How Much is a Corbyn?

martinsurrey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Which is why Jeremy Corbyn is suddenly proving so wildly popular with the left of the labour party.

fixed the above for you

33% of labour voters think he will improve labours chances at an election, while 21% think he will worsen them (so not that wild on him as a party on a whole)

of the wider voting population
31% think he would worsen labours chances at the election, only 21% thinking he would improve them.

not to mention the following metrics

-More than twice as many British adults think that Corbyn as Prime Minister would make the state of the British economy worse than better (36% to 14%).

-Three times as many think he would make Britain’s standing around the world worse than better (37% to 11%).

-In terms of the expected effect of Corbyn as Prime Minister, more people say he would make each of the factors tested worse than better, with the exception of the quality of service from Britain’s trains and railways (23% better, 22% worse).

-Despite being credited with being “authentic” more Britons think he would make public trust in politicians worse than better (27% to 20%).

-More Labour voters think that Corbyn would make each of the factors better than worse, with the exception of Britain’s standing around the world where they are split (22% better, 18% worse).

http://comres.co.uk/polls/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-august-poll/

dunstonh

Moby wrote: »

As a 'customer' whatever that is these days....I've tarted around all those utilities above on your list and wasn't impressed with the service at all. I didn't experience much 'competency' and will gladly listen to alternatives for providing such services.

Youngsters cannot remember the days of public utilities. So, they see the alternatives as better as the grass is always greener.

ruggedtoast

A sensational coup for Corbyn!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/rupert-murdoch-backs-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership

Rupert Murdoch, of all people, is backing him for leader:

Rupert Murdoch Verified account
‏@rupertmurdoch
Corbyn increasingly likely Labor winner. Seems only candidate who believes anything, right or wrong

I have to say Rupert isn't all bad. His continual collaboration with Topcashback to pay me to have Sky broadband is much appreciated. Thanks to that I haven't actually paid for internet for two years.

And now he's backing Big Jez.

Here's a spinning Martin.

:money:

martinsurrey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

A sensational coup for Corbyn!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/rupert-murdoch-backs-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership

Rupert Murdoch, of all people, is backing him for leader:



I have to say Rupert isn't all bad. His continual collaboration with Topcashback to pay me to have Sky broadband is much appreciated. Thanks to that I haven't actually paid for internet for two years.

And now he's backing Big Jez.

Here's a spinning Martin.

:money:

"Corbyn increasingly likely Labor winner. Seems only candidate who believes anything, right or wrong."

"Corbyn? Very likely win, but Cameron does not deserve such luck."

There is a difference between thinking he'll win, and thinking its a good idea.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

if the aim is to "carpet bomb" its definitely cheaper and more effective

but if the aim is to precision bomb it probably is not.

How so?

I'm not quite sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or not, but whatever delivery system you use for getting your bomb to the target can be used to deliver either a conventional or a nuclear payload. I'm not quite sure how you can conclude that it is 'obviously' cheaper and effective to launch 1,000 missiles with conventional warheads at a target, when just one nuclear missile might achieve the same result.

cells wrote: »

...And now with high value targets precision bombing would be a very effective deterrent. For example if japan and china went to war, china could nuke japan but japan could precision bomb targets like the three gorges dam and achieve huge economic damage (>$100B i would guess) and kill hundreds of thousands in the process as well.

And as pointed out before, Japan does not possess the capability to precision bomb targets in China.

MS1950

martinsurrey wrote: »

"Corbyn increasingly likely Labor winner. Seems only candidate who believes anything, right or wrong."

"Corbyn? Very likely win, but Cameron does not deserve such luck."

There is a difference between thinking he'll win, and thinking its a good idea.

And the Guardian have now changed the article's headline from 'Rupert Murdoch backs Jeremy Corbyn' to the somewhat clearer 'Rupert Murdoch predicts Jeremy Corbyn win in Labour leadership contest'.....

Thrugelmir

MS1950 wrote: »

And the Guardian have now changed the article's headline from 'Rupert Murdoch backs Jeremy Corbyn' to the somewhat clearer 'Rupert Murdoch predicts Jeremy Corbyn win in Labour leadership contest'.....

At Rupert's request no doubt!

antrobus

martinsurrey wrote: »

....To replace 1 nuke with conventional weapons you would be looking at firing about 1.1 MILLION conventional warhead ICBM's. ....

Yup, that would be the point I was trying to get across.:)

We can put 16 Tridents on a Vanguard sub. Each one of those Tridents can carry 8 warheads with a 100 kiloton yield. (The one that wiped out Hiroshima was only about 4 kilotons.) So just one sub, lurking under the ice, can wipe out any country in the world.

You would need one heck of a very big fleet of subs, or aircraft carriers, or whatever, to deliver the same destructive capability using conventional munitions.

antrobus

MS1950 wrote: »

And the Guardian have now changed the article's headline from 'Rupert Murdoch backs Jeremy Corbyn' to the somewhat clearer 'Rupert Murdoch predicts Jeremy Corbyn win in Labour leadership contest'.....

Would this be the same Rupert Murdoch who predicted a Labour victory in the general election.:)
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/rupert-murdoch-predicts-labour-victory-2015

P.S. The Guardian reports that "Murdoch has repeatedly backed the Conservative party in UK elections, as have his papers the Times and the Sun, which he owns through News UK". But neglects to mention that The Sun (for example) backed Labour in 1997-2009 and before 1979.

martinsurrey

antrobus wrote: »

Yup, that would be the point I was trying to get across.:)

We can put 16 Tridents on a Vanguard sub. Each one of those Tridents can carry 8 warheads with a 100 kiloton yield. (The one that wiped out Hiroshima was only about 4 kilotons.) So just one sub, lurking under the ice, can wipe out any country in the world.

You would need one heck of a very big fleet of subs, or aircraft carriers, or whatever, to deliver the same destructive capability using conventional munitions.

Trident missiles can actually carry up to 14 W88 warheads (which are 475Kt and used by the yanks), or 14 W76 warheads which are the uk/us 100kt heads but they are limited to 8 by treaties (which would not be a consideration if you were going to use one!).

and Hiroshima was a 15kt blast, Nagasaki was a 22kt blast, but still only 20% of the smallest nuke we field at the moment...

(your point is spot on, but just thought I would put some numbers out there.)

below is a report by Los Alamos on them
http://atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/00313791.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76