Jump to content

Recommended Posts

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Quids - in what scenario would a sane British

> PM

> > use nuclear weapons?

>

>

> As a detterent for 70 odd years and counting

> maybe?


No. That's not using them. I mean in anger.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> No. That's not using them. I mean in anger.



In the 80s I always got the impression we were really close

If the USSR tanks had started moving west.


A few ex army/navy types hint we were really close too.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > david_carnell Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Quids - in what scenario would a sane British

> > PM

> > > use nuclear weapons?

> >

> >

> > As a detterent for 70 odd years and counting

> > maybe?

>

> No. That's not using them. I mean in anger.



But that's the point? Do you not see? it's a Nuclear DETERRENT

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyway

> Back on topic

>

> Corbyns speech was a stormer :)



It was percieved as different* and he's not that much of a speaker in the sense that we are used to recently so that works in the anti-spin, authentic sense and works well for now as it did in the leadership contest...but there is a limited mileagae in that for him I reckon. The substance, where there was some, was preaching to the converted. No soundbites works well in a limited timeframe as it will be reported as 'different' read authentic but at some point he'll need a new angle to get on the news.....where most of the electorate get their views.


*Although some of it has been lifted from a rejected speech written for Ed Milliband apparently?

I think you might be right ????, but I kind of hope you are not (for the nicest of reasons).


I enjoyed his speech. I didn't agree with everything but I really liked the spirit of what he said. I'm happy to see something like Mental Health being championed for example. That IS something that needs attention. I was left with an impression of caring politics. He may well be preaching to the converted but don't all parties do that at their conferences? A rally call to the foot soldiers to go forth and spread the message? The real task then becomes one of shifting wider public consciouness.


There are lots of parallels between his election and Thatcher's election as leader of the Conservatives. She was an antithesis to the way many Tory MPs thought at the time. She started out with a cabinet of mixed views from all sides of the party too (before having to shuffle out the most opposed to her policies). The point is that Tories went through a radical transition themselves which is not too disimilar to the transition that Corbyn will have to bring about. The idea that that in itself makes any party unelectable isn't proven historically. It will depend on many things over the next four years as to how it pans out.


Whilst I think most people would probably agree that Corbyn being able to swing Southern floating voters is a challenge too far, there's no doubting that in the North and Scotland, he is speaking for many people formerly disillusioned with politicians. The SNP in Hollyrood last year voted against a living wage introduction for example, so there are already cracks in their claim that they are an anti-austerity party. I think Corbyn can reclaim ground there, and let's face it, without those Scottish seats back, Labour have no chance of winning a majority ever. It's going to be an interesting four years.

Interesting Thatcher comparison. Read this yesterday, and Robert Peston (like him or loathe him) pointed out that both Corbyn and Thatcher recruited renowned economists to flesh out their policies, and to validate a non-mainstream approach.


Note that this doesn't mean I agree with the economic policies of either of them.. economists come in a whole spectrum of flavours, it's not hard to find one that agrees with you..

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Corbyn says he would NEVER press the Nuclear

> Button..

>

> Surely he cannot be that na?ve to believe that

> the decision to press the Nuclear Button would be

> down to him ?

>

> DulwichFox


I read that as in the letter of last resort he wouldn't say retaliate.


Dangerous to let everybody know that.

On nukes, I think there's a wider question. Whether we want to continue in this pseudo-American "World's Policeman" role, enforcing regime change, taking sides in civil wars, etc. Or whether we should be taking a step back.. and why exactly it is that we feel we need a nuclear deterrent, while other countries do not.
That's what I was getting at earlier. It's like we're still reeling from the loss of the empire and being a genuine big player in the world. I think a lot of people in or close to power just want nuclear weapons so that they can feel important at UN meetings.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Corbyn says he would NEVER press the Nuclear Button..

>

> Surely he cannot be that na?ve to believe that the decision to press the Nuclear Button would be

> down to him ?


Whilst the PM is alive, he/she is the ONLY person that can launch Trident.

I don't really know where I stand on nuclear weapons. They have kept a peace of sorts between superpowers, but done little to stop other forms of conflict, often backed by the superpowers. There's no doubting that nuclear weapons in the wrong hands would be a disaster for the world. But I also don't think a world free of nuclear weapons is possible either.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't really know where I stand on nuclear

> weapons. They have kept a peace of sorts between

> superpowers, but done little to stop other forms

> of conflict, often backed by the superpowers.

> There's no doubting that nuclear weapons in the

> wrong hands would be a disaster for the world. But

> I also don't think a world free of nuclear weapons

> is possible either.


In the 80s we really believed it was just a matter of time before

a mistake happened and we were all done.


Government used to post around these "protect and survive" booklets

at the most dangerous points. Anyone remember them ?

Yes I just about remember the public information films John.


I think the likelihood of a terrorist group getting hold of anything nuclear is slim Fox. You need scientists and facilities (costing billions) to operate and maintain a nuclear weapon. And from what I understand, the idea of a single button to launch a weapon is a myth too. There's a whole process of buttons and codes etc.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...