Jeremy Corbyn

[turbobloke]

Andy Zarse said:

Digga said:

Zod said:

It's very simple: if the PM says he would never use nuclear weapons in any circumstances, then there is no deterrent, so we might as well not have them at all.

Corbyn leads one of the major parties and aspires to be PM. He leads a party that does not agree with his position on nuclear weapons.

Notwithstanding that, it is a mindlessly stupid elephant trap for him to have walked into.

If he can't see potential for such obvious unintended consequences then we'll all have to hope he never gets to be PM.

He is totally guileless, bordering on gormless. He's about to lose seven senior members of his cabinet and all he had to do was keep his trap shut, or at least equivocate. He'll have similar issues over the EU referendum if he lasts that long.

That can't be Right according to the Left he's the Eternal Messiah.

[otolith]

The thing is, there is no problem whatsoever in having a PM who is unwilling to ever push the button. The problem is having one who admits it.

[Zod]

otolith said:

The thing is, there is no problem whatsoever in having a PM who is unwilling to ever push the button. The problem is having one who admits it.

Exactly.

[turbobloke]

Zod said:

otolith said:

The thing is, there is no problem whatsoever in having a PM who is unwilling to ever push the button. The problem is having one who admits it.

Exactly.

Precisely.

[sidicks]

turbobloke said:

That can't be Right according to the Left he's the Eternal Messiah.

No he's not, he's just a very naughty boy...

[paulrockliffe]

otolith said:

The thing is, there is no problem whatsoever in having a PM who is unwilling to ever push the button. The problem is having one who admits it.

Is that right? The chap with his fingure on the button is the representative of the public. His personal opinion shouldn't come into it anymore than where a subjective appraisal of the facts is necessary. It should be an objective decision based on the facts, on advice and on the public's mood.

For someone to say there are no circumstances where he would press the button is unacceptable, given that there should be some level of expert consensus over such a decision.

[otolith]

Point is that if he ever has to push it, we're all buggered anyway. So we don't gain anything from it. The entire value is the threat.

[Vaud]

otolith said:

Point is that if he ever has to push it, we're all buggered anyway. So we don't gain anything from it. The entire value is the threat.

Not necessarily. Use would not automatically create an exchange, it depends on nature of the threat.

[otolith]

Vaud said:

Not necessarily. Use would not automatically create an exchange, it depends on nature of the threat.

We would nuke somebody who hadn't already launched on us? I don't see that playing out.

[DJRC]

Yes and no. Deciding against nukes isn't a terminal policy. It's a non issue for South Africa for example. What you need though is a coherent and earnest alternative and backed by impressive conventional weapons and policy of use. Corbin has presented none of that, just a muddle and a No answer, there is no alternative defence thinking. I could be very open to a non nuclear force argument if an intelligent and robust case for a conventional armed force was made backed by suitable investment and policies. I could for example quite easily make an argument for doubling/tripling the HK sub fleet and concentrating on next gen tech instead of trident subs.

But you need a coherent argument either way.

[Funk]

Good article here on how out of step Corbyn is with modern Britain: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Co...

[FredClogs]

It's a load of nonsense, his politics were forged in the CND era, he's afraid of being labelled hypocritical if he didn't take a principled stance on the questions of nuke usage, he's also appealing to the SNP and their voters (labour will need to win back the whole of scotland to stand any chance in a general election).

In reality it wouldn't be the PMs sole decision on nuke usage and the PM would certainly not be pushing any buttons, and it's a highly unlikely scenario that nukes would ever be used again, and we can easily cower behind the American arsenal if they were.

It's all a lot of nonsense and political hypothetical naval gazing.

[98elise]

Zod said:

He leads a party that does not agree with his position on nuclear weapons.

Well the party members voted for him

[iphonedyou]

Funk said:

Good article here on how out of step Corbyn is with modern Britain: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Co...

Can't disagree with any of that. He does patronise the aspirational middle class that makes up the majority of this country, the electorate, and the silent.

[iphonedyou]

98elise said:

Well the party members voted for him

He refers to the PLP, though.

[Cobnapint]

Funk said:

Good article here on how out of step Corbyn is with modern Britain: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Co...

Spot on is that. Trouble is none of the shiny-faced tw*t's supporters would ever get to read it, and any that did wouldn't have a clue what it was on about.

[Cobnapint]

Corbyn leads the way for Scottish Labour's fight back, by not letting anybody know what his policy is on Trident.

Jeremy Corbyn says Labour's Trident stance may remain unclear for some time - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...

What a cretin.

[Zod]

98elise said:

Zod said:

He leads a party that does not agree with his position on nuclear weapons.

Well the party members voted for him

A few people who paid £3 voted for him, not the MPs. Even the Unions disagree and they own the party.

[mybrainhurts]

Politicians have thick skins, but Corbyn's must be asbestos lined Kevlar...

The whole world, excluding the loony left, is laughing at this clown, but it's like water off a nuclear submarine's back...

[V8A*ndy]

Zod said:

98elise said:

Zod said:

He leads a party that does not agree with his position on nuclear weapons.

Well the party members voted for him

A few people who paid £3 voted for him, not the MPs. Even the Unions disagree and they own the party.

I know someone who paid £3 to vote for him because Russell Brand said so on the internet.

That is all you really need to know.