UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Whirlwind wrote:
Interesting article on JC and that basically that there is a definite play by the media to degrade him as a politician in the publics eye.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-attacks-75-per-cent-three-quarters-fail-to-accurately-report-a7140681.html

Not that this is a surprise as the media is controlled by a few very wealthy individuals that have no interest in a left wing more social agenda. At some point the media is going to have to be legislated to ensure it proves balanced coverage as at the moment we can massive front page articles that deliberately mislead the public and then post apologies in tiny writing on a page no one is going to read after the event such as the attached

As for the nationalising rail networks its not such a bad idea anymore to make more effective services. A lot of things publicly owned in the 80/90's were simply more expensive as private companies could provide the same service cheaper as they didn't have to provide all the benefits the state would have to. However these state benefits have now all been eroded to point where in fact they are similar or less beneficial than the private sector provide (for example access to private healthcare etc). On top of this the private sector want to make a 15-20% profit on everything they do. So in reality state run operations now have the ability to operate these services much more cost effectively (for the same service) for the consumers. The real risk to state run operations is what I consider "sticky fingers" where basically politicians don't like something and therefore feel the need to change because of their electorate. That then means the operations get tied up with ever less efficient modes of operation because that is what the MP of the day wants. In my view the best method of operation would be for the state to award a contract on a similar basis to a state owned business with an aim of limiting the overall profit but still act like it is a business. So for example if you nationalised the energy services the state companies remit would be to make a profit of say £0.5billion that is fed straight back to the government to support new infrastructure whilst ensuring that the service is still efficient whilst not hammering the average consumer for the benefit of shareholders that may have no real interest in the Country. The French have the right idea for example EDF are mostly (completely?) owned by the French state, which in effect means they profit from our energy needs.

I agree that press coverage towards Corbyn has been hostile since day 1, but he's not helping himself by making massive blunders.

First blunder was wanting trident renewed without the warheads, which was obviously caving into the Unions,

and second blunder was calling for a remain vote when he's been anti-EU for years.

His principles went out the window...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whirlwind wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Owen Smith on the Andrew Marr show this morning:

He wants to spend £200 billion on renewing Trident, then he wants to scrap it sometime down the line...

Sweet mother of God...

Please Mods, let me swear...this has to be the most stupidest bat gak insane idea I have heard in years...

You are completely taking it out of context. What he is saying is that he supports world disarmament of nuclear weapons but that it has to be done as a global initiative. However given current world insecurities (Rogue states, China and Russia making land grabs etc) with each other doing it right now might be a bad thing (although on the other hand as a country you can make a stand and fully disarm and then challenge others why they still need them, after all you can always argue that the only use of Nuclear weapons is for mass murder on potentially millions of people that are not responsible for their direct governments actions, but that's another debate). Hence we need them now, but globally push to not need them in the future (and also that is easier for us as we only hire, maybe with a refund if returned unused, the nukes from the US). That can't be a bad thing surely?

If he was really anti-nuclear weapons, he'd be saying that we shouldn't spend the money on them in the first place, instead of wasting billions on a white elephant.

Gordon Brown tried nuclear disarmament and he got nothing, nada, zilch...

**Whirlwind**

Compel wrote:
If I ruled the world....

I would make it a rule that every correction an dretraction a newspaper makes (and they would *have* to make them if proven demonstrably false), would have to be made in the same text size and font as the original article...

Yes, however the only problem is that if the retraction occurs after the event it affects. So if you put misleading claims in your paper before the referendum and then retract it afterwards people have possibly been swayed to vote in a certain fashion and regardless of the retraction you still get the result you want. Unfortunately the only way these companies will get the message is place such large fines over their head that it makes them significantly pause before applying it. So you could have your idea plus a £500k fine minimum dependent on the potential impact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I agree that press coverage towards Corbyn has been hostile since day 1, but he's not helping himself by making massive blunders.
First blunder was wanting trident renewed without the warheads, which was obviously caving into the Unions,
and second blunder was calling for a remain vote when he's been anti-EU for years.
His principles went out the window...

But then do we really know this or just what the media have been telling us and misquoting because we haven't been to all his talks all his discussions on the issue. It is easy to take one sentence outside of the full conversation and present it as his view. That's the point of the article for the most part JC has been completely mis-portrayed so do we really know his views or just what we have been fed because I know I have never sat down and watched all his interviews and discussions (and even if he was he is allowed to change his mind, otherwise Skoda would still be car we ridiculed 30 years ago).

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If he was really anti-nuclear weapons, he'd be saying that we shouldn't spend the money on them in the first place, instead of wasting billions on a white elephant.
Gordon Brown tried nuclear disarmament and he got nothing, nada, zilch...

The argument being that the existing Trident is not a white elephant? You can still be anti-nuclear weapons but begrudgingly accept their need for time being. I'm anti cars being driven by humans (because in most cases deaths and injuries are from human error) and would prefer cars that drive themselves; but that doesn't mean that I don't buy a car, don't drive to work etc because there is a current need for them. It doesn't mean that I don't promote that view and over time hopefully change things overtime.

Yes Gordon Brown did have that view but he had three years. Full disarmament is only going to happen over 50 years or so because it not only requires a change in our mindset but it needs one globally and aggressive actions by some countries will make people pause for thought. We are by nature a tribal creature and for the most part the default reaction of other aliens is fear and defensive. It is an evolved position from when we are apes and we fought neighbours for resources, those evolved instincts are still there and any push against them will always be a long slow progress. Any thoughts that we could have disarmed in three years is just naïve.

**A Town Called Malus**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Smith's up there with Jeremy 'nuclear subs without nuclear warheads' Corbyn...

what a pair of buffoons.

From a purely cost effective standpoint, it makes more sense to have a load of conventional warheads than nukes in those submarines for the simple reason that the only time those nukes will be used, the entire UK would be completely fethed anyway as would the country which fethed us thanks to our treaties with the US and other nuclear equipped NATO members.

In contrast if we instead just had high explosive warheads then they at least could be used in conventional warfare.

Nuclear deterrence is not a valid reason for the UK to have nukes as we are already allied to many nuclear equipped nations. Neither Russia nor China are going to launch nuclear weapons at anyone as it is suicide, both due to the potential retaliation from the US but also from the economic impact. North Korea cannot launch them with any accuracy and if it were to then its targets would be South Korea and other far eastern countries. Iran would go after Israel who have their own nukes to defend themselves with.

The only semi-likely scenario for a nuclear attack on the UK is if a terrorist cell manage to get their hands on a portable device, in which case having a load of nukes is no deterrent at all as you can't launch a counter strike against individuals.

**Compel**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Nuclear deterrence is no longer a valid theory. Neither Russia nor China are going to launch nuclear weapons at anyone as it is suicide.

Isn't that the very definition of Nuclear Deterrence?

**Mr. Burning**

Well JC agreed with Farage in that article 50 should be triggered, calling for it on the morning of 24th June.
The only two politicians to do so. Did JC understand the consequences or does he agree that we should leave the EU?

JC also doesn't talk of winning the next election. He avoids it like the plague in interviews. Why?
He wants to build a movement. Give us some specifics Jeremy.
No wonder MPS are worried about his leadership.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Compel wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Nuclear deterrence is no longer a valid theory. Neither Russia nor China are going to launch nuclear weapons at anyone as it is suicide.

Isn't that the very definition of Nuclear Deterrence?

Basically.

**A Town Called Malus**

Compel wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Nuclear deterrence is no longer a valid theory. Neither Russia nor China are going to launch nuclear weapons at anyone as it is suicide.

Isn't that the very definition of Nuclear Deterrence?

Just to clarify, I'm saying that the UK no longer, in fact never, needed its own deterrent as long as we and the US have NATO membership and agreements to defend each other from nuclear attack. Our push for our own "independent" nuclear deterrent was just a vanity project.

So I'm saying that deterrence from a UK standpoint is not a valid reason to have nukes as we are already allied with countries with way more (the US, for example has 14 subs carrying 24 missiles each compared to the UK's 4 subs with 16 missiles each, and that is ignoring the USA's other nuclear weapons such as ICBMs) and our past enemies who we got the nukes to defend against are now somewhat reliant on us to continue existing in order to contribute to their economies.

Also, if there were some country with nukes it would more likely target nuclear equipped nations to strike against rather than a non-nuclear equipped nation with strong links to those nuclear nations in order to attempt to minimise the nuclear counter attack.

**Mr. Burning**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Compel wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Nuclear deterrence is no longer a valid theory. Neither Russia nor China are going to launch nuclear weapons at anyone as it is suicide.

Isn't that the very definition of Nuclear Deterrence?

Just to clarify, I'm saying that the UK no longer, in fact never, needed its own deterrent as long as we and the US have NATO membership. Our push for our own "independent" nuclear deterrent was just a vanity project.

So I'm saying that deterrence from a UK standpoint is not a valid reason to have nukes as we are already allied with countries with way more (the US, for example has 14 subs carrying 24 missiles each compared to the UK's 4 subs with 16 missiles each, and that is ignoring the USA's other nuclear weapons such as ICBMs) and our past enemies who we got the nukes to defend against are now somewhat reliant on us to continue existing in order to contribute to their economies.

So we should stay allied to the US whilst they have a nuclear deterrent?

**A Town Called Malus**

Mr. Burning wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Compel wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Nuclear deterrence is no longer a valid theory. Neither Russia nor China are going to launch nuclear weapons at anyone as it is suicide.

Isn't that the very definition of Nuclear Deterrence?

Just to clarify, I'm saying that the UK no longer, in fact never, needed its own deterrent as long as we and the US have NATO membership. Our push for our own "independent" nuclear deterrent was just a vanity project.

So I'm saying that deterrence from a UK standpoint is not a valid reason to have nukes as we are already allied with countries with way more (the US, for example has 14 subs carrying 24 missiles each compared to the UK's 4 subs with 16 missiles each, and that is ignoring the USA's other nuclear weapons such as ICBMs) and our past enemies who we got the nukes to defend against are now somewhat reliant on us to continue existing in order to contribute to their economies.

So we should stay allied to the US whilst they have a nuclear deterrent?

Considering that I cannot see the US giving up its nukes any time soon, nor them severing ties with us, yes. Let the US and other nuclear equipped NATO members be our deterrent, make ourselves a lower priority target and save some money.

And if the US did get rid of its nukes I doubt some super nationalistic Russia looking to start a nuclear war would balk at our comparatively tiny nuclear arsenal.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Compel wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Nuclear deterrence is no longer a valid theory. Neither Russia nor China are going to launch nuclear weapons at anyone as it is suicide.

Isn't that the very definition of Nuclear Deterrence?

Just to clarify, I'm saying that the UK no longer, in fact never, needed its own deterrent as long as we and the US have NATO membership. Our push for our own "independent" nuclear deterrent was just a vanity project.

So I'm saying that deterrence from a UK standpoint is not a valid reason to have nukes as we are already allied with countries with way more (the US, for example has 14 subs carrying 24 missiles each compared to the UK's 4 subs with 16 missiles each, and that is ignoring the USA's other nuclear weapons such as ICBMs) and our past enemies who we got the nukes to defend against are now somewhat reliant on us to continue existing in order to contribute to their economies.

So we should stay allied to the US whilst they have a nuclear deterrent?

Considering that I cannot see the US giving up its nukes any time soon, nor them severing ties with us, yes. Let the US be our deterrent, make ourselves a lower priority target and save some money.

And if the US did get rid of its nukes I doubt some super nationalistic Russia looking to start a nuclear war would balk at our comparatively tiny nuclear arsenal.

So basically you're saying we should not take responsibility for the defence of our nation, and instead rely on the good graces of a foreign power indefinitely?

Thats very short sighted and irresponsible.

**A Town Called Malus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

So basically you're saying we should not take responsibility for the defence of our nation, and instead rely on the good graces of a foreign power indefinitely?

Thats very short sighted and irresponsible.

Defence of our nation from whom? Who is a military threat to us with access to nuclear weapons?

If we want to defend our nation then we should invest more into missile intercept systems so that we can actually protect our nation in the event of a nuclear attack, rather than just strike at the person who killed us after we're all dead.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

So basically you're saying we should not take responsibility for the defence of our nation, and instead rely on the good graces of a foreign power indefinitely?

Thats very short sighted and irresponsible.

Defence of our nation from whom? Who is a military threat to us with access to nuclear weapons?

Again, you are still being very short sighted.

There no direct threats in the immediate future, so we should scrap our weapons? What about unforseen threats? We do not know and cannot reliably predict what will happen geopolitically in the next year, nevermind the next 50 years or century. Scrapping Trident because there are no immediate threats right now is short sighted and irresponsible.

After scrapping our existing nuclear weapons, it'll be very hard if not impossible to start up a new weapon programme if a new threat should appear in the future.

What if another economic depression hits Europe hard enough to the point that NATO members cut back on defence spending and NATO begins to crumble? What if the US economy tanks, and an isolationist President is elected who wants to scale back American involvement in NATO? As I understand it, the current administration already wants to reduce the American contribution to NATO and wants European members to increase their contributions (or at least meet the targets on defence spending they have been set but failed to achieve).

What if Russia or a new superpower decides to take advantage of a weakened NATO some decades into the future?

Who will we turn to for a nuclear deterrence against an aggressor, if all our allies are in a weak position themselves?

I don't know about you, but I do not want the defence of my nation to be decided by a foreign Head of State (POTUS).

**Whirlwind**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

I don't know about you, but I do not want the defence of my nation to be decided by a foreign Head of State (POTUS).

So the solution would be to ensure there is no state to be head of? That would be the reality of the situation. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction for a reason. There's only one outcome from following MAD principles because eventually you get a MAD outcome. What you really want is everyone to disarm so that this would not become an issue.

However in the mean time the preferable solution is to build defences that mean that the MAD principle is undermined as the weapons to instigate it will be worthless. That's why Russia doesn't like the expansion of the anti-missile system because it effectively neutralises its deterrent.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Whirlwind wrote:
So the solution would be to ensure there is no state to be head of? That would be the reality of the situation. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction for a reason.

There's only one outcome from following MAD principles because eventually you get a MAD outcome. What you really want is everyone to disarm so that this would not become an issue.

However in the mean time the preferable solution is to build defences that mean that the MAD principle is undermined as the weapons to instigate it will be worthless. That's why Russia doesn't like the expansion of the anti-missile system because it effectively neutralises its deterrent.

The human race will NEVER disarm. The genie is out of the bottle, we've opened Pandora's box and its too late to close it. The idea that the human race will ever disarm is an idealistic Utopian fantasy.

And if countries starting unilaterally disarming, without the participation of every single nuclear state on the planet, then MAD will have failed. You've just given a massive advantage to the few countries that refuse to disarm.

And how will you stop countries re-arming in the future?

The only realistic course of action is to maintain the status quo, maintaining the balance of power between states (which means not trying to undermine your rival's nuclear deterrence like NATO is doing with Russia, which I too disagree with and consider to be a bad idea).

**Whirlwind**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The human race will NEVER disarm. The genie is out of the bottle, we've opened Pandora's box and its too late to close it. The idea that the human race will ever disarm is an idealistic Utopian fantasy.
And if countries starting unilaterally disarming, without the participation of every single nuclear state on the planet, then MAD will have failed. You've just given a massive advantage to the few countries that refuse to disarm.
And how will you stop countries re-arming in the future?
The only realistic course of action is to maintain the status quo, maintaining the balance of power between states (which means not trying to undermine your rival's nuclear deterrence like NATO is doing with Russia, which I too disagree with and consider to be a bad idea).

Having an idealistic goal is gives something to aim for over accepting the status quo. Even if you accept you never get there at least everyone can understand the goal.

On the other hand if you shared the anti-nuc capability so that every country could get access to it then desire to develop these types of MAD weapons is reduced because they aren't worth the money invested. If countries want to rearm what benefit does it bring them? Weapons that are effectively useless because they will get knocked out the sky before they hit anything. If there is no ability to use them effectively then there is no point having them. It's the reason the Kremlin is unhappy with them; it effectively renders their MAD systems useless whilst NATOs are still viable. If both sides have these defensive weapons then it will encourage both sides to disarm as neither side can achieve anything other than having a lot of expense reduced to rusting scrap metal.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Now that is a more realistic solution.

**angelofvengeance**

Good news for GW customers in Oz maybe? I don't know if this would change anything over there but I'd like to think this would have some effect.

http://news.sky.com/story/boost-for-may-as-australia-seeks-free-trade-deal-10504103

Australia has called for a free trade deal with Britain as it plans its withdrawal from the European Union following June's referendum result.

The move is a boost to new Prime Minister Theresa May who described the call as "very encouraging" and insisted it showed Brexit could work for the UK.

She spoke to her Australian counterpart Malcolm Turnbull who said he wanted to open up trading between the two Commonwealth countries.

Mrs May has told International Trade Secretary Liam Fox to begin exploring options but admitted Britain could not sign any deals while it was still a member of the EU.

She has vowed to embrace "the opportunities to strike free trade deals with our partners across the globe".

She added: "It is very encouraging that one of our closest international partners is already seeking to establish just such a deal.

"This shows that we can make Brexit work for Britain, and the new Secretary of State for International Trade will be taking this forward in the weeks and months ahead."

Dr Fox, who backed Brexit, has claimed a number of non-EU countries have already asked Britain for a trade deal.

He said he was "scoping about a dozen free trade deals outside the EU to be ready for when we leave".

He claimed Britain has opened "very fruitful" trade talks with Canada.

And he is preparing to visit the US to make sure Britain is not at the back of the queue in trade talks as President Barack Obama suggested before the referendum.

He told the Sunday Times: "We've already had a number of countries saying, 'We'd love to do a trade deal with the world's fifth biggest economy without having to deal with the other 27 members of the EU'."

Mrs May has told Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon she would not trigger Article 50 to leave the EU before getting UK-wide agreement.

But this could prove a challenge as Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU and Mrs Sturgeon has vowed to stay in it.

According to the British government's website, Australia is the UK's 12th biggest export market, ahead of Canada and India.

Australia is also the UK's eighth largest source of foreign direct investment.

In 2014, the top 10 UK exports to Australia were:

1. Road vehicles

2. Medicines and pharmaceuticals

3. General industrial machinery

4. Specialised machinery

5. Professional and scientific instruments and apparatus

6. Power generating machinery and equipment

7. Electrical machinery and appliances

8. Beverages

9. Apparel and clothing accessories

10. Metal manufacturing

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

If you thought Labour were a bunch of idiots, then it looks like the Tories are trying to steal their crown.

Trident vote is on Monday...

Given that tensions are high in Scotland over the EU vote, and given that the vast majority of people and political parties in Scotland oppose having Trident subs in Scotland, you would think the Tories would put this on the back burner for a while...

Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that the Tories are doing this, it only boosts the pro-Indy side, but I do wonder if May has taken leave of her senses...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whirlwind wrote:
Compel wrote:
If I ruled the world....

I would make it a rule that every correction an dretraction a newspaper makes (and they would *have* to make them if proven demonstrably false), would have to be made in the same text size and font as the original article...

Yes, however the only problem is that if the retraction occurs after the event it affects. So if you put misleading claims in your paper before the referendum and then retract it afterwards people have possibly been swayed to vote in a certain fashion and regardless of the retraction you still get the result you want. Unfortunately the only way these companies will get the message is place such large fines over their head that it makes them significantly pause before applying it. So you could have your idea plus a £500k fine minimum dependent on the potential impact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I agree that press coverage towards Corbyn has been hostile since day 1, but he's not helping himself by making massive blunders.
First blunder was wanting trident renewed without the warheads, which was obviously caving into the Unions,
and second blunder was calling for a remain vote when he's been anti-EU for years.
His principles went out the window...

But then do we really know this or just what the media have been telling us and misquoting because we haven't been to all his talks all his discussions on the issue. It is easy to take one sentence outside of the full conversation and present it as his view. That's the point of the article for the most part JC has been completely mis-portrayed so do we really know his views or just what we have been fed because I know I have never sat down and watched all his interviews and discussions (and even if he was he is allowed to change his mind, otherwise Skoda would still be car we ridiculed 30 years ago).

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If he was really anti-nuclear weapons, he'd be saying that we shouldn't spend the money on them in the first place, instead of wasting billions on a white elephant.
Gordon Brown tried nuclear disarmament and he got nothing, nada, zilch...

The argument being that the existing Trident is not a white elephant? You can still be anti-nuclear weapons but begrudgingly accept their need for time being. I'm anti cars being driven by humans (because in most cases deaths and injuries are from human error) and would prefer cars that drive themselves; but that doesn't mean that I don't buy a car, don't drive to work etc because there is a current need for them. It doesn't mean that I don't promote that view and over time hopefully change things overtime.

Yes Gordon Brown did have that view but he had three years. Full disarmament is only going to happen over 50 years or so because it not only requires a change in our mindset but it needs one globally and aggressive actions by some countries will make people pause for thought. We are by nature a tribal creature and for the most part the default reaction of other aliens is fear and defensive. It is an evolved position from when we are apes and we fought neighbours for resources, those evolved instincts are still there and any push against them will always be a long slow progress. Any thoughts that we could have disarmed in three years is just naïve.

Can't blame the media for this one - Corbyn backed a remain vote for Labour, despite being anti-EU since the 1970s.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Smith's up there with Jeremy 'nuclear subs without nuclear warheads' Corbyn...

what a pair of buffoons.

From a purely cost effective standpoint, it makes more sense to have a load of conventional warheads than nukes in those submarines for the simple reason that the only time those nukes will be used, the entire UK would be completely fethed anyway as would the country which fethed us thanks to our treaties with the US and other nuclear equipped NATO members.

In contrast if we instead just had high explosive warheads then they at least could be used in conventional warfare.

Nuclear deterrence is not a valid reason for the UK to have nukes as we are already allied to many nuclear equipped nations. Neither Russia nor China are going to launch nuclear weapons at anyone as it is suicide, both due to the potential retaliation from the US but also from the economic impact. North Korea cannot launch them with any accuracy and if it were to then its targets would be South Korea and other far eastern countries. Iran would go after Israel who have their own nukes to defend themselves with.

The only semi-likely scenario for a nuclear attack on the UK is if a terrorist cell manage to get their hands on a portable device, in which case having a load of nukes is no deterrent at all as you can't launch a counter strike against individuals.

You misunderstand the point I was making - Corbyn wasn't getting technical on nuclear warheads or conventional warheads, he was just proposing a crazy, half-way house plan to keep the Unions on side...and it made him look silly.

**Silent Puffin?**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

So basically you're saying we should not take responsibility for the defence of our nation, and instead rely on the good graces of a foreign power indefinitely?

We already do, our conventional forces are quite frankly pitiful and we can't afford a military capable of acting unilaterally anyway. We may as well save ourselves a truly gigantic amount of money by not renewing Trident and spend the money on something actually useful.

**Mr. Burning**

Interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

This critique of Jeremy Corbyn by his former shadow minister Thangam Debbonaire is astonishing:
http://www.facebook.com/thangam.debbonaire/posts/10157204442320083

Dear everyone who has asked me what my problems are with Corbyn's leadership,
Here is my experience.
Mr Corbyn appointed me and press released this without my knowledge or consent whilst I was in the middle of cancer treatment. He then sacked me the next day when he realized he had given away part of someone else's role. But didn't bother to tell me that either. By then my office had been besieged by press and the story was out that I was Shadow Minister. I decided to make the best of it and to serve. I worked on his Arts policy whilst I was still having treatment but in Bristol..
When I went back to Westminster, I discovered that he had sacked me but hadn't told me and did not have any ideas for how I was supposed to explain it to Bristol West members or constituents. I was then faced with the choice of telling the truth - that he had made a series of errors, and inevitably thereby face a pile of criticism from his supporters - or say I had changed my mind about accepting the role - and thereby face a pile of criticism from.his supporters. And I knew the pile would arrive because I had seen how it went for others who had resigned. And because Corbyn supporters had already piled into me for disloyalty when I had had to miss votes for cancer treatment.
I then, contrary to the story he keeps giving on TV, found it near on impossible to get to talk to him about this problem
Eventually I did get to meet him and he had nothing to say. No idea what to do. It took my boss Maria Eagle to explain to him that as he was leader he could re appoint me if that was what he wanted.
I then worked hard for him on his Arts policy, loyally didn't go to the press about the above, got stuck in and worked. And yes, I enjoyed the role, it is one of my dream jobs in parliament and I believe I did Corbyn and the Labour Party a great service, as millions of people work in the arts and culture sectors and they valued being involved in policy-making. So it was never my intention to resign.
However, I kept hearing from other colleagues on the front bench just how difficult or impossible it was to get a decision out of him on important policy issues - the very thing Corbyn is supposed to be good on. I also noticed that the policy making process through the National Policy Forum was being slowed down by lack of decisions from Corbyn's office.
But then he was missing in action during the EU referendum, including going on a week's holiday three weeks before the day. I found that unforgivable. I had re-started campaigning in this campaign, phone-canvassing to conserve my energy, and kept hearing Labour voters saying 'but your leader wants out, doesn't he?' His team didn't send anyone to the EU Campaign meetings in Westminster and his lack of enthusiasm showed.
On the day after the referendum he asked for an early Brexit. My constituents want exactly the opposite and were telling me so in their hundreds, and voted 85% to remain.
That was the tipping point for me - it is not allowed to remain on the front bench whilst taking an opposing view to the leader in something so important.
I therefore had to resign.
The reason I then voted no confidence in him as leader is because I have no confidence in him as leader. See above. Plus I had found out from other front bench women how unwilling and unable Corbyn is to communicate with, listen to or work with anyone outside his narrow group.
Since then he has stated publicly that he isn't prioritizing winning elections. How can I support a Labour leader who doesn't want to form a Labour government above everything? When working people, the old, the young, the poor, the country, need a Labour government above everything?
I want a Labour government more than anything, because that is how we change the world and how we help millions of people, just as the 1997-2010 Labour government helped millions of people, my own family included.
I profoundly wished I never had to say all this publicly, but people keep asking, and I believe they have a right to know the truth about what Corbyn's leadership is like.
We cannot win general elections with a leader who is unable and unwilling to learn how to communicate with, listen to and persuade people with whom he doesn't already agree - we need to convince swing voters who voted Tory last year in Southern seats to vote Labour next time and we need Labour voters in Wales and the North to continue to vote Labour - without this we can't win a general election.
all that is what's at stake. Not having a Labour government again is unbearable. I will do anything I can to help to ensure this. It's the constitutional duty of all Labour MPs, especially the leader, to try to secure a better life for working class people through parliamentary means. And that's what I will continue to do.
I hope that's clear.

Part of Eagles staff, but fairly enlightening.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

These people, the leftist Corbynites and the right wing Blairites, do not belong in the same party. Labour has to split.

**r_squared**

You're right, the Blairites need to come out of their Tory closet, and be honest about who they actually are rather than dragging the Labour party down with them.
Once they leave, the UK can reclaim a proper, left wing opposition instead of a bastardised half way house.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

And hopefully the Blairites in the Conservative party will follow suit.That way, we could once again have a clear dividing line between the Left and the Right, instead of the awful amorphous blob Parliament has become. And the Blairites would hold the centre ground vacated by the Liberal Democrat vanishing act.

**Orlanth**

We dont need more Blairites.

Blairism has to go instead.

**reds8n**

It's been an odd time with regards to politics in the UK.

Thankfully MP David Warburton is here to help make things normal again.

mildly NWS

https://www.instagram.com/p/BH-ia7xheZK/

odds on this being used in campaign literature in the future then ?

Still I'm sure Labour will step up and save us.

Spoiler:

.... hmmm ...

**Mr. Burning**

reds8n wrote:
It's been an odd time with regards to politics in the UK.

Thankfully MP David Warburton is here to help make things normal again.

mildly NWS

https://www.instagram.com/p/BH-ia7xheZK/

odds on this being used in campaign literature in the future then ?

Still I'm sure Labour will step up and save us.

Spoiler:

.... hmmm ...

'Jeremy, will you catch the all?'

'What I will say is that I am building a movement of like minded people, to whom Pokemon are important'.

**Rosebuddy**

Here's a thoughtful summary of why the whole Corbyn business is important:

http://mccaine.org/2016/07/18/a-corbyn-hot-take-or-a-revolution-without-solution/

Some excerpts:

Corbyn is no Harry Perkins, that must be said. But no Harry Perkins is available. And this is where the anti-Corbyn arguments begin to collapse, and where it becomes clear that defending Corbyn against his opponents on the right is essential to the future of the British left if it is to have any interest in parliamentary affairs at all.

While his opponents are keen to point to polls demonstrating how Labour voters and the general public consider Corbyn unelectable, they invariably fail to point out the same holds even more true for his direct rivals: whether Kendall last year or Eagle and Smith this year. The reality is that under present conditions no Labour Party worth having is likely to win the next general election, whenever that may ultimately happen.

**Mr. Burning**

Rosebuddy wrote:
Here's a thoughtful summary of why the whole Corbyn business is important:

http://mccaine.org/2016/07/18/a-corbyn-hot-take-or-a-revolution-without-solution/

Some excerpts:

Corbyn is no Harry Perkins, that must be said. But no Harry Perkins is available. And this is where the anti-Corbyn arguments begin to collapse, and where it becomes clear that defending Corbyn against his opponents on the right is essential to the future of the British left if it is to have any interest in parliamentary affairs at all.

While his opponents are keen to point to polls demonstrating how Labour voters and the general public consider Corbyn unelectable, they invariably fail to point out the same holds even more true for his direct rivals: whether Kendall last year or Eagle and Smith this year. The reality is that under present conditions no Labour Party worth having is likely to win the next general election, whenever that may ultimately happen.

I think most would agree that the Labour party isn't liable to win a general election anytime soon. The left doesn't have a voice in Smith, Eagle or Corbyn, defending JC is really just defending a particularly dire approach to politics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trident renewal has been backed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36830923

**theCrowe**

The Trident choice was really only ever a choice about international diplomacy. Do we keep our seat at the "Have Nukes" table or do we accept our decline in status and go sit with the "Need your Nukes"?

It's more than just pride or vanity its power politics on an international scale. The UK may in reality rely on many of its allies for actual military protection but without trident it loses a seat at the top table. It's not about actual nukes (accept this time it actually is!) it's about negotiating position. Just like bombing Syria isn't about stopping international terror its about negotiating with France. Same vote in favour of that too as I recall, fat lot of good it did anyone!

**Compel**

OR it's both...

**Silent Puffin?**

Compel wrote:
OR it's both...

Dreams of former glory play a significant part as well.

Every Scottish MP, aside from the solitary Tory, voted against renewal. The cracks in the Union are getting a bit too wide to paper over at this stage.