Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Anubis]

Neil, I think Labour are playing the long game. They've said the Tory 'no deal is better than...' position is a disaster, but they equally know a large part of the country accept Brexit as a reality (pragmatic, fanatical or otherwise).

 

If the Tories cling on and deliver the disaster it looks like they will, they're likely to fuck themselves over.

 

If, however, we have another election within two years and Labour lead the negotiations, I expect them to come back with whatever they've got and let Parliament decide. And if Parliament think the deal's poor, you've then got an argument to put it back to the people and trust they'll do the right thing second time around.

[Boss]

If I voted remain and conservative is that worse than leave and Labour?

 

Yes

[Kidder Bukowski]

Well, I don't know. Maybe he would whip his MPs to oppose Trident, and sack them if the disobeyed, just like he sacked them for supporting the single market. Unless and until he gains power, everyone is basically guessing.

 

In a world where your enemies have ever more powerful weapons, I would suggest that the dangerously absurd idea would be to downgrade your defensive capabilities.

This doesn't seem to be a worry to Germany, a more powerful, richer country than ourselves. The strange thing is that most of Corbyn's 'left wing' ideas are mirrored by those of the centerist Merkel government.

 

The most absurd thing is the actual use of these weapons. Where would be a safe place to use them without harming other friendly countries? And the thought that the US need to be involved should we use them is scarier still!

[Section_31]

Was lunacy to rock the boat while they had the Tories by the throat. Wouldn't be surprised if Umuna has seen Macron in France and sees himself being a player in this new centrist party everyone keeps claiming is going to spring up. He's always been an ambitious, slippery fuck.

[magicrat]

Neil, I think Labour are playing the long game. They've said the Tory 'no deal is better than...' position is a disaster, but they equally know a large part of the country accept Brexit as a reality (pragmatic, fanatical or otherwise).

 

If the Tories cling on and deliver the disaster it looks like they will, they're likely to fuck themselves over.

 

If, however, we have another election within two years and Labour lead the negotiations, I expect them to come back with whatever they've got and let Parliament decide. And if Parliament think the deal's poor, you've then got an argument to put it back to the people and trust they'll do the right thing second time around.

 

Remain gaining momentum in latest poll. Reality finally hitting home

 

 REMAIN takes 8% lead in Brexit referendum voting intention from Survation EU Referendum Voting Intention Remain 54% Leave 46% excl DKs

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Well, I don't know. Maybe he would whip his MPs to oppose Trident, and sack them if the disobeyed, just like he sacked them for supporting the single market. Unless and until he gains power, everyone is basically guessing.

 

In a world where your enemies have ever more powerful weapons, I would suggest that the dangerously absurd idea would be to downgrade your defensive capabilities.

I'm genuinely surprised you're into nukes. I'd assumed you were smarter than that.

 

Every argument in favour of Trident is bullshit or immoral or both.

[razor]

I suppose in this case "doing his best to cancel it" amounts to the defence policy review they've talked about, which is supposed to include Trident renewal; the party leader would just be one of a number of people with input into the review.

 

(Obviously, in any rational world Trident renewal wouldn't make it into anybody's manifesto, because it's just such a fucking dangerously absurd idea, whichever way you look at it.  Still, here we are...)

 

Cancel nuclear weapons?  We should build MORE.  And use them.  We should USE them!!

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Need to wait for a Windows XP update first. 

[polymerpunkah]

Could you take the money that's currently being spent on Trident and use it to fund things that increase your defensive capabilities in other areas?

[cloggypop]

Cancel nuclear weapons? We should build MORE. And use them. We should USE them!!

Blatant waste of tax money if we don't

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Cancel nuclear weapons? We should build MORE. And use them. We should USE them!!

The Voice of York.

 

(You just know that everybody in that Question Time audience was thinking about targeting Lancashire.)

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Could you take the money that's currently being spent on Trident and use it to fund things that increase your defensive capabilities in other areas?

 

Of course you can. Trident is just a deterrent, how many fucking Nuclear missiles do you need? It could be totally scaled down and still have the same effect as far as defending your own shores go. The UK just want to act Billy big bollocks in having the capability of following the Yank tails in sending nuclear subs to anywhere they want. Money could be spent on more important stuff including the armed forces as far as numbers/decent and enough kit/after care for veterans goes. The amount of money which is pumped into the States for kitting out our Jet fighters/helicopters goes could easily go to UK firms if those industries were invested in. But hey ho, most of the present and ex squaddies blame the left for all their woes instead of the Tory twats who shaft them every time they Govern. 

 

Forgot to say..A nuclear free World Programme would be best for all. The amount of money spunked on this shit is a fucking disgrace.

[Strontium]

This doesn't seem to be a worry to Germany, a more powerful, richer country than ourselves.

 

Germany is not a member of the UN Security Council, although it does have nuclear weapons on its territory under Nato nuclear sharing agreements.

 

I'm genuinely surprised you're into nukes. I'd assumed you were smarter than that.

 

I'm not "into nukes", any more than having home insurance means I am into getting burgled.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Is that supposed to be an analogy?

 

Go away and think about what you've done.

[VladimirIlyich]

Could you take the money that's currently being spent on Trident and use it to fund things that increase your defensive capabilities in other areas?

Shut up with those wholly sensible and rational ideas.

[VladimirIlyich]

Germany is not a member of the UN Security Council, although it does have nuclear weapons on its territory under Nato nuclear sharing agreements.

 

 

I'm not "into nukes", any more than having home insurance means I am into getting burgled.

Even if it means no house,no family,no you and no life forms of any sort?

[Guest Pistonbroke]

The Dog strikes me as one of those beauts who is only happy unless he is personally affected, probably frightened of his own shadow the useless cunt. 

[Strontium]

Even if it means no house,no family,no you and no life forms of any sort?

You do realise that the idea of missiles is that you fire them at the enemy and not yourselves, right?

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Well at least you are sending me to bed laughing, Jesus! 

[Neil G]

Neil, I think Labour are playing the long game. They've said the Tory 'no deal is better than...' position is a disaster, but they equally know a large part of the country accept Brexit as a reality (pragmatic, fanatical or otherwise).

If the Tories cling on and deliver the disaster it looks like they will, they're likely to fuck themselves over.

If, however, we have another election within two years and Labour lead the negotiations, I expect them to come back with whatever they've got and let Parliament decide. And if Parliament think the deal's poor, you've then got an argument to put it back to the people and trust they'll do the right thing second time around.

I wasn't talking about stopping Brexit or having a second referendum, I was talking about Labour's position on the single market, which is a different issue. Whenever Labour gets back into government it will need to make a decision on this: whether to stay in the single market if it takes office before Brexit happens (or after Brexit but before the end of a transitional period which involves temporary extended SM membership), or whether to rejoin it if the Tories have taken us out.

 

The party is currently split from top to bottom and from left to right on this issue, and it needs to start addressing it now instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet. Because if the divisions are handled badly and the wrong call is made in government it has the potential to blow up in Labour's face and see it turfed out of office after one term. The party needs to have a proper debate about this, and it needs to start with Corbyn and McDonnell being honest about why they want out. Assuming it's because they don't want a Labour government to be bound by the restrictions on state aid and public ownership, let them make a positive and passionate case for that instead of pussyfooting around. They might even win over a whole new section of support.

[Red Phoenix]

You do realise that the idea of missiles is that you fire them at the enemy and not yourselves, right?

 

[Anubis]

With respect, Neil, the single market issue is part and parcel of the negotiations. The manifesto has carefully set out those areas the shadow cabinet have said they want to protect. As and until they face off against their European counterparts we won't even know what the EU's position would be (and I suspect their attitude would be different to their attitude to the current negotiators). That would be the time to consider in or out, depending on what the EU are or aren't willing to give.

 

If there's no election before Brexit then the reality is we'll have a further three post-Brexit years before an election. Again, we'll have to see the political landscape at that point.

 

Either way, I think it's too early to try and nail down what is currently a very fluid situation.

[SilverSong]

Germany is not a member of the UN Security Council, although it does have nuclear weapons on its territory under Nato nuclear sharing agreements.

 

 

I'm not "into nukes", any more than having home insurance means I am into getting burgled.

Home insurance is a deterrent ?

[VladimirIlyich]

You do realise that the idea of missiles is that you fire them at the enemy and not yourselves, right?

And in the 5/10 minutes it takes to get there the enemy will of course have no idea and not be prepared at all,nor their allies. No fallout,no radiation and no killing of ordinary civilians at all. This will then trigger peace and we will all live happily ever after.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

You do realise that the idea of missiles is that you fire them at the enemy and not yourselves, right?

You either fire them first or second.

 

First - You're not using them as a deterrent; you're using them to start a nuclear war.

 

Second - They have failed to deter a nuclear attack.

 

Either way, you're choosing to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.  Is that a rational or liberal thing to do?