What exactly is Jeremy Corbyn's plan?

p90fool

Corbyn broke the tradition of party leaders being interviewed live from their conferences on the Today Programme on Radio 4 yesterday, he apparently insisted on a pre-recorded interview. 

There may have been a genuine logistical reason, but it's a mistake IMO and looks like he's incapable of thinking on his feet. 

If Corbyn can't even get Radio 4 onside he will have no serious analytical outlet for his views in this country anywhere. 

ICBM

Interestingly there was a report on the BBC news last night which went something like this "Jeremy Corbyn far left socialism 1970s la la land losing all support rubbish rubbish", and then they interviewed a few members of the public - former and potential Labour supporters - who had been watching. One of them (quoting as close to verbatim as I can remember) said "when I actually listened to what he said I will still be voting Labour".

Snap

paulads said:

I listened to much of his speech, enjoyed it and agreed with the vast majority of what he said.

Personally, i think he's dragging the Labour Party out of the gutter.

Really? I thought he came across as a naiive Socialist Worker seller, who is so far out of touch with reality that the only place he's taking Labour is into irrelevance and obscurity. I really do think the bloke is a bit dim and a big fool. He certainly doesn't seem to understand some basic tenets of our political system, including how election of a government works.

The only thing he has in his favour is his calm manner. But for all his talk of transforming politics, he has presided over, and is presiding over, and will continue to preside over a nasty in fight, which IMO will end up in the collapse of the party he leads.

Something has to give, because day by day, as more of what he believes in becomes apparent, the Labour Party as is, is becoming increasingly unelectable and out of touch with modern opinion.

Trident for example - just what the hell are they going on about, the Labour Party? THey are all over the place.

Snap

Fretwired said:

On sale at the Labour conference ... they also have a recruiting poster promising prosthetic limbs .. bad taste really.

That is a disgrace. Appalling. I'd like to hear the Labour powers that be explain why that is condoned.

ICBM

Snap said:

Trident for example - just what the hell are they going on about, the Labour Party?

Listening to some senior military people who think that Trident is a waste of money and we'd be better putting our limited resources into conventional forces and spending them on solutions for dealing with asymetric warfare, because are the threats we *actually* face rather than ones we don't.

So I actually disagree with Corbyn about reducing spending on MI6.

Or do you mean the ones in the party who can't let go of our Cold War ego-booster?

For what it's worth I don't support total unilateral nuclear disarmament either - I think we need to retain the capability while it remains anywhere else in the world. But a vastly expensive submarine ballistic missile system is not the most useful way of doing that.

Philly_Q

I do get the impression the whole "decent, honest, sincere Jeremy*" factor has been kicking in again the last couple of weeks.  It's his main asset.  I don't know what the polls are saying right now but there does seem to be a real groundswell of support for Corbyn himself, if not for Labour as a whole, at least from the talking heads I hear on the radio and TV (who, admittedly, are probably party members rather than members of the public, since it's conference week).  

The leadership challenge was a monumental failure, it's strengthened his own position and the "rebels" seem utterly cowed.

(*Jeremy, all the supporters call him Jeremy, like he's a personal friend.  I find it a little unnerving.)

siremoon

For what it's worth I don't support total unilateral nuclear disarmament either - I think we need to retain the capability while it remains anywhere else in the world. But a vastly expensive submarine ballistic missile system is not the most useful way of doing that.

You can't do it any other way and have it remain as a credible deterrent.  Anything which relies on a fixed location installation (missile sites, air bases or even surface ships) is much easier for an enemy to neutralise.  A key part of a submarine borne system is that an enemy doesn't know where it is. 

Snap

ICBM said:

Snap said:

Trident for example - just what the hell are they going on about, the Labour Party?

Listening to some senior military people who think that Trident is a waste of money and we'd be better putting our limited resources into conventional forces and spending them on solutions for dealing with asymetric warfare, because are the threats we *actually* face rather than ones we don't.

Try telling to that to the 15000 odd people up there who are employed in positions dependant on Trident. I think that is the main thing driving support, not the wider implications on defence. Like most things, Trident is a political tool: you stop it, you have mass unemployment without a strategy to deal with the employment void and community devastation left behind. Much the same as steel and coal industry collapses.

paulads

paulads said:

I listened to much of his speech, enjoyed it and agreed with the vast majority of what he said.

Personally, i think he's dragging the Labour Party out of the gutter.

Really? I thought he came across as a naiive Socialist Worker seller, who is so far out of touch with reality that the only place he's taking Labour is into irrelevance and obscurity. I really do think the bloke is a bit dim and a big fool.

Yes, really.

And in the spirit of this new kind of respectful and tolerant politics, I acknowledge your appraisal of Mr Corbyn.

Snap

and I acknowledge yours too sir!

Fretwired

Snap said:

Fretwired said:

On sale at the Labour conference ... they also have a recruiting poster promising prosthetic limbs .. bad taste really.

That is a disgrace. Appalling. I'd like to hear the Labour powers that be explain why that is condoned.

That's nothing .. check out the spoof recruiting posters. Momentum want to stop people joining the army by demonising British troops.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/momentum-jokes-about-injured-british-soldiers-reveal-the-corbyni/

Fretwired

And the Tory in-fighting is ratcheted up a notch. This will help Corbyn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/theresa-may-is-running-a-government-with-no-policies-claims-ken/

paulads

Fretwired said:

That's nothing .. check out the spoof recruiting posters. Momentum want to stop people joining the army by demonising British troops.

selling copies of the Chilcot report would probably have had the desired effect in a far more civilised fashion.

Evilmags

Fretwired said:

And the Tory in-fighting is ratcheted up a notch. This will help Corbyn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/theresa-may-is-running-a-government-with-no-policies-claims-ken/

Fretwired said:

And the Tory in-fighting is ratcheted up a notch. This will help Corbyn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/theresa-may-is-running-a-government-with-no-policies-claims-ken/

Doubt it. It's Ken Clarke. 

LoFi

Evilmags said:

Fretwired said:

And the Tory in-fighting is ratcheted up a notch. This will help Corbyn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/theresa-may-is-running-a-government-with-no-policies-claims-ken/

Doubt it. It's Ken Clarke. 

That was my thinking too - Ken Clarke having a pop at the present leadership is hardly news.

ICBM

siremoon said:

You can't do it any other way and have it remain as a credible deterrent.  Anything which relies on a fixed location installation (missile sites, air bases or even surface ships) is much easier for an enemy to neutralise.  A key part of a submarine borne system is that an enemy doesn't know where it is.  

Yes you can - you can use cruise missiles launched from hunter-killer subs, which are a far more flexible platform and have many other uses. There also can be more of them so it would be harder to tell which were carrying the nuclear weapons.

It's the obsession with the one-use (ie no use) Trident system which is the problem, and I really don't understand why people seem to think it's either Trident or nothing.

Not only that, if it didn't involve Trident missiles it would actually be independent, rather than relying on the US.

Before you say that cruise missiles can be shot down and do aren't a credible deterrent, that isn't true. They can be shot down, but to negate the deterrent an enemy would have to be able to guarantee shooting down all of them, which isn't possible.

In fact a low-level nuclear strike using cruise missiles is probably a *more* effective deterrent against rogue states because there is a greater threat of its use.

siremoon

ICBM said:

siremoon said:

You can't do it any other way and have it remain as a credible deterrent.  Anything which relies on a fixed location installation (missile sites, air bases or even surface ships) is much easier for an enemy to neutralise.  A key part of a submarine borne system is that an enemy doesn't know where it is.  

Yes you can - you can use cruise missiles launched from hunter-killer subs, which are a far more flexible platform and have many other uses. There also can be more of them so it would be harder to tell which were carrying the nuclear weapons.

It's the obsession with the one-use (ie no use) Trident system which is the problem, and I really don't understand why people seem to think it's either Trident or nothing.

Not only that, if it didn't involve Trident missiles it would actually be independent, rather than relying on the US.

Before you say that cruise missiles can be shot down and do aren't a credible deterrent, that isn't true. They can be shot down, but to negate the deterrent an enemy would have to be able to guarantee shooting down all of them, which isn't possible.

In fact a low-level nuclear strike using cruise missiles is probably a *more* effective deterrent against rogue states because there is a greater threat of its use.

I don't disagree.  I thought you were arguing against the launch platform being a submarine. 

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

On sale at the Labour conference ... they also have a recruiting poster promising prosthetic limbs .. bad taste really.

I must be hanging around with weird military people. They seem to exist on bad taste gags within their group. 

And it's still not as bad taste as sacking soldiers just before they're about to hit their pension date. 

ICBM

siremoon said:

I don't disagree.  I thought you were arguing against the launch platform being a submarine.  

Not at all - just a single-purpose ballistic missile submarine. Slightly ironic given the user name I chose for myself, I know .

It does frustrate me that so many people (including in the Labour Party, it seems) think that retaining a nuclear deterrent *must* automatically mean replacing Trident, when there are better options.

It also frustrates me that some in the Party seem to think that opposing war means that we don't need an Army/Navy/Air Force. And that politicians and civil servants of all political persuasions seem to value them so little.

Placidcasual79

Heartfeltdawn said:

  Hello Heartfeltdawn.

Some interesting and amusingly made points. I admire your well placed use of the word arse. Good work.

I am a big SFA fan - I assume you are too?

I just wanted to clear up something - I am not a blinkered Corbynista and am not naïve enough to think that he uses no spin or PR. I'd argue that in comparison to most  he seems more natural and guided by his own thoughts, polices and values. Personally I find that refreshing and worthy of note.

I don't agree with all his polices - and am unclear about others.

My post was really a response to what I consider to be some of the inaccurate and misguided common criticisms of him. 

I see you feel strongly about my final sentence. I apologise if it caused offence and I don't want to antagonise - but could you tell me why it was so unacceptable to you? I genuinely don't understand?