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

After the barest minimum shuffle that Corbyn could possibly do he still loses shadow ministers. I wish he'd done more personally.
Corbyn's wing of the left, on their own, have a maximum potential of about 10% of UK votes. To gain power they dream that the 'broad Labour church' idea will piggyback an additional 30% on top and they've cracked it. Except with the left in command large numbers of that potential 30% won't vote Labour because they can see the difference.
Mainstream Labour voters don't need the activists as much as the activists need them. Be it purge or split in the Labour party, bring it on, give the voters a choice between Labour left and centre, let the voters choose.
 
Last edited:
Another Labour resignation as Alison McGovern quits child poverty review

Labour MP and chair of Progress group says she was ‘backed into corner’ after John McDonnell criticism

By Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent
10 Jan 2016


A Labour MP has resigned from a party review into child poverty after accusing the shadow chancellor John McDonnell of backing her into a “corner” with public criticism.

Alison McGovern, who chairs the Blairite group Progress, told BBC’s Sunday Politics programme that she could no longer work with the leadership.

It came after Mr McDonnell suggested her group helped coordinated the resignation of three shadow ministers after Jeremy Corbyn’s reshuffle.

Ms McGovern, the Wirral South MP, had been asked to take part in Labour's policy review on child poverty and combating inequality. She was due to meet Mr McDonnell for a second time to discuss the issue on Wednesday.

She said: “I'm there waiting to meet him to talk about it and all the while he'd gone to the TV studio to call the organisation that I am chair of hard right Conservative, of having a hard-right Conservative agenda. That's not OK.

"We are all Labour members and we believe in having a Labour government. That's what we are, nothing more nothing less.

"And, as I say, I don't want to be on the telly talking about this but I have been backed into a corner and I have got no other choice now but to stand up and say 'this is who we are' and we should just get on with the business of getting a Labour government."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ison-McGovern-quits-child-poverty-review.html



Jeremy Corbyn allies attempt to cut shadow cabinet out of deciding Trident policy

Left-wing members of Labour's National Executive Committee attempting to use review to change who signs off party policy on contentious issues

By Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent
09 Jan 2016


Jeremy Corbyn's allies on Labour's ruling body are attempting to strip the shadow cabinet of its power to sign off policy to help ditch the party's support for Trident.

Left-wing figures on Labour's National Executive Committee are using a review into its terms of reference to argue MPs should not have the final say on contentious policies.

Instead they want to change procedure so the NEC itself ultimately decides what Labour's stance on Trident and other controversial issues should be.

The plot is the clearest sign yet Mr Corbyn is willing to change Labour's rules to ensure the party opposes nuclear weapons when a vote is called later this year.

However it will infuriate senior Labour moderates who have called support for Trident a "fundamental red line" and threatened mass resignations if the policy is changed.

The move is significant because unlike the shadow cabinet - which predominantly supports Trident - the NEC is packed with supporters of Mr Corbyn and could agree to oppose renewal.

Any rule changes could come as early as Tuesday 26 January when the NEC next meets, with one moderate figure saying debate on the issue is descending into "war".

It comes with Labour expected to enter a period of intense internal debate about its stance on renewing Trident nuclear weapons, with MPs expected to vote on the issue as early as March.

Mr Corbyn, a lifelong opponent of Trident, installed fellow critic Emily Thornberry as shadow defence secretary this week in a reshuffle.

The move is being seen as a precursor to an attempt to ditch Labour’s long-held support for Trident in time for the vote and make the party formally oppose renewal.

Pro-Trident MPs argue that Labour’s support for Trident renewal was ratified last year and could be only changed at the party’s next conference in September – after the expected vote.

Any attempt to change party policy by calling a vote in the shadow cabinet would likely lose because there is believed to be a pro-Trident majority.

However The Sunday Telegraph has learnt of a plot by Mr Corbyn’s allies to cut out the shadow cabinet and the National Policy Forum - which also has a more balanced representation of views - from signing off future policy.

They are using a review into the NEC’s terms of reference ordered in November to argue that it should be given ultimate power to dictate policy.

One left-winger on the NEC said: "The current set-up of policy forums has to come to some kind of solution. The Labyrinthine structure allows policy to be shifted and doctored by the shadow cabinet.

"To try and ensure things cannot be manipulated in that way, the NEC needs to have final oversight of the process for signing off policy."

Another is arguing that despite the ruling body being "downgraded and sidelined" under Tony Blair it should now make decisions on all contentious policy issues.

While the row appears to be about the minutiae of Labour policy making, it also has major ramifications on where power lies in a party that is at war with itself.

Labour sources said the NEC – made up from a selection of MPs, trade union figures and local party representatives – contains a majority of left-wing supporters of Mr Corbyn.

Early in his leadership Mr Corbyn removed Hilary Benn, the pro-Trident shadow foreign secretary, from the NEC and installed Rebecca Long-Bailey, who nominated him for Labour leader.

If the NEC is given the power to sign-off policy it is more likely a change in Labour’s position on Trident would be agreed. However moderate MPs would likely argue that the shadow cabinet, National Policy Forum or party conference needs to ratify any change.

Mr Corbyn is also said to be considering issuing an email to Labour members – many of whom are believed to oppose Trident after joining since the general election – to canvass opinion.

A defence review being co-chaired by Ms Thornberry and Ken Livingstone, the former London mayor and key Corbyn ally, is also likely to propose the party opposes renewal of Trident.

A source close to Mr Corbyn said all possibilities would be considered by the review and no outcome had been decided.

On Sunday, three Labour shadow cabinet ministers suggested they could resign if Mr Corbyn makes the party support unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Owen Smith, the shadow work and pensions secretary, Lord Falconer, the shadow justice secretary, and Lucy Powell, the shadow education secretary, all refused to rule out quitting if support for Trident was ditched.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...resign-if-forced-to-vote-against-Trident.html




How many Labour MPs have the individual credibility and local support to stand against the party machine do you think? Under the name of Independent Labour or Labour for Progress or some such.

Defecting to the Lib Dems might be an option for a few, but in time it would soon take on the appearance of a takeover, from yellow to orange.
 
Last edited:
Labour's McKinnell quits shadow cabinet

Shadow attorney general Catherine McKinnell has resigned from the shadow cabinet, citing concerns over Labour's direction under Jeremy Corbyn.

Ms McKinnell said Labour was heading down an "increasingly negative path" and that she was concerned about recent "internal conflict".

With a "heavy heart", she said she believed she could better serve Labour from the backbenches.

She is the fourth MP to quit the front bench since the recent reshuffle.
 
Labour's McKinnell quits shadow cabinet

Shadow attorney general Catherine McKinnell has resigned from the shadow cabinet, citing concerns over Labour's direction under Jeremy Corbyn.

Ms McKinnell said Labour was heading down an "increasingly negative path" and that she was concerned about recent "internal conflict".

With a "heavy heart", she said she believed she could better serve Labour from the backbenches.

She is the fourth MP to quit the front bench since the recent reshuffle.

How long till she is branded blairite scum and told to f-off to the tories?
 
But Benn eludes them still. Unclear how the Trident vote will now unfold, though.
3:35
ffd79e27-d56d-4dd0-a7f2-f90805080ddb.jpg

PA
Paul Kenny also has a warning for Jeremy Corbyn over Trident (the Labour leader does not want to renew the nuclear deterrent).

The GMB chief says his union is organising a conference for workers whose livelihoods depend on the nuclear programme. "Everyone keeps talking about the wonderful principles of Trident" he says, whereas he plans to ask workers at 50 sites across the UK "what they think about the Labour Party effectively shutting down their jobs".
 
3:35
PA
Paul Kenny also has a warning for Jeremy Corbyn over Trident (the Labour leader does not want to renew the nuclear deterrent).

The GMB chief says his union is organising a conference for workers whose livelihoods depend on the nuclear programme. "Everyone keeps talking about the wonderful principles of Trident" he says, whereas he plans to ask workers at 50 sites across the UK "what they think about the Labour Party effectively shutting down their jobs".
Yeah, the combination of the union opposition and the likelihood of shadow cabinet resignations en masse (including folk on the soft left) means anything but a free vote is a non-starter. You'd think it would also convince him not to change the way the policy for 2020 is decided upon, but you never can tell.
 
Yeah, the combination of the union opposition and the likelihood of shadow cabinet resignations en masse (including folk on the soft left) means anything but a free vote is a non-starter. You'd think it would also convince him not to change the way the policy for 2020 is decided upon, but you never can tell.

There's almost an assumption of this being an issue before anything occurs. I fully expect him to concede on this matter and go along with the party. He hasn't indicated otherwise unless I'm mistaken?

I personally regard it as a waste of money but the public opinion is what it is and only small steps can be taken in changing that opinion.
 
There's almost an assumption of this being an issue before anything occurs. I fully expect him to concede on this matter and go along with the party. He hasn't indicated otherwise unless I'm mistaken?

I personally regard it as a waste of money but the public opinion is what it is and only small steps can be taken in changing that opinion.
Plenty of indications he wants to repeat the membership "poll" of Syria fame, and give more power to the NEC (now has a majority of Corbyn-backers) in determining policy on it. Sacking Eagle from Defence and putting in anti-Trident Thornberry wasn't exactly subtle, was it?
 
There's almost an assumption of this being an issue before anything occurs. I fully expect him to concede on this matter and go along with the party. He hasn't indicated otherwise unless I'm mistaken?

I personally regard it as a waste of money but the public opinion is what it is and only small steps can be taken in changing that opinion.

I cant see any circumstance where he personally votes in favour
Nor can I see any circumstance he votes against party policy whilst leader
So its either change party policy or a free vote (announced well in advance like Cameron on the EU vote) - Free vote is the only sensible option but when you pick somebody who lists the overthrow of capitalist society as his hobbies and interest to be the shadow chancellor then its evident that you are not restricting yourself to only sensible options
 
Plenty of indications he wants to repeat the membership "poll" of Syria fame, and give more power to the NEC (now has a majority of Corbyn-backers) in determining policy on it. Sacking Eagle from Defence and putting in anti-Trident Thornberry wasn't exactly subtle, was it?

I don't think there's anything wrong with either of those tactics. However I do think it was politically an unwise move regarding Thornberry.

When I referred to him conceding I was referring to a free vote btw. As long as they announce the free vote early they should avoid the trap. Lets face it the tories have just inadvertly legitimised the free vote by giving their own ministers free reign to campaign on the EU question. A moral issue is much more legitimate.
 
Jeremy Corbyn accused of plotting to 'stitch up' upcoming by-election

Moderate Labour MPs tell the Telegraph that they fear the Labour leader will seek to ensure that one of his hard-Left allies is selected

By Laura Hughes, Political Correspondent
13 Jan 2016


Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of plotting to "stitch up" an upcoming by-election in Wales to ensure that one of his hard-Left allies is selected.

The Telegraph has been told that Mr Corbyn's office wants to ensure that Katy Clark, the Labour leader's political secretary, is able to contest the Ogmore by-election when Huw Irranca-Davies steps down.

Mr Irranca-Davies is quitting as an MP in order to become a member of the Welsh Assembly.

It is believed that the by-election will take place in May, although a date is yet to be confirmed.

Mr Irranca-Davies has approached Mr Corbyn's office to raise concerns about Ms Clark being imposed on the constituency.

Ms Clark was the MP for North Ayrshire and Arran for ten years until losing her seat to the SNP in the last election and is one of six Directors of the party's new Momentum movement.

One former Labour Minister told the Daily Telegraph: "People in Wales will be furious if they try to stitch it up for Katy or someone like Chris Williamson.

"All the Welsh MPs are very worried about this because you need a strong local candidate with real ties to the area for a byelection nowadays."

The National Executive Committee set the shortlist, from which local members elect their candidate and the the body could also decide whether to impose an all women's shortlist.

A former Labour shadow minister said: "The great fear we have is that if leadership tries to impose a candidate then it will make the same mistake that we have seen in the past, where the imposition of a candidate against the wishes of the local party has led to us losing a seat.

"This is is a very serious issue and a test for the leadership indeed in terms of its views of democracy and of course its strategic approach."

A senior Welsh Labour figure said: "I would be very surprised if the Ogmore constituency wanted somebody foisted on them by the leader's office and certainly not somebody from outside of Wales.

"I know there are some very strong candidates potentially putting themselves forward from across Wales."

Sources close to Mr Corbyn have denied that they are trying to ensure that Ms Clark goes on the candidates' list for the seat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...otting-to-stitch-up-upcoming-by-election.html
 
Thought he did well at Question Time.Seemed to get under the skin of Cameron and his idea for social cleansing.
 
Revealed: how Jeremy Corbyn has reshaped the Labour party
Leader’s hopes of remoulding the party boosted as Guardian survey shows surge in members, huge support and shift to the left.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...orbyn-has-reshaped-the-labour-party?CMP=fb_gu

Not a bad effect for the first couple of months of his tenure. Give it a year and I'm sure he'll galvanise more support considering how the Tories seem to be increasingly waging war on the working and middle classes of the country.
 
Thought he did well at Question Time.Seemed to get under the skin of Cameron and his idea for social cleansing.

Except that he hadn't thought out his last Dear Jeremy question properly, and was consequently shown up quite badly by Cameron.


Would've been helpful if they talked for a single sentence how exactly the selection is going to be "stitched up". Or even what they mean by the term.

I imagine that they are referring to the imposition of a non-Welsh candidate, with the justification for doing so being her ties to Momentum. There was of course similar speculation ahead of the vote in Oldham, and the local party opted for someone they knew (who later went on to win).
 
I imagine that they are referring to the imposition of a non-Welsh candidate, with the justification for doing so being her ties to Momentum. There was of course similar speculation ahead of the vote in Oldham, and the local party opted for someone they knew (who later went on to win).

Stitch-up usually means some form of trickery. Imposing a candidate is politics-as-usual and undemocratic but not a stitch-up.
Doing it openly is really bad trickery, just like using words devoid of their meaning is really bad journalism.
 
Stitch-up usually means some form of trickery. Imposing a candidate is politics-as-usual and undemocratic but not a stitch-up.
Doing it openly is really bad trickery, just like using words devoid of their meaning is really bad journalism.

I would put greater emphasis on the story rather than the headline, but in recognition of your concerns for the state of journalism:

stitch-up

noun
British informal

An act of placing someone in a position in which they will be wrongly blamed for something, or of manipulating a situation to one’s advantage.

Do you not think that the latter example is applicable in this instance?
 
Last edited:
I would put greater emphasis on the story rather than the headline, but seeing at it is such a problem for you:



Do you not think that the latter example is applicable in this instance?

The stitch-up in the headline is a quote from some Labour leader in the article.
I just don't see the manipulation. I see speculation about a candidate being imposed. I don't see how that counts as manipulation.

Though it's a good point about headlines; my mother was almost hauled up for contempt by a judge for a headline she didn't write.
 
I imagine that they are referring to the imposition of a non-Welsh candidate, with the justification for doing so being her ties to Momentum. There was of course similar speculation ahead of the vote in Oldham, and the local party opted for someone they knew (who later went on to win).

Funny how the Telegraph chooses this moment to be high-and-mighty about candidate selection and the importance of local candidates. The reason Corbyn's having problems dealing with shit-stirring MPs happy to brief the Tory papers is because Blair parachuted a bunch of centre-right candidates into safe seats in the North with little or no consultation with the CLPs. I don't remember anyone in the media raising much of a stink about it back then. But, of course, the distant and long-ago debunked prospect of Corbyn bringing back some form of democratic accountability to CLPs regarding candidacy leads to screeches of 'deselections' and 'witchhunts'
 
I would put greater emphasis on the story rather than the headline, but in recognition of your concerns for the state of journalism:

stitch-up

noun
British informal

An act of placing someone in a position in which they will be wrongly blamed for something, or of manipulating a situation to one’s advantage.



Do you not think that the latter example is applicable in this instance?

I don't care what the dictionary says.That's too vague. I think, as it's usually employed, stitch-up means those in authority corrupting or bypassing the normal process of decision making for their own ends.
 
Last edited:
This is silly

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-trident-compromise-no-nuclear-warheads

Jeremy Corbyn hints at no-nuke subs in Trident compromise
Labour leader suggests possible solution to protect defence jobs and maintain stance on unilateral disarmament

Jeremy Corbyn has raised the prospect of replacing Trident submarines with those without nuclear warheads in a move that would keep defence jobs inScotland and Cumbria and maintain his proposed policy of unilateral disarmament.

The Labour leader made the comments after launching a review of the party’sTrident policy to be led by Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secretary, amid divisions within the party over the potential renewal of the UK’s nuclear defence.

Corbyn, who opposes nuclear weapons, has said he wants to “accommodate” those who want to keep Trident submarines, including the trade unions representing defence workers and more than half of his shadow cabinet.

In an interview over the weekend, the Labour leader argued there was not a binary decision on whether to replace them, suggesting a possible compromise that supports defence jobs.

Pressed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show what this meant for Trident, Corbyn said: “They don’t have to have nuclear warheads on them.”

Asked again whether he was suggesting that new submarines could be built to be used without nuclear warheads, Corbyn said: “There are options there. The paper that Emily Thornberry has put forward is very interesting and deserves study of it. I hope there will be a serious and mature response.”

He also stressed that he would want to maintain employment for people in the defence industry who would be involved in building Trident submarines as a “first priority”.

Labour MPs will have to make a decision over whether they support or oppose Trident before a parliamentary vote in the spring on whether the nuclear submarines should be replaced.

Given that Corbyn cannot officially change policy to oppose Trident before conference in the autumn, it is looking increasingly likely that he will offer his party a free vote.

Len McCluskey, the general secretary of the Unite union, told Sky’s Murnaghan programme it would be “sensible” for Corbyn to let MPs vote freely and suggested he could be open to the idea of submarines with no nuclear weapons on them.

“There’s all kind of different options that will be debated and discussed,” McCluskey said.

He said the decision on proceeding with building the nuclear submarines would go through in parliament but defence diversification would be discussed after that as part of Labour’s review.

Thornberry, who replaced the pro-Trident Maria Eagle as defence secretary in the Labour reshuffle, said her review would be serious and and ask far-reaching questions.

Asked what she thought about the idea of replacing Trident submarines without nuclear warheads, she told Murnaghan: “The first thing I would say is calm down ... The defence review was launched on Friday. We need to start with what are the current threats. Our overwhelming priority is to make sure Britain is safe. We need to make sure we have policies that address 21st-century threats, not 20th-century threats.”

Thornberry also said there was a “debate to be had about how many jobs are specifically related to the renewal of Trident”.

She avoided the question about why Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, has been sidelined from her defence review but made clear she was now in charge.
 
Not being British, this Trident thing strikes me as so ridiculous. It's like a House Of Cards storyline (I've just watched the first series of it). There is so much crap going on in the country and this remains the frontline news story, it's crazy.
 
Not being British, this Trident thing strikes me as so ridiculous. It's like a House Of Cards storyline (I've just watched the first series of it). There is so much crap going on in the country and this remains the frontline news story, it's crazy.

Of course it's crazy, but it's also very intentional. Rather than have people talk about the insane housing crisis, 5 year long public sector pay freezes, the dismantling of our once revered NHS, the growing child poverty levels, the scrapping of maintenance grants for less well-off students, the fact that MPs just voted against enforcing landlords to ensure their properties are habitable for humans, the fact that Davey Hameron is a ham faced tw@ who makes over half a mill through privately renting his luxury apartment in Notting hill, they want to try portray JC as unprime ministerial because he questions the legitimacy of spending billions of pounds on something we cant even use!!!
 
Not being British, this Trident thing strikes me as so ridiculous. It's like a House Of Cards storyline (I've just watched the first series of it). There is so much crap going on in the country and this remains the frontline news story, it's crazy.
I quite like the fact that a moral debate about if we want to keep a nuclear deterrent is happening... I dont know of any other country with nuclear weapons having this debate so it is in that respect a very British thing.
The more technocratic debate about value for money and two or three subs is quite secondary in my opinion as the really interesting (from a political aspect) is that keeping a nuclear deterrent is from the opinion polls I see the popular public opinion.
Equally the vast majority of Labour MPs have previously voted in favour and all were voted in on a manifesto to renew so it almost seems machiavelian the way in which Corbyn is trying to reposition labour - as you say almost house of cards like.

I do think the decision to unilaterally give up nukes is rightly at the forefront of debate though.... Particularly as the fallout from the decision may well determine the future direction of one of the two biggest political parties
 
Of course it's crazy, but it's also very intentional. Rather than have people talk about the insane housing crisis, 5 year long public sector pay freezes, the dismantling of our once revered NHS, the growing child poverty levels, the scrapping of maintenance grants for less well-off students, the fact that MPs just voted against enforcing landlords to ensure their properties are habitable for humans, the fact that Davey Hameron is a ham faced tw@ who makes over half a mill through privately renting his luxury apartment in Notting hill, they want to try portray JC as unprime ministerial because he questions the legitimacy of spending billions of pounds on something we cant even use!!!

Yup, that's how I feel about it.
I quite like the fact that a moral debate about if we want to keep a nuclear deterrent is happening... I dont know of any other country with nuclear weapons having this debate so it is in that respect a very British thing.
The more technocratic debate about value for money and two or three subs is quite secondary in my opinion as the really interesting (from a political aspect) is that keeping a nuclear deterrent is from the opinion polls I see the popular public opinion.
Equally the vast majority of Labour MPs have previously voted in favour and all were voted in on a manifesto to renew so it almost seems machiavelian the way in which Corbyn is trying to reposition labour - as you say almost house of cards like.

I do think the decision to unilaterally give up nukes is rightly at the forefront of debate though.... Particularly as the fallout from the decision may well determine the future direction of one of the two biggest political parties

The idea of the debate is very progressive, the actual way it's playing out is as an attempt at a massive, massive distraction while revolting, infuriating policy is being implemented at the same time.

Edit: Just on the highlighted part, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I

Also, Britain will still have plenty of powerful deterrents even without submarine-based nukes.
 
Last edited:
Yup, that's how I feel about it.


The idea of the debate is very progressive, the actual way it's playing out is as an attempt at a massive, massive distraction while revolting, infuriating policy is being implemented at the same time.

Edit: Just on the highlighted part, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I

Also, Britain will still have plenty of powerful deterrents even without submarine-based nukes.
From who? Who's forcing Corbyn to alter Labour policy on the deterrent?

Bizarre tendency of blaming the press these days for things Corbyn has himself started. Don't want them to cover an attempt to move to unilateral disarmament? Don't attempt to move to unilateral disarmament!
 
From who? Who's forcing Corbyn to alter Labour policy on the deterrent?

Bizarre tendency of blaming the press these days for things Corbyn has himself started. Don't want them to cover an attempt to move to unilateral disarmament? Don't attempt to move to unilateral disarmament!

To be honest, I think the second half of that sentence was more important than the bit you highlighted. And is kind of an illustration of my whole point. There are far better things the press could be focussing on and would focus on if we were actually in a progressive society, rather than machinations. The nuclear issue is one well worth discussing, but it's laughable how dominating it's become.
 
To be honest, I think the second half of that sentence was more important than the bit you highlighted. And is kind of an illustration of my whole point. There are far better things the press could be focussing on and would focus on if we were actually in a progressive society, rather than machinations. The nuclear issue is one well worth discussing, but it's laughable how dominating it's become.
Because the other stuff does get covered, all the time. The news and political shows have issues like housing and the NHS above discussions on the deterrent, all the time. It's fantasy to say it doesn't. Trident's being talked about now because Jeremy Corbyn wants to talk about it.
 
Last edited:
Not being British, this Trident thing strikes me as so ridiculous. It's like a House Of Cards storyline (I've just watched the first series of it). There is so much crap going on in the country and this remains the frontline news story, it's crazy.

Only in Labour circles, and that because Corbyn has actively sought such a conflict.

Let us consider the inconsistency of this latest proposal: a man who cannot presently conceive of a situation in which British forces might be deployed overseas, and one who would in all likelihood enact sweeping defence cuts, is suggesting that we construct a squadron of nuclear-powered (for which he is also opposed) submarines comparable in role to the brand new Astute0class. Does this sound like someone who knows what they are doing?
 
Only in Labour circles, and that because Corbyn has actively sought such a conflict.

Let us consider the inconsistency of this latest proposal: a man who cannot presently conceive of a situation in which British forces might be deployed overseas, and one who would in all likelihood enact sweeping defence cuts, is suggesting that we construct a squadron of nuclear-powered (for which he is also opposed) submarines comparable in role to the brand new Astute0class. Does this sound like someone who knows what they are doing?
It's amazing really - keep the aspect of Trident that the public don't like (the cost), remove the aspect they like (the deterrent).
 
The only way this would work was if, many years ago, we'd followed a different route for our choice of nuclear deterrent. There used to be a variant of the Tomahawk missile called TLAM-N, a long range cruise missile with a nuclear warhead, but they were removed from service in 2013. If those were available then you could have argued building more nuclear powered attack subs and arming them with TLAM-N would have been a way to have both things.
 
I'll wait to see what the review actually says rather than join in on another round of "let's all jump on something Jeremy Corbyn has contemplated out loud in an interview". Not good PR by him again but I don't really give a shit personally.
 
Isnt having nuclear submarines with no nukes like having a gun with no bullets?
 
Isnt having nuclear submarines with no nukes like having a gun with no bullets?
Pretty much...
Plus the extra money you spend on nuclear capable subs and the associated infrastructure vs normal subs is obscene
It's a crackpot idea but we have a man who lists the destruction of capitalist society in his hobbies and interests as shadow chancellor so as long as it keeps people employed it is apparently all ok (though I'm guessing the Trident money has been pledged into something else already)

Interestingly there was a development programme that looked at mounting conventional weapons in the Trident delivery system

This was discounted as it is impossible to distinguish on radar between a nuclear and a conventional strike and risks an immediate all out nuclear counter responce from an enemy upon detection... For this reason the programme was cancelled (wonder how long till Corbyn suggests putting conventional warheads on the missiles)
 
Last edited:
Isnt having nuclear submarines with no nukes like having a gun with no bullets?
There is a difference between nuclear submarines and nuclear armed submarines; modern fast attack boats are powered by a nuclear reactor, but do not carry nuclear weapons.
 
There is a difference between nuclear submarines and nuclear armed submarines; modern fast attack boats are powered by a nuclear reactor, but do not carry nuclear weapons.
These would be ballistic missile subs being built though, the only real purpose of which is to carry nukes and lurk.
 
These would be ballistic missile subs being built though, the only real purpose of which is to carry nukes and lurk.
Which is my point a couple of posts back, the type of submarine was defined by the choice of nuclear deterrent. If we were using cruise missiles instead of ICBM then this concept could work because the Astute class would have been built as fast attack boats, not nucs. However, our choice of deterrent means we are locked into building ICBM platforms for them, hence this suggestion from Corbyn is utter twaddle; a nuc is a blue water vessel, designed specifically to drift silently and not to be noticed. They are considerably larger, a lot less manouverable, slower and not designed to perform the multi role purpose of a fast attack boat.