Another detailing of how he behaves as leader by a former shadow cabinet member - http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_party_members
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Embarrassing shambles from Corbyn waffling on in the commons at the moment. He is a pillock....doesn't seem to understand what his own party policy is. Thank god his MP's do.
Corbyn getting it from his back stabbers.
Can't believe the £25 voting fee isn't getting the backlash it deserves. Its clearly a engineered means to stop students and low income voters (ie those most inclined to vote Corbyn) from voting.
The Labour Party in its current state seems completely resentful towards democracy.
The Labour Party in its current state seems completely resentful towards democracy.
I thought there were hustings today? Are we not going to get an announcement from that?
Tory scumbag pretending that there's a fecking difference between the submarines and the nuclear weapons that go into them.
It's disgraceful, but most on here won't care as they're blinded by their hatred for Corbyn.
So to disarm we have to waste billions of pounds increase our nuclear arsenal.
Another Tory revising history. Churchill wanted to use gas before the Germans. It's a documented fecking fact. One of his staff members had to tell him it was out of the question.
Yeah....how dare they tell Comrade Corbyn the actual Labour Party Policy.Why won't they say how much this will cost.
Austerity, we're all in this together, etc.
Because they're worried people will then ask how it can be justified while people rely on foodbanks and others die because they can't afford the electricity to keep their insulin refrigerated. But you know, Corbyn and... stuff. Look at Corbyn.
There were, both Smith and Eagle did well apparently and it's looking closer than it had done prior (Smith was previously expected to be clear frontrunner of the two). Think Yvette has proposed a ballot to measure support and that should happen within the next day.
Website to sign up as a supporter for Labour is down 
Ta mate.
I don't understand why this isn't the headline anti-argument - how can they get away with not even releasing an estimate?
Well some Tory as given a figure of 179billion
Didn't May cite the costs in her speech?
Well said.
Does that include ensuring the telephone bill has been paid, should they need to ring America to get permission to fire them?Well some Tory as given a figure of 179billion
Imagine the amount of job cuts that amount of money requires, alternatively could invest in Nuclear energy and then there'd be no need for fracking...
Fear mongering now.
John Woodcock drama queen.
Why does it cost so much? And why does it need renewed? Are the ones we've got going rusty or something?
The subs, like other ships, have a limited working lifespan. It's the subs that are getting replaced, not the weapons.
Richard Benyon saying that people need nukes in case of 9/11, etc. Yeah, sure. Idiot.
We need Trident because Iraq has the ability to deliver chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes...oh no sorry that was something else, my bad.
Fallon said: "Together the four new boats will cost around £31bn, spread over 35 years. That’s around 20 pence in every £100 that the government spends. The replacement Trident will see us through the 2020's, 30's, 40's, and 50's.
There are reasons to oppose new submarines, but cost isn't one of them. The same amount spent on conventional weapons would have very limited deterrence value in comparison.
Manufacturing is about the only reason I can think of for renewing Trident. It makes sense on no other logical level, except in the minds of scarlet majors.
It varies on who you ask . IMF say £167bn in total, CND say £205bn , The RSUI say 70 to 80bn . All in all it's a lot of money that could be spent else where.
Thomas Tugendhat was sensible on Question Time. Turns out he's actually a moron. Pity.
Thats just the build cost, running costs add another 130bn
Before you attack me I'm in favour, but to pretend it doesn't cost a fortune is daft
Good.
Edward Leigh making some solid points.
I wouldn't dream of attacking you
I didn't say it doesn't cost a fortune....I simply quoted what I read the cost was going to be. I still don't thinks at bad when you think it is going to last for 40 years!
I read the annual running costs are £2bn.
what a waste of money
35,000 jobs is a lot. Plus we'll be able to sabre-rattle with the best of them with our shiny new nukes.
Yeah, the only argument that I accept is the job argument. The rest is nonsense. Economically, it makes sense - unless the government were to use that money in some other public sector/infrastructure program. The problem I have with it is that it's not necessary.
I'm kind of tirn on the issue tbh. While in many ways I'm sure we could use the American nuke umbrella, having a deterrent is never a bad thing. Obviously the current main enemy is not one you fight with nukes though.
The infrastructure argument makes a lot of sense, but examples from all over have repeatedly shown that the public purse makes stupid mistakes with its choices.