky.MaxPB said:
I also wouldn't be surprised to see either Qatar or Saudi Arabia secretly acquire the bomb and neither are to be trusted.david_herdson said:
When states like Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons, not to mention Russia, it's sensible for us to do so too.Pulpstar said:
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !david_herdson said:
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.Pulpstar said:
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.
Would be interesting to know TimT's views as he is probably the most expert commentator on here.0 -
It might be true that no-one will cover up a dreadful crime they know to have taken place but it does seem the case that there was - may well be still is - a distinct tendency to cover up / all-too-readily dismiss allegations of dreadful crimes which merit investigation.NickPalmer said:
Before my time, but I doubt the ovation - when Blair got one on leaving, it was seen as quite unprecedented. I expect there were lots of supportive murmurs - generally, if someone you know as a pleasant colleague is accused of something dreadful, you'll tend to murmur sympathetically when he says it's a horrible business. It's like the old question of the difference in attitude towards a suspected murderer who rescues you from drowning (you still feel ambiguous) and someone who rescues you from drowning and is then accused of a murder (you think he's probably innocent).AndyJS said:
Hansard, 2nd December 1991:PAW said:I have an idea Janner had a standing ovation from MPs when he appeared in the Commons after the first accusation was made. I seem to remember it that way.
"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
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.)0 -
Which is why I said acquire rather than develop. Though you are correct that Saudi Arabia pose a much bigger threat than Qatar. If Iran does end up developing the bomb then who knows what happens in the region. The Americans might even be stupid enough to sanction a Saudi weapons programme to oppose Iran.rcs1000 said:
Qatar has about 250,000 citizens and no nuclear power plants. It's also not a very big place. Building a nuclear facility without anybody noticing would be tricky.MaxPB said:
I also wouldn't be surprised to see either Qatar or Saudi Arabia secretly acquire the bomb and neither are to be trusted.david_herdson said:
When states like Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons, not to mention Russia, it's sensible for us to do so too.Pulpstar said:
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !david_herdson said:
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.Pulpstar said:
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.0 -
As they're hosts to a number of US military facilities which would be classed as First Strike targets, they'd be on the receiving end of megatonnage of 'canned sunshine' as would the UK. We could always kick the Yanks out, but then we'd lose the protection of any nuclear umbrella.Pulpstar said:
We'd be like Canada and Australia. In terrible danger, I guess.MaxPB said:
I wouldn't be comfortable living under the US nuclear shield. Look at how badly the "special relationship" has drifted under Obama who is openly hostile towards us. While the US is still our number one ally, it might not always be that way and we should have our own deterrent. Obviously that would also mean developing an independent missile delivery system rather than Polaris.Pulpstar said:
I think it's a waste of money too, Simon Jenkins' article echoes my sentiments. Russia and the USA have enough MAD between them for the world. At the very least our NATO allies, yes YOU Luxembourg should pay us something (Along with USA and France) for the theoretical protection our nukes offer.kle4 said:I'm personally not sold on Trident, but that is not a view the public holds, I think, and given the internal problems to overcome it is probably not worth the political capital to change Labour's policy on it when there is likely not going to be any net electoral benefit. I can only conclude Corbyn regards it as significant enough to attempt regardless of the consequences, and not just symbolically significant.
0 -
Yes, we would need to buy into the US B2 replacement programme or develop our own intercontinental nuclear bomber. Neither would be very cheap.watford30 said:
And the RAF don't have any aircraft capable of carrying bomb loads the distances required. Developing such would waste billions, probably more than new submarines if the MoD's record is anything to go by.MaxPB said:
We just don't have the air capability for second strike response that Trident gives us. Having a continuous deterrent is one of the few advantages of Trident. Keeping planes in the air safe from being attacked isn't easy and having them on the ground doesn't give us the ability to strike back since they can be destroyed.TheScreamingEagles said:This might enrage Mr Llama but why don't we look at a nuclear deterrent delivered via the RAF.
0 -
Given that she and Ken apparently agree on everything his involvement is an unnecessary and pointless aggravation that isn't going to change anything.AlastairMeeks said:I feel Donald Brind's pain. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn can sack anyone else in the short term. Ken Livingstone's retrospective non-involvement is as much as can practically be done now.
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.0 -
Here is a link
https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/g31291.jpg
I thought I remembered id...0 -
I'm with you on Saudi. But I think Qatar is just too small. It's not like they could hide launchers anywhere, and if they were invaded you'd be able to control the whole country in a matter of hours.MaxPB said:
Which is why I said acquire rather than develop. Though you are correct that Saudi Arabia pose a much bigger threat than Qatar. If Iran does end up developing the bomb then who knows what happens in the region. The Americans might even be stupid enough to sanction a Saudi weapons programme to oppose Iran.rcs1000 said:
Qatar has about 250,000 citizens and no nuclear power plants. It's also not a very big place. Building a nuclear facility without anybody noticing would be tricky.MaxPB said:
I also wouldn't be surprised to see either Qatar or Saudi Arabia secretly acquire the bomb and neither are to be trusted.david_herdson said:
When states like Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons, not to mention Russia, it's sensible for us to do so too.Pulpstar said:
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !david_herdson said:
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.Pulpstar said:
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.0 -
Play called off for the day. I think my comment earlier that people were being overly pessimistic about England's position has, for once, been vindicated. I gave up all pretense of work to watch the Root/Stokes partnership. Cricket at its very best.
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.0 -
I think it's probably just paranoia on my part and the fact that they have a lot of money!rcs1000 said:
I'm with you on Saudi. But I think Qatar is just too small. It's not like they could hide launchers anywhere, and if they were invaded you'd be able to control the whole country in a matter of hours.MaxPB said:
Which is why I said acquire rather than develop. Though you are correct that Saudi Arabia pose a much bigger threat than Qatar. If Iran does end up developing the bomb then who knows what happens in the region. The Americans might even be stupid enough to sanction a Saudi weapons programme to oppose Iran.rcs1000 said:
Qatar has about 250,000 citizens and no nuclear power plants. It's also not a very big place. Building a nuclear facility without anybody noticing would be tricky.MaxPB said:
I also wouldn't be surprised to see either Qatar or Saudi Arabia secretly acquire the bomb and neither are to be trusted.david_herdson said:
When states like Pakistan and North Korea have the weapons, not to mention Russia, it's sensible for us to do so too.Pulpstar said:
It seems to have slung an expensive albatross around our necks though !david_herdson said:
Because we couldn't trust the Americans, and feared the Soviets.Pulpstar said:
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.0 -
Rather more to the global economic situation than that surely?taffys said:Great time to buy.
It is. People are only thinking about the negative effects of plunging energy prices. It takes much longer for the benefits to flow through.
Debt is running at colossal levels globally, where is demand going to come from?0 -
KenSimonStClare said:Sack Emily Thornberry and Ken Livingstone from the Defence Review?
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.has already been sackedwas never part of the Defence review0
This discussion has been closed.