Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 24 Jan 2016, 8:20 am

On Trident:

The submarines are capable of carrying other weapons. Indeed, they do. And the US has a programme to convert Trident missiles to deliver conventional warheads.

And whatever Corbyn says, there is a policy review under way.


Oh come on. There's absolutely no conceivable military purpose to using Vanguard class submarines for launching conventional missiles. They're designed specifically to hide away in deep water for months at a time maintaining minimal signature so as to remain undetected, not to operate in support of ongoing military operations. Using them that way would utterly compromise them. We have other subs that can do that perfectly adequately, and which are in fact far better suited to the task. This idea is nothing but an attempt to placate the unions. In effect it would be the most expensive job creation scheme in history, coming in at nearly £7m per job (if you believe Corbyn's own claim about the cost of Trident renewal). He might just as well pay those workers to dig holes and fill them back in again for all the good they'd be achieving.

Either we have a nuclear deterrent or we don't.

As for the review, don't you think there's a clue in the fact that he first appointed Ken Livingstone to co-chair it and then sacked Eagle and replaced her with Thornberry ? Neither of these people know anything at all about defence. The only thing which would appear to recommend them for the job is that they both agree with Corbyn about unilateral nuclear disarmament. I think we both know how the review is going to turn out.

On the Falklands:

We need at some point to resolve the issue with Argentina. The Islanders are of course important, and their wishes to remain British should be paramount. But we have not really discussed it with Argentina since the conflict.


What exactly is there to discuss ? They don't have a valid claim to the islands and the people who live there don't want anything to do with Argentina. They held a vote on it only a couple of years ago and the result was about as close to unanimity as it's possible to get. Corbyn is proposing to hang those people out to dry.

Does it not worry you at all Dan that your party is lead by a man who obsesses over these issues ? Is this the new kind of politics you were hoping for when you voted for him ?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 24 Feb 2016, 4:35 pm

Did you catch the "put on a proper suit and do up your tie" stuff at PMQs today Dan ? I thought it was hilarious but didn't really think too much of it until I mentioned it to a friend of mine later on. He's a staunch socialist and rock solid Corbyn supporter who hates Cameron and in fact all Tories with a passion. I expected him to be scathing about the arrogance of the posh boy but his reaction was very different. In actual fact what he said was that he has no problem with the jibe at all. So far as he's concerned, Corbyn is supposed to be out there representing people like him and ought to be taking that role seriously by making the effort to look the part. He should put on a proper suit. I guess this is trivial, but it's interesting as well. Now that I think about it, I find it hard to disagree.

Do you agree with this analysis ?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 25 Feb 2016, 1:41 pm

Sassenach wrote:Did you catch the "put on a proper suit and do up your tie" stuff at PMQs today Dan ? I thought it was hilarious but didn't really think too much of it until I mentioned it to a friend of mine later on. He's a staunch socialist and rock solid Corbyn supporter who hates Cameron and in fact all Tories with a passion. I expected him to be scathing about the arrogance of the posh boy but his reaction was very different. In actual fact what he said was that he has no problem with the jibe at all. So far as he's concerned, Corbyn is supposed to be out there representing people like him and ought to be taking that role seriously by making the effort to look the part. He should put on a proper suit. I guess this is trivial, but it's interesting as well. Now that I think about it, I find it hard to disagree.

Do you agree with this analysis ?
No. As a councillor I sometimes went to meetings in a t-shirt and jeans. Not often, usually I was wearing my work clothes (shirt with no tie and trousers) as I had to go straight from work.

Cameron's jibe was clever, but clearly he was waiting for a chance to use it (it was in response to Angela Eagle's silly heckle, not Corbyn's question). But I would like to see the man who said when he became party leader he wanted an end to "Punch and Judy" politics answer a PMQ question on a serious subject for a change. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/200 ... ervatives3
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 25 Feb 2016, 1:56 pm

I think there's a little more to it than that though. Granted, sartorial elegance is nowhere near the top of my list of desirable characteristics in a leader, and ultimately I don't care what Corbyn wears. However, it's certainly true that a lot of voters do form their impressions of potential leaders through visual triggers. They have an ability to reinforce subconscious prejudices and can be either beneficial or damaging accordingly. Witness how damaging the whole bacon sandwich thing was for Ed Miliband. Most other politicians would have just brushed it off, but for Ed it fed into an existing narrative of "this guy is a weirdo" and as a result it wouldn't go away. Corbyn's problem is similar in that the main obstacle he has to overcome is the issue of being a credible potential Prime Minister. By turning up looking so scruffy he just reinforces the negative image that so many voters already have of him. Wearing a decent suit wouldn't be a panacea, but it would incline the casual viewer to take him more seriously. You could argue that his refusal to do that is a betrayal of the people who desperately want him to win. Certainly that's how my friend sees it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 25 Feb 2016, 3:53 pm

Sassenach wrote:I think there's a little more to it than that though. Granted, sartorial elegance is nowhere near the top of my list of desirable characteristics in a leader, and ultimately I don't care what Corbyn wears. However, it's certainly true that a lot of voters do form their impressions of potential leaders through visual triggers. They have an ability to reinforce subconscious prejudices and can be either beneficial or damaging accordingly. Witness how damaging the whole bacon sandwich thing was for Ed Miliband. Most other politicians would have just brushed it off, but for Ed it fed into an existing narrative of "this guy is a weirdo" and as a result it wouldn't go away. Corbyn's problem is similar in that the main obstacle he has to overcome is the issue of being a credible potential Prime Minister. By turning up looking so scruffy he just reinforces the negative image that so many voters already have of him. Wearing a decent suit wouldn't be a panacea, but it would incline the casual viewer to take him more seriously. You could argue that his refusal to do that is a betrayal of the people who desperately want him to win. Certainly that's how my friend sees it.

Bit late now - now it would look like the jibe hit home.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 28 Feb 2016, 10:30 pm

Hey, another dumb question, if I may interrupt the discussion for a sec.

I noticed something, doing some research. I'm sure I didn't ask this, but it says that the PM's position wasn't official until some time later. That originally he was just the "First Lord of the Treasury" (which you told me is still today one of his official titles). Was that specific title created at that time, to designate the person who was the King's chief minister? Or was there already a first lord of the treasury for a while *before* George I appointed Walpole PM?

Sorry if that question doesn't sound too clear, I'm trying to ask something that's hard for me to describe.

PS, I don't think you (Danivon) told me you were a councillor before. Nice.

PPS, Trident: isn't that a pretty old system? The first episode of Yes Prime Minister, they talked about replacing Polaris with Trident, apparently "new" at the time. (Also, not to get off topic but does the UK have any land-based nuclear missiles in silos or launchers of some sort; or just bombers & subs for nuclear warheads?)
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 28 Feb 2016, 11:57 pm

Trident is the delivery system (the missiles). We lease them from you guys. Something by that name has been around for a fair few years, but I think it's been through a number of iterations. The debate atm is about building a new generation of subs to launch from, although since we don't have any alternative delivery system for nukes then in effect it's about whether we have a nuclear deterrent at all. Submarine based nukes are far and away the best on a cost/benefit analysis. Anything static is too vulnerable and anything launched from bombers has too short a range.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 29 Feb 2016, 12:02 am

Gotcha. Though if I remember correctly, long-range bombers have a pretty much world reach. You're right about land-based ICBMs. We're currently replacing our arsenal of Minuteman II with a brand new series, the Minuteman III. I cannot fathom why.

So, if you don't upgrade this or something, the UK will be left without a deterrent, are you saying?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 29 Feb 2016, 12:12 am

That's not really the right question. The decision to upgrade Trident has already been made, although it hasn't been voted on in Parliament to formalise things yet. The only reason it's become an issue now is because the new leader of the Labour party is still stuck in the 1970s and is trying to change his party's long-standing commitment to maintaining our nuclear deterrent in favour of a policy of unilateral disarmament. For him it's not a question of whether we ought to look at alternative delivery systems, it's a question of whether we ought to have nukes at all. He wants to scrap them, but this is a position that's not very popular with most of his MPs, several major trades unions and, in fact, the people of Britain. As such this story is not really a serious strategic issue, we already know that Trident will be renewed. Rather, it's a case of "what the hell is Jeremy Corbyn playing at ?"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Feb 2016, 5:49 am

It was not the official title until about 150 years after Walpole. It was retrospectively then applied back to his tenure as that was when it went from being a group of ministers advising the Crown and running their portfolios, to a group of ministers with a leader and a bit more autonomy from the Crown.

And that status was eroded by George III, who took more executive control until about 1780 (can you guess what policy debacle led to that?)

Apparently, the title of Prime Minster was not used officially until a treaty with Pressia in 1878. And then did not really become the job title until the early 20th Century, in conjunction with the First Lord of the Treasury.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 29 Feb 2016, 2:24 pm

Wow, that late.

So if the whole office was unofficial, and kings took more (or less) executive control at different times throughout those centuries, how do we know who was the PM at all? Or how do we know that those particular people on the No. 10 website actually should be referred to as the PM of the time, if no one called them that?

Was the person who was the unofficial PM, possessed of certain privileges or rights within parliament and the government that others did not?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 29 Feb 2016, 2:33 pm

It's one of those situations where everybody knew what it was, they just had different language to describe it. Not a big deal at all.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 29 Feb 2016, 3:34 pm

OK.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Mar 2016, 5:49 am

Sassenach wrote:It's one of those situations where everybody knew what it was, they just had different language to describe it. Not a big deal at all.

Kind of. The position evolved, and by Disraeli's time it was an apt description for the role entitled "First Lord of the Treasury". It made more sense once Lords were barred from holding it.

It would be like calling the US President the Head of Government. Not the official title, but it is equivalent (and not the same as for the President of Germany, for example).
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 30 Apr 2016, 3:48 pm

So Dan.. care to comment on the Labour anti-semitism scandal that seems to be breaking out ?

This is quite interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... tism-in-l/

Now I must admit that I'm not entirely sold on the idea that all of this stuff is actually anti-semitic as such. It is interesting to note though that when any other minority group claims offence you don't see senior Labour party figures dismissing them as imperialist shills, whereas when Jews do it that seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. Double standards appear to apply here. Either way, when you have Labour MPs calling for the expulsion of all Jews from the Middle East and when you have the co-chair of the Labour defence review saying that Hitler was a Zionist I think we can all agree that there's a problem. I really don't think that Jeremy Corbyn is the man to solve that problem. He's shared platforms with all kinds of radical islamists and holocaust deniers in the past after all, and it's his wing of the party that's the root of all this.The fact that he apparently couldn't see any problem with that blatantly racist mural that's shown in the article ought to be grounds for resignation on its own, and that's before we even get to the fact that he appointed Seamus Milne as his head of strategy.

What a mess. What an utterly predictable mess at that. When you pick an intellectually challenged wingnut in the pocket of holocaust deniers and radical islamists as your leader then I suppose this is what you have to expect, but it's still pretty depressing that one of the great parties of state has been reduced to this.