How Much is a Corbyn?

cells

antrobus wrote: »

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

Does the UK?

PS it doesn't have to be precision bomb it could be a supersonic jet getting in close and attacking a dam or reactor

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Many a true word said in (sarcastic) jest.

So glad the SNP didn't take this approach with 1000's of recently ex-Labour supporters who signed up after the ref. How more stupid can Labour possibly get over the next few weeks ? There are a lot of really angry people out there about this. Not necessarily about themselves being 'purged', more at the apparent attempt to 'rig' this leadership election somehow.

I also see Channel 4 news has just done a number on Corbyn re ISIS. Engage 100% full-on demonisation mode. And John ( I managed to lose Labour 40 seats in Scotland by being out of touch ) McTernan putting the boot in too...

I truely have no knowledge of the facts here but

one might think that if Corbyn was seeking peace in the Israel/ Palestine conflict he would meet with both sides:
is he on record as having meet with the Israeli and said how honoured he was be amoungst his 'friends'.?

similarly in northern Ireland
is he on record of having meet the Prods and describe them as friends?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There are a lot of really angry people out there about this. Not necessarily about themselves being 'purged', more at the apparent attempt to 'rig' this leadership election somehow.

The thing is Shakey, there are millions upon millions of ordinary people out there who voted for centrist Labour candidates last time, that are highly unlikely to vote for a far left Labour under Corbyn.

These people are not the tiny minority of a few hundred thousand politically engaged, activist, hard left campaigners that have signed up to Labour recently to try and force through a Corbyn agenda. Many of whom have history supporting the Greens, Socialists, etc.

They are the silent majority of people in the centre, and if Labour leaves them and moves to the left, they'll simply vote for someone else.

The parliamentary Labour party knows this.

Corbyn is a disaster for them.

The grass roots are seemingly hell-bent on taking a path to electoral oblivion however, as they see Corbyn as an opportunity not to win elections, but to get their extremist agenda front and centre in the political debate.

Given that the Labour party is supposed to be one of the two governing parties in the UK, a party that can successfully get elected and represent the millions of centrist voters who decide elections, what exactly is the party supposed to do?

Just sit back and accept a takeover from the 'Johnny-come-latelys" that are hell bent on making mischief?

Not even the SNP are willing to do that... Just look at the recent resentment over alleged 'infiltration' of socialists at the Uddingston branch.

I also see Channel 4 news has just done a number on Corbyn re ISIS. Engage 100% full-on demonisation mode. And John ( I managed to lose Labour 40 seats in Scotland by being out of touch ) McTernan putting the boot in too...

Eh?

How does reporting known association with Islamic extremists = "done a number"?

cells

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.

But do you need a 100 kiloton missle to do lots of damage and kill lots of people?

For example how much damage would a conventional missile do if it hit the three gorges dam? Last time a big dam failed it killes 171,000 people and destroyed 11 million people's homes.

Even if the aim isn't to kill people what would be the direct cost and economic cpst of takong down a nations electricity grid by bombing ita power stations?

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The thing is Shakey, there are millions upon millions of ordinary people out there who voted for centrist Labour candidates last time, that are highly unlikely to vote for a far left Labour under Corbyn.

Didn't the CLP's throughout the UK endorse Corbyn as well, over the other three candidates ? How do you equate that to 'ordinary people out there' ? Branches of long standing Labour memberships themselves were more in favour of Corbyn. As are most of the Unions.

These people are not the tiny minority of a few hundred thousand politically engaged, activist, hard left campaigners that have signed up to Labour recently to try and force through a Corbyn agenda. Many of whom have history supporting the Greens, Socialists, etc.

To be honest, there's very little evidence apart from mainly unsubstantiated 'reports' that everyone who has recently signed up, (or in your words 'hundreds of thousands') that have signed up.... are all 'hard left activists'. I find that very difficult to believe. And certainly from what I've read on social media and elsewhere. More easily explainable, is that a lot ordinary people who have been a bit 'meeeeh' about Labour over the last few years.. Simply see in Corbyn, something that enthuses them politically again. Or for the first time in terms of younger voters.

They are the silent majority of people in the centre, and if Labour leaves them and moves to the left, they'll simply vote for someone else.

The parliamentary Labour party knows this.

Corbyn is a disaster for them.

But so were Brown and Miliband ? Burnham and Cooper are offering more of the same which lost the last two elections. Lose, lose either way. At the very least Corbyn has got tens of thousands of people out there attending political rallies and actively signing up to support Labour again. Whoever they are. Why would any political party NOT want that ?

The grass roots are seemingly hell-bent on taking a path to electoral oblivion however, as they see Corbyn as an opportunity not to win elections, but to get their extremist agenda front and centre in the political debate.

Given that the Labour party is supposed to be one of the two governing parties in the UK, a party that can successfully get elected and represent the millions of centrist voters who decide elections, what exactly is the party supposed to do?

Just sit back and accept a takeover from the 'Johnny-come-latelys" that are hell bent on making mischief?

I think the time to not sit back was when they were happily taking £3 off anyone who expressed support promising a 'say' in the next Labour Leadership election. Taking £3 off hundreds of thousands of new supporters, then disallowing some of them a vote, with no recourse to their money back, or appeal ( according to a tweet by Ben Riley-Smith tonight ) because they fear the result ? Is not going to win Labour much in the way of electoral appeal either. Because it doesn't look particularly democratic. In fact it just looks like plain vote rigging. Especially when the announcement has already been made that no vote breakdown will be published afterwards.

Grassroots support ARE the basis of all political parties. Labour seem hell bent on destroying theirs at the moment. In order to chase Tory voters instead ?

* I realise that blatant vote trolling a la Toby Young etc should rightly be disallowed.

How does reporting known association with Islamic extremists = "done a number"?

It's demonisation. Pure and simple. Take something and spin it till the pips squeak. 'Lie gotten halfway round the world before truth.. ' and all that. A well known tactic in negative campaigning.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not particularly enthused by anything Labour party wise. But I do think this 'purge' was a huge mistake ( like abstaining on the Welfare bill which led to the rise in Corbyn support in the first place ). Certainly in terms of winning over new Labour support, for the next few years.


"And then, they barred their members from voting"...

antrobus

cells wrote: »

Does the UK?

We have Trident. One sub is enough to take out China.

cells wrote: »

...PS it doesn't have to be precision bomb it could be a supersonic jet getting in close and attacking a dam or reactor

Japan does not any offensive military capabilities. It is written into their constitution. They only have the minimim necessary for self-defence. How is it that you don't know that?

antrobus

cells wrote: »

I said it would be cheaper and more effective to use nukes if the aim is large area damage but I simply dont believe an advanced economy would resort to such damage...

No you didn't, this is what you said;

cells wrote: »

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.

You are saying that the possession of nuclear weapons was a "needless cost" because you can "cripple the nation" with "multiple high accuracy guided missile(s)". And as has been pointed out to you by more than person here, it is likely to be far more expensive to launch millions of missiles armed with conventional warheads rather than a handful of nukes.

If you now want to make a different argument then fair enough, but at least have the decency to admit that your initial argument was wrong.

martinsurrey

antrobus wrote: »

No you didn't, this is what you said;



You are saying that the possession of nuclear weapons was a "needless cost" because you can "cripple the nation" with "multiple high accuracy guided missile(s)". And as has been pointed out to you by more than person here, it is likely to be far more expensive to launch millions of missiles armed with conventional warheads rather than a handful of nukes.

If you now want to make a different argument then fair enough, but at least have the decency to admit that your initial argument was wrong.

And Cells, while you are crippling the other nation, what are they doing? as long as the people survive, you can re build, so both sides believe they just have to cripple you faster than you cripple them (WW2 Europe style).

With a nuclear threat, no amount of crippling your enemy can leave you with anything to rebuild from, so the face of warfare changes (Cold War).

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's demonisation. Pure and simple. Take something and spin it till the pips squeak. 'Lie gotten halfway round the world before truth.. ' and all that. A well known tactic in negative campaigning.

so you wouldn't expect a future leader of the Labour party and indeed a possible future PM of the UK, to meet with the protagonists on both sides of a dispute?
Just hearing one side is good enough for SNP acolytes?

Well, at least you are consistent.

Generali

And our back bench agreed to be our little poodles too.....



Good doggies.