|
Post by Firefox on Sept 12, 2015 13:26:54 GMT
Can he change the red Tories, or will the parliamentary party eat him alive?
|
|
|
Post by billieblue on Sept 13, 2015 20:41:24 GMT
A bit of both. I'm not holding my breath for anything revolutionary. The press and the Blairites will hound him unti he cracks or he's untenable as leader. If he resigns so will I.
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 14, 2015 10:21:39 GMT
There's going to be some give and take. I don't think we can quit NATO but hopefully scrap Trident and not do wars. I think he should be there for at least 5 years to give people the chance to vote for something different.
|
|
|
Post by robmac on Sept 14, 2015 11:27:19 GMT
There's going to be some give and take. I don't think we can quit NATO but hopefully scrap Trident and not do wars. I think he should be there for at least 5 years to give people the chance to vote for something different. Not sure about scrapping Trident Vern. Dangerous times! Agree about not doing wars though.
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 14, 2015 14:04:54 GMT
I can't see what good Trident does us.
The Netherlands doesn't have an independent nuclear deterrent for example. Why should we need one and they don't. I think the fewer countries that have it the better. And we don't have shell out £100 billion over 40 years.
If an extremist group like ISIS got hold of nuclear weapons, it wouldn't matter because, whether we had one or not, they'd still use them.
It will be interesting to see if Corbyn gets his way on this policy, or whether he has to acquiesce to avoid alienating too many people. Or indeed if he does get his way, if enough of the electorate will buy into it!
|
|
|
Post by robmac on Sept 14, 2015 14:58:13 GMT
My concern would be who's side Russia came down on in the event of a major incident.
true, the Netherlands don't have Trident or similar, but they are surrounded by 'friendly' countries who do. But at some point they may wish they had, it only has to happen once.
I am as anti war as anybody, but I do believe in deterrents.
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 14, 2015 20:17:29 GMT
I have to admit I'm somewhat of a realist in this debate. I wouldn't fancy having no nuclear deterrent, if the US didn't have their arsenal.
I agree it's a cop out, but if we gave up Trident, we'd still be surrounded by friendly NATO countries just like the NL is. Let's face it the US will never give their weapons, and their air bases are here. Meanwhile we'd have £100 billion to spend on something else.
Corbyn is for leaving NATO too, but I believe that would be a step too far and potential suicide.
|
|
|
Post by billieblue on Sept 14, 2015 21:41:11 GMT
Excuse my ignorance but what would leaving the NATO treaty mean in reality and would it mean alliances with others?
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 14, 2015 21:49:01 GMT
I don't know who else there would be to ally with. Canada, USA, and all of Europe apart from a few exceptions like Switzerland, and Sweden are part of NATO. Even Turkey is. We'd either have to go it alone, in which case I think we would need our independent nuclear deterrent, or throw in our lot with some mavericks like the Ruskies, China, or ISIS, which I don't see happening any time soon
|
|
|
Post by outtolunch on Sept 14, 2015 23:37:36 GMT
the UK has not had an independent nuclear deterrent since 1998 the trident missiles are reliant on the US to keep operating and for something you don't want to use it's expensive when a cheaper system is just as much a deterrent
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 15, 2015 1:46:40 GMT
^Another reason we don't need Trident But if we came out of NATO and went alone then maybe something of our own like the old Polaris. I think the cheapest option of all though is to scrap Trident, and remain in NATO with no nuclear submarine missile system at all.
|
|
|
Post by robmac on Sept 15, 2015 4:56:32 GMT
..............I agree it's a cop out, but if we gave up Trident, we'd still be surrounded by friendly NATO countries just like the NL is. Let's face it the US will never give their weapons, and their air bases are here. Meanwhile we'd have £100 billion to spend on something else. Corbyn is for leaving NATO too, but I believe that would be a step too far and potential suicide. It would be a good backdoor method of recouping some money out of the EU! I think Corbyn's anti NATO policy will be a large part of his downfall.
|
|
|
Post by outtolunch on Sept 15, 2015 6:50:38 GMT
A missile delivery system with it's multiple warheads for a nuclear deterrent is outdated and only any use in an all out war with a major power new drone technology is the way things are going, the Trident decision is put back to next year and the way MPs act like sheep dissent within the Labour party will hopefully spread to dissent within the Conservatives and the thing get cancelled.
I think all the panic attacks on Corbyn by the conservatives are due to the possibility of his leadership causing a break up of the cosy 2 party system that exists between them and the blairites new labour and rarely gives us a government voted for by a majority of the electorate, his election shows the dissatisfaction people have with current politics.
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 15, 2015 16:13:51 GMT
Corbyn should be given a chance, I reckon. There are some quite disgraceful attacks on him in the media.
As for coming out of NATO, I think he will have to moderate some of his policy ideals and reach a consensus with the whole party.
|
|