Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

sun_tzu said:
I would have hoped that they thought about it in the campaign (and even before deciding to stand as leader)... So what's that almost 6 months...
Click to expand...

They are compromising and try to take on board the opinions of people across the party which I respect

I don't see the need for a rush from a logical perspective.

Also none of the candidates had a strong and specific set of policies. Spent about an hour talking to a Kendall activist a couple of days before the vote and all he could say was she's really passionate about early education with no real specifics.
 
Last edited:
Jeremy Corbyn's first Labour conference speech was a resounding success that proved Tories have warped 'British values'

Perhaps it's now time to stop pretending that Labour under Corbyn is a party in crisis

Today, Jeremy Corbyn buried TINA. The idea that ‘there is no alternative’ has been thrashed aside. Corbyn has proclaimed quite clearly: there is an alternative, and it is the Labour party that is that alternative. After such continual and vocal pessimism from his naysayers within and without the Labour party, this powerful speech felt like the rise of the phoenix.

This was a hope-heavy conference performance. Following from McDonnell yesterday, Corbyn demonstrated that a different world is possible – that there should not be 100,000 children homeless in Britain today, that the wealth extremists in the wealthy 1 per cent should not be allowed to capture as much wealth as the other 99 per cent, that a million families relying on emergency food packages is not good enough.

The myth of Tory success was laid bare. Ironic, perhaps, that it is Jeremy Corbyn who is the only one brave enough to defend the economic success of previous Labour governments. He called out David Cameron on the rent crisis facing this country at the moment, on the cutting of social care support for carers and on his gross failures to tackle Saudi Arabian injustices. Corbyn noted that the real risk to the security of this country was the Tories’ feeble economic recovery, built on doubling the national debt and an outdated austerity programme that balances the books on the backs of the working poor, rather than those who caused the crisis in the first place.

Before this speech, so many commentators and political pundits were united in the idea that Corbyn had to either betray his supporters or alienate the parliamentary Labour party. But today, Corbyn has demonstrated that he is actually on the side of a third, more important, group: the British public. Whether this be over rail nationalisation, a fairer taxation system or greater support for small businesses, it has been made markedly clear that Corbyn’s Labour party is in sync with public opinion. Corbyn attacked over-simplified commentariat style thinking head on: this is a new type of grown up politics, he said, where debate does not mean division. He said it with the conviction for which he is famed.

Let it be made clear that Corbyn has noted there is nothing un-socialist about supporting entrepreneurs, the self-employed and those who start and run their own businesses. The powerful want you to believe this, but it is simply untrue. Today, Jeremy noted that one in seven people in the UK are now self-employed, facing financial insecurity which has not been allayed by the Tories who claim to champion them.

Tackling some of the ridiculous media reports about him, Corbyn apologised profusely for ‘not doing the decent thing’ and going back in time to have a word with his great-great-great-great-grandfather who was alleged to be a workhouse owner.

And just in case any of us were still worried about the national anthem media fiasco, Corbyn was also clear that he is proud to be British. Above all, he produced an idea of ‘British values’ that the Tories fail to understand: that we are an open society, an outward looking nation, focused on helping the suffering and creating real aspiration, rather than one that rejects suffering refugees or cuts support for the working poor while offering an inheritance tax cut to the richest 1 per cent. When did the Tories get to redefine what British values are anyway?

At the beginning of the speech, greeted by rapturous applause, Jeremy had to ask, ‘Any chance we can start?’ With such an uplifting first performance, I hope that he will be given the chance to make his real start unhindered: a chance to start changing the party, and changing our country, in the image of a kinder politics. His pledge was simple: to put Labour values, the people’s values back into politics – and this was an unexpectedly polished beginning, rounded off by a standing ovation, to what is clearly a popular movement. Perhaps it's now time to stop pretending that Labour under Corbyn is a party in crisis.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...success-that-proved-tories-have-a6672176.html
 
I though it was a pretty good speech, the line about the football club was pretty bang on with regards to all of the new members being met with criticism or being ignored. I can see why some people might not like it as well though.
 
SteveJ said:
Jeremy Corbyn's first Labour conference speech was a resounding success that proved Tories have warped 'British values'
Click to expand...

Not saying you're suggesting otherwise, but it should be noted that was from the Voices section (ie the blog section) it wasn't an editorial. Their political editor wrote the following.

The three issues Jeremy Corbyn didn’t mention in his Labour conference speech

You can often learn as much about a political leader’s priorities by what they don’t say as much as by what they do. And Jeremy Corbyn’s address to the Labour Party conference was no exception. He talked about austerity, housing, the NHS, human rights in Saudi Arabia and even found time for a few choice political quotes that had inspired him.

But there was no mention in the hour-long speech of Britain’s deficit. Nor was there any mention of vexed issue of immigration that cost Labour votes to Ukip at the election. And there was no attempt to analyse why Labour failed to win in May – and what lessons the party needs to learn from that defeat.

But, to be fair to Mr Corbyn, his shadow Chancellor John McDonnell talked a lot about the deficit – and made it clear that Labour would bring the books back into surplus. Failing to mention the deficit therefore was not a cardinal sin and - while it will be seized on by the Tories - it will not be anywhere near as toxic as Ed Miliband’s omission of the same subject this time last year.

What was of more significance was his failure to address Labour voters’ real concerns about immigration – almost pretending that they did not exist. Equally – and connected – was his failure to offer any kind of analysis of what went wrong for the party in May and how he was going to put that right.

But you almost wonder if he cares. His speech was about how to build a protest movement rather than the next Government. For now that will fire up and enthuse Labour activists – but in the long run it is not enough.

And that was the final omission: Any mention of Labour regaining power in 2020.
Click to expand...
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Fairly amusing.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...re-written-in-the-1980s/ar-AAeVRbj?li=AAaeUIW

Doesn't look good for Jez.
Click to expand...
Jeremy Corbyn’s claim to have launched a “new politics” has been undermined after it emerged large sections of his speech were written in the 1980s and rejected by every Labour leader since Neil Kinnock.

The new Labour leader repeated almost word-for-word huge tranches of a speech written by Richard Heller, a freelance writer who said he posted the text to Mr Corbyn’s office two weeks ago.

Mr Heller said that he wrote the speech in the 1980s and had been offered to every Labour leader since then, including Ed Miliband.

Mr Heller, who worked for Labour minister Denis Healey between 1981 to 1983, posted the speech on his website four years ago.

In chaotic scenes, Mr Corbyn’s spokesman initially described the similarities between the two speeches as “pure coincidence” before later admitting that his team had spoken to Mr Heller “in the last few days”.

Mr Heller said that he has “offered” the speech to “each and every Labour leader before him” and that he had “no idea” Mr Corbyn was going to use his words as part of his conference address .

The embarrassing disclosure came after a speech that saw Mr Corbyn face criticism for failing to mention the deficit, immigration, terrorism or the European Union referendum.

Mr Corbyn instead used his address to talk about reform of the Labour Party, his opposition to the Trident nuclear deterrent and calls for British people to reject globalisation.

Asked why the Labour leader did not mention the deficit or immigration in the speech, his spokesman said: “He’s not going to cover every subject in his first speech. We don’t have policies on every position.”

However, the hours following Mr Corbyn’s keynote address were dominated by his team’s decision to take large passages of the text from an old speech.

The final section of Mr Corbyn’s 59-minute address featured a series of long passages on economic theory published on Mr Heller’s website.

The most emotional sections of the speech, in which Mr Corbyn railed against globalisation, were all written by Mr Heller.

The passage said: “The many with little or nothing are told they live in a global economy whose terms cannot be changed. They must accept the place assigned to them by competitive markets.

“Our Labour Party came into being to fight that attitude. That is still what our Labour Party is all about. Labour is the voice that says to the many, at home and abroad: “you don’t have to take what you’re given.”



"Heller gave permission for his material to be sourced as Jeremy Corbyn felt it captured perfectly what he wanted to say to the British people"
Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman
Another section stated: “Since the dawn of history in virtually every human society there are some people who are given a great deal and many more people who are given little or nothing. Some people have property and power, class and capital, status and clout which are denied to the many.”


Mr Corbyn’s team initially denied that Mr Heller’s speech had been used by the Labour leader, saying that it was written by people who are “a lot cleverer”.

However, minutes later a spokesman conceded that Neale Coleman, Mr Corbyn’s head of policy who helped write the speech, had spoken to Mr Heller.

Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said: “Heller was consulted and gave permission for his material to be sourced as Jeremy Corbyn felt it captured perfectly what he wanted to say to the British people.”

Speaking from Pakistan, Mr Heller said that he published the speech on his website in 2011 because none of the previous five labour leaders – dating back to Mr Kinnock – opted to use it.

Mr Heller , who describes himself as a professional speechwriter for clients including Cadbury Schweppes, also claimed that he was only informed that Mr Corbyn would use “some words” from his speech around 15 minutes before the Labour addressed his party conference.

He said that he is “delighted that the passage has been used” and that he is “sorry” if the disclosure “might detract from its message”.

Writing for The Guardian, he said: “I discovered in a Karachi traffic jam today that Jeremy Corbyn intended to make use in his conference speech of a passage I wrote some years ago with the theme of ‘you don’t have to take what you’re given’.

“I have always been proud of that passage, both for its content and its cadences, so much so that I have offered it regularly to every Labour leader from Neil Kinnock onwards and to other Labour speakers. Four years ago, I published it on my website along with some other zingers.”

Meanwhile, Mr Corbyn risked causing offence after sharing a stage with Husam Zomlot, a holocaust denier who has accused the Israel of “fabricating all these stories about [Isil] beheading journalists”.

Lucy Powell, the new shadow education secretary, also said that Mr Corbyn is prepared to strip private schools of their charitable status in a significant escalation of his party's war on the middle classes.

Since the dawn of history, in virtually every human society there are some people who are given a great deal and many more people who are given little or nothing. Some people have property and power, class and capital, status and even sanctity, which are denied to the multitude.

"And time and time again, the people who receive a great deal tell the many to be grateful to be given anything at all. They say that the world cannot be changed and the many must accept the terms on which they are allowed to live in it.

"These days this attitude is justified by economic theory. The many with little or nothing are told they live in a global economy whose terms cannot be changed. They must accept the place assigned to them by competitive markets."

Since the dawn of history, in virtually every human society there are some people who are given a great deal and many more people who are given little or nothing. Some people have property and power, class and capital, status and even sanctity, which are denied to the multitude.

"And time and time again, the people who receive a great deal tell the multitude to be grateful to be given anything at all. They say that the world cannot be changed and the multitude must accept the terms on which they are allowed to live in it.

"For many years, this attitude was justified in terms of high philosophy, spiritual values or religious faith. ‘The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate He made them high or lowly And ordered their estate.’ More recently, this attitude has been rationalized by economic theory. The multitudes with little or nothing are told that they live in a global economy whose terms cannot be changed: they must accept the place assigned to them by competitive markets."

  • Promised to renationalise the railways
  • Put the housing crisis at the top of his agenda, promising a massive council house building programme
  • Promised to end the "stigma and discrimination" around mental health
  • Wants to extend statutory maternity and paternity pay to self-employed people
  • Asked David Cameron to help Teeside steel workers facing job losses
  • Vowed to make every school accountable to local education authorities
  • Savaged the Conservatives' "shocking" broken promises on child tax credits
Click to expand...

Probably not that damaging in the long run about the speech - though so much for his "off the cuff style of new politics" but other than a jibe or two at the next PMQ's I cant see it being mentioned much - and lets be honest he always has the come back - yeah but I didn't fek a pig.

But his position on Israel (plus the whole region including ISIS, Syria etc) is going to draw a lot of attention in the coming months I think.

I actually thing striping private schools of charitable status is not a bad idea and I'm considering sending my son to one - it would probably mean a price increase but in truth they are private enterprises not charities as far as I can see so that sounds fair enough
 
Smores said:
What doesn't? That he's used some catch phrases from previous writers, like 99% of polotical speeches. Such a non-story.

The papers use the term 'embarresed' as generously as this place on a match day.

Headlines make opinions though so I do worry that the narrative the media have set on won't easily change
Click to expand...

The report claims that 'large sections' of the speech on his 'new politics' were written in the 1980s. Corbyn's camp denied this to be true and then reneged and admitted that it was true.

Not the end of the world but hardly inspiring of competency and progression is it?
 
bishblaize said:
On immigration, quite possibly. If the EU vote outcome is to remain, then it'll be as you were and immigration will still be a hot topic. UKIP won't disappear just like the SNP won't. But if we leave, well, its very hard to say what the effect will be on politics, so its possible that immigration may disappear, but who can say?

The deficit though, I very much doubt that won't still be a thing. Its not whether or not we'll have a deficit by that point, its that borrowing has now become taboo. In the 70s we had 20% inflation and for the next 15 years inflation was the thing the public worried about in the economy. Then after the ERM debacle it was interest rates everyone become obsessed with, which everyone worried about until the mid 2000s. Now its the deficit that's the cause celebre. Historically these things take a decade or more of being a non-issue before they're forgotten.
Click to expand...

Inflation had a very direct effect on the public at large so I'm not sure it's comparable to something that they only consider because it's been put to them in a simple misleading tory analogy.

The Tories may begin to start singing about clearing the debt burden around our necks etc but if the economy continues its stable albeit weak growth then I don't think people will relate. The Tories won't be able to sell further cuts it'll be a promise of staying on track against Labour's investing for the future while being tied to a neutral budget on goverment spending.

Immigration is going to be key whether we're in or out of the EU. What Labour new to do is explain how difficult it is for legal migrants to actually get into this country and rid the misconception of open doors.
 
What do people think of his admission that he'd never press the button?

Obviously a bit of an unspoken truth but not sure how it will play out. I'd like to see Cameron challenged on situations under which he'd use the button.
 
Smores said:
Immigration is going to be key whether we're in or out of the EU. What Labour new to do is explain how difficult it is for legal migrants to actually get into this country and rid the misconception of open doors.
Click to expand...

Immigration from EU member states is easy enough. The Tories have made it a harder for those from outside of the EU in recent years but net migration is at highest level ever, that is a fact.
 
Smores said:
What do people think of his admission that he'd never press the button?

Obviously a bit of an unspoken truth but not sure how it will play out. I'd like to see Cameron challenged on situations under which he'd use the button.
Click to expand...
 
Smores said:
Immigration is going to be key whether we're in or out of the EU. What Labour new to do is explain how difficult it is for legal migrants to actually get into this country and rid the misconception of open doors.
Click to expand...

That might be a fair case to make for a Eurosceptic party, but i don't see much merit in it for Labour given its position on Britain's continued membership. You would in essence be arguing for increased immigration into the UK, and at a time when the leader is talking about an inadequate supply of housing.

The only reference to the topic during the speech was by way of alluding to Syrian refugees, although even that lacked for detail. Corbyn could have set out a target for the number of asylum seekers Britain should be taking in, instead he quoted a hashtag. You might also infer from his Friends of Israel speech that he considers the alternative viewpoint to be one of xenophobia, when in actuality he's addressing disillusioned and concerned Labour voters (perhaps unemployed) in cash-strapped communities.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
What do people think of his admission that he'd never press the button?

Obviously a bit of an unspoken truth but not sure how it will play out. I'd like to see Cameron challenged on situations under which he'd use the button.
Click to expand...

What else can he say?

Easy win for Cameron though. Just say that it would be a complete last resort and only used in a dire emergency, but that he has the strength and conviction to do whatever it takes to keep Britain safe, and that any Prime Minister should feel the same way. I imagine most would agree with that.
 




Telegraph newsfeed: There is also a suggestion he may have pulled out of a schedule Newsnight interview.



I can't recall a party leader being this shy of the media in many a year, it certainly won't be to his benefit should in the long term.
 
Last edited:
bishblaize said:
What else can he say?

Easy win for Cameron though. Just say that it would be a complete last resort and only used in a dire emergency, but that he has the strength and conviction to do whatever it takes to keep Britain safe, and that any Prime Minister should feel the same way. I imagine most would agree with that.
Click to expand...

Last resort/dire emergency is a meaningless throw away answer, although of course that's what we'd get.

I'd like to see him tested against actual scenarios, would he authorise it if we suspected North Korea of readying a missile for instance? Would he authorise it only in retaliation?

It'd be an uncomfortable position for him and probably not wise to answer but if he's fighting for Trident he should be challenged to admit a scenario under which we'd use it.
 
Smores said:
Last resort/dire emergency is a meaningless throw away answer, although of course that's what we'd get.

I'd like to see him tested against actual scenarios, would he authorise it if we suspected North Korea of readying a missile for instance? Would he authorise it only in retaliation?

It'd be an uncomfortable position for him and probably not wise to answer but if he's fighting for Trident he should be challenged to admit a scenario under which we'd use it.
Click to expand...

I guess as long as Corbyn answers the same questions that would be fair I guess.

E.G. Terrorists have gained access to an old russian made mobile nuclear missile - we dont have the exact location just that its in a remote part of the sahara desert... surrounding governments have ok'd a strike - no time for a search mission, no time for special forces operation and they dont want to negotiate so you either nuke the area or you let them nuke central London you have 2 minutes to take action before its too late. tick tock tick tock what do you do mr Cameron / Corbyn

its easy to paint scenarios either way but its an issue the public in general seem to be on the side of Cameron (from the polls I have seen) so I think Cameron would love such a debate whilst Corbyn has enough trouble getting his own party to back him
 
Defence really isn't something he want to be going tote-to-toe with Cameron on. If i remember a recent Politics Weekly episode correctly, Corbyn gave responses during the leadership campaign which suggested that he wouldn't defend British overseas territories in the even of invasion.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Defence really isn't something he want to be going tote-to-toe with Cameron on. If i remember a recent Politics Weekly episode correctly, Corbyn gave responses during the leadership campaign which suggested that he wouldn't defend British overseas territories in the even of invasion.
Click to expand...
Falklands? - I think he has said negotiation on that issue in the past?
Now what the people of the Falklands or should we start saying the Malvinas think about that may be rather different
Lets see how much oil they find there as that may even change Corbyns mind
 
sun_tzu said:
I guess as long as Corbyn answers the same questions that would be fair I guess.

E.G. Terrorists have gained access to an old russian made mobile nuclear missile - we dont have the exact location just that its in a remote part of the sahara desert... surrounding governments have ok'd a strike - no time for a search mission, no time for special forces operation and they dont want to negotiate so you either nuke the area or you let them nuke central London you have 2 minutes to take action before its too late. tick tock tick tock what do you do mr Cameron / Corbyn

its easy to paint scenarios either way but its an issue the public in general seem to be on the side of Cameron (from the polls I have seen) so I think Cameron would love such a debate whilst Corbyn has enough trouble getting his own party to back him
Click to expand...

If I was Corbyn I would answer that with the following:
  • How have we managed to find the time get permission from 10+ countries to use a nuclear weapon on or near their territory considering there is "no time for a search mission"?
  • How do we know the threat isn't a hoax considering we don't seem to have very much intelligence on the matter in your scenario? This would further complicate the first point.
  • The Sahara desert is 4,800km wide and 1,800km long. Our nuclear warheads are thought to have a yield of 100kt which would give an effective blast radius of between 3.23 and 4.62km depending on what sort of effects you are looking for. This is great for causing mass casualties in a population center but wouldn't actually cause much of a dent in such a large land mass. Which is why they used the Nevada desert to test hundreds of nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons as some sort of shortcut to destroying something hidden in the Saraha in this sort of scenario seems futile to me.
 
sun_tzu said:
Falklands? - I think he has said negotiation on that issue in the past?
Now what the people of the Falklands or should we start saying the Malvinas think about that may be rather different
Lets see how much oil they find there as that may even change Corbyns mind
Click to expand...

Sort of, he purportedly gave an answer that his benchmark for deploying British forces would be something akin to WWII.



Remaining on the topic of nuclear albeit in regard to its civilian application, what do those here think about Corbyn's stance on nuclear power? Can he fulfil his promises on emissions (i've not heard him talk about energy security specifically) without it, and more broadly do you agree with him?

I don't know if he's set out a position on fusion power and related research, although that would also be important.
 
Shamwow said:
If I was Corbyn I would answer that with the following:
  • How have we managed to find the time get permission from 10+ countries to use a nuclear weapon on or near their territory considering there is "no time for a search mission"?
  • How do we know the threat isn't a hoax considering we don't seem to have very much intelligence on the matter in your scenario? This would further complicate the first point.
  • The Sahara desert is 4,800km wide and 1,800km long. Our nuclear warheads are thought to have a yield of 100kt which would give an effective blast radius of between 3.23 and 4.62km depending on what sort of effects you are looking for. Using nuclear weapons as some sort of shortcut to destroying something hidden in the Saraha in this sort of scenario seems futile to me.
Click to expand...
And the headline tomorrow reads Corbyn sentences 6 million Londoners to death...
He will loose this debate - he will loose it with the country and I personally believe he will even loose it within his own party
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Sort of, he purportedly gave an answer that his benchmark for deploying British forces would be something akin to WWII.



Remaining on the topic of nuclear albeit in regard to its civilian application, what do those here think about Corbyn's stance on nuclear power? Can he fulfil his promises on emissions (i've not heard him talk about energy security specifically) without it, and more broadly do you agree with him? I don't know if he's set out a view on fusion power and related research, that would also be important IMO.
Click to expand...

I work in the infrastructure sector - windfarms, hydro, nuclear, solar - his stance on no nuclear is impossible as its not about what your peak power generation can be - you need core base load and without nuclear there is no way moving forwards to hit the emissions targets.
Fusion is a long long long way off
 
sun_tzu said:
And the headline tomorrow reads Corbyn sentences 6 million Londoners to death...
He will loose this debate - he will loose it with the country and I personally believe he will even loose it within his own party
Click to expand...

Lose it by being wrong or just lose it because of stupid and misleading headlines? Which do you care more about?
 
Shamwow said:
Lose it by being wrong or just lose it because of stupid and misleading headlines? Which do you care more about?
Click to expand...
if i were him id care more about winning
he can be the most compassionate forward thinking opposition leader ever but when was the last time the opposition got to actually implement policies?
 
sun_tzu said:
if i were him id care more about winning
he can be the most compassionate forward thinking opposition leader ever but when was the last time the opposition got to actually implement policies?
Click to expand...

I thought you were against him because you don't want him to win, not because he isn't likely to win.

If that is the case then you should respond to my argument on the basis of the actual scenario you have presented and not what the headlines would be.
 
Shamwow said:
I thought you were against him because you don't want him to win, not because he isn't likely to win.

If that is the case then you should respond to my argument on the basis of the actual scenario you have presented and not what the headlines would be.
Click to expand...
I am against him because he makes Labour unelectable - the headlines are what matters to the people outside the Labour bubble - The sooner people realise that the sooner they can form a credible opposition who actually look like they could be a realistic government - Honestly it seems more and more like somebody has asked the student union to become the opposition.
Its not all feking flowers and blue sky thinking... wars happen, money matters and you win elections from the centre ground and by getting the votes of people who dont actually care that much about politics
Corbyn will be a disaster for the party - if they are stupid enough to go into the next general election with him in power they will get demolished... the only realistic hope is that the MP's oust him in a year or two then they might just do badly at the next election
 
sun_tzu said:
I am against him because he makes Labour unelectable - the headlines are what matters to the people outside the Labour bubble - The sooner people realise that the sooner they can form a credible opposition who actually look like they could be a realistic government - Honestly it seems more and more like somebody has asked the student union to become the opposition.
Its not all feking flowers and blue sky thinking... wars happen, money matters and you win elections from the centre ground and by getting the votes of people who dont actually care that much about politics
Corbyn will be a disaster for the party - if they are stupid enough to go into the next general election with him in power they will get demolished... the only realistic hope is that the MP's oust him in a year or two then they might just do badly at the next election
Click to expand...

You seem quite inconsistent with your views on this to be honest.

Pretty sure, you've previously said that if Corbyn is still leader in 2020 you will tactically vote for whoever is most likely to help keep him out of being PM.
 
sun_tzu said:
Fusion is a long long long way off
Click to expand...

I'd go with two longs ;), but yeah it isn't something which could be realise come 2020. Still, for a new politics we have heard precious little in the form of new ideas and technologies. There have been many statements about infrastructure investment for instance, yet there is greater detail of what he won't build as PM.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I'd go with two longs ;), but yeah it wouldn't be something which could realise during any potential tenure of his. Still, for a new politics we have heard precious little in the form of new ideas and technologies. There have been many statements about infrastructure investment for instance, yet there is greater detail of what he won't build as PM.
Click to expand...

Corbyn would be wrong to oppose fission and we definitely need more investment on fusion. Science investment in general in the UK has been poor recently. A good friend of mine who works on nuclear fusion research has decided to either move to the USA or change to a "proper job" for that reason alone.
 
Smores said:
Last resort/dire emergency is a meaningless throw away answer, although of course that's what we'd get.

I'd like to see him tested against actual scenarios, would he authorise it if we suspected North Korea of readying a missile for instance? Would he authorise it only in retaliation?

It'd be an uncomfortable position for him and probably not wise to answer but if he's fighting for Trident he should be challenged to admit a scenario under which we'd use it.
Click to expand...

I really don't think that would be that uncomfortable. Cameron is taking the same position as every Prime Minister since Atlee. He may be asked to reassert the consensus from time to time, but he didn't create it. Its only an issue for Corbyn, since he's the one proposing a change to a policy Government's have agreed on for the last 70 odd years.
 
sun_tzu said:
I guess as long as Corbyn answers the same questions that would be fair I guess.

E.G. Terrorists have gained access to an old russian made mobile nuclear missile - we dont have the exact location just that its in a remote part of the sahara desert... surrounding governments have ok'd a strike - no time for a search mission, no time for special forces operation and they dont want to negotiate so you either nuke the area or you let them nuke central London you have 2 minutes to take action before its too late. tick tock tick tock what do you do mr Cameron / Corbyn

its easy to paint scenarios either way but its an issue the public in general seem to be on the side of Cameron (from the polls I have seen) so I think Cameron would love such a debate whilst Corbyn has enough trouble getting his own party to back him
Click to expand...
I've seen some stuff on this and other forums, but I think this might be the least attached to reality.
 
I'm with Corbyn on nuclear weapons, but nuclear power is actually very safe and is surely the only real answer in the medium term.
 
Shamwow said:
Corbyn would be wrong to oppose fission and we definitely need more investment on fusion. Science investment in general in the UK has been poor recently. A good friend of mine who works on nuclear fusion research has decided to either move to the USA or change to a "proper job" for that reason alone.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about investment in science, particularly with the rate of advancement these days. Surprisingly to me at least, it says here that the Treasury requested its budget be ring-fenced.

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/about/aboutrcs/governmentfunding/

£3bn does sound like much however the resources are mostly intact. And presumably there is some overlap with departmetns such as Health and Defence.
 
One of the worst interviews I've ever seen. This must be what it's like when idiots aren't given autocues or prompted questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.