Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Scottish Labour's Trident vote does the impossible and makes Jeremy Corbyn's nuclear policy even more absurd
Would a Labour goverment retain Britain's nuclear weapons? Some questions in politics need straight and consistent answers

By James Kirkup10:32AM GMT 02 Nov 2015

Consistency is over-rated in politics. Differences of opinion between colleagues do not automatically worry or deter colleagues, who are generally grown-up enough to realise that no group of adults will ever see things in precisely the same way. And after all, successful companies are full of creative tension between leaders, tension that often improves performance. Politically, a well-managed difference of opinion can even be beneficial, since it means your party appeals to both sides of the argument. The Blair-Brown wars often had the effect of allowing Labour to reach traditional left-leaning voters, who backed Brown and New Labour soft Tory types, who backed Blair.
So when Jeremy Corbyn says he embraces debate among colleagues, a plurality of opinion, he may be on to something. The fact that members of his front bench don’t agree about, say, free schools need not be fatal, as long as the debate is managed well and produces a single coherent policy. So it can be a good thing that “Labour democracy has opened up” and party members take divergent views

Sometimes though, consistency is all. On some binary questions, you need one single clear answer, and it needs to be the same answer, no matter who is speaking for your party. Questions like: should Britain have nuclear weapons?

And on this question, Labour under Jeremy Corbyn has done something many people had thought impossible. It’s become even more absurd, shambolic, contradictory and unconvincing.


Over the weekend, the Scottish bit of the Labour Party voted in favour of getting rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons. The vote came even though Kezia Dugdale, who leads the party in Scotland, wants to keep Trident, which is based in, er, Scotland.
The Scottish aspect of this is more important than some people realise. The Royal Navy believes that Coulport in Scotland is the only place in the UK where the boats that carry Trident can be safely based and maintained. If the Trident successor was banned from Scotland, there would no other home for it, at least until a new base was ready, perhaps in Plymouth, something that could take so many years that for some time, Britain's subs would not have a British base.
Meanwhile, the UK Labour Party is led by Mr Corbyn, a man who wants to get rid of nuclear weapons. But his shadow cabinet is full of people who don’t, including his shadow defence secretary and his deputy leader. Mr Corbyn has suggested that in the event of such disputes, the party membership at the annual conference should be "sovereign" and take the final decision. The party membership as it now stands would probably vote to disarm. But the membership isn’t being asked, not least because the unions who largely fund the party are in favour of nukes and the jobs that depend on them.


Let’s boil this down to simple questions: would a Labour government under Mr Corbyn go ahead with the replacement of Trident and so retain Britain’s nuclear strike capability? If so, where would it be based? And under what circumstances would that government authorise the use of those weapons?
Today, it is simply impossible for any voter to know the answers to those questions. You don’t have to nuke-loving Cold Warrior to see that this is a problem for Labour, a very big one.
Lots of people try to reduce lots of political questions to binary choices, when of course they’re more complicated than that, shades of grey not black and white. Those are the issues when a bit of internal debate can be a good thing.
But some things are binary. Being a nuclear-armed state is like being pregnant: you either are or you’re not. Either is a perfectly acceptable state to be in, but you need to know which you are and act accordingly. Labour needs a single position on nuclear weapons, soon. Otherwise, it's dead. This really is a black and white issue.


Tom Watson, deputy leader: “I think the deterrent has kept the peace in the world for half a century and I hope we can have that debate in the party”
Kevan Jones, shadow defence minister: "It would appear that as leader he is acting in the same way he was when he was on the back benches - picking and choosing what he supports"
Hilary Benn, shadow foreign secretary: "I think a British prime minister has to have that option… You have to negotiate them (an enemy) out of existence”
Maria Eagle, shadow defence secretary: “I don't think that a potential prime minister answering a question like that, in the way in which he did, is helpful”
John McDonnell, shadow chancellor: "It’s ultimately a matter of principle about the morality of using nuclear weapons, which would cause such loss of life and destruction the planet" (March 2015)

Perhaps, Tristan should question what is the "land of shit" and who led them "there" and why others failed to divert them the "followers" to a better "outcome".

Perhaps, a period of discord and resolution may re-evaluate the political goals of the labour party.

-=-=-=-=-=

Interesting articles by Will Hutton and Nick Cohen.

We'll lose something vital if we stop debate on campus and beyond
Will Hutton

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/universities-enlightenment-values

-===--==

Traduced by all sides, who will defend the BBC?
Nick Cohen


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/bbc-traduced-by-left-and-right-who-will-defend-it


-=-=-=-=

Both a little too thoughtful for Manuel and the Hazy one.

The most prosperous countries in the world, based on happiness and financial health

The UK took fifteenth place, having achieved the biggest turnaround in any major developed economy

What you mean after deliberately shrinking it, they then inflate it and then claim the credit... you must fancy ever ones daft.

Your argument doesn't hold up as we are fifteenth most wealthy in the world. If you were right then we would not be so high up. Luckily the right government is in power with no possibility of it changing for at least 10 years.

Don't talk wet H/S.

Stan who shrunk it ? oh yes Labour were in power .

This is what London looked like when Labour last left power in the late 70's

Same old right wing tripe, trotted out time and time again.

Same old right wing tripe, trotted out time and time again.

JB and Max,

Same old right wing tripe, trotted out time and time again... and again -):

Not much to proud of in that graph Fred.

Same old left wing nonsense again and again.

Corbyn is doomed. Wait till the press really get stuck into him.

You talk more balls then Stanley Mathews.

why on earth commemorate WW1 fallen?
did he really say that and hold those views?
if so, he is an even greater disgrace than already indicated

Huff and Puff!

and what message are you trying to convey by that?
that the basis of the comment is incorrect?
that this chap has every right to say what he did, even if he is a public figure?
or what?

Puff and huff!

Sgd.

Self-righteous.

Thames Embankment!