Thursday 1st October 2015

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 4:26 pm

I agree with you about nukes being poor value, especially in the context of NATO with 3 nuclear powers. Corbyn is dead

It is something that needs discussing. Problem is Corbyn comes from wrong background to do that. Clive Lewis though...

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 4:33 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Harry Truman wasn't a loony fantasist. He used two atom bombs.

I think its fair to say that Truman didn't understand the implications of what he did - no-one knew fully what a nuclear bomb would do.
Even Robert Oppenheimer had no real idea of the outcome, hence his almost immediate resignation.
Also the size of the bombs dropped on Japan (15 kiloton) were tiny compared to what's available now.
Many of the US military did not feel the second bomb was necessary from a military point of view.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 4:45 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I agree with you about nukes being poor value, especially in the context of NATO with 3 nuclear powers. Corbyn is dead

It is something that needs discussing. Problem is Corbyn comes from wrong background to do that. Clive Lewis though...

Corbyn is dead?

Why is this most irrelevant of things. A weapon that deals with an outdated world situation, the use of would destroy civilization and which should be eliminated prevents someone being PM

Being a vile incompetent and whose decisions are affecting people on a day to day basis is considered fine!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 4:48 pm

So there are early warming systems that tell us when someone has sent a bomb our way, and we automatically send one back, but we won't be alive to see the result of 'hitting back'...Which leads me to ask...What is the point?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 4:53 pm

It's right to scrap Trident. But a virtual pacifist isn't the person to make that case.

Has to be a practical case, as the SNP have made.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 4:56 pm

danesclose wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Harry Truman wasn't a loony fantasist. He used two atom bombs.
I think its fair to say that Truman didn't understand the implications of what he did - no-one knew fully what a nuclear bomb would do.
Even Robert Oppenheimer had no real idea of the outcome, hence his almost immediate resignation.
Also the size of the bombs dropped on Japan (15 kiloton) were tiny compared to what's available now.
Many of the US military did not feel the second bomb was necessary from a military point of view.

What you say is so true especially when they were testing nuclear weapons. All those people exposed to radioactivity...They really didn't realise what they had unleashed...
But then I'm reminded of some years ago when an [American I think] scientist wanted to explode a nuclear devise on the moon... I've no doubt there'd be plenty of them willing to press the button.

One of my first thoughts about Cameron was: Oh shit, he has the right to fire off atom bombs....

I view it rather like having a young child. You remove anything that might hurt or endanger them before they can get their hands on it....

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:03 pm

yahyah wrote:
danesclose wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Above on Nukes.

Corbyn should not have answered the question, you just don't our defence relies to a small extent on not answering it. PT in the Guardian has a decent analysis.

We absolutely would be able to retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe us out. The submarines would detect the loss of Radio 4 (bizarre but there you go) and launch. Trident is expensive because it is a second strike weapon. It has the benefit that you don't have a hair trigger looking to launch before you are hit (which is why in the Cold War the USA had B52s orbiting Thule ready to head off into the Soviet Union).
How would Germany or Sweden for example retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe them out?
We have to realise that we are not one of the "big boys" any more - we don't have an empire where the sun never sets any more.
We would be able to better protect the citizens of this country if we spent the money on conventional forces rather than give money to the Americans for a weapon system they control.
Were it to get to the stage where anyone would want to nuke us, then a nuclear war would almost certainly have already broken out.
Well said Danesclose.

The idea of nuclear retaliation in such circumstances is profoundly depressing.
Why murder thousands of innocent people more ? Out of hate or revenge, just because they are the 'enemy' ?

The point is not to do it, the point is that your opponent knows attacking you is pointless because they would also be wiped out. It may be dumb but it has kept the peace in Europe for a record length of time. If Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes (for a worthless security protocol) it would not now be under attack.

Germany sits underneath the US umbrella as does Australia. Sweden could probably be invaded by Russia any time they want, which is likely to be never. They are not a big target for non domestic terrorists either.

In fact the reply was to the narrow point we wouldn't be able to do anything if attacked, to show however pointless we could.

The modern point of nukes is probably as much about stopping really nasty nuclear or biological terrorist attacks being sponsored by rogue states (or elements within them). Which is why a far cheaper alternative to Trident would have been an option if Miliband had won. You probably only need a handful of land based missiles in holes in the ground.

All of which is moot. Labour has never won, and will never win on a unilateral platform. Just look at the massive lead the Tories have pulled out in polling on defence

People vote for leaders they think will do what it takes to keep them safe, and will do what it takes to make them (or keep them) financially secure.

Labour is already seeking (rightly in my view) to turn the economic argument around. By signing up to a no hope defence policy Corbyn has basically thrown away any chance of winning. Media air time (as we see already) will be dominated by Nukes removing space from the vital argument on the economy.

Plus Joe Public generally won't vote for a leader that they don't believe would do everything necessary to defend them. Absolutely the threats are imaginary, but they are also easily imagined. Kinnock, originally a CND supporter came to that conclusion after losing an election dominated by them, nothing substantial has really changed.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:08 pm

As well as pointing out issues with some Corbyn supporters approach to policy, this article points out the issues with a world where everybody gets rid of nukes, but still behave like nation states.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... na-fallacy

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:08 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
yahyah wrote:''Cancer patients are being forced to sell their homes and even eat less due to 'dire financial situation', poll reveals''

''A UK-wide YouGov poll commissioned by Macmillan Cancer Support questioned 2,011 adults with cancer – 122 from Wales – and asked about their financial situation over a 12-month period.

It found that more than a million people with cancer (42%) are struggling to keep up with their household bills and credit commitments.

Macmillan say the “dire financial situation” is caused because cancer treatment leaves many patients unable to work.

The charity is warning that potential upcoming changes to welfare provisions could leave many without the support they need.''
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/healt ... l-10168332" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any chance the media could focus as much on serious issues like this as 'old lefty won't nuke millions' headlines ?

We've heard a lot about needing to be patriotic and singing and bowing to the Queen.
It's hard to feel love for a wealthy country that allows sick people to endure this sort of stress.
Always somebody (allegedly) ready to make a quick buck out of the situation:

In one of the deals, a business partner of Ms Thomson's bought a home in Stirling for £64,000 from a cancer sufferer desperate to move, before selling it to Ms Thomson for £95,000 the same day. Ms Thomson then received a 'cashback' payment of more than £28,000 from her business partner.
Neither the £28,000 payment, nor the fact that the business partner had owned the home for less than six months, was disclosed to the lender, which provided a mortgage based on a purchase price of £95,000. Under guidelines, the mortgage company should have been made aware of both details.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/137 ... urn false;

Thanks for keeping us updated about that Eric.
Nasty stuff, even if it may prove to be legal.

& nice to see you around again.
Hope you've forgiven me for going to the dark side in the leadership election !

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:09 pm

Afternoon.
I would like to ask anyone here, or elsewhere for that matter, who comes out with the phrase 'what Corbyn should have said' (or words to that effect) to put themselves forward and become elected as an mp.Then,having done that,win a clear mandate as party leader,maybe approximately 60% of eligible votes.Once they have done those things tell the present Labour party leader what to do/say/wear.
Anyway,on a much nicer subject,I've just cooked and eaten maple and hazlenut biscuits from Nigel Slaters new book.(Bought it for a friends Christmas present but have smeared butter and biscuit dough on it,so now it's mine).
Do have one or two.In all my biscuit eating years they are the most delicious I've ever eaten.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:17 pm

Mmm, they sound delicious, thanks Rebecca, just about to make a cuppa.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:27 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:
danesclose wrote: How would Germany or Sweden for example retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe them out?
We have to realise that we are not one of the "big boys" any more - we don't have an empire where the sun never sets any more.
We would be able to better protect the citizens of this country if we spent the money on conventional forces rather than give money to the Americans for a weapon system they control.
Were it to get to the stage where anyone would want to nuke us, then a nuclear war would almost certainly have already broken out.
Well said Danesclose.

The idea of nuclear retaliation in such circumstances is profoundly depressing.
Why murder thousands of innocent people more ? Out of hate or revenge, just because they are the 'enemy' ?
The point is not to do it, the point is that your opponent knows attacking you is pointless because they would also be wiped out. It may be dumb but it has kept the peace in Europe for a record length of time. If Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes (for a worthless security protocol) it would not now be under attack.

Germany sits underneath the US umbrella as does Australia. Sweden could probably be invaded by Russia any time they want, which is likely to be never. They are not a big target for non domestic terrorists either.

In fact the reply was to the narrow point we wouldn't be able to do anything if attacked, to show however pointless we could.

The modern point of nukes is probably as much about stopping really nasty nuclear or biological terrorist attacks being sponsored by rogue states (or elements within them). Which is why a far cheaper alternative to Trident would have been an option if Miliband had won. You probably only need a handful of land based missiles in holes in the ground.

All of which is moot. Labour has never won, and will never win on a unilateral platform. Just look at the massive lead the Tories have pulled out in polling on defence

People vote for leaders they think will do what it takes to keep them safe, and will do what it takes to make them (or keep them) financially secure.

Labour is already seeking (rightly in my view) to turn the economic argument around. By signing up to a no hope defence policy Corbyn has basically thrown away any chance of winning. Media air time (as we see already) will be dominated by Nukes removing space from the vital argument on the economy.

Plus Joe Public generally won't vote for a leader that they don't believe would do everything necessary to defend them. Absolutely the threats are imaginary, but they are also easily imagined. Kinnock, originally a CND supporter came to that conclusion after losing an election dominated by them, nothing substantial has really changed.

Corbyn is a pacifist, everyone knows this so there's no point pretending orherwise but that doesn't mean that the Labour party is about to adopt a nuclear disarmament policy. As long as the party remains committed to some kind of Trident renewal, it's less of a problem and more of a discussion. I didn't vote for Corbyn because I didn't want all this but now we've got him we might as well let him be himself as authenticity is his main draw.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:31 pm

Willow904 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote: Well said Danesclose.

The idea of nuclear retaliation in such circumstances is profoundly depressing.
Why murder thousands of innocent people more ? Out of hate or revenge, just because they are the 'enemy' ?
The point is not to do it, the point is that your opponent knows attacking you is pointless because they would also be wiped out. It may be dumb but it has kept the peace in Europe for a record length of time. If Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes (for a worthless security protocol) it would not now be under attack.

Germany sits underneath the US umbrella as does Australia. Sweden could probably be invaded by Russia any time they want, which is likely to be never. They are not a big target for non domestic terrorists either.

In fact the reply was to the narrow point we wouldn't be able to do anything if attacked, to show however pointless we could.

The modern point of nukes is probably as much about stopping really nasty nuclear or biological terrorist attacks being sponsored by rogue states (or elements within them). Which is why a far cheaper alternative to Trident would have been an option if Miliband had won. You probably only need a handful of land based missiles in holes in the ground.

All of which is moot. Labour has never won, and will never win on a unilateral platform. Just look at the massive lead the Tories have pulled out in polling on defence

People vote for leaders they think will do what it takes to keep them safe, and will do what it takes to make them (or keep them) financially secure.

Labour is already seeking (rightly in my view) to turn the economic argument around. By signing up to a no hope defence policy Corbyn has basically thrown away any chance of winning. Media air time (as we see already) will be dominated by Nukes removing space from the vital argument on the economy.

Plus Joe Public generally won't vote for a leader that they don't believe would do everything necessary to defend them. Absolutely the threats are imaginary, but they are also easily imagined. Kinnock, originally a CND supporter came to that conclusion after losing an election dominated by them, nothing substantial has really changed.
Corbyn is a pacifist, everyone knows this so there's no point pretending orherwise but that doesn't mean that the Labour party is about to adopt a nuclear disarmament policy. As long as the party remains committed to some kind of Trident renewal, it's less of a problem and more of a discussion. I didn't vote for Corbyn because I didn't want all this but now we've got him we might as well let him be himself as authenticity is his main draw.

Yesterday someone Tweeted: Yes we did know Corbyn's views when we voted for him.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:33 pm

Rebecca wrote:Afternoon.
I would like to ask anyone here, or elsewhere for that matter, who comes out with the phrase 'what Corbyn should have said' (or words to that effect) to put themselves forward and become elected as an mp.Then,having done that,win a clear mandate as party leader,maybe approximately 60% of eligible votes.Once they have done those things tell the present Labour party leader what to do/say/wear.
Anyway,on a much nicer subject,I've just cooked and eaten maple and hazlenut biscuits from Nigel Slaters new book.(Bought it for a friends Christmas present but have smeared butter and biscuit dough on it,so now it's mine).
Do have one or two.In all my biscuit eating years they are the most delicious I've ever eaten.

My bold. Accidently or on purpose?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:34 pm

So. Took in the paperwork and cheque for a blue badge parking permit today. My granddaughter works for the council and the lovely young lady who photocopied all the documents for me, knows her.
I mentioned perhaps applying for carers allowance. She said she'd get our granddaaughter to photocopy the application for me...Evidently it's 46 pages long!!!

Oh joy....

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:49 pm

Macmillan say the “dire financial situation” is caused because cancer treatment leaves many patients unable to work.

And it's bloody expensive. We have a thirty mile round trip each time we visit the hospital. Each time there's a surgical procedure there's pre-op and then clinics.
Mr Ohso has to have one day a week chemo for six weeks with a two month break and then another one day a week for six weeks treatment, that's aside from the polyps he's been diagnosed with...Hopefully I've sorted the car parking but it's still a big drain on a limited income when you're retired. Trying to feed him a decent, healthy diet is costing. He's also feeling the cold far more than previously so that's going to mean higher fuel bills this winter and I've just had to buy a higher tog duvet for him,

There's no money to spare for all the above so it's coming out of our savings...I've determined not to worry about it for the time being. It's far more important to make sure he's comfortable, but I do worry about what's further down the road because we shall need some of those savings to help us over the move.
I'm just hoping we don't have to wait much longer before we get our sheltered accomodation and have the money from our house to live on, but the rub is I shall have tackle it all on my own, as Mr Ohso isn't going to be up to much for quite a while....I just hope I can keep up with it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 5:59 pm

Reading flat measuring less than two metres wide up for sale at £110,000

The description on Rightmove says the pint-sized property "should achieve a rental figure around £500 - £550 per calendar month"

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... o-10165349

Not only in London then, although I suppose it's cheap by their standards....

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 6:04 pm

@ohso

Apologies if known about/not applicable

https://www.gov.uk/the-warm-home-discou ... -youll-get" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 6:14 pm

HindleA wrote:@ohso

Apologies if known about/not applicable

https://www.gov.uk/the-warm-home-discou ... -youll-get" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Coincidentally, our electricity supplier person asked me if anyone in the household was ill, receiving sickness benefit etc when I spoke to them today to go onto a new fixed price electricity tariff contract.

Not sure if she was referring to that government scheme or another.
But it was reassuring that staff are trained to bring up the question with customers and then presumably advise accordingly.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 6:23 pm

HindleA wrote:@ohso

Apologies if known about/not applicable

https://www.gov.uk/the-warm-home-discou ... -youll-get" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Because for a while Mr Ohso paid into some scheme [sorry I can't remember the name of it] which raised his State pension by a few pounds a week, and he gets around £35 a month from a works pension, we're literally just a few pounds a month over the limit for claiming extra benefits, so most schemes are closed to us.
The last time we asked we were seventh on the waiting list for rented sheltered accomodation. We shan't have to worry about money when we get one. Hopefully there won't be too much more of a wait.
If Mr Ohso's condition has a bad outlook we can tell the housing association and will be bumped up the list but we don't know yet so are in limbo.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 6:28 pm

Not just income based Ohso,by any means,I would have a look.It might depend on company,ours has a hierarchy,and we received it not due to income.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 6:44 pm

HindleA wrote:Not just income based Ohso,by any means,I would have a look.It might depend on company,ours has a hierarchy,and we received it not due to income.

We switched to Eon via Age Concern a few years ago, so get a pensioners discount I believe. We've just had a letter from Eon saying they've changed the tariff, but to be honest it's gobbledy gook to me.
Any offers we've had in the past have been dependant on claiming pension credits or allowances. We have friends who are in the same position as us. Just a few pounds above the limit...Luckily we have an asset we can fall back on.
The kids know their inheritance might be gone if we hang on too long. We'd have liked them to have it, but needs must as my mother used to say...

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 6:48 pm

But before all that, we are waiting for a plumber to get the boiler and heating system repaired...

Now that is giving me nightmares....

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 6:51 pm

Britain on SUPERSTORM alert: 140mph Hurricane Joaquin 'on course' to smash into UK

A VIOLENT Atlantic hurricane shaping up to be one of the most powerful on record is threatening to smash into Britain NEXT week.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/6 ... ck-path-UK

Oh good God

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 6:57 pm

Just back from walking the dogs on the beach. Mr Riots has chilled out a bit - the humour is creeping back.

He says his locked in with urgent need and toilet roll in hand episode was 'not very edifying'.

And then he said quietly - 'and of course it serves to remind us how much harder it is to start a new relationship when older.'

Belly laugh moment.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 6:58 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Britain on SUPERSTORM alert: 140mph Hurricane Joaquin 'on course' to smash into UK

A VIOLENT Atlantic hurricane shaping up to be one of the most powerful on record is threatening to smash into Britain NEXT week.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/6 ... ck-path-UK
Oh good God

Yep it is the Daily Express, reliably threatening weather Armageddon since Princess Diana conspiracy stories finally stopped selling papers.

I assume they can't afford to employ journalists.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 7:05 pm

To be strictly fair,there has been localised wind damage here,but that might be a consequence of a recent curry.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 7:10 pm

Excuse musings,but every time my better half bent over to get the 'phone(in her wheelchair)she let rip and continued to sporadically throughout the conversation,I presume there is some scientific explanation for this.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 7:13 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Britain on SUPERSTORM alert: 140mph Hurricane Joaquin 'on course' to smash into UK

A VIOLENT Atlantic hurricane shaping up to be one of the most powerful on record is threatening to smash into Britain NEXT week.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/6 ... ck-path-UK
Oh good God
I blame gay marriage

Yes it's caused terrible anti cyclonic spirals globally - utter HAVOC in our skies.

We also cursed the immigrants for the appalling traffic congestion around Monmouth earlier today - cars of every size, shape and colour and far too many of them. Our roads are full up and simply can't cope.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 7:25 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Just back from walking the dogs on the beach. Mr Riots has chilled out a bit - the humour is creeping back.

He says his locked in with urgent need and toilet roll in hand episode was 'not very edifying'.

And then he said quietly - 'and of course it serves to remind us how much harder it is to start a new relationship when older.'

Belly laugh moment.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 7:29 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Harry Truman wasn't a loony fantasist. He used two atom bombs.
The reasons for using the nukes in 1945 were, if not exactly 'loony', then highly questionable. E.g. geopolitical - to end the war before the Soviet Union had a chance to get involved in an invasion of Japan. Or experimental - to test out the effect of the bombs on a city while there was still a war going on. (Both of which border on loony as far as I'm concerned). It was not strictly necessary for the defeat of Japan (where, arguably, the firebombing of Tokyo had as big an effect anyway).

Moreover, Truman used the nukes when there were only a handful in existence, he controlled all of them, and while they were fearsomely destructive, they did not have the kind of power that would enable the existing weapons to wipe out life on earth.

Mr Ohso and I have watched film clips of when they tested the bombs in the desert in the USA and people went on sightseeing trips there just afterwards...And the troops that were near the blast.
It makes me shiver with horror....

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 7:59 pm

danesclose wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Above on Nukes.

Corbyn should not have answered the question, you just don't our defence relies to a small extent on not answering it. PT in the Guardian has a decent analysis.

We absolutely would be able to retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe us out. The submarines would detect the loss of Radio 4 (bizarre but there you go) and launch. Trident is expensive because it is a second strike weapon. It has the benefit that you don't have a hair trigger looking to launch before you are hit (which is why in the Cold War the USA had B52s orbiting Thule ready to head off into the Soviet Union).
How would Germany or Sweden for example retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe them out?
We have to realise that we are not one of the "big boys" any more - we don't have an empire where the sun never sets any more.
We would be able to better protect the citizens of this country if we spent the money on conventional forces rather than give money to the Americans for a weapon system they control.
Were it to get to the stage where anyone would want to nuke us, then a nuclear war would almost certainly have already broken out.

Agree wholeheartedly with your position.

I love your new avatar and signature.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:00 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
The reasons for using the nukes in 1945 were, if not exactly 'loony', then highly questionable. E.g. geopolitical - to end the war before the Soviet Union had a chance to get involved in an invasion of Japan. Or experimental - to test out the effect of the bombs on a city while there was still a war going on. (Both of which border on loony as far as I'm concerned). It was not strictly necessary for the defeat of Japan (where, arguably, the firebombing of Tokyo had as big an effect anyway).

Moreover, Truman used the nukes when there were only a handful in existence, he controlled all of them, and while they were fearsomely destructive, they did not have the kind of power that would enable the existing weapons to wipe out life on earth.

Right, but he wasn't a fool or a monster. He was a serious and progressive man, proven in extremely trying times. He doesn't lie on the wrong side of some moral line, with Corbyn on the other side.

Anyway, you don't have to go as far as a politician who used "the bomb". You only have to consider ones like Mitterrand and Carter who didn't use the bomb, but would have said they might. Are they much worse men that Corbyn or Benn or whoever?

What's got to be done is build a case that Trident is a waste of money. We've had Corbyn start a much needed debate, which is welcome. His background won't help the debate though.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:08 pm

Rebecca wrote:Afternoon.
I would like to ask anyone here, or elsewhere for that matter, who comes out with the phrase 'what Corbyn should have said' (or words to that effect) to put themselves forward and become elected as an mp.Then,having done that,win a clear mandate as party leader,maybe approximately 60% of eligible votes.Once they have done those things tell the present Labour party leader what to do/say/wear.
Anyway,on a much nicer subject,I've just cooked and eaten maple and hazlenut biscuits from Nigel Slaters new book.(Bought it for a friends Christmas present but have smeared butter and biscuit dough on it,so now it's mine).
Do have one or two.In all my biscuit eating years they are the most delicious I've ever eaten.

Oh, how lovely! Thank you - will go perfectly with the cuppa I've just made, too

I enjoy Nigel Slater's programmes more than those of most other TV chefs - I like his seeming gentleness, laid-back-ness, and his recipes appeal to me that little bit more. Otolengi (sp?) too. Miss the Two Fat Ladies, 'though. Used to see Miss Dickson-Wright, shopping locally and she was always charming and amiable.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:15 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:
Rebecca wrote:Afternoon.
I would like to ask anyone here, or elsewhere for that matter, who comes out with the phrase 'what Corbyn should have said' (or words to that effect) to put themselves forward and become elected as an mp.Then,having done that,win a clear mandate as party leader,maybe approximately 60% of eligible votes.Once they have done those things tell the present Labour party leader what to do/say/wear.
Anyway,on a much nicer subject,I've just cooked and eaten maple and hazlenut biscuits from Nigel Slaters new book.(Bought it for a friends Christmas present but have smeared butter and biscuit dough on it,so now it's mine).
Do have one or two.In all my biscuit eating years they are the most delicious I've ever eaten.
Oh, how lovely! Thank you - will go perfectly with the cuppa I've just made, too
I enjoy Nigel Slater's programmes more than those of most other TV chefs - I like his seeming gentleness, laid-back-ness, and his recipes appeal to me that little bit more. Otolengi (sp?) too. Miss the Two Fat Ladies, 'though. Used to see Miss Dickson-Wright, shopping locally and she was always charming and amiable.

Nigel Slater's pork belly with peach salsa is gorgeous. I enjoy his recipes and presentation style. Unfortunately the programs are ruined by an editor and director suffering from ADD. How hard is it to keep a camera still???

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:16 pm

Willow904 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:

Wouldn't a better answer be something like he gave to the question about committing British troops abroad- ie "very hard to imagine me doing that".

I wouldn't put too much on "authenticity". Anyone getting near power will have to start being unauthentic, because diplomacy is balancing different pressures, respecting sensitivies etc. If he thinks he can reform the EU while talking like he has done on NATO, for instance, he's got another thing coming.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:26 pm

Ms. and Mr.Riots - you are heroes. Thank you.
I hope you haven't got so cold/wet/constipated (Mr.R only, obvs) that you suffer unduly.

Wales has won - not easily, by any means; and no bonus points - so now we have to hope that England lose to Australia. And I do. Fervently.

Our lovely council - having done our kitchen out beautifully - is now upgrading the bathroom.
We have been in this flat for 5 years. I haven't had a bath for 5 years - we had just a shower.
Today, although all we have just a loo and a bath (no sink, no tiles, no flooring beyond screed) the boys said w could use the bath.

HEAVENNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cuppa, Private Eye, and an hour in peace with scented candles.
I am one happy, warm, steaming, Chanel (or is is aldehydes, howsllyofme?) fragranced woman.

I am also so grateful - I'd forgotten the therapeutic value of a good long soak it has been so long. I am now knackered.
Off to bed, so I'll miss QT - looking forward to your comments on it when I catch up tomorrow.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:40 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
The reasons for using the nukes in 1945 were, if not exactly 'loony', then highly questionable. E.g. geopolitical - to end the war before the Soviet Union had a chance to get involved in an invasion of Japan. Or experimental - to test out the effect of the bombs on a city while there was still a war going on. (Both of which border on loony as far as I'm concerned). It was not strictly necessary for the defeat of Japan (where, arguably, the firebombing of Tokyo had as big an effect anyway).

Moreover, Truman used the nukes when there were only a handful in existence, he controlled all of them, and while they were fearsomely destructive, they did not have the kind of power that would enable the existing weapons to wipe out life on earth.
Right, but he wasn't a fool or a monster. He was a serious and progressive man, proven in extremely trying times. He doesn't lie on the wrong side of some moral line, with Corbyn on the other side.

Anyway, you don't have to go as far as a politician who used "the bomb". You only have to consider ones like Mitterrand and Carter who didn't use the bomb, but would have said they might. Are they much worse men that Corbyn or Benn or whoever?

What's got to be done is build a case that Trident is a waste of money. We've had Corbyn start a much needed debate, which is welcome. His background won't help the debate though.

I think that ship has sailed. Trident will be renewed and unless the Tories are utterly incompetent (they aren't) the cancellation costs will be multiples of the completion costs.

So we are stuck with that or nothing. Since no PM will be elected on the basis of unilateral nuclear disarmament it is Trident.

This is the most relevant poll I can find.

Just 22% of Labour supporters, and only 18% of all voters, back Jeremy Corbyn's position on scrapping the Trident nuclear weapons system, polling for The Huffington Post UK carried out by Survation has revealed.

I actually think the percentage in favour of nukes nationally is only 75% so those figures look low.

So not a viable policy then, unless Hodges is right and the ambition is to spend the next ten years protesting outside number 10.

As for Truman. Hiroshima undoubtedly saved lives, both allied and Japanese. The death toll from an invasion with artillery and strategic bomber support would have been millions. It would have been vastly disproportionate with the Japanese suffering more and the civilian suffering would have been huge.

The case for Nagasaki is much more dubious, although hindsight is to a degree in play. It wouldn't have hurt to wait another week.

Incidentally in the 40s after the end of the war Truman conducted an extensive audit of his much vaunted nuclear arsenal. The conclusion was he had four bombs, one of them was just about useable. The early nukes once armed were likely to go off in a thunderstorm.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:40 pm

ephemerid wrote:Ms. and Mr.Riots - you are heroes. Thank you.
I hope you haven't got so cold/wet/constipated (Mr.R only, obvs) that you suffer unduly.

Wales has won - not easily, by any means; and no bonus points - so now we have to hope that England lose to Australia. And I do. Fervently.

Our lovely council - having done our kitchen out beautifully - is now upgrading the bathroom.
We have been in this flat for 5 years. I haven't had a bath for 5 years - we had just a shower.
Today, although all we have just a loo and a bath (no sink, no tiles, no flooring beyond screed) the boys said w could use the bath.

HEAVENNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cuppa, Private Eye, and an hour in peace with scented candles.
I am one happy, warm, steaming, Chanel (or is is aldehydes, howsllyofme?) fragranced woman.

I am also so grateful - I'd forgotten the therapeutic value of a good long soak it has been so long. I am now knackered.
Off to bed, so I'll miss QT - looking forward to your comments on it when I catch up tomorrow.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I do envy you. We had a water meter put in, and having baths is so expensive, we just use the shower now.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:42 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: I blame gay marriage
Yes it's caused terrible anti cyclonic spirals globally - utter HAVOC in our skies.

We also cursed the immigrants for the appalling traffic congestion around Monmouth earlier today - cars of every size, shape and colour and far too many of them. Our roads are full up and simply can't cope.
I know. Bloody German cars, coming over here, polluting our atmosphere.

Good-evening, everyone.
I've been elsewhere today studying something other than current events.

It's been ten whole hours since I've read anything to do with the VW emissions débâcle.
Apologies if I've missed out on something that contradicts writing below.

I'm sorry for the owners of vehicles caught up in VW's mess here in the UK. Last night, the Guardian and other news outlets were reporting in the UK alone, 1.2 million vehicles are bad VW products. We're all breathing air compromised by VW's perfidy but automobile owners sold an illegally equipped product have additional challenges. It's my understanding it's up to VW's customers to take the time to turn up somewhere to 'get it fixed'. I'm disgusted with this completely unacceptable response from VW. I don't trust alleged 'fixes' for their deliberate bastard problems. I'm bewildered by the lack of response from publicly accountable regulatory agencies - I'm very specifically blaming UK government. Protecting people from criminal corporations selling illegally manufactured goods is government’s job. Who the hell is letting VW determine what they'll do or not in the UK? It matters what gets put into the atmosphere. This is a profound public health problem.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:52 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Rebecca wrote:Afternoon.
I would like to ask anyone here, or elsewhere for that matter, who comes out with the phrase 'what Corbyn should have said' (or words to that effect) to put themselves forward and become elected as an mp.Then,having done that,win a clear mandate as party leader,maybe approximately 60% of eligible votes.Once they have done those things tell the present Labour party leader what to do/say/wear.
Anyway,on a much nicer subject,I've just cooked and eaten maple and hazlenut biscuits from Nigel Slaters new book.(Bought it for a friends Christmas present but have smeared butter and biscuit dough on it,so now it's mine).
Do have one or two.In all my biscuit eating years they are the most delicious I've ever eaten.
My bold. Accidently or on purpose?

Accidently,I am just a very messy cook,always have been.
I already have 3 Nigel Slater books,don't relly need another,but they feel so good to hold,cloth covered,nice paper.Oh well,now I've got four.
Funnily enough,I can't bear to watch him.Excrutiating,Don't really know why,I wonder if he is very shy underneath?
So sorry about all your troubles Mrs Ohso.As I understand it,being a carer myself,carers allowance stops if you are getting a state pension,even though you still do the caring.It's pretty shit really.I don't know if that applies to attendance allowance which is claimed by the person getting cared for.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:53 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Ms. and Mr.Riots - you are heroes. Thank you.
I hope you haven't got so cold/wet/constipated (Mr.R only, obvs) that you suffer unduly.

Wales has won - not easily, by any means; and no bonus points - so now we have to hope that England lose to Australia. And I do. Fervently.

Our lovely council - having done our kitchen out beautifully - is now upgrading the bathroom.
We have been in this flat for 5 years. I haven't had a bath for 5 years - we had just a shower.
Today, although all we have just a loo and a bath (no sink, no tiles, no flooring beyond screed) the boys said w could use the bath.

HEAVENNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cuppa, Private Eye, and an hour in peace with scented candles.
I am one happy, warm, steaming, Chanel (or is is aldehydes, howsllyofme?) fragranced woman.

I am also so grateful - I'd forgotten the therapeutic value of a good long soak it has been so long. I am now knackered.
Off to bed, so I'll miss QT - looking forward to your comments on it when I catch up tomorrow.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I do envy you. We had a water meter put in, and having baths is so expensive, we just use the shower now.

Is there no engineering solution to having affordable baths or has humanity f***** up so bad now a tub full of hot water is a luxury beyond the means of regular people?

I'll willingly, joyfully relinquish hot baths if it means every person on the planet has enough food, water, air and shelter. I'll do what we must for the good of us all. I want to god damn see the numbers before I'll agree to do without if the problem is some Tory bastard government who can't govern properly and are perfectly relaxed about letting the country go to hell.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 8:59 pm

Looks like Telegraph readers agree with Corbyn:

Tom Pride ‏@ThomasPride 5h5 hours ago

The vote on whether you agree with Jeremy Corbyn on nukes is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rents.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Results so far: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQPS3GmWcAAJIci.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not sure that's the result they were expecting.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 9:01 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:...and unless the Tories are utterly incompetent (they aren't)...

Please post reputable sources as evidence documenting current Tory government competence.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 9:10 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:As for Truman. Hiroshima undoubtedly saved lives, both allied and Japanese. The death toll from an invasion with artillery and strategic bomber support would have been millions. It would have been vastly disproportionate with the Japanese suffering more and the civilian suffering would have been huge.

The case for Nagasaki is much more dubious, although hindsight is to a degree in play. It wouldn't have hurt to wait another week.

Incidentally in the 40s after the end of the war Truman conducted an extensive audit of his much vaunted nuclear arsenal. The conclusion was he had four bombs, one of them was just about useable. The early nukes once armed were likely to go off in a thunderstorm.

(my bold)

There's me not reassured about nuclear weaponry production excellence.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 9:15 pm

refitman wrote:Looks like Telegraph readers agree with Corbyn:
Tom Pride ‏@ThomasPride 5h5 hours ago

The vote on whether you agree with Jeremy Corbyn on nukes is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rents.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Results so far: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQPS3GmWcAAJIci.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not sure that's the result they were expecting.

I had a look and now 86% agree.No doubt all the £3ers.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 9:20 pm

Just updated on a live thread on the G:

Attorney general: 13 dead, 20 wounded

Oregon attorney general Ellen Rosenblum has NBC that 13 people have died, while earlier state police Lt Bill Fugate told KATU-TV that seven to 10 people were dead and as many as 20 others were injured.

Gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety has released statements from shooting survivors; the group notes that the Umpqua shooting is the 45th school shooting this year in the uS, and the 142nd school shooting since the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012.

“America is the only developed country where when someone asks if you heard about that campus shooting, you have to clarify ‘which one?’ That is unacceptable,” said Colin Goddard, a Virginia Tech survivor and Everytown advocate. “Something has to change. We need to all come together for the Umpqua families today.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live ... e1744a0150

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 9:22 pm

Weapons made available are more likely to be used.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 9:23 pm

citizenJA wrote:Just updated on a live thread on the G:
Attorney general: 13 dead, 20 wounded

Oregon attorney general Ellen Rosenblum has NBC that 13 people have died, while earlier state police Lt Bill Fugate told KATU-TV that seven to 10 people were dead and as many as 20 others were injured.

Gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety has released statements from shooting survivors; the group notes that the Umpqua shooting is the 45th school shooting this year in the uS, and the 142nd school shooting since the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012.

“America is the only developed country where when someone asks if you heard about that campus shooting, you have to clarify ‘which one?’ That is unacceptable,” said Colin Goddard, a Virginia Tech survivor and Everytown advocate. “Something has to change. We need to all come together for the Umpqua families today.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live ... e1744a0150

The 142nd school shooting since Sandy Hook.

Unbelievable and no way out.

Very sad, yet predictable - which is even worse.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Thu 01 Oct, 2015 9:25 pm

Willow904 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote: Well said Danesclose.

The idea of nuclear retaliation in such circumstances is profoundly depressing.
Why murder thousands of innocent people more ? Out of hate or revenge, just because they are the 'enemy' ?
The point is not to do it, the point is that your opponent knows attacking you is pointless because they would also be wiped out. It may be dumb but it has kept the peace in Europe for a record length of time. If Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes (for a worthless security protocol) it would not now be under attack.

Germany sits underneath the US umbrella as does Australia. Sweden could probably be invaded by Russia any time they want, which is likely to be never. They are not a big target for non domestic terrorists either.

In fact the reply was to the narrow point we wouldn't be able to do anything if attacked, to show however pointless we could.

The modern point of nukes is probably as much about stopping really nasty nuclear or biological terrorist attacks being sponsored by rogue states (or elements within them). Which is why a far cheaper alternative to Trident would have been an option if Miliband had won. You probably only need a handful of land based missiles in holes in the ground.

All of which is moot. Labour has never won, and will never win on a unilateral platform. Just look at the massive lead the Tories have pulled out in polling on defence

People vote for leaders they think will do what it takes to keep them safe, and will do what it takes to make them (or keep them) financially secure.

Labour is already seeking (rightly in my view) to turn the economic argument around. By signing up to a no hope defence policy Corbyn has basically thrown away any chance of winning. Media air time (as we see already) will be dominated by Nukes removing space from the vital argument on the economy.

Plus Joe Public generally won't vote for a leader that they don't believe would do everything necessary to defend them. Absolutely the threats are imaginary, but they are also easily imagined. Kinnock, originally a CND supporter came to that conclusion after losing an election dominated by them, nothing substantial has really changed.
Corbyn is a pacifist, everyone knows this so there's no point pretending orherwise but that doesn't mean that the Labour party is about to adopt a nuclear disarmament policy. As long as the party remains committed to some kind of Trident renewal, it's less of a problem and more of a discussion. I didn't vote for Corbyn because I didn't want all this but now we've got him we might as well let him be himself as authenticity is his main draw.

Is he Willow? I thought he was a unilateralist but not a pacifist?