Who knows where the party will be with such supporters. What somebody think of the center.
He reminds me of a contestant on the Apprentice, you know the one who spends the whole moring coming up with ''brand'' ideas on a whiteboard, ''ethical foreign policy''(Voted for Trident), ''money where our mouth is on austerity''(Abstained from the Welfare Bill),''You would'nt buy a car without looking under the bonnet''(Talking about a possible second EU referendum) and finally ''British New Deal''.I missed Owen Smith claiming he's going to have an ethical foreign policy.
Yes he said the Iraq war was "a noble endeavour" and last week voted in favour of reloading Britain's nuclear holocaust launchers but he's going to be ethical starting...now...no wait...now.
Say what now?I'm starting to really worry now for the Party, I like Corbyn and his ideas but his supporter seem hell bent on ''purity'', not to mention they struggle to point to any fault of time as leader of the party. I mean just look at this stuff -
Who knows where the party will be with such supporters. What somebody think of the center.
That'll go down well.
Just making a light jab at your mentioning of Corbyn supporters calling Stella Creasy a right winger, has anyone said this(Anyone sensible, not someone on twitter) ?
Depends on whether you class the Momentum in her constituency as sensible.
For "moderate" read "tory-light". Look at who funds Progress. It aint us working folks.
It's not especially sinister is it
Oh bore off. Stella's work on payday loans, social housing, and campaigning in parliament for her constituents is exactly what you'd want in a Labour MP. You need to end this tribal nonsense, you're going to look back one day and realise what an idiot you're being.
This is exactly the kind of thing I find frustrating. You may believe that the right decision would be to unilaterally disarm, but you have to recognise that there are very good arguments on both sides of the debate (as there are on most occasions where there's a split on policy within the party). Castigating people for coming down on the other side of a complex and finely balanced argument - especially when they are voting in line with official party policy as with Trident - makes it pretty much impossible to run a party with broad appeal.
How well would they be doing without Lord Sainsbury?
Maybe. Just right now I am so pissed off with the way the privatised essential services are ripping me off. I have to pay for water, energy and local transport whether I like it or not. People own shares in those privatised companies and are doing well out of them. Which people? Rich people. It's fecked up.
A lot of people could say that... £18.5 million donated to labour
Bore off yourself! I wasn't talking specifically about Creasy; I was talking about Progress. Don't call me an idiot and tell me to bore off. cnut!
It would be good if more had her sense. The leadership election has been secured there's no need for them to carry on weakening the party.
When it comes down to it, launching a nuke is mass murder. No question. It is not a "load previous saved game" thing; it's "game over". In the end game it's not a deterrent. It would be insane to launch a nuke - full stop. An insane person would not be put off pressing the button because they feared reprisal. They would do it anyway.
Hope so too. They have no excuse for the current dereliction of duties since the leadership election was called. The only real motivation now can be to undermine Corbyn, but if they are really so concerned about not being able to do that they can just do the jobs while talking about how much better it would be under Smith.
This isnt just casual contributions though as you're inadvertently suggesting. He's heavily invested in their campaigning and championed their cause.
You are right that the idea of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent relies on rational actors on both sides, which won't necessarily always be the case. But in a dangerous world where some countries have nukes and some don't, I'd much rather have them than not.
Sorry mate, genuinely, and for your recent troubles. Hope you're on the other side of all that and things are going well now.
Why? The prick that pressed the button that nuked you, your family, everyone in the hospital down the road, the kids in the playground... he's safe in a bunker. Launching in response won't touch him/her. It will, however, incinerate patients in the hospital down the road from his bunker, the kids in the playground down the road from his bunker...
Thanks for the conciliaritory tone and I apologise too. I'd love to be able to say "yeah, it was tough, but I'm OK now" but I'd be lying. Things are still very tough. I am on the losing side in a class war I'm afraid.
It's the fact that having nukes makes it less likely another rational person/state is going to nuke you. Obviously, it doesn't stop anyone insane nuking you. It's a (somewhat effective) deterrent.
Do you really, honestly, think that a rational person/state is going to nuke you? Really? I can well understand wanting to get the guy that hurt you or people you care about. That's not nukes though. That's not weapons of mass destruction. That's conventional arms. A whole different thing. You might want a well regulated militia for that.
Id say its more a loose assumption than a fact. I dont believe it stops conventional warfare from escalating and in that case the chances of a state deploying a nuclear weapon become worryingly feasible.
Yeah, I largely agree with this. A case in which an enemy is going to nuke us is probably one in which having nukes won't make much of a difference.
Edit - Just had a look back and he was talking about Progress(Which is pretty much a right wing section of the Labour Party)
He was the main backer of the sdlp / sdp back in the day... He has been nothing but consistent in backing the politics he personally believe in even before Corbyn was an mp
Perhaps i misunderstood the context of the discussion i replied to, i wasnt insinuating he was funding progress to get Corbyn out directly merely that Progress is in my view an unwelcome lobby group trying to manipulate the party further right than it should be (imo anyway). I just don't think the party should be run by the elites who claim ownership.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
wouldnt she need labour mp's to vote for an early election (fixed term parliament act?)... Turkeys voting for Xmas springs to mind so I dont know if they would risk it (though they will look utterly shambolic protesting against the government but not being prepared to face the electorate and they would have truly failed the test of being an effective opposition - at that point you could argue they are not even a functioning opposition)
No. They could do that just to feck with Labour. But if Labour oppose a new election under the fixed term Parliament act then the Conservatives would vote to repeal the act (which only requires a simple majority) and then conduct a new vote.
