Wednesday 30th September 2015

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... perimental" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Troubled Families: benefits and employment, Apr 2012 to Jul 2015 (experimental),for those interested.

[HindleA]

"Jeremy Corbyn and Britains place in the World" discussion ,just finished on Radio 4.Should be on(radio) I-player later.

[ohsocynical]

Martin Rowson ‏@MartinRowson Sep 29

Wonder if any hacks out there noused enough to appreciate how one can love one's country while hating the state that ocupies its territory.

[HindleA]

In serious danger of getting addicted to Radio 4 extra.

[GetYou]

I'm sorry I made you lose your temper Robert, and I can see your point.

But if the party policy on nuclear arms is yet to be decided, what is the benefit of not acknowledging this? What will he do if the party agrees that a nuclear deterrent is required?

I think what I am getting at is that is was an opportunity to expand on this that was squandered.

[Willow904]

If you're already fed up and angry at the idiots who run the world, I wouldn't venture onto BBC 4 right now. There's a really depressing documentary about the corruption behind the building of luxury golf courses worldwide and the devastating impact they have on the environment. Donald Trump's name has featured.

[GetYou]

No problem Robert.

"The party policy issue, yet to be decided, is whether to have the nukes, not whether or not they are used."

I think this depends on what you understand a nuclear deterrent to mean. FWIW, I think we should get rid of them.

[howsillyofme1]

Evening all

Just a couple of points to end the evening

Corbyn had to say what he did on Trident as we all know what he thinks. Also, it would have been judicious to avoid this issue at this particular conference but that is not possible as the vote is coming up soon. I would have liked a Strategic Defence Review to have looked at the question of future defence in order to help formulate policy for the next GE

I think it is really refreshing we are having this debate and I think the lack of discussion since the 80s does a disservice to the electorate - I ask the question why is everything on the table except for this outdated response to the Cold War?

Perhaps it would have been better to have said 'I cannot foresee any time I would use this' but then again he would have been accused of prevarication (this happened to Miliband a lot as well) but would that have been credible? We all know that no sane person would launch a nuclear attack on another country - even in response to an attack as it is just revenge in the majority of scenarios

The only use of a weapon of high destructive power I can envisage would be in a case of a very limited attack on us and subsequent traliationin order to take out the Command and Control Centre - the idea though in that situation any enemy would not have considered this is ridiculous and so the only outcome would be the partial destruction of the planet.....it is only when it is debated like this that people may see the ridiculousness of it

For all those attacking Corbyn can you tell me at what point you would use a nuclear weapon whose consequence would be a catastrophic effect on the environment as well as killing many hundreds of thousands of people? I have thought about it and really cannot see one except for retribution

Saying all this I think all this focus on disagreements is a bit silly if you look at the reality.

We have a party that has been rooted in the neo-liberal tradition since the early 2000s.
The philosophy has been slightly to the left but from a different perspective than mine.
Miliband started moving them in a different direction but was opposed by certain members of the party establishment
The 2015 election result really upset a lot of people - many of whom didn't vote (to their great shame I may add)
The membership increased by 3 times, mainly from the left and a leader with a big mandate was elected whose philosophy was more to the left

I think it would be churlish to expect the party to recover from such big shocks very quickly and have a coherent and thought out plan for the future. We know Benn and Maria Eagle support Trident - they have the right to and they are being consistent.

I think in this case, although I disagree with what will happen, a free vote is the only fair way to go. If the vote was in 2018 rather than 2016 then I may say different but it isn't

My final point is one that has been around since the Coalition and concerns Collective Cabinet Responsibility. Due to FPTP all parties are coalitions and one of the reasons things have become so stale is that everyone is focused on consensus. How the Lib Dems could agree to this approach when we knew there were disagreements meant that politics itself is undermined - no-one believes someone when they defend on television a policy we know they oppose in reality

Perhaps Corbyn could look at allowing the Cabinet more freedom than int he past. It cannot be used all the time but I imagine the Shadow Cabinet can find a compromise on 90% of the policies - some, such as Trident, are currently intractable and so it should be able to have the disagreement without all the time talking about splits and disagreements. If the Lib Dems had done this in the last Government perhaps they would have fared better

What Labour MPs have to learn though is that the party has changed and, if sustained, they will have to represent that - I know they represent their constituents but in most cases they need the party badge. If the MPs vote against how the party believes they should do consistently then some people may find themselves no longer being supported by their CLP and so their position my no longer be viable. 2015 has led to a massive shock in the party and it is inevitable there will be some casualties in balance to the increased membership

[howsillyofme1]

Chemistry again.....something on vehicle emissions

http://www.compoundchem.com/2015/09/30/ ... emissions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TechnicalEphemera]

I'm sorry I made you lose your temper Robert, and I can see your point.

But if the party policy on nuclear arms is yet to be decided, what is the benefit of not acknowledging this? What will he do if the party agrees that a nuclear deterrent is required?

I think what I am getting at is that is was an opportunity to expand on this that was squandered.

Sorry, didn't mean to snap. The question was not about party policy it was about whether as PM, Corbyn would sanction a nuclear strike. Every PM has this choice, and every PM has to decide in advance whether or not to sanction a return strike. We don't know what any PM decided, but we haven't had an avowedly anti-nuke PM before. Arguably, if the deterrent is so important, the BBC was endangering national security by even asking the question rather than Corbyn for answering it the only way, I feel, he reasonably could. The party policy issue, yet to be decided, is whether to have the nukes, not whether or not they are used.

All Corbyn should say is - I will not comment on operational issues related to the security of the United Kingdom. What every other PM or aspiring PM would say. Totally honest answer without sounding evasive or trying to hide the truth.

With hindsight he probably should have had a stock answer prepared, but then he would have to anticipated a particularly unreasonable line of questioning. The problem is this is a huge mess now, very difficult to know what can be done.

I agree the question should not have been asked, and doing so is irresponsible. But then the BBC and ITV are not exactly behaving like responsible broadcasters.

Given Trident is going to be renewed, a pragmatic policy would have been to promise a referendum. That would allow Corbyn to feel he was taking a huge step towards disarmament, whilst insulating the party from the electoral penalty unilateralism carries. I regard unilateral disarmament as pointless and making you reliant on the good will of others (it achieves nothing and leaves you marginally more vulnerable, whilst hiding under the American nuclear umbrella). However I can see the benefit of asking the public if they still want these things and pointing out they will have to pay tax for them. That way the you can tack on a tax rise and avoid the cancellation charges if they vote to keep them.

[howsillyofme1]

I'm sorry I made you lose your temper Robert, and I can see your point.

But if the party policy on nuclear arms is yet to be decided, what is the benefit of not acknowledging this? What will he do if the party agrees that a nuclear deterrent is required?

I think what I am getting at is that is was an opportunity to expand on this that was squandered.

Sorry, didn't mean to snap. The question was not about party policy it was about whether as PM, Corbyn would sanction a nuclear strike. Every PM has this choice, and every PM has to decide in advance whether or not to sanction a return strike. We don't know what any PM decided, but we haven't had an avowedly anti-nuke PM before. Arguably, if the deterrent is so important, the BBC was endangering national security by even asking the question rather than Corbyn for answering it the only way, I feel, he reasonably could. The party policy issue, yet to be decided, is whether to have the nukes, not whether or not they are used.

All Corbyn should say is - I will not comment on operational issues related to the security of the United Kingdom. What every other PM or aspiring PM would say. Totally honest answer without sounding evasive or trying to hide the truth.

With hindsight he probably should have had a stock answer prepared, but then he would have to anticipated a particularly unreasonable line of questioning. The problem is this is a huge mess now, very difficult to know what can be done.

I agree the question should not have been asked, and doing so is irresponsible. But then the BBC and ITV are not exactly behaving like responsible broadcasters.

Given Trident is going to be renewed, a pragmatic policy would have been to promise a referendum. That would allow Corbyn to feel he was taking a huge step towards disarmament, whilst insulating the party from the electoral penalty unilateralism carries. I regard unilateral disarmament as pointless and making you reliant on the good will of others (it achieves nothing and leaves you marginally more vulnerable, whilst hiding under the American nuclear umbrella). However I can see the benefit of asking the public if they still want these things and pointing out they will have to pay tax for them. That way the you can tack on a tax rise and avoid the cancellation charges if they vote to keep them.

This is only a huge mess if those in the Labour Party who support Trident make it so! Corbin has made his position clear but hasn't actually told anyone that they have to do what he says....he didn't even try to insist it was voted on at the conference, he has appointed known nuclear supporters to the cabinet, and he has suggested he would find a compromise.

He has said he will not use it if PM - I fail to see what the problem is. He would also not launch a chemical, biological or neutron bomb attack either - why is one vile weapon different from any other?

Just so you are clear

I do not think any sane person would launch a nuclear strike
There is no deterrent because those who would do it are insane and so don't care and those who are sane would not
Do you who believe in the deterrent really think that the political leaders of the world think that one of the others would launch a nuclear attack?
Even if you believe in the deterrent then the only countries that matter are US, China and Russia - there is no increased threat to us by taking a stand to eliminate them. Somebody has to make the first move
Replacing Trident is against the spirit of the NPT - of which we are a signatory. We made a lot of fuss about Iran didn't we - one rule for us and another for the others?

If I was in power I am completely unable to envisage a moment when I would use them - can you tell me what threat would cause you to use them? Would you launch a first strike for any reason or would you only do it in retaliation?

I think this idea of a 'deterrent' is nonsense

[RogerOThornhill]

April 1st came round very quickly...

Conservative Party to launch own trade union movement

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34407971

The Conservative Party is to launch its own trade union movement in an attempt to win over members unhappy with "militant" leaders.

Deputy chairman Rob Halfon said the Conservative Workers and Trade Union Movement would provide a voice for Conservative-minded trade unionists.

"There will be a voice for moderate trade unionists who feel they may have sympathy with the Conservatives," he told Parliament's The House magazine.

[howsillyofme1]

April 1st came round very quickly...

Conservative Party to launch own trade union movement

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34407971

The Conservative Party is to launch its own trade union movement in an attempt to win over members unhappy with "militant" leaders.

Deputy chairman Rob Halfon said the Conservative Workers and Trade Union Movement would provide a voice for Conservative-minded trade unionists.

"There will be a voice for moderate trade unionists who feel they may have sympathy with the Conservatives," he told Parliament's The House magazine.

Again this use of the word 'moderate' to describe right wingers....

[LadyCentauria]

May be of interest,

Leon Rosselson, "I heard it on the radio"

Questions why we need nuclear deterrent when e.g. Switzerland doesn't

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3F2YpuQUo5I

Also topical,
"Whoever invented the fishfinger"

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru7d2uhvzu ... ogle&gl=GB

[55DegreesNorth]

Chemistry again.....something on vehicle emissions

http://www.compoundchem.com/2015/09/30/ ... emissions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for flagging this site up. The info graphics are excellent - I've passed the link on to my colleagues who are still teaching secondary science.

[Willow904]

I'm sorry I made you lose your temper Robert, and I can see your point.

But if the party policy on nuclear arms is yet to be decided, what is the benefit of not acknowledging this? What will he do if the party agrees that a nuclear deterrent is required?

I think what I am getting at is that is was an opportunity to expand on this that was squandered.

Sorry, didn't mean to snap. The question was not about party policy it was about whether as PM, Corbyn would sanction a nuclear strike. Every PM has this choice, and every PM has to decide in advance whether or not to sanction a return strike. We don't know what any PM decided, but we haven't had an avowedly anti-nuke PM before. Arguably, if the deterrent is so important, the BBC was endangering national security by even asking the question rather than Corbyn for answering it the only way, I feel, he reasonably could. The party policy issue, yet to be decided, is whether to have the nukes, not whether or not they are used.

All Corbyn should say is - I will not comment on operational issues related to the security of the United Kingdom. What every other PM or aspiring PM would say. Totally honest answer without sounding evasive or trying to hide the truth.

With hindsight he probably should have had a stock answer prepared, but then he would have to anticipated a particularly unreasonable line of questioning. The problem is this is a huge mess now, very difficult to know what can be done.

I agree the question should not have been asked, and doing so is irresponsible. But then the BBC and ITV are not exactly behaving like responsible broadcasters.

Given Trident is going to be renewed, a pragmatic policy would have been to promise a referendum. That would allow Corbyn to feel he was taking a huge step towards disarmament, whilst insulating the party from the electoral penalty unilateralism carries. I regard unilateral disarmament as pointless and making you reliant on the good will of others (it achieves nothing and leaves you marginally more vulnerable, whilst hiding under the American nuclear umbrella). However I can see the benefit of asking the public if they still want these things and pointing out they will have to pay tax for them. That way the you can tack on a tax rise and avoid the cancellation charges if they vote to keep them.

This is only really a problem if Corbyn is still leader when going into an election. His answer to this question may be influenced by the nature of his aims, rather than a blunder as such. It's possible getting a real debate going about Trident is more important to him than appearing a credible PM. It could also provide him with an honourable "out". He is clearly aware of the support he has engendered and hope people have entrusted in him. Letting people down would be difficult for an honourable man, but stepping down because his long held belief in nuclear disarmament is at odds with being leader of a party committed to the renewal of Trident has a certain dignity and integrity to it (respecting the democratic process within the party etc). It's just a thought....

[howsillyofme1]

Sorry, didn't mean to snap. The question was not about party policy it was about whether as PM, Corbyn would sanction a nuclear strike. Every PM has this choice, and every PM has to decide in advance whether or not to sanction a return strike. We don't know what any PM decided, but we haven't had an avowedly anti-nuke PM before. Arguably, if the deterrent is so important, the BBC was endangering national security by even asking the question rather than Corbyn for answering it the only way, I feel, he reasonably could. The party policy issue, yet to be decided, is whether to have the nukes, not whether or not they are used.

All Corbyn should say is - I will not comment on operational issues related to the security of the United Kingdom. What every other PM or aspiring PM would say. Totally honest answer without sounding evasive or trying to hide the truth.

With hindsight he probably should have had a stock answer prepared, but then he would have to anticipated a particularly unreasonable line of questioning. The problem is this is a huge mess now, very difficult to know what can be done.

I agree the question should not have been asked, and doing so is irresponsible. But then the BBC and ITV are not exactly behaving like responsible broadcasters.

Given Trident is going to be renewed, a pragmatic policy would have been to promise a referendum. That would allow Corbyn to feel he was taking a huge step towards disarmament, whilst insulating the party from the electoral penalty unilateralism carries. I regard unilateral disarmament as pointless and making you reliant on the good will of others (it achieves nothing and leaves you marginally more vulnerable, whilst hiding under the American nuclear umbrella). However I can see the benefit of asking the public if they still want these things and pointing out they will have to pay tax for them. That way the you can tack on a tax rise and avoid the cancellation charges if they vote to keep them.

This is only really a problem if Corbyn is still leader when going into an election. His answer to this question may be influenced by the nature of his aims, rather than a blunder as such. It's possible getting a real debate going about Trident is more important to him than appearing a credible PM. It could also provide him with an honourable "out". He is clearly aware of the support he has engendered and hope people have entrusted in him. Letting people down would be difficult for an honourable man, but stepping down because his long held belief in nuclear disarmament is at odds with being leader of a party committed to the renewal of Trident has a certain dignity and integrity to it (respecting the democratic process within the party etc). It's just a thought....

When was the decision taken that the credibility of a PM is linked only to his decision to pretend that one day in an unimaginable case he would order an act that will kill hundreds of thousands of people and lay waste to the Earth?

I don't remember being asked that specific question

You seem to accept that the electorate would never countenance a PM who would refuse to use the nuclear option.

I do not agree with this premise as no-one has even tried to make the argument - it is not an easy one but 100n is a lot when there is austerity and there are enough ex-military who are not fans either.

I take it that you also think that chemical and biological weapons could also be justifiably used as a deterrent?

Are you sure the 2015 party membership is supportive of renewal of Trident?

[citizenJA]

Thank you, Willow904, for your last post especially regarding Corbyn.
Very sensible post.

[citizenJA]

Emissions scandal: how the drive for diesel ran out of gas
Damian Carrington

A key step forward in the understanding of the health effects of NOx came with a WHO report in 2013, which indicated for the first time that the chemicals were dangerous by themselves and were not simply an irritating accompaniment. This mattered because, out in the real world, NOx emissions were stubbornly failing to obey the commands of the politicians’ regulations and fall.

In 2010, Williams and his team showed why, by standing by the side of British roads and watching 84,239 vehicles putter by. As each passed, beams of infrared and ultraviolet light took a snapshot its exhaust fumes, while a camera recorded the registration plate, which could be used to look up the make and model.

When the numbers were crunched, the conclusion was stark: there was a chasm between the levels of NOx that the vehicles were actually emitting and what they should have been emitting according to the regulatory tests they had passed. This chasm was exposed most luridly this month, when VW was caught in the US using “cheat devices” to cut emissions drastically when the car’s computer detected it was being tested.

But the discrepancy between real-world driving and regulatory test results – if not outright illegal cheating – had been known for years, and it was getting worse. In 2000, diesel cars on the road pumped out double the NOx they did under test conditions, according to the ICCT, the group who rumbled VW’s cheating in the US. In 2005, the test limit was halved, but road performance of the diesel cars was three times worse.

The NOx limit shrank again in 2009 and in 2014, but now the cars were over seven times worse on the road than in test labs as motor manufacturers refined their techniques for gaming the tests. Few people believe VW are the only company doing so, legally or otherwise. “VW appear to have been caught red-handed, but it would seem highly likely that others have also played dubious games to pass emissions tests,” said Professor Alastair Lewis, an air pollution expert at the University of York.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... out-of-gas

[citizenJA]

goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

[Willow904]

All Corbyn should say is - I will not comment on operational issues related to the security of the United Kingdom. What every other PM or aspiring PM would say. Totally honest answer without sounding evasive or trying to hide the truth.

With hindsight he probably should have had a stock answer prepared, but then he would have to anticipated a particularly unreasonable line of questioning. The problem is this is a huge mess now, very difficult to know what can be done.

I agree the question should not have been asked, and doing so is irresponsible. But then the BBC and ITV are not exactly behaving like responsible broadcasters.

Given Trident is going to be renewed, a pragmatic policy would have been to promise a referendum. That would allow Corbyn to feel he was taking a huge step towards disarmament, whilst insulating the party from the electoral penalty unilateralism carries. I regard unilateral disarmament as pointless and making you reliant on the good will of others (it achieves nothing and leaves you marginally more vulnerable, whilst hiding under the American nuclear umbrella). However I can see the benefit of asking the public if they still want these things and pointing out they will have to pay tax for them. That way the you can tack on a tax rise and avoid the cancellation charges if they vote to keep them.

This is only really a problem if Corbyn is still leader when going into an election. His answer to this question may be influenced by the nature of his aims, rather than a blunder as such. It's possible getting a real debate going about Trident is more important to him than appearing a credible PM. It could also provide him with an honourable "out". He is clearly aware of the support he has engendered and hope people have entrusted in him. Letting people down would be difficult for an honourable man, but stepping down because his long held belief in nuclear disarmament is at odds with being leader of a party committed to the renewal of Trident has a certain dignity and integrity to it (respecting the democratic process within the party etc). It's just a thought....

When was the decision taken that the credibility of a PM is linked only to his decision to pretend that one day in an unimaginable case he would order an act that will kill hundreds of thousands of people and lay waste to the Earth?

I don't remember being asked that specific question

You seem to accept that the electorate would never countenance a PM who would refuse to use the nuclear option.

I do not agree with this premise as no-one has even tried to make the argument - it is not an easy one but 100n is a lot when there is austerity and there are enough ex-military who are not fans either.

I take it that you also think that chemical and biological weapons could also be justifiably used as a deterrent?

I personally don't have any issue with Corbyn's anti-nuclear stance, I'm just speculating on various reasons why he chose to answer the question so directly. There is a difference between being honest and being candid. Why didn't he respond in the way TE suggests above? It's a reasonable question. Certainly he can't escape his past commitment to nuclear disarmament and I felt he couldn't really duck it, but others have made very good suggestions of how he could have handled the question and I was just wondering why he answered the question as he did. Given how unlikely his victory was when he first stood, have you seriously never wondered if he were secretly just wishing it could all be over soon?

[LadyCentauria]

Sorry, didn't mean to snap. The question was not about party policy it was about whether as PM, Corbyn would sanction a nuclear strike. Every PM has this choice, and every PM has to decide in advance whether or not to sanction a return strike. We don't know what any PM decided, but we haven't had an avowedly anti-nuke PM before. Arguably, if the deterrent is so important, the BBC was endangering national security by even asking the question rather than Corbyn for answering it the only way, I feel, he reasonably could. The party policy issue, yet to be decided, is whether to have the nukes, not whether or not they are used.

All Corbyn should say is - I will not comment on operational issues related to the security of the United Kingdom. What every other PM or aspiring PM would say. Totally honest answer without sounding evasive or trying to hide the truth.

With hindsight he probably should have had a stock answer prepared, but then he would have to anticipated a particularly unreasonable line of questioning. The problem is this is a huge mess now, very difficult to know what can be done.

I agree the question should not have been asked, and doing so is irresponsible. But then the BBC and ITV are not exactly behaving like responsible broadcasters.

Given Trident is going to be renewed, a pragmatic policy would have been to promise a referendum. That would allow Corbyn to feel he was taking a huge step towards disarmament, whilst insulating the party from the electoral penalty unilateralism carries. I regard unilateral disarmament as pointless and making you reliant on the good will of others (it achieves nothing and leaves you marginally more vulnerable, whilst hiding under the American nuclear umbrella). However I can see the benefit of asking the public if they still want these things and pointing out they will have to pay tax for them. That way the you can tack on a tax rise and avoid the cancellation charges if they vote to keep them.

This is only a huge mess if those in the Labour Party who support Trident make it so! Corbin has made his position clear but hasn't actually told anyone that they have to do what he says....he didn't even try to insist it was voted on at the conference, he has appointed known nuclear supporters to the cabinet, and he has suggested he would find a compromise.

He has said he will not use it if PM - I fail to see what the problem is. He would also not launch a chemical, biological or neutron bomb attack either - why is one vile weapon different from any other?

Just so you are clear

I do not think any sane person would launch a nuclear strike
There is no deterrent because those who would do it are insane and so don't care and those who are sane would not
Do you who believe in the deterrent really think that the political leaders of the world think that one of the others would launch a nuclear attack?
Even if you believe in the deterrent then the only countries that matter are US, China and Russia - there is no increased threat to us by taking a stand to eliminate them. Somebody has to make the first move
Replacing Trident is against the spirit of the NPT - of which we are a signatory. We made a lot of fuss about Iran didn't we - one rule for us and another for the others?

If I was in power I am completely unable to envisage a moment when I would use them - can you tell me what threat would cause you to use them? Would you launch a first strike for any reason or would you only do it in retaliation?

I think this idea of a 'deterrent' is nonsense

Just to note that Iran became one of the first forty signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the day it opened to signatories, 1st July 1968 in all three locations (London, Moscow, & Washington) with the ratified treaties all being deposited by the first closing date in March 1970. It has a deep pride in that status.

[LadyCentauria]

Oh, just remembered that the Conservative Party's web-page on their timetable for electing a candidate for London Mayor did say that they'd announce the winner of their Open Primary election by the end of September, didn't it? (Although it was non-specific on the question of when voting would close and what date the results would be announced - 'soon' and 'by the end of September,' respectively.) So, there's another 'broken promise' to add to the list. Perhaps it'll happen at their Conference. Perhaps they'll save it for Christmas. Or Easter, if that's before Election Day, May '16...

[utopiandreams]

... If Cameron had done the equivalent the language here would have been more colourful and less respectful.

I politely suggest that you have entirely lost the plot, TE. Wtf has personality got to do with nukes? You're simply suggesting that a dying man's final act be to take as many others as you can regardless of who was responsible.