How Much is a Corbyn?

14Westfield

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I guess the problem with that. Is that there IS only one Scottish Labour MP now. Trident is a reserved issue. Ian Murray broke ranks in the Labour Trident consensus coming up to the General Election, which is probably one of the reasons why he very narrowly kept his seat.

Largely the reason Ian Murray kept his seat was that the opposing SNP candidate (Neil Hay) was exposed as a turd - he was one of the 'cyber nats' writing as Paco McSheepie and say alot of hateful crap online.
he managed to say that the SNP lost the referendum because of "elderly voters who can barely remember their names" and repeatedly called No voters traitors and Quislings.

Im sure going against trident helped Ian Murray but nowhere near as much as having a vile opponent who used a pseudonym to slag off his constituents did...

MS1950

Generali wrote: »

Eff me. If that's the intellectual support for Corbynism then the Labour party is in more trouble than I feared. For example:

Let's look at these 'benefits'. Higher inflation raises costs on both businesses and consumers, reducing GDP and thus the ability to service debts. A weaker pound further increases inflation and reduces spending capacity, impoverishing domestic consumers.

I bet he's one of those people that thinks a trade surplus is some macho show of economic brilliance rather than simply reflecting the fact that your people don't have either the confidence or the incomes to buy the stuff they're making.

The blog below seems to be a somewhat more substantial discussion of 'Corbynomics' – both the blog and the comments below it.

I particularly like the suggestion from one commentator that:

“QE is one of those irregular verbs;

I prudently inject necessary liquidity
YOU meddle in central bank independence
THEY will turn our country into Greece...”

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/peoples-qe-and-corbyns-qe.html

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

that's interesting but is it realistic

It's very real and why that part of the Middle East is unstable. Only time in my life that I've been stopped in a car at a road block and had two armoured car machine guns pointing at me.

Shakethedisease

14Westfield wrote: »

Largely the reason Ian Murray kept his seat was that the opposing SNP candidate (Neil Hay) was exposed as a turd - he was one of the 'cyber nats' writing as Paco McSheepie and say alot of hateful crap online.
he managed to say that the SNP lost the referendum because of "elderly voters who can barely remember their names" and repeatedly called No voters traitors and Quislings.

Im sure going against trident helped Ian Murray but nowhere near as much as having a vile opponent who used a pseudonym to slag off his constituents did...

Yes I knew that. It was discussed on the Scotland thread. Which is why I said 'one' of the reasons. However, re Trident which is what we were discussing on this thread. Ian Murray did make some pretty bold statements imo, and recently too. Saying he'd 'never, ever vote for renewal' etc. Completely going against Miliband's/Labour's stance.

If Scottish Labour do 'debate Trident' and come out against it's renewal. There will be more than a few MSP's eating some very big humble pie if they have to u-turn.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If Scottish Labour do 'debate Trident' and come out against it's renewal. There will be more than a few MSP's eating some very big humble pie if they have to u-turn.

Other than some fairly spurious attempts at heaping yet more grievance upon [STRIKE]the English[/STRIKE] Westminster, I never quite understood why so many Nats/LabourLefties get worked up about Trident.

It doesn't cost Scotland anything (we are massively subsidised to an order of magnitude more than any notional contribution to Trident), there has never been an accident causing harm to the civilian population around any of the bases where Trident missiles and subs are based globally, the programme provides significant and high paying jobs to the local economy, and the majority of both Brits and Scots, (over the long term, I accept Scottish polls do fluctuate in the short term) support the UK maintaining a nuclear deterrent.

Trident is materially safer than aircraft carried nukes for the UK population, and a lot more effective at maintaining a deterrent capability than ground based missiles.

Moving Trident a hundred miles down the coast would have absolutely no improvement in safety for the Scottish population in the event of a nuclear war, and in particular the citizens of Glasgow, which has long been listed as a primary nuclear target in and of itself along with Edinburgh and every runway in the British Isles long enough to fly attack aircraft and tankers off.

In Scotland that's a very long list, but includes Aberdeen, Prestwick, Machrihanish, Leuchars, Kinloss, Lossiemouth, Stornoway, Inverness, etc...

It makes not the slightest bit of difference where we base nukes as in the event of a war the whole country is toast.

There is a strong and credible argument that the nuclear deterrent and the M.A.D. ethos has prevented, and continues to prevent, nuclear war.

So why the fuss? (Other than the obvious, [STRIKE]English[/STRIKE] Westminster bashing)

cells

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Other than some fairly spurious attempts at heaping yet more grievance upon [STRIKE]the English[/STRIKE] Westminster, I never quite understood why so many Nats/LabourLefties get worked up about Trident.

It doesn't cost Scotland anything (we are massively subsidised to an order of magnitude more than any notional contribution to Trident), there has never been an accident causing harm to the civilian population around any of the bases where Trident missiles and subs are based globally, the programme provides significant and high paying jobs to the local economy, and the majority of both Brits and Scots, (over the long term, I accept Scottish polls do fluctuate in the short term) support the UK maintaining a nuclear deterrent.

Trident is materially safer than aircraft carried nukes for the UK population, and a lot more effective at maintaining a deterrent capability than ground based missiles.

Moving Trident a hundred miles down the coast would have absolutely no improvement in safety for the Scottish population in the event of a nuclear war.

So why the fuss? (Other than the obvious, [STRIKE]English[/STRIKE] Westminster bashing)

i guess they think its a needless cost which i tend to agree with

nukes were designed for an age where bombing was terribly inaccurate and there was no key critical infrastructure (eg power stations and electricity was very rare vs today)

under what conditions would a nuke be preferable to multiple high accuracy guided missile? especially today when a modern army can cripple the nation of another modern army by taking down its power stations and airports etc

in fact its illegal now to take down dams in a war. how can that be illegal and a nuke not be? its just stupid.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cells wrote: »

nukes were designed for an age where bombing was terribly inaccurate and there was no key critical infrastructure .

Nukes were designed to end wars, not to fight them. As a weapon so terrible nothing could stand against it.

Nukes then morphed into a part of strategic defence for countries which hold them. No nation will start a conventional war against a nuclear armed opponent today. As that war cannot be won.

And no nuclear armed nation will launch a first strike against another nuclear armed nation, as the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine guarantees there cannot be a winner.

Nuclear weapons have done more to prevent a major global war for the last 70 years than just about anything else.

antrobus

MS1950 wrote: »

The blog below seems to be a somewhat more substantial discussion of 'Corbynomics' – both the blog and the comments below it....

It is a comparatively sane disussion of QE.

MS1950 wrote: »

I particularly like the suggestion from one commentator that:

“QE is one of those irregular verbs;

I prudently inject necessary liquidity
YOU meddle in central bank independence
THEY will turn our country into Greece...”

QE is an insanely dangerous thing to do. In the same way as jumping out of a second floor window is an insanely dangerous thing to do. On the other hand, if the building is on fire, then jumping out of that second floor window is maybe the only alternative to certain death. But then again, it's a bl00dy stupid thing to do if the building isn't on fire.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

....under what conditions would a nuke be preferable to multiple high accuracy guided missile? especially today when a modern army can cripple the nation of another modern army by taking down its power stations and airports etc...

Dunno. How much does "a nuke" cost compared to "multiple high accuracy guided missiles"?

Bearing in mind that the only flippin difference between a nuke and a high accuracy guided missile would be the payload.

cells

antrobus wrote: »

Dunno. How much does "a nuke" cost compared to "multiple high accuracy guided missiles"?

Bearing in mind that the only flippin difference between a nuke and a high accuracy guided missile would be the payload.

fairly cheap to mass produce by most accounts (at least for the Americans and USSR they were)

i suppose the big difference is the radiation. a conventional missile will do its job and the area is ok afterwards whereas a small nuke will make the area dangerous for quite some time.

so its mostly about radiation and explosive power.
nukes can destroy a much bigger area and make it lethal for weeks and months later.

Im not sure how that poses a big advantage in a world where taking down the electricity grid and a few high value targets is more than enough to deter an attacker