jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
173 points (83% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

unitedkingdom

subscribeunsubscribe113,741 readers
178 users here now
For the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland; News, Politics, Economics, Society, Business, Culture and anything else UK related.
Tourists - please use /r/AskUK for questions.

Do not editorialise titles.

Please report posts that contain disruptive or misleading titles; try to keep your titles more or less verbatim if it is linking to a news site. Let commentators make their own decisions on an article.

Try to keep a positive attitude.

This is the UK subreddit; posts that seem to come from people coming here only to attack the country in some sort of downvote brigade from another subreddit will be banned. Anyone cross-posting to other subreddits to gain support and upvotes for a certain point of view will be banned. reddit is not your personal army.

Images

Images are encouraged to be posted to /r/britpics.
No image macros/memes, pictures of text, screencaps of websites, photos of newspapers or any image of terrible quality (taken with phones, tablets, potatoes, etc.).

Flair

Flair should only be used for location information. Other flair will be deleted without warning, repeat offenders will be banned.

Bots and novelty accounts

No bots or novelty accounts allowed (/u/TweetPoster is the exception).
Related Subreddits:
If you think your post has been banned, please contact a mod.
Join us on IRC at irc.snoonet.org #uk
The moderators of r/unitedkingdom reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.
a community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
discuss this ad on reddit
message the moderators

MODERATORS

172
173
174
submitted by BenV94Greater London
Last one was deleted for 'editorializing' but that was to add all points he raised, the headline only talked about the nukes.
Anyway...
-Guardian on his Nukes Policy
-Mirror on Falklands
Huffington post on his trade union law repeal.
Also a 4th one on 'back channel' negotiations with ISIS.
top 200 commentsshow 500
[–]Documental38Scottish Nationalist 165 points166 points167 points  (106 children)
He talked about negotiations on the Falklands?!
I can just see Malcolm Tucker screaming at his television.
[–]yangYingManchester 147 points148 points149 points  (97 children)
This Falklands story is the death *knell for many people, but for different reasons.
No matter how you feel about Corbyn, you've got to see that 're-negotiating' on the Falklands, a matter than could have been settled with CFK's (ex-Argentine President) departure, is foolish.
  • A significant proportion of the population is so adamantly against the idea, whether they understand it or not, he just made enemies of them all - this is not the behaviour of a leader who can unite and compromise a divided house and nation.
  • The UK has just spent hundreds of millions in infrastructure for the islands, with mining, docks and military ports. You don't re-negotiate after spending hundreds of millions sterling.
  • The British citizens of the Falklands voted not 18 months ago to remain British - a promise was made to these people. Why is he taunting them again?!
... I want to like Corbyn, and I want my politicians to be honest and straight talking ... but I need my politicians to be educated and to be effective.
Edit* death nail vs death kneel - thanks /u/bort-thrillho
[–]marbleslabEast London 70 points71 points72 points  (34 children)
To add to your list:
  • The British soldiers that were killed protecting it from foreign invaders are still in living memory, including one of my mum's childhood friends. I think it's rather distasteful to their memories if Corbyn decides to concede to Argentina's aggression.
[–]interiorlittlevenice 26 points27 points28 points  (0 children)
Yes, can you imagine the brothers-in-arms of the dead soldiers on the front page of The Sun, Express or Mail with a headline about how 'Corbyn Betrayed My Fallen Brothers' who gave their lives to defend the Falklands. It's hard to come back from that.
[–]stormblooper 13 points14 points15 points  (16 children)
That's the sunk-cost fallacy; as is the parent comment's point about spending millions in infrastructure.
If it were the right thing to do to give the Falklands to Argentina, then millions spent or the deaths of soldiers don't count for anything. We should do the right thing regardless.
(And the right thing, as it happens, is to respect the self-determination of the inhabitants.)
[–]yangYingManchester 24 points25 points26 points  (7 children)
Sunk-cost fallacy doesn't apply to lives lost, and the argument wasn't against cost effectiveness of the Falklands vis-a-vis recent infrastructure upgrades, but opening unwarranted negotiations after infrastructure investment.
The 'Right' thing has never had any bearing on global politics - it's almost naïve. There's winners and there's losers
[–]Heknarf 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
Meh, Falklanders have already said that when the oil starts flowing they'll pay the full bill for their defence.
[–]BraveSirRobin 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Sunk-cost is an economic fallacy; this thread is more about the political costs of such a policy & it's impact on his election winning potential. IMHO this kills the Corbyn campaign, he won't stand a chance.
[–]Turtle_Up 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
I oppose Corbyn's Falklands policy so much that unless he changes it i'm likely not to vote for him despite agreeing with him on a lot of other things, but you using the deaths of soldiers in the past as a reason to close down political debate on an important issue is a far greater disservive to the memory of those soldiers and sailors and far more distasteful than anything Corbyn can possibly do.
There should be no place for that kind of demagoguery in UK politics.
[–]marbleslabEast London 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
Your opinion. I care about the families that lost loved ones to Argentina's military invasion not so long ago.
[–]SanteroLondon 12 points13 points14 points  (1 child)
and I want my politicians to be honest and straight talking .
This is one thing I don't really get, this idea that he's a straight shooter. Every time I see interviews with him, he's as slippery as the rest of them when a tricky question comes up.
[–]Im_Spekal 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
I joined Labour because of Corbyn,Some what begrugingly. I can adress that another time if needed.
However, I think the matter is settled, I see no reason for Argentina nor Britian to weigh into this, least of all Corbyn.
I feel it's a non-issue, and that he shpuld stay silent on the matter, he can do no good for the party in doing so.
[–]protanten 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
I've never seen a man more desperate to tilt at windmills... you really have to wonder what's going through his head.
[–]Tubrug 23 points24 points25 points  (55 children)
The issue is he, for some reason, despises Britain and bases his foreign policy on this.
[–]RVallant 16 points17 points18 points  (6 children)
Naive would be the better descriptor. His foreign policy is in part, naive.
[–]SanteroLondon 26 points27 points28 points  (5 children)
His foreign policy is in part, naive.
A huge amount of it seems to be based on the idea that people are basically nice, and are only nasty to us because we, the powerful West, were nasty to them first. So if we are nice first, they will be nice, and we can all live together in a nice world.
So yeah, lets get ISIS to the table, have a nice cuppa, work out their strong points (committed membership? Strong social media skills?) and sort this out, eh?
I'm a lefty, but also pretty cynical about human nature on the big scale - we've always been a savage species, and I don't think we've yet evolved past that. I want our defences strong and our armed forces ready to tackle threats that may emerge.
His comment about nukes not preventing 9/11 made my jaw drop. My smoke alarm won't stop a break-in, so should I bin it?
[–]yangYingManchester 13 points14 points15 points  (21 children)
I don't think he despises Britain, I just think he's uneducated and ineffectual.
I kind of think he's actually just a very normal guy ... thing is, you don't want a normal guy as leader, they'll be bullied and tricked by all the psychos out there.
What you want is your psycho as leader - Blair was a psycho but he was our psycho, Cameron is a psycho and, for the most part I'd say he's our psycho... like, if I were in his shoes I'd be making the same mistakes - only I'm not so arrogant as to think I should be in opposition to begin with.
[–]weirdfishh 8 points9 points10 points  (8 children)
What you want is your psycho as leader - Blair was a psycho but he was our psycho, Cameron is a psycho and, for the most part I'd say he's our psycho.
What the fuck does this even mean?
[–]TheEvilScotsmanScotland 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
Not OP but I follow his line of argument. Corbyn seems psychologically fairly standard and just a plain guy who is friendly. Blair and Cameron would willingly have other people die for the benefit of the country. Corbyn wouldn't. It's a commendable stance but there is a reason some people become politicians and leaders and some don't, and that's because they are psychotic, narcissistic, and vain.
[–]RiktenkayNarfuk, living in Notts 4 points5 points6 points  (5 children)
I, for one, do not want a psycho as leader. And even if I did, Blair was not "my psycho". Cameron neither. Since when did Blair become popular again, did I miss the memo?
[–]yangYingManchester 2 points3 points4 points  (4 children)
They were elected thrice and twice (going on thrice) respectfully. Corbyn wouldn't win shit...
He might have fallen out of favour, but Blair was, at various times, very popular. Apart from Iraq, he'll be considered a very effective leader.
Cameron was one of the youngest PM's in history who rose to be leader after just 4 years as an MP. It's unheard of. He's followed exactly what the Tories said they'd do, crushed the Lib Dems and is currently overseeing the collapse of the Labour Party. "Popular" isn't quite the descriptor one would attach, but successful? Pretty much...
I regret using the term "psycho" ... it's confusing what I actually want from a leader - the ability to affect change in a psychotic world.
Tell me, honestly - who would you rather represent the UK to, say, Putin ... some mildly incompetent Cameron, or one of his cronies, or Corbyn, the perpetual fuck up?
[–]MattN92 9 points10 points11 points  (2 children)
The issue is he, for some reason, despises Britain
Him and his Mao bike, riding around being a threat to national security, economic security and your family's security. Get a fucking grip.
[–]LairHoundMerry England 14 points15 points16 points  (1 child)
You don't think he's a threat to national security, in a thread about him wanting to dismantle our nuclear deterrent and surrender to Argentinean aggression?
[–]Timothy_Claypole 3 points4 points5 points  (10 children)
despises Britain
If he hates it then why does he want to run it?
[–]docmuppet(near) Brighton 10 points11 points12 points  (3 children)
Now that is a good question.
Corbyn seems to be so against so many British things that I really don't understand why he does want to lead it.
[–]buffy98 4 points5 points6 points  (4 children)
He wants to turn it into his vision of Britain. The whole country will become a charity.
[–]bort-thrillhoEcosse 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
*death knell. I only learned this recently
[–]JayneLutWales 24 points25 points26 points  (1 child)
Quite liked this response from folks on the Falkland Islands: https://twitter.com/falklands_utd/status/688720364428460032
[–]SaxonThornMiddlesex 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
The Kelpers do love a good bit of banter. Their tweets were brilliant during the Argentine elections.
[–]HawkUKWest Cornwall 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
Just got around to actually watching the interview. The Trident bit isn't as bad as I thought, but calling the sinking of the Belgrano a disaster? Ffs.
[–]benowillockHumberside 274 points275 points276 points  (134 children)
What's there to negotiate? The island had a referendum very recently and wants to remain part of the UK overseas territories.
[–]MrHaHaHaaaaBemused 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
Corbyn is a leftie, by definition lefties know what is best for the people. As Orwell put it- "Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
[–]SamLJG 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I think what Corbyn is acknowledging is that sovereignty matters can rarely be settled unilaterally, simply because few outside of that country will recognise it and the disputing party will continue to dispute the matter. This is basically what happened here, and only a small handful of countries actually support the UK's position on the Falklands while many more (most of the world, really) dispute it. Negotiations over sovereignty are the only way this matter will be resolved.
[–]Originality_Kills 6 points7 points8 points  (92 children)
“It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it.
“Yes, of course the islanders have an enormous say in this; let's bring about some sensible dialogue.
“It happened before I'm sure it could happen again.”
I don't see this, which is his quote, as something outrageous.
[–]chrisawhitmore 142 points143 points144 points  (42 children)
It's a really simple choice. Either the people who live there have the right to decide who governs them, in which case there is no negotiation needed, or Argentina's claim, which is based on the old Spanish Imperial claim to them, trumps the rights of the residents.
[–]PoachTWCLanarkshire 95 points96 points97 points  (18 children)
He's advocating overruling the islanders, who voted almost unanimously to be British, in order to negotiate with a country that within living memory tried to militarily deprive them of that choice.
That's outrageous. There is nothing to negotiate about: the people have democratically expressed their decision very firmly. Do you feel the referendum should be ignored?
[–]demostraviusSurrey 27 points28 points29 points  (15 children)
It's not, but he is dredging up an issue that was settled already. Well over 90% of Falklanders wanted to remain as an overseas territory. There is nothing to negotiate until that changes.
[–]valaxOxfordshire 35 points36 points37 points  (8 children)
Well over 90% of Falklanders wanted to remain
99.9% I believe. The last 0.1% being a bloke who had family in Argentina who we would not be able to visit if he voted yes.
[–]estanmilkoGreatest London 24 points25 points26 points  (7 children)
99.8%. 3 people voted against, which didn't mean they voted to be part of Argentina I hasten to add, they just voted against remaining a British territory. They might have wanted full independence for example.
[–]Chazmer87Scotland 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
That's the spirit! :D
[–]JonnyArtois 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
I thought one of those people cocked up his vote and picked the wrong option too. haha
[–]ExdigguserPiesDevon 5 points6 points7 points  (4 children)
Exactly. It's a can of worms that is completely off the agenda. Why bring it up in the first place?
[–]Heknarf 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
I watched the show. To be fair, he didn't bring it up. It was Andrew Marr.
He should have just said he didn't want to answer it as it's been discussed before. Then he'd have avoided all these headlines.
[–]Heknarf 15 points16 points17 points  (7 children)
Should we also open dialogue with France about Jersey?
[–]Throw_away_cant_see 13 points14 points15 points  (3 children)
Or taking the Shetlands away from Scotland and giving them to Norway
[–]the_commissaire 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
What dialogue is there to be had, what compromises could possibly be made?
All that can be said and can be done has been said and done.
[–]zersetzungGreater Manchester 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
He says the Islanders should have an enormous say. As far as I'm concerned they have the only say in the status of the Islands, as has been the position of the British Government.
[–]hogger85 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Everyone always says just off Argentina, but it is quite a big gap. That would be like saying UK belong to France, NZ belongs to Australia or Sri Lanka to India.
[–]Biscuit-Box 158 points159 points160 points  (29 children)
These foreign policies make me weep, even as a devout Labourite. Particularly egregious that the Falklands is being brought up again - if they've voted to stay British that's the end of it. Nothing more to say.
[–]ThyrotoxicNot actually Welsh 95 points96 points97 points  (14 children)
It's like he hasn't got any sane advisers. Don't even mention the fucking Falklands, negotiating for them is probably the least popular policy he could ever come up with. The Tories don't even need to run an election campaign. Just give Corbyn all the air time and let him win it for them.
[–]Biscuit-Box 23 points24 points25 points  (12 children)
It was something similar with McDonnell and the little red book. His original point about the Chancellor having outdone him on wanting to nationalise British industry, but just to the Chinese, was a funny little quip. Why the fuck he then proceeds to whip out the little red book, I'll never ever know. Even George Osborne couldn't believe his luck.
[–]Heknarf 23 points24 points25 points  (5 children)
Why the fuck he then proceeds to whip out the little red book, I'll never ever know. Even George Osborne couldn't believe his luck.
It was like if George Osborne popped a bottle of champagne in the house of commons in an attempt to make a joke about Labour being champagne socialists. It just clearly look so bad.
Also, George came back with a hounder of a retort.
'It's his own personal signed copy!'
And then McDonnell hanged himself again about 2 hours later when he admitted on TV that it was his copy.
Fucking hell.
[–]interiorlittlevenice 9 points10 points11 points  (4 children)
I recall the Commons footage from the day showing the first initial shock on Osborne and Cameron's faces where they just couldn't believe what was happening in front of them.
[–]Heknarf 13 points14 points15 points  (3 children)
The best reaction was from Tom Watson though. Can't believe his eyes when McDonnell produces the Little Red Book, and then glances over to Corybn with a face that says 'What the fuck?'
[–]FMN2014Aberdeen 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
An then Osborne came back with; 'look it his personal signed copy'.
[–]SteveD88Northamptonshire 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Suggesting we drop our nuclear weapons the week that North Korea tests an H-Bomb they could potentially mount on an intercontinental missile was probably not the best timing.
[–][deleted]  (5 children)
[deleted]
    [–]LordFirkraag -8 points-7 points-6 points  (3 children)
    Do you think the same logic would apply if British expats set up on an island off the coast of China? "The majority of the people on this island are Brits, therefore by democratic self-determination the island is ours."
    Do you see now that this debate isn't as clear-cut as you're making out? That proximity and history clearly are relevant considerations, as I just proved with that thought experiment. Also you might want to contemplate while you're at it the hypocrisy of the UK refusing to apply the principles of democratic self-determination to the Chagos Islands.
    [–]interiorlittlevenice 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
    If a bunch of Brits had done so when the island was otherwise uninhabited and before China was even a unified country, then yes that would be acceptable.
    [–]LordFirkraag -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
    The Argentinian position is that in 1833 Argentinian settlers were expelled and forcibly prevented from going back.
    I don't think it's unreasonable for them to think that historically and geographically they have an extremely strong claim on those islands.
    But carry on with your belief that all of South America are deluded peasants and their opinions are all based on gibberish.
    [–]wellnowiminvolved 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    You just quoted something that happened 183 years ago.
    Technically speaking the British were kicked out of the US in 1812 and we haven't been allowed back but no ones asking them to have a referendum on becoming a colony.
    Your example was terrible. If a bunch of Brits went to China, flooded an island with british nationals and declared it theres the UK and the Chinese would both tell them to stop being moronic.
    The issue with the Falklands is settled, was settled, forever is settled and will be until such a time as those that live there decided to change their minds.
    Corbyn should just not bring it up ever again.
    [–]falconhoof. -7 points-6 points-5 points  (2 children)
    I'm going to move my family into your house. Then when you want it back we'll have a vote. If we vote to remain in your house then that's the end of it.
    [–]Heknarf 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
    Funnily enough, if you said to Corbyn 'Do you agree that if someone squats in an abandoned building for long enough, it should become theirs' he'd likely agree.
    Yet he doesn't agree when talking about clay.
    [–]coombesehAberdeenshire 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Do we tell the Dutch to leave the Caribbean, the Spanish to leave North Africa and the French to leave the Indian Ocean while we are at it?
    For whatever reason in the past, these territories came under the rule of a country that wasn't their nearest neighbour. Those reasons may not have been sound but the "ownership" has stuck. When the British Empire receded, countries either fought for their independence, or democratically worked it out. Why on earth should we ignore the wish of those people who live there and accede to violence from Argentina?
    To cover the history of the islands, France and Britain supposedly found them first - it's not like they were originally Argentinian (which given the time period would make them Spanish anyway).
    [–]Zenigata 145 points146 points147 points  (71 children)
    So nearly all the costs but none of the benefits. Would it be possible to come up with a worse policy on trident if you tried?
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 38 points39 points40 points  (4 children)
    Could we fill them with migrants?
    [–]heresyourhardware 26 points27 points28 points  (3 children)
    Maybe, what is their ballistic range?
    [–]Anti_Logic 20 points21 points22 points  (0 children)
    3,691.9 km ( 2294 miles) according to Google https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=syria+to+germany+distance
    [–]cythonianScotland 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    Good question, what's the distance between Syria and Germany?
    [–]snotfartCambourne -33 points-32 points-31 points  (32 children)
    "Benefits", like having everyone else's nukes pointing at us?
    [–]Zenigata 38 points39 points40 points  (8 children)
    The whole point of sub launched icbm's is that they're off somewhere in the middle of the sea away from the homeland and very tricky to target.
    That rather significant point aside, nukes are by no means only targetted at nuclear weapons, they are also targeted at significant economic centres, infrastructure and conventional military targets. Do you propose that we do away with those as well?
    [–]MarcusOrlyius -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
    Last I checked, Britain was rather large and stationary making it extremely easy to target.
    [–]mongo_lloyd 12 points13 points14 points  (7 children)
    Warsaw Pact military plans for nuclear war in Europe involved dropping nukes on every one, not just nuclear countries.
    [–]weefred 13 points14 points15 points  (12 children)
    Benefits like the most peaceful period in earth's history.
    [–]snotfartCambourne -9 points-8 points-7 points  (11 children)
    You are being sarcastic, yes?
    [–]weefred 2 points3 points4 points  (10 children)
    No.
    [–]snotfartCambourne -3 points-2 points-1 points  (9 children)
    Bloody hell. What planet are you living on again?
    [–]weefred 2 points3 points4 points  (8 children)
    Which part are you disagreeing with?
    [–]snotfartCambourne -3 points-2 points-1 points  (7 children)
    Well, apart from the first 4.54 Billion years of earth's history being fairly war-free, these are the current conflicts going on around the planet and you might remember a few wars that have happened since the dawn of the nuclear age. So, I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that nuclear weapons have done absolutely fuck all for world peace in general and don't seem to have stopped the UK or US getting personally involved in wars either. You could say that they have stopped worse wars than the ones we have had but that would be nothing other than foolish conjecture. The only absolute fact we have is that nuclear weapons don't stop wars.
    [–]weefred 1 point2 points3 points  (6 children)
    For the vast majority of earth's 4.54 billion year history there were no humans, so that's kind of a daft time period.
    It's a fact that we are living through the most peaceful time in human history. There used to be major wars between world powers every few years, empires against empires. This hasn't happened since the second world war. Because of advancements in global communications and media you are more likely be hear about minor conflicts.
    [–]snotfartCambourne -3 points-2 points-1 points  (5 children)
    For the vast majority of earth's 4.54 billion year history there were no humans, so that's kind of a daft time period.
    That's what I thought when you said "the most peaceful period in earth's history" up the top there.
    And just because the general nature of recent wars have been different from the two world wars we had in quick succession, it doesn't mean it's been any more peaceful overall. What are the numbers if the deaths are averaged out over their respective time periods?
    [–]Mispla_cedUnderscoreBedfordshire 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
    If you're in a gunfight don't turn up with a banana.
    [–]LurkerInSpace 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Historically the nukes were pointed at the countries around us first. Where they're pointed now is classified.
    [–]tanajerner -14 points-13 points-12 points  (32 children)
    Well we already have the subs and they are used and useful for other purposes, we would still have a need for subs even without Nukes
    [–]Zenigata 9 points10 points11 points  (18 children)
    Trident capable subs are considerably more expensive than hunter killer subs and less capable at hunting and killing.
    [–]tanajerner comment score below threshold-11 points-10 points-9 points  (17 children)
    I know that, but the fact we have them already means they need a use, so they can be used for other things
    [–]ieya404Edinburgh 7 points8 points9 points  (4 children)
    What else would you suggest a ballistic missile submarine could be used for?
    [–]tanajerner -5 points-4 points-3 points  (3 children)
    I'm not suggesting anything I expect the Navy will do that, but it already carries torpedoes so it's not totally useless at other jobs
    [–]ieya404Edinburgh 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
    The obvious Navy response is that a ballistic missile submarine without the ballistic missiles isn't something they'd want to waste their time with...
    [–]frillytotes 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    It can still have ballistic missiles, he is just proposing they are non-nuclear.
    [–]ieya404Edinburgh 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Not even close to an option.
    How is any other country supposed to determine that the ballistic missile launch they've just detected isn't nuclear (requiring a nuclear response)?
    [–]yangYingManchester 2 points3 points4 points  (7 children)
    No, if they're being decommissioned as ICBM launch vehicles, it'd be much cheaper and more strategic just to scrap them and start again. I don't think you (or Corbyn) understand how enormous BSM are, especially compared with a regular Missile and hunter sub (about 2 times the displacement - it's like using a firetruck as an ice cream van) ... plus the modern military has no strategic need for a fleet of hunter subs. But whatevs
    He's trying to appease the unions with work orders.
    It's just another stupid uneducated tottering old Corbyn-ism
    [–]tanajerner -5 points-4 points-3 points  (6 children)
    I understand fully how large they are I also know how much new subs cost and I very much doubt it would be cheaper to scrap them and build new ones
    [–]yangYingManchester 2 points3 points4 points  (5 children)
    Their crews are much larger, ports / docking around the world would need to be re-designed, support networks / replacement / maintenance would need retrofitting ... in the mean-while the fleet is out of action for years ... and most importantly to provide a boat that doesn't fit a strategic purpose. You don't propose spending billions on ... well, a new type of vessel that fits no-where in any navy in history. We have cruisers he have air-craft carriers, we have an air force.
    He's a fool politician telling admirals battle strategy - it's so stupid it's not worth arguing about. I mean you either understand how stupid it is (and not being versed in modern military organization is not a crime, but being the leader of the opposition without good advice is) or you yourself are just being forced into making stupid arguments to support the unelectable Corbyn.
    [–]tanajerner -5 points-4 points-3 points  (4 children)
    Changes can be made I don't know the costs and neither do you, those subs are already out there they still manage to go to ports and the such like so why you think things need to magically change is beyond me, so I'm doubting you know very much you just seem to have an anti Corbyn stance
    [–]yangYingManchester 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
    You'd be correct, I'm anti-Corbyn. I was hopeful and supportive for his leadership to begin with, but he keeps saying incredibly stupid things... he sounds like some first year politics student airing his thoughts on world politics, and he will lose Labour the election, so I've withdrawn my support. It's a real shame - a truly socialist leader who might repair some of the damage inflicted by the Tory whoremongers is exactly what we, as a country, need ... but Corbyn isn't that man, and I fear the polarisation of our population between people who support the Tories and people who don't have instead formed along lines of whether you support Corbyn or Murdock.
    No, I'm not a military expert - though it doesn't take much to see they can't be repurposed in the manner described ... they're obviously completely different vessels. Added to many stupid things Corbyn has said, would it even matter at this point?
    You accuse me of being blind to the argument because of my anti-Corbyn stance. Might you admit to being also blind to the argument because of your pro-Corbyn stance? And might you also admit that unless Corbyn drastically changes, he will never be PM - so what exactly is the point?
    [–]tanajerner -3 points-2 points-1 points  (2 children)
    I would say unless his party actually backs him he won't ever be PM. With all the bad press he gets he's pretty screwed already. You get what you deserve in politics and we don't really deserve a principled politician
    [–]spagnoguland 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    There are no other things they can be used for. They are huge because they need to carry 16 SLBMs, they are too big and cumbersome to be used for anything else.
    [–]m4011972 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    We don't have them already - the point is that the Vanguard class SSBNs need replacing and Corbyn is advocating building SSBNs without the Ballistic missiles on board.
    [–]tanajerner -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
    They are currently being built by the time he would be in power, it would be too late to do takesey backsey
    [–]m4011972 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    This review is designed to formulate a Labour position on their renewal, a decision that will be made formally by Parliament at some point this year, in all likelihood.
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 21 points22 points23 points  (7 children)
    But not a sub designed to carry an ICBM.
    There is a reason that trident needs a separate class of sub it's because missiles that can reach space are massive. Far bigger than conventional cruise missiles carried by the astute class.
    [–]tanajerner -5 points-4 points-3 points  (6 children)
    They can be crossed purposed something I assume they would need to do if the ICBM'S where pulled out. We would still have use for subs even without Nukes
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 11 points12 points13 points  (5 children)
    They would make excellent "invisible holes" in the water.
    Honestly the trident is a one trick pony. Its job is to deliver a single weapon.
    [–]tanajerner comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points  (4 children)
    Yet it still has Torpedoes
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 6 points7 points8 points  (3 children)
    If one of our strategic subs came into torpedo range of another sub then it would be looking for a new captain. They are built to hide not fight.
    Why would you spend billions making a torpedo sub? We have the far more capable Astute for hunter killer operations.
    The astute can also deliver cruise missiles, anti ship harpoons and special forces.
    [–]tanajerner comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (2 children)
    Because you have them already, obviously. I'm not saying build more, but if you already have something sometimes you got to live with what you have and use it as best you can
    [–]countlazypenisKingdom of Yorkshire 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
    It's like saying 'the Challenger still has an MG let's keep it in the MBT role'.
    [–]tanajerner -4 points-3 points-2 points  (0 children)
    Not really and that's a terrible anology. It doesn't really fit. Nice try though
    [–]yangYingManchester 2 points3 points4 points  (4 children)
    An ICMB subramine has about 2~0~ times the displacement of a regular missile sub. It literally makes no sense ... it's be like re-purposing firetrucks as milkfloats.
    Corbyn is an uneducated, ineffectual old fool.
    edit* typo
    [–]MsEtheldredaEuropean Union 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    it's be like re-purposing firetrucks as milkfloats.
    To be fair that would be pretty awesome. Imagine going out with your bottles and having them use the hose to fill them up.
    [–]tanajerner -3 points-2 points-1 points  (2 children)
    They are twice as heavy I'm not sure your anology works too well
    [–]m4011972 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    Someone needs to read about Aristotle.
    [–]tanajerner -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
    Or someone needs to learn that milk floats aren't half as heavy as a fire truck
    [–]mongo_lloyd 154 points155 points156 points  (68 children)
    Jeremy Corbyn has suggested the UK could have Trident submarines without nuclear weapons, a move that would mean disarmament while protecting defence jobs in Scotland and Cumbria.
    That's literally one of the stupidest things I've heard from a politician. Make the technology completely useless, but keep the subs just so people can have jobs? That's like saying he wants to get rid of all the phones in a call centre, but still employ people to sit at their desks.
    Is he actually this stupid or is it just a prank?
    [–]woppo 82 points83 points84 points  (15 children)
    He actually is this stupid.
    He is wasting an opportunity to change politics to be more relevant to the democratic wishes of the people in order to stand on a soap box for a bunch of outdated ideological tosh.
    He should be standing up for the health service, for education and for basic fairness to working people e.g. zero hours contracts. Instead he's banging on about stuff that has no relevance for most people and sadly showing both how out of touch he is and how bad his advisers are.
    David Cameron must love him. What greater gift could the Tories have?
    [–]spidermite 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    He can only talk about what the interviewer asks about. If the interviewer repeatedly asks about the 70s and Trident, he can't just refuse to answer. It's quite sickening that the BBC slant his answer on trident this way, obviously he's not saying we build trident subs with no nuclear weapons...he's saying we just build normal subs instead...I guess some people will see what they want to see.
    [–]somescottScotland 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Yes but while I'm all for politicians being open and honest, they're still allowed to drive the conversation to some degree.
    This just shows he has virtually no political acumen when faced with anyone who doesn't completely agree with him and that isn't a commendable quality in the leader of the opposition.
    Even if he had the best ideas in the world (which he doesn't) he would still be absolutely useless in his current position unless he could present them properly and win an election.
    [–]LordFirkraag -17 points-16 points-15 points  (12 children)
    Outdated? Outdated?? WHY THE FUCK WOULD THE POST-COLD-WAR ERA BE A TIME WHEN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IS OUTDATED?!?!???
    I just can't believe the level of arrogant stupid that is coming out in thsi thread.
    [–]woppo 7 points8 points9 points  (2 children)
    Whether you like it or not there are a number of countries that are developing nuclear weapons. The trident deterrence is a deterrence for future possible threats, not necessarily the existing nuclear states. The objection that it is a cold war technology is outdated.
    [–]plazmabluShropshire -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
    Which countries? Iran is winding down their program, North Korea are more worrying but will never fire their missiles beyond posturing... The only ones I can think of are Pakistan?
    [–]LocutusOfBorgesYork / Derby 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Consider the 1500 Russian nuclear warheads currently targeting NATO states.
    The reason for the deterrent hasn't gone away, even if tensions have reduced.
    [–]MsEtheldredaEuropean Union 4 points5 points6 points  (6 children)
    Remind me, when did Russia stop being our enemy and get rid of their nuclear weapons?
    [–]CNash85Greater London 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    Well obviously they haven't done the latter, but to say they're "our enemy" is simply ridiculous at this point - it smacks of desperately clinging onto the vestiges of the Cold War for no good reason. Russia under Putin may be belligerent, but it is no longer hanging the threat of nuclear war over the West as it did thirty years ago.
    [–]MsEtheldredaEuropean Union 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    Did you miss the whole Ukraine invasion and EU sanctions on Russia thing?
    [–]plazmabluShropshire 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    It's hardly close to the Warsaw Pact though. Tell me when Russia invades Poland, then I'll support Trident. For now America's nukes seem sufficient to keep the Russian bear tied to its post.
    [–]LordFirkraag comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (2 children)
    Russia is "our enemy"?
    Fuck you. The Tory Party is my enemy.
    [–]MsEtheldredaEuropean Union 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    Lol, okay mate.
    [–]mongo_lloyd 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    How has Year 10 been so far?
    [–]mongo_lloyd 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    I must have missed the memo where everyone declared world peace and dismantled their militaries
    [–]Caldariblue 24 points25 points26 points  (2 children)
    Remember during the campaign everyone here was saying that the Tories were terrified of Corbyn?
    Lol.
    [–]somescottScotland 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
    For a while it did look like he could create something of a movement and get people involved in politics like has happened in Scotland.
    Of course from the get go he was infinitely less polished than the SNP and had policies less in line with the English centre ground, but he did seem to have personal appeal which has been shown to really matter, and even if he only achieved a fraction of what happened in Scotland it would still be an improvement for Labour.
    Unfortunately for Labour anyway he has just not performed at all. I think a lot of people, myself included, were expecting some firey attacks at Tory policy and politicians from a principled and passionate leader. Instead he has decided to take the opposite approach and be frankly as boring as possible when attacking the Tories and has shown zero political acumen in continuing to air more crazy principles (i.e Falklands) that I think his voters just assumed he would let die once he was in a position of real power.
    I think this is a lesson proving that rebellious maverick back benchers are not always suppressed leaders in waiting. And to be honest it doesn't look like Corbyn is enjoying himself much at all, it feels like he severely underestimated the challenges and responsibilities that come with being leader of the opposition.
    [–]LucyLancaster 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    The SNP are left-wing but most of their support comes from Scottish Nationalism. The SNP get right wing voters who would normally be turned off by their politics due to that nationalism.
    Corbyn is the opposite of the SNP, he is genuinely seems to dislike the White English working class who make up the majority of the voters and used to be the core base of the Labour party.
    Look at his marriages. His current wife is Mexican, his previous wife was Chilean, only his first wife was English. He broke up with his first wife to have an affair with Diane Abbot.
    This seems to be someone who dislikes English people in his personal life.
    [–]Mispla_cedUnderscoreBedfordshire 18 points19 points20 points  (0 children)
    He's like Michael Caine's character in Interstellar, keeps getting the government funding for his nonsense 'science' that he's convinced everyone works, except McConaughey isn't stuck in a tesseract feeding us the answers, it's just bullshit.
    [–]Heknarf 8 points9 points10 points  (10 children)
    He got 2 E's at A-Levels..
    [–]fourdahg'Amsherr 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
    2 E's what?
    [–]Heknarf 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
    Performing arts and film studies.
    (I have no idea)
    [–]fourdahg'Amsherr 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    I'm just yankin' yer chain over the incorrect apostrophe, don't worry about it.
    [–]LairHoundMerry England 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    government/politics and sociology
    /s
    [–]mongo_lloyd 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Nah it was interpretive dance and granola cookery
    [–]LordFirkraag -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
    John Major, and any number of people who've achieved more than you ever will, also failed at school in their mid teens.
    You're the one who's stupid if you think his exam results at 16 has anything to do with anything here. In fact it's more proof that you don't even understand the landscape in which it's appropriate to engage with these ideas. You mistake wisdom for stupidity and vice versa. The ultimate case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
    [–]Heknarf 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
    Ctrl + F 'Dunning-Kruger'
    Page lights up. Posts by you.
    I see you learned a new word recently.
    [–]LordFirkraag -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
    I've known about it for half your life, I suspect.
    I'm using it a lot here because it's very apt here.
    [–]Heknarf 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Well you really dunning-krugered your way out of that one!
    Did I use it right?
    [–]HawkUKWest Cornwall 24 points25 points26 points  (12 children)
    His academic grades would suggest that he is this stupid.
    [–]mongo_lloyd 8 points9 points10 points  (11 children)
    What were they, out of interest?
    [–]LairHoundMerry England 13 points14 points15 points  (4 children)
    And then went straight into politics. At least the Tory career politicians are competent and went to good unis.
    [–]DAsSNipez -2 points-1 points0 points  (3 children)
    Have you not been paying attention to the shite the tories have been shitting out over the last few months?
    If there were a strong Labour party at the moment they would be getting fucking railed.
    You might be able to claim them as competent in comparison with their current opposition but that's about it.
    [–]LairHoundMerry England 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
    Getting re-elected after 5 years of austerity seems pretty competent to me. Well, politically, maybe not economically or socially.
    [–]DAsSNipez -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
    You might be able to claim them as competent in comparison with their current opposition but that's about it.
    Getting re-elected after 5 years of being fucking bastards only speaks to the shittyness of the opposition, it says nothing good about the wankers in the con party.
    [–]Heknarf 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    If there were a strong Labour party at the moment they would be getting fucking railed.
    Do you remember the day that Osborne U-turned on the tax credit cuts and McDonnells retaliation in the commons was to wave Maos little red book around?
    Because I do. I remember well.
    I remember saying to my friend that the Labour party couldn't possibly get worse after Milliband. I tempted fate, clearly.
    [–]mongo_lloyd 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Haha that's fucking embarrassing
    [–]plazmabluShropshire 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    And Einstein failed maths. I'm not saying he's a genius, I'm just saying that plenty of intelligent people can be failed by our education system.
    [–]English_TyrantEssex 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    That's a well known myth, Einstein did not fail maths. Quite the opposite, he'd mastered calculus by the age of 15. Feel free to look it up.
    Some may get failed by the education system, but you have to be a real twit to get 2 E's.
    If you read on in the Telegraph article:
    On his return, he enrolled in a course in trade union studies at North London Polytechnic, dropped out after rowing with his tutors.
    He can't even crack trade union studies at a polytechnic...
    [–]HawkUKWest Cornwall 15 points16 points17 points  (0 children)
    Couple of E grades at A-level.
    Admittedly it's possible he had reasonable O-levels but I can't find a source on that. Also just noticed that he went to a private prep school before going to a grammar school. Nice!
    [–]interiorlittlevenice 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
    He left school with two E-grades at A-Level.
    [–]Ouro 3 points4 points5 points  (9 children)
    Can Trident subs serve any other function? For instance can the launch cruise missiles?
    [–]ieya404Edinburgh 13 points14 points15 points  (2 children)
    There's a bit of a size difference to start with; Trident ballistic missiles are 44 feet long and almost 7 feet across; Tomahawk cruise missiles are about 20 feet long and two-and-a-half feet across.
    And then the submarines themselves are about twice the size of the Astute class that are used for cruise now.
    You might be able to bodge some sort of conversion, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense.
    [–]aapowersYorkshire 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
    Could we not just gaffer tape three of the Tomahawks together?
    [–]protanten 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Nah, I tried that on Nov 5th. They just spin in circles. You'll have someone's eye out like that.
    [–]gnorrn 13 points14 points15 points  (3 children)
    They could launch Trident missiles with non-nuclear warheads. The trouble is that these would be very difficult for enemies to distinguish from Trident missiles with nuclear warheads, and would likely lead to nuclear retaliation.
    [–]_kingtut_ 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Not to mention much less accurate than cruise or aircraft borne missiles, and so very much more expensive.
    [–]Alaea 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    They could launch a few out of the torpedo hatch, like Astute does. But Vanguards comparatively have MUCH less storage for torpedoes than Astutes.
    [–]somescottScotland 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Although obviously horrendous if we could harvest energy from the sheer force of the irony produced when Prime Minister Corbyn had to explain that London had been flattened after the Russians mistook our definetly-not nuclear Trident missiles for nuclear Trident missiles, then we'd probably be able to build a WMD that puts thermonuclear weapons to shame.
    [–]gitWales 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Hardly any details on the new design have been published, but in all likelihood, no.
    That's why this is dumb. We make awesome submarines in this country, but we don't field conventional missile subs (like the American SSGNs). There is a role for that capability and I'd love to see us have them, but that's world's apart from a Trident replacement, and certainly not on the table right now.
    Trident without nuclear weapons literally just becomes a bigger, slower, less-capable attack submarine. They'd likely be less capable in the land/surface-attack role than our attack submarines are. There is absolutely no attack capability they would provide that the Astutes wouldn't be better at.
    [–]RiktenkayNarfuk, living in Notts 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Seriously, I agree with his positions on quite a few things and have no strong opinion either way on Trident, but either keep it or get rid of it, what the fuck is the point of wasting money on subs that serve no purpose so that a few people can have jobs that also serve no purpose?
    [–]RVallant 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Reminds me of the tale, of the army that had its weapons melted down for use in other projects. The army was retained and trained by 'pretending' the weapons were in their hands.
    When an enemy came to invade, they had no trouble whatsoever in defeating them, for they lacked a weapon and their King despaired (etc, it probably is a fable, fuck knows.)
    [–]zersetzungGreater Manchester 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    It's all of his anti-nuclear stuff combined with the strings of the unions behind him.
    [–]frillytotes 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    He is not saying have no weapons on the subs. He is saying no nuclear weapons - obviously they would still have missiles on board. The technology wouldn't be useless. The subs could still have non-nuclear warheads and maintain practically the same defensive role they do now.
    [–]mongo_lloyd -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
    We already have two classes of SSNs, the Astute and Trafalgar classes. Reworking the SSBN Vanguard class is just pointless when we already have attack submarines. They would add nothing but numbers, which aren't needed, and would take away the whole defensive and political capabilities of nuclear arms. Non-nuclear armed Vanguard subs would probably not even be worth the scrap.
    Refitting the Vanguard subs without nuclear warheads is as good as a castrated bloke trying to have a baby. It makes it more than worthless.
    [–]LordFirkraag -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
    It's exactly what Japan is doing. You are five steps behind but think you're ahead. You're suffering from an acute case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
    [–]runJUMPclimb -11 points-10 points-9 points  (7 children)
    I personally think what he is suggesting is about as sane as total nuclear annihilation. Which is to say they are both pretty wacky. Except one doesn't involve total nuclear annihilation. Although i could be wrong on that.
    [–]scrambadger 18 points19 points20 points  (0 children)
    Except one doesn't involve total nuclear annihilation.
    Both situation potently involve nuclear annihilation. Were talking about the UK disarming its self, not world wide disarmament.
    [–]The_Thought_Police_West Yorkshire Best Yorkshire 8 points9 points10 points  (4 children)
    It could be nuclear annihilation if some country takes advantage of the fact we don't have anything to nuclear annihilate them back with.
    [–]Caldariblue 9 points10 points11 points  (3 children)
    Never happen. Ukraine gave up their nukes and nothing bad happened to them.
    [–]aonomeEast Sussex 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
    Yeah, it's not like Russia annexed part of their country a couple of years ago or anything...
    Edit: Sorry, I should have realised that was sarcastic
    [–]Caldariblue 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
    Yes, that's exactly my point.
    [–]MrZakalweGod's own county 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
    That's the joke.
    [–]yangYingManchester 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    No you're wrong Corbyn is just talking stupid again
    [–]Heknarf 18 points19 points20 points  (12 children)
    Jesus fuck, why even mention the Falklands? No one is talking about the Falklands. It's a done deal. Even the Argentinians don't even care.. Why drag it up when it's so obviously politically toxic?
    [–]mooli 1 point2 points3 points  (11 children)
    why even mention the Falklands?
    The interviewer brought it up.
    Perhaps you should watch the interview? Its positively uneventful in comparison to the rabid reportage since.
    [–]somescottScotland 0 points1 point2 points  (9 children)
    Corbyn's delivery was bland, but what he was saying was anything but.
    His views on the Falklands are some of the most politically toxic to public opinion you can have without being immediately ousted by your own party.
    [–]mooli 0 points1 point2 points  (8 children)
    Saying that the islanders have the right to decide their own future is toxic?
    [–]JonnyArtois 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
    They have decided their own future, yet Corbyn is ignoring that and wants negotiations with Argentina.
    [–]mooli 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
    Do Argentina recognise that the islanders have the right to decide their own future?
    [–]JonnyArtois 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
    What Argentina think doesn't matter, the Islanders have had their say and that's all that matters.
    [–]mooli 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
    Except that Argentina still claim sovereignty over the region.
    If Argentina recognised that the islanders have the right to decide their own future, that would help avoid any unnecessary conflict in future wouldn't it?
    [–]JonnyArtois 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    They can claim all they want, it's irrelevant and they never will recognise the islanders. They don't even want them at any discussions, so there really is no point discussing anything with Argentina any further.
    There won't be any conflict in the future due to Argentina's non-existent military.
    [–]mooli 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    And that's your opinion. Why is saying we should try and get Argentina to recognise the islanders have the right to decide their own future toxic?
    [–]somescottScotland 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    They just had a referendum which could hardly have been more unanimous..
    [–]HPBDurham 168 points169 points170 points  (33 children)
    Allow me to be the first to congratulate Boris on his election victory in May 2020.
    [–]LevitatingCheesecake 34 points35 points36 points  (30 children)
    Can't see it being anyone other than Gideon, personally.
    [–]HPBDurham 34 points35 points36 points  (14 children)
    You may be right. Whoever it is it'll be a Tory with Jezza leading Labour into the wilderness.
    [–]DrRedOrDeadSmoggy in Durham 39 points40 points41 points  (13 children)
    Honest Corbyn is an absolute joke, it's like he's never read any history book in his life. I mean...just...wow.
    [–]reyka_vod 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
    It seems very unlikely that he isn't very well read. Like most people he takes want he wants from it.
    [–]Malzair 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    If you're a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
    [–]RiktenkayNarfuk, living in Notts 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    Ironic since everyone says he looks like a history teacher.
    [–]mexicanstarwarstheme 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Yeah, a shit history teacher.
    [–]CoupaholicEssex -3 points-2 points-1 points  (2 children)
    Might not be a bad thing you know. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself all the time, if one were ignorant to it to begin with and actively works to go in a new direction it could work out better in the long run.
    Oops, sorry. My optimism is showing again.
    [–]GTFErinyes 16 points17 points18 points  (1 child)
    The other part of that saying is that those who fail to study history ate doomed to repeat it
    So there is that
    [–]CoupaholicEssex 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    You would think so. It seems even those in the know are happy to ignore such lessons anyway, so I suppose the entire point is moot.
    [–]LordFirkraag -2 points-1 points0 points  (5 children)
    I assure you he's read far more history books than the people upvoting your comment.
    And he's far more articulate than you. What a spluttering post that is, completely devoid of content.
    [–]DrRedOrDeadSmoggy in Durham 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Yeh, I'm not known for being articulate.
    [–]_Madison_Stratford-Upon-Avon -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
    Most on this sub will be better educated than him though, in fact most 18 year olds are.
    [–]LordFirkraag 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    You don't know what education is, probably because you have yet to even begin it.
    I have pretty decent A-levels and a degree from a good university. Yet the vast, vast majority of my education comes from learning (from books and otherwise) that I undertook of my own volition, on my own initiative. I'd say, without exaggeration, that about 99% of my most valuable knowledge was picked up outside the school curriculum.
    Education comes from thinking for yourself and finding things out for yourself. It doesn't come from "revising" for your Mickey Mouse exams and then forgetting almost everything.
    [–]FuckOffRobocop 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    And yet you find yourself cripplingly unable to grasp simple concepts. "It's like he's never read a history book," referring to the way he acts being akin to someone with no prior knowledge of previous political events, not a literal statement alleging that the leader of the opposition has not, in fact, read a history book. You big silly goose.
    [–]_Madison_Stratford-Upon-Avon 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    I think anyone can get at least a C grade A level just through information they have picked up in general conversation or watching TV. To leave education with only two E grades just shows he is stupid or he is incredibly lazy, i put no effort into A levels and made it through everything above grade C.
    Outside reading played a much bigger part in my undergrad and masters degrees but we won't know if Corbyn did well there because he just gave up. His actions and random decisions also lead me to believe that he is in fact just stupid and has done no self directed learning after leaving education.
    [–]JonesySmitty 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Not sure. Osborne is on the wrong side of the party's EU split.
    [–]docmuppet(near) Brighton 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
    Why do people call him Gideon?
    [–]Heknarf 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
    It was his name before he changed it to George.
    [–]docmuppet(near) Brighton 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    I know, but why not call him George's Osbourne? Seeing as that's his name now? (And has been for his entire adult life).
    [–]Heknarf 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
    Classism, I think. Gideon is a posh name, so people do it to point out he's posh.
    It's silly though. He changed it when he was 13 years old. He's been George longer than he'd been Gideon.
    [–]andyrocksPictish Kingdom 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
    I think Cameron will stay on as leader, bar a disastrous result in the EU referendum. Which is not unlikely.
    [–]LevitatingCheesecake 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
    He's already said that he won't run in 2020.
    [–]andyrocksPictish Kingdom 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    I know, I think he might turn around on it.
    [–]somescottScotland 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    No he definitely won't, he's long since fired the starting pistol for the leadership race, you can't bottle all that up again, especially not in the Conservative party which has no problems with being cutthroat.
    [–]Heknarf 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    He might eye up beating Maggies record.
    [–]Heknarf -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
    Depends on if the economy survives until 2019.
    [–]RiktenkayNarfuk, living in Notts -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
    Nobody seems to care that all his promises on fixing the economy failed to materialize so far, so I doubt that will have much effect.
    [–]MsEtheldredaEuropean Union 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    Has he met any of his economic promises? I don't think he has.
    [–]RiktenkayNarfuk, living in Notts 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Nope. Downvotes? /r/ukpolitics seems to be leaking...
    [–]crow_road -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
    Have you thought that there might be a reason that Salmond has taken on that LBC phone in radio show? :O
    [–]DAsSNipez -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
    If he gets in I'm just gone, out the door the minute the result comes through.
    Anyone stupid enough to vote that berk into office can have the country to their fucking selves.
    [–]weefred 28 points29 points30 points  (8 children)
    Thinks Argentina has a right have some kind of rule over the Falklands based on the islands proximity to Argentina. I wonder if he thinks that the UK should have any kind of rule over Ireland since we are just a few hundred miles away...
    [–]_kingtut_ 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
    His oft-stated view is that NI should be returned to Ireland, despite the views of those resident there.
    [–]Heknarf 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
    For someone who apparently hates past UK imperialism he doesn't half act like an imperialist by going around trying to give peoples land to other people..
    [–]ShivAGit 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    A few hundred miles? Not quite
    [–]ismiseseosamh -25 points-24 points-23 points  (4 children)
    Britain does still occupy part of Ireland.
    [–]shrike348 33 points34 points35 points  (1 child)
    In the same way Britain 'occupies' Cornwall
    [–]demostraviusSurrey 16 points17 points18 points  (0 children)
    Britain occupies my house too, the bastards.
    [–]weefred 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    And Corbyn is opposed to it. Can't you see how hypocritical that is?
    [–]zersetzungGreater Manchester 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    If it works like that then Northern Ireland chooses to be occupied.
    [–]RachetFreres 39 points40 points41 points  (5 children)
    So inept, he makes the french socialists look good.
    [–]aenor 21 points22 points23 points  (4 children)
    Hollande has the benefit of being a patriot - he handled the terror attacks really well. I shudder to think what a Corbyn type would have done in his shoes.
    [–]Heknarf 32 points33 points34 points  (2 children)
    'I have talked to ISIS and we've agreed after 3 hours of solid diplomacy to share the UK. ISIS will take the bottom half, and we will remain in control of the top half. To the 35 odd million now living under the caliphate, I ask that you respect your new rulers culture..'
    [–]LikelyHungover 12 points13 points14 points  (1 child)
    He even gave them the good bit :/
    [–]Heknarf 22 points23 points24 points  (0 children)
    Well he wouldn't want to give them the Labour voting bit!
    [–]_kingtut_ -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
    I disagree about Hollande. The authoritarian reaction in France, not just degrading but removing decades of liberalism, are terrifying. The authorities have carte blanche to do a lot of scary stuff there these days. He also used really bad language (declare war, etc) which both gave support to ISIS and was provably wrong.
    I agree that Corbyn would be a disaster, but Hollande has really screwed up his handling of the terrorist attacks.
    [–]mrpithecanthropusBedfordshire cum Newcastle upon Tyne 160 points161 points162 points  (17 children)
    Can someone wake me up when we have an opposition again?
    [–]d0mth0ma5 78 points79 points80 points  (16 children)
    What I would't give for a 62 seat Lib Dem party...
    [–]RyannnnnnNorthumberland 57 points58 points59 points  (9 children)
    What I wouldn't give for a 650 seat Lib Dem party...
    [–]Cannibalsnail 22 points23 points24 points  (0 children)
    5 years of that and the Scandies would be jealous of US.
    [–]Heknarf 14 points15 points16 points  (6 children)
    It pains me that we'll likely never get a lib dem government.
    [–]RyannnnnnNorthumberland 13 points14 points15 points  (5 children)
    All because the conservatives broke a Lib Dem promise.
    [–]lets_chill_dude 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
    What? The Lib Dems broke their own promise, no matter how often this sub tries to claim they did nothing wrong
    [–]Heknarf 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
    Minority member in a coalition government can't keep all their pre election promises?
    'Oust them! Traitors! Not a real political party! Clegg should die!'
    And yet time and time again political parties win a pure majority, fail to keep the majority of their pre election policies... AND THEN GET RE-ELECTED.
    This country doesn't deserve the Lib Dems, to be honest.
    [–]CNash85Greater London 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    Their promise was only valid if they'd managed to form a majority government. As the minority party in a coalition, they had nowhere near enough pull to keep all of their election pledges. To treat their failure to prevent tuition fee increases as a "broken promise" is disingenuous, and those who do so invariably are just looking for a convenient stick to beat the Lib Dems with.
    [–]lets_chill_dude 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    That's completely wrong. They didn't break a manifesto idea that they would implement if they won, they broke a pledge that was unrelated to winning.
    They went round universities and signed a pledge saying "I pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees". That wasn't if they won, it was an all purpose pledge, against any rise. They then broke that pledge when they voted for, or even abstained. It's a simple pledge that they chose not to uphold.
    [–]TheEvilScotsmanScotland 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    One day I was at a Question Time style debate in Edinburgh (not actually QT, I think it was like a leader's debate for Scotland). Great fun was had when the Lib Dem representative said he wanted a Lib Dem overall majority in the UK. I'm pretty convinced they only made some of their policies on the understanding that for them to get into government was a bit laughable.
    [–]MsEtheldredaEuropean Union -4 points-3 points-2 points  (0 children)
    Fuck no. The last thing we need is a spineless government.
    [–]asjasjNottinghamshire 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
    If there was a 62 seat lib dem party they'd probably be junior coalition partners again, not opposition
    [–]docmuppet(near) Brighton 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
    Which is still better than what we have now, they'd be more effective than labour currently is.
    [–]zersetzungGreater Manchester 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    I don't agree with the Lib Dems on Europe but my god at this rate they're going to be the only opposition party worth considering for me. Kind of a shame really.
    [–]JonesySmitty -8 points-7 points-6 points  (2 children)
    So they could hold the Tories to account the way they did in 2010? Corbyn at least got them to back down on tax credits, while the Lib Dems fully backed the austerity charge.
    [–]citizen1862 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    The Lib Dems accomplished a lot in Government, while Corbyn has run an entirely ineffective opposition. You cant give him credit for the actions of the Lords.
    [–]LocutusOfBorgesYork / Derby 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    You mean the tax credits that the Lib Dems tried to kill in the Lords, only to have Labour vote against their killing amendment?
    [–]ThomsonAhh 60 points61 points62 points  (0 children)
    This is politics at its worst. Naively attempting to placate all sides and ending up with the worst options possible.
    [–]Zenigata 112 points113 points114 points  (16 children)
    “It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it.
    til that 300 miles is "just off".
    Cuba is 3 times closer to the US, so presumably Corbyn thinks that the USA should have joint sovereignty over Cuba?
    [–]mongo_lloyd 92 points93 points94 points  (8 children)
    The Normandy coast is a lot closer to us than 300 miles, and we actually owned it for ages. We have a better claim to France than Argentina has to the Falklands.
    [–]Honey_OtterWales 38 points39 points40 points  (1 child)
    Maybe thats what the migrants in Calais are banking on. Shrewd bastards.
    [–]aenor 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
    We used to own Calais too till Mary I lost it... Calais was our last toe-hold in France.
    [–]br3d 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
    Surely it's more accurate to say the Normans owned us?
    [–]demostraviusSurrey 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Yeah sort of, though the capital was in England.
    [–]Heknarf 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Well, I don't know about you guys but I'm up for giving into Corbyns retarded way of thinking if it means we can finally take back huge swaths of France.
    [–]styxwade 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Then hear me, gracious sovereign, and you peers
    That owe yourselves, your lives, and services
    To this imperial throne. There is no bar
    To make against your Highness' claim to France
    But this, which they produce from Pharamond:
    “In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant”
    (No woman shall succeed in Salic land),
    Which Salic land the French unjustly gloze
    To be the realm of France, and Pharamond
    The founder of this law and female bar.
    Yet their own authors faithfully affirm
    That the land Salic is in Germany,
    Between the floods of Sala and of Elbe,
    Where Charles the Great, having subdued the Saxons,
    There left behind and settled certain French,
    Who, holding in disdain the German women
    For some dishonest manners of their life,
    Established then this law: to wit, no female
    Should be inheritrix in Salic land,
    Which “Salic,” as I said, ’twixt Elbe and Sala
    Is at this day in Germany called Meissen.
    Then doth it well appear the Salic law
    Was not devisèd for the realm of France,
    Nor did the French possess the Salic land
    Until four hundred one and twenty years
    After defunction of King Pharamond,
    Idly supposed the founder of this law;
    Who died within the year of our redemption
    Four hundred twenty-six; and Charles the Great
    Subdued the Saxons and did seat the French
    Beyond the river Sala in the year
    Eight hundred five. Besides, their writers say,
    King Pepin, which deposèd Childeric,
    Did, as heir general, being descended
    Of Blithild, which was daughter to King Clothair,
    Make claim and title to the crown of France.
    Hugh Capet also, who usurped the crown
    Of Charles the duke of Lorraine, sole heir male
    Of the true line and stock of Charles the Great,
    To find his title with some shows of truth,
    Though in pure truth it was corrupt and naught,
    Conveyed himself as th' heir to th' Lady Lingare,
    Daughter to Charlemagne, who was the son
    To Lewis the Emperor, and Lewis the son
    Of Charles the Great. Also King Lewis the Tenth,
    Who was sole heir to the usurper Capet,
    Could not keep quiet in his conscience,
    Wearing the crown of France, till satisfied
    That fair Queen Isabel, his grandmother,
    Was lineal of the Lady Ermengare,
    Daughter to Charles the foresaid duke of Lorraine,
    By the which marriage the line of Charles the Great
    Was reunited to the crown of France.
    So that, as clear as is the summer’s sun,
    King Pepin’s title and Hugh Capet’s claim,
    King Lewis his satisfaction, all appear
    To hold in right and title of the female.
    So do the kings of France unto this day,
    Howbeit they would hold up this Salic law
    To bar your Highness claiming from the female
    And rather choose to hide them in a net
    Than amply to imbar their crooked titles
    Usurped from you and your progenitors.
    [–]EstonediaChannel islander cunt [score hidden]  (0 children)
    we own parts of normandy already see flair
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 28 points29 points30 points  (3 children)
    In the build up to the Falkland War the prime minister, Margret Thatcher, was asking her advisers whether we should commit.
    Admiral Leach was part of the breifing And was asked by the PM
    "Could we really recapture the islands if they were invaded"?
    "Yes" replied leach " we could, and in my judgement, though it is not my place to say so we should"
    "Why do you say that" replied the PM.
    Leach finished "because if we do not, or pussyfoot in our actions and do not achieve complete success, in another few months we shall be living in a different country whose word counts for little"
    He of course left with orders to sail the task force in 48 hours.
    [–]stormblooper 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
    The Admiral's name? Albert Einstein.
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 15 points16 points17 points  (1 child)
    Well it was Leach.
    The point is we need a leader that's not afraid of having the balls to make the right decision at the right time.
    I don't see Corbyn doing this.
    [–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Except the right decision would have been to have had enough troops there to defeat the invasion in the first place.
    [–]sanbikinoraion 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    To be fair, I think the USA would be okay with that.
    [–]somescottScotland 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Also in what world is there any serious threat of Argentina invading the islands again?
    They'd need to descend back into a military junta and even then even they would have the common sense not to go for it.
    [–]HawkUKWest Cornwall 114 points115 points116 points  (26 children)
    Trident submarines without warheads? Hahaha! The biggest weapon Trident opponents have is the cost and this will basically save no money at all.
    [–]Caldariblue 129 points130 points131 points  (3 children)
    Why not take it a step further, half the unemployed can be given jobs digging holes and the other half can fill them back in
    [–]interiorlittlevenice 9 points10 points11 points  (1 child)
    The Soviet Strategy.
    [–]Malzair 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    I think that's actually the Nazi strategy, the Soviet strategy is to send them into a gulag with a coal mine.
    [–]pondlife78 -5 points-4 points-3 points  (0 children)
    That is more the current conservative strategy (except they are only paid the normal unemployment benefits for doing so)
    [–]ZebraSharkThames Valley 2 points3 points4 points  (10 children)
    Also ignoring that there are jobs that go into producing the warheads elsewhere in the country which would still be lost.
    [–]harbertonTyne and Thames 4 points5 points6 points  (9 children)
    They're made in the US by Lockheed Martin, aren't they?
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 14 points15 points16 points  (7 children)
    The missiles are, the warheads are made at AWE in aldershot
    [–]MrZakalweGod's own county 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
    Aldermaston but close enough :)
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
    Darn it!
    [–]Chazmer87Scotland -1 points0 points1 point  (4 children)
    aren't they just maintained there?
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
    No one who could answer accurately could answer this question.
    If you look at Wikipedia it only gives the details of the USA spec trident warheads.
    There is nothing about the UK version. That they are made at Aldermaston is really speculation.
    However we do know that the UK developed an independent deterrent. This is what gave us access to the "nuclear club" and a top seat at the UN Security Council.
    Also the USA is quite reluctant to share its warhead technology. So while AWE probably works very closely with the U.S. Military and Lockhead Martin (makers of trident) the UK retain their ability to make their own warheads.
    [–]MsEtheldredaEuropean Union 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    Also the USA is quite reluctant to share its warhead technology.
    Can't we just disassemble on and find out how it works and then build clones? Serious question.
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    I think the USA sharing one is probably unlikely. It probably counts as nuclear proliferation.
    Anyway we know how to build our own, and really they are not that complicated.
    They are more of an engineering challenge than anything else. All we need to know is the size of hole they need to fit in and what wires they need to go bang.
    [–]Heknarf 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Pretty sure we already build and maintain our own warheads and put them into the trident missiles. Our contract with the USA is only for the missiles themselves.
    [–]jlb8Donny 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    They're maintained in the UK AFAIK, but not made.
    [–]Eat_The_MuffinYou know what they say, toasters toast toast 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    And the cost isn't even high anyway
    [–]justthisplease 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    He never said he wanted to do that, but there are lots of options being looked at that will be debated in the party.
    [–]ripitupandstartagainRepublic of Scouse -6 points-5 points-4 points  (1 child)
    My argument would be that The International Court of Justice did rule in the 90s that the threat or use of nuclear wapons would be contrary the international laws of armed conflict. The ruling was based on the Geneva Convention that prohibits the targeting of civilians and warfare which causes widespread natural envirnoment.
    [–]fuckin442m8 -10 points-9 points-8 points  (6 children)
    Is that a joke? You think the nuclear warheads are the cheapest part?
    [–]HawkUKWest Cornwall 16 points17 points18 points  (5 children)
    We already have the warheads. There aren't any plans to replace them in the near future, though there is a replacement program in the longer term. Compared to buying a nuclear submarine, they're actually quite cheap.
    The running costs are big, but I don't think Corbyn's 'plan' would save us much. The crews would still need to exist, be trained and be paid.
    [–]ochresparrowBedfordshire 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
    maybe send them out without a crew as well
    [–]tomintheshireDevonshire downunder 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    why send them out? Could just put them in a museum?
    [–]Mispla_cedUnderscoreBedfordshire 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    That's the (secret) plan, put them up in a museum. The instead of spending loads of money on them we make loads of money on them instead, old man Jezza could use that income to reduce poverty.
    [–]The_Thought_Police_West Yorkshire Best Yorkshire 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
    Why don't we get rid of Trident but just not tell anybody?
    [–]stormblooper 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Sshh, we did.
    [–]takesthebiscuitAberdeenshire 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
    I'm waiting for Corbyn to announce to combine the resurrection of the pottery industry and the loss of cadburys jobs by making chocolate teapots in Stoke.
    [–]LaviniaBeddard 21 points22 points23 points  (1 child)
    The Falklands stance is immensely stupid and will put off huge numbers of potential voters who would otherwise support him.
    [–]somescottScotland 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    I sort of get the feeling that Corbyn doesn't feel that he's in the right unless there is a massive backlash against what he's saying.
    I don't think he could ever deal with not being an underdog.
    [–]Caldariblue 221 points222 points223 points  (79 children)
    He actually suggested that we could build and maintain a fleet of submarines with no warheads to maintain the associated jobs.
    Brilliant. Utterly brilliant, next we can give the armed police broomsticks painted black and they can shout bang at people.
    [–]SteveD88Northamptonshire 27 points28 points29 points  (4 children)
    Note; this is what the Americans do.
    They build hundreds of tanks the army doesn't need, and extend the life of aircraft the airforce wants to retire, to keep the jobs in the states of various senators on the different budget committees.
    [–]Heknarf 8 points9 points10 points  (3 children)
    Decent side effect of having the single most formidable military in the world, which gives them enormous geopolitical sway.
    [–]SteveD88Northamptonshire 18 points19 points20 points  (1 child)
    Its a daft waste of money for the sake of internal politics, not international sway.
    [–]BobsquddleFUWarrington (In the process of having bike stolen) 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    yeah, they could have a much more effective military if they spent the money more sensibly
    [–]interiorlittlevenice 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    They could create a lot more jobs in other ways- the military is inefficient compared to New Deal-esque infrastructure/construction if you're purely in it for job-creation purposes.
    [–]YoureSoProgressive 95 points96 points97 points  (2 children)
    Brilliant. Utterly brilliant, next we can give the armed police broomsticks painted black and they can shout bang at people.
    The real question is, should our armed Police be able to sweep on sight?
    [–]sanbikinoraion 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
    Only "sweep-to-stop".
    [–]PhoneySopranoLeeds 22 points23 points24 points  (0 children)
    Only if it's under the carpet. DAE hate The Met?!
    [–]blndcavefsh 16 points17 points18 points  (0 children)
    He actually suggested that we could build and maintain a fleet of submarines with no warheads to maintain the associated jobs.
    Just open button pushing factories. Pay them all to push buttons. Why not? It's about as useful.
    [–]Heknarf 19 points20 points21 points  (0 children)
    Tories must be crying with laughter. Labour have turned into the parody that the Tories have been projecting of Labour. They don't even need to lie any more. They can straight up just tell the truth about how ridiculous Labour is.
    [–]SchrodingersMum 35 points36 points37 points  (31 children)
    He actually suggested that we could build and maintain a fleet of submarines with no warheads
    With no nuclear warheads. That's what he said.
    [–]weefred 65 points66 points67 points  (27 children)
    The whole point in having the submarines is that that carry nuclear warheads. Without them carrying nukes there is no advantage over land based warheads.
    [–]almostwitty 5 points6 points7 points  (22 children)
    Surely the advantage of submarine-based warheads (regardless of whether they're nuclear or not) is that it's very hard for the enemy to knock out their firing location as opposed to a land-based location, which the enemy could knock out just by nuking the British Isles...
    Sure, the punch is much more devastating with a nuclear warhead, but a conventional warhead on a cruise missile heading for a centre of government is still going to pretty much destroy said centre... ?
    [–]m4011972 12 points13 points14 points  (14 children)
    Our existing attack (read: not Trident) submarines can already fire cruise missiles.
    [–]almostwitty 3 points4 points5 points  (11 children)
    Ah ok. Do they have the same operating range as Trident? (Starting to see I'll have to start reading up on operational specs for submarines...)
    [–]peter_j_Dorset 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
    Yes. Attack submarines (no nukes) and ballistic missile submarines (trident) are both nuclear powered, and can steam on as far as they like, for about 90 days before they run out of food - in which time they could have got anywhere.
    But the cruise missiles in attack subs do not have the range of the ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles with no nuclear warheads would have the same range as non-nuclear, but very limited damage, relatively speaking.
    [–]HowObviousScatland 4 points5 points6 points  (8 children)
    Tomahawks have a range of between 1000 nautical miles and 1700. Trident missiles have a range of over 6000nm
    [–]hogger85 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    But launching ballistic missiles is gonna start trouble
    [–]Custard88Yorkshire 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
    And when you fire them it starts a world war.
    [–]HowObviousScatland 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
    Well yeah... the only reason they would be fired is during a world war.... They are a nuclear deterrent....
    [–]Custard88Yorkshire 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
    Not when they haven't nuclear warheads on them...
    [–]_Madison_Stratford-Upon-Avon 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    No not even close. Add to that cruise missiles fly through atmosphere and so are relatively slow and can be intercepted. Trident fires a cluster of warheads into space, they are small targets and come down so fast interception is pretty much impossible.
    [–]jiw123 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    No such thing as a trident submarine, there's astute class which are attack subs and vanguard class which carry the trident missile system...
    [–]m4011972 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Yeah, I know, but the term Trident has been adopted as a colloquial term for the entire Vanguard SSBN + Trident D5 deterrent package.
    [–]Caldariblue 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Which is what the astute class are for
    [–]ThirteenthLetter 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Sure, the punch is much more devastating with a nuclear warhead, but a conventional warhead on a cruise missile heading for a centre of government is still going to pretty much destroy said centre... ?
    Nope. A typical Tomahawk cruise missile conventional warhead is 1,000 pounds: it might not even level a single building, and certainly would not serve as a deterrent against nuclear attack. Even a small nuclear weapon is thousands of times more powerful.
    [–]henry_blackieWelsh Valleys 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
    Different submarines. I don't think the Trident submarines can even fire cruise missiles.
    [–]jiw123 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    Vanguard class submarine, trident is a misile system not a class of submarine
    [–]henry_blackieWelsh Valleys 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    I know, I just couldn't remember the class name.
    [–]Alaea 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    They should be able to. The Tomahawks on the Astute are shot through the torpedo tubes, and the Vanguard uses the same torpedos so theoretically they could, but you would still have the massive waste of space where the Trident missiles are kept. To refit them to fire Tomahawks would cost a fortune, if possible at all.
    [–]frillytotes 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    They can fire ICBMs with whatever warhead is fitted, whether that's nuclear or not.
    [–][deleted]  (3 children)
    [deleted]
      [–]Heknarf 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
      Er, if an ICBM pops up from the sea everyone is going to assume it's nuclear regardless..
      [–]HawkUKWest Cornwall 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      Conventional Trident is arguably even more stupid.
      [–]Caldariblue 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
      Yes. That's what he said. And it was a stupid thing to say.
      [–]SaintJimmyManic 3 points4 points5 points  (21 children)
      Surely there are other military applications for these submarines? It's not like they'd just sit about doing nothing, is it?
      [–]Caldariblue 70 points71 points72 points  (3 children)
      The way it normally works is to identify a need, then fill that need by spending money on services.
      What you're suggesting, or rather what the Labour party are suggesting is to spend the money and then perhaps see if they filled a need by accident.
      [–]SaintJimmyManic 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
      Wouldn't their approach would be more along the lines of; see if there is a need elsewhere that the subs can fill, if so propose using the subs, if not then find an alternate solution?
      I don't think it's something they're completely committed to, at this point it's just a potential compromise being discussed which needs full investigation.
      [–]asmiggsYorkshire! 22 points23 points24 points  (1 child)
      I'm yet to hear a logical suggestion of what role they could play on the face of it this is pure pork barrel politics of the worst kind to keep the unions onside. If this is the kind of policy making a Corbyn government would make we're better off with the nasty party.
      [–]shlerm -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
      Sometimes you do have to look at what you have and reassess before moving forward again.
      [–]AlsoKnownAsXGreater London 43 points44 points45 points  (9 children)
      There isn't, Corbyn is a moron. They're not designed to hunt other submarines (Astutes do that brilliantly), and if you fire any type of missile from a nuclear-capable submarine, you risk nuclear retaliation.
      [–]almostwitty -2 points-1 points0 points  (8 children)
      If you can find said submarine, surely? By the time you find and trace back the firing location of a missile, the submarine will already have sailed on somewhere else... (EDIT: In my head, I was assuming that a British nuclear submarine would not actually fire a nuclear missile unless the United Kingdom was effectively wiped out in some catastrophic scenario, in the perhaps mistaken assumption that we wouldn't go into a first-strike scenario...)
      [–]simondo 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
      In retaliation, the sub isn't nuked…
      [–]WobsJackWales -> Switzerland 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      Haha.
      [–]Perite 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
      No, if a British nuclear capable sub fired a missile, they don't retaliate against the sub, they retaliate against the country.
      [–]almostwitty 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      I'm kinda assuming if a British nuclear submarine fired a nuclear missile, the United Kingdom would already have been destroyed ... (maybe that's my naviete in assuming we wouldn't actually exercise a first-strike option except in a catastrophic scenario...)
      [–]Custard88Yorkshire 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      But in this scenario Corbyn has put conventional warheads on the ICBMs. The only way to use those would be as long range cruise missiles, which would be useless in a retaliatory strike due to the very small yield.
      [–]LikelyHungover 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      they don't retaliate against the sub, they retaliate against the countries capital city.
      [–]butwhatisitNXNW 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      There's an awful lot of research going into sea based drones now, I wouldn't be at all surprised that with another 15 years R+D, by the time the new Trident is in operation each of our submarines will have a few stalkers watching their every move. I think submarines will be a bit defunct in the coming years...
      [–]oddun 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      So THAT'S what Japan is doing with the whales!
      [–]SirSpaffsalotYorkshire 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
      The other possible military applications for these submaries are filled by the brand new Astute class anyhow. We would be moving the now 20+ year old Trident carrying Vanguard class which is nearing the end of its useful life into the hunter killer role that the brand new state of the art Astute already sits in. If Trident goes, it means the Vanguard subs will soon have to be scrapped (5-10 years) and no replacement subs will be built to carry them.
      [–]shlerm -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      I guess you could ask if we have the money now? Delaying a decision could help us be in a position to afford it.
      We are still told things are fragile and unstable.
      [–]hungoverseal 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      They're designed for nukes, they can be used for other things but it's not what they're made for
      [–]_kingtut_ 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      We could sell them to North Korea, India, Pakistan, or Israel. All of them would be happy to have a relatively state-of-the-art ballistic missile sub. \s
      [–]Osgood_SchlatterLondon 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
      It's not like they'd just sit about doing nothing, is it?
      That's what they do now - currently their only purpose is to have the potential to wipe out anyone who wipes us out.
      [–]plazmabluShropshire 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      Ah, revenge killing.
      [–]Osgood_SchlatterLondon 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      No - their purpose is the potential for revenge killing, not actual revenge killing. If it comes to actual revenge killing then they will have failed.
      [–]smokedspirit 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Headline : Police to get sweeping new powers under Corbyn
      [–]hittheswitch 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Hey, it works for the Germans.
      [–]jl45Staffordshire 27 points28 points29 points  (2 children)
      The Tories must be sat at home laughing, calling each other up "Have you seen what that knob head has said this time" As a Labour supporter I am disraught, please, please, please stop talking Corbyn.
      [–]RVallant -8 points-7 points-6 points  (1 child)
      So bad he might actually get elected. >_>
      [–]KindleQuestioner 35 points36 points37 points  (3 children)
      You forgot his advocacy of suicide, to the point that he's willing to demonstrate it himself on national television.
      [–]4533josh -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
      Source?
      [–]KindleQuestioner 15 points16 points17 points  (1 child)
      It was a joke about Corbyn's uncanny Michael Foot impersonation.
      [–]4533josh 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      Ahh, I get it now :p
      [–]casisa 34 points35 points36 points  (3 children)
      Get ready for another two weeks of Reddit Corbynistas crying foul and ranting about media bias.
      When a man consistently shoots himself in the foot simply reporting on it doesn't constitute a smear campaign.
      [–]docmuppet(near) Brighton 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      I'm really hoping this will be a turning point for many people when they realise that everyone who's been saying Corbyn is an unelectable idiot (even labour supporters).
      Probably not.
      [–]MoosaDembilly 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Tbf there is media bias, just as there would have been against Liz Kendall
      [–]mooli -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
      reporting on it doesn't constitute a smear campaign.
      Have you actually watched the interview, or just read the headlines?
      Because right now I feel like I've stepped through the looking glass - I thought it was a fine interview, he came across well, Marr tried to make him say some controversial stuff which he evaded.
      Yet the reporting... its like he's gone on air and said we need to hand the Falklands to Argentina and negotiate with ISIS.
      None of which is true.
      [–]Elfking88 41 points42 points43 points  (6 children)
      God damn, I want Labour to win at the next election... I have even liked Corbyn a lot since he became leader, I was thinking he had done a lot of good and was presenting some really good arguments for opposition... I agree with a lot of his ideas on a lot of things. I respect his attempts to not get involved in petty mud slinging and everything else.
      But he certainly doesn't make it easy on himself or on people who want a left wing government.
      I have always disagreed that he is unelectable and that he could make a lot of progress on changing the electorates mind as time went on.
      But this sort of stuff DOES make him unelectable... The Falklands want to be with us, and having a bunch of really expensive nuclear submarines without any nukes on board is just ridiculous. You are paying the huge cost of having them and then making the pointless by not arming them. What's the point?
      Oh well... Still a long time until the next election, who knows what will happen between now and then.
      [–]SolaVirtusBirmingham 21 points22 points23 points  (4 children)
      who knows what will happen between now and then
      The list called "things we need to bring up to destroy Labour in 2020" will get so long the Tories will be spoilt for choice.
      [–]zabandiEssex 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      He must think being the opposition is like playing hearts, he seems determined to shoot the moon.
      [–]Heknarf 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
      You know that condition where people can get so full of aids, syphilis, herpes, chlamydia, hepatitis, and all other kinds of diseases that they all kind of cancel each other out? You know that condition that totally does exist?
      I think that's what Corbyn is attempting with the Labour party.
      [–]ColdHotCoolEdinburgh 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      The tories haven't even begun slinging the big shit yet.
      If Corbyn is still leader (I use that term loosely) in 2020, expect a tidal wave of past shit that the tories have been sitting on to be unleashed which will drown out anything the Labour party has to say.
      [–]LordFirkraag 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      ... and having a bunch of really expensive nuclear submarines without any nukes on board is just ridiculous. You are paying the huge cost of having them and then making the pointless by not arming them. What's the point?
      It's true he should have explained this better. He should have known that the vast majority of people are completely uneducated in history and politics, and don't spend much time engaged in thought. They therefore don't have any understanding of the context of the discussion here.
      The answer to your question, "What's the point?", is two-pronged. First of all, Japan has a similar defence policy to the one Corbyn described. The military objective is flexibility and the capabilities for acquiring and deploying a nuclear deterrent within a very short interval should one ever be required if the geopoliitcal situation deteriorates.
      Second, there are all sorts of arguments for job-creating government projects quite independent from the end result. They stabilize the economy (and it was actually rearmament in the 30s that brought an end to the Great Depression), they create a skilled work forced and build a high technology base, and they keep people in jobs.
      [–]letmepostjune22 29 points30 points31 points  (0 children)
      Clueless. He needs to go
      [–]VirtarakLiverpool 27 points28 points29 points  (2 children)
      Corbyn has watched to much demolition man and thinks he can turn the uk into what John spartan woke up too.
      [–]VirtarakLiverpool 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      Do I fuck use those stupid bastard twating things. I have no fucking clue how they fucking work.
      virtarak you have been fined
      Yay I can go wipe my arse now.
      [–]iMissTheDays 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
      Not sure he wants to win the election, seems he's doing everything he can to turn Labour into a special interests pressure group rather than a political party.
      [–]Roddy0608The Vale of Glamorgan 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
      Just to preserve jobs? It seems so silly.
      [–]gitWales 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
      Voted Corbyn because I wanted him to drag the party a bit leftward, but on defence and foreign policy he's seriously killing the party's support.
      I don't have a strong opinion on Trident one way or the other - and I'd probably be in favour of a new generation of British submarines sans nuclear weaponry - but why in the hell would he pick this fight? And the Falklands and ISIS negotiations too, what the fuck!?
      Meanwhile, Tata axes 1500 jobs, an actual issue with leftist support and a great stick to hit the Tories with, and we're being dragged through the mud over these dumb issues? It's killing me.
      [–]Heknarf 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
      Tbf, Andrew Marr brought up all the subjects in the OP. He was baiting him.
      Corbyn is a fucking idiot for:
      1) Taking the bait.
      2) The opinions he holds and gave as answers.
      [–]workingnights 15 points16 points17 points  (1 child)
      Coming to Channel 4.
      100 days after Corbyn.
      The last native falklander has been pushed out of an aeroplane above the ocean.
      The scottish independance(dominance) movement has advanced as far as derby again and are refueling at donnington services.
      The recycling bins are full of £20 notes as our currency was handed in for euros without a vote.
      120 days after corbyn.
      The recycling bins are full of euros after basic income and no borders was implemented, schengen was adjusted to keep the sick man of europe out. Tfl has been brought in to introduce the concept of standing spaces only in private residences. Private residences are outlawed.
      Due to overpopulation the only industry left is building, however all the plumbers rely on a 6 week push fit plumbing course at burslem college. Britain now imports 95% of it's food as all agricultural land was handed over to the french as part of the new common agricultural policy.
      The eurostar now only stops in london and syria, overflow is towed across the adriatic by trident subs.
      [–]casisa 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      My only regret is that I have but one upvote to give.
      [–]ZaltPS2Yorkshire 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      A stronger opposition means a more accountable government, unless things dramatically change, Labour under Corbyn in 2020 will lose on the basis of foreign policy alone.
      [–]Eat_The_MuffinYou know what they say, toasters toast toast 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
      I wish argentina would just fuck off, they've never had any claim on the islands. We discovered them, we colonised them, all the people there are ours, we've built everything there and none of the people there want to be given to argentina.
      [–]Heknarf -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
      Well, the French discovered them.
      [–]Eat_The_MuffinYou know what they say, toasters toast toast 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      The first recorded landing is by an English captain
      [–]tyrefire2001 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      We've reached a reasonable accommodation with the Argentines over the Falklands. They wanted them, we said no, 98% of the population said no. Accommodation reached.
      [–]Halon5 17 points18 points19 points  (7 children)
      Tory voters have been accused of bringing in a surveillance state loving bunch of bastards but anyone who voted for Corbyn can also take responsibility for creating a pathetic opposition party that is unelectable with its current leadership.
      [–]BenV94Greater London[S] 16 points17 points18 points  (6 children)
      3 polls came out today and yesterday.
      1 showed an 11 point Tory lead, 1 showed a 7 point lead and 1 showed an 8 point lead. Seems like no progress since election basically.
      Normally oppositions are ahead or making ground up at this stage.
      [–]Halon5 12 points13 points14 points  (5 children)
      and there won't be progression so long as Corbyn is party leader, I'd expect him to be booted by the Labour Party by the end of 2016.
      [–]SteelSpark 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
      After today's performance I'd say by Easter. Half of labour will have been planning his demise since the day he took over, this will surely only speed up their plans.
      [–]Halon5 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      I hope so, when the only credible opposition are the Scot Nats then you know there's a major problem
      [–]somescottScotland 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      My bet is a few weeks longer.
      The 5th of May will see English local elections and Scottish Parliament elections.
      If the Conservatives and SNP wipe the floor with Labour as they are expected to, that will provide actual ballot box ammunition for his opponents in the party to use to oust him.
      There is no point in jumping the gun at this stage to save a few weeks. But to be honest I think he might last a bit longer, it's still quite soon after his election and there isn't a clear leader in waiting to effectively spearhead calls for a new leader.
      [–]spectrosoldier 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
      I'm a little bemused by his comments on the Falklands. Shouldn't the islanders have first and final say, as the people living there?
      [–]the_commissaire 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
      They've already had their say, and they could have been any more clear and unanimous.
      [–][deleted]  (4 children)
      [deleted]
        [–]Thenateo 7 points8 points9 points  (2 children)
        implying Corbyn will still be labour leader by summer 2016
        [–]The_Thought_Police_West Yorkshire Best Yorkshire 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
        I want Milliband back :'(
        [–][deleted]  (7 children)
        [deleted]
          [–]DasKatze500 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
          Principled to a fault is a great way of putting it. The British public are renowned (rightly or wrongly) for holding common-sense, practical political view points. We're 'decent' people, as the politicians like to put it. Corbyn's unabated pacifism, in regards to foreign policy at least, just doesn't sit right with the majority's more practical viewpoints. I know he wants to be honest to himself and the public about his own principles, but really, he must start realising what and what not to say.
          [–]ownprocessNorthumberland 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
          All reasons Labour won't be re-elected, until they sort their shit out.
          [–]cliffskiWiltshire 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
          because nothing says 'democracy' better than an angry mob outside your place of work trying to intimidate you eh?
          [–]BenV94Greater London[S] 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
          Think you're the only one to comment on the secondary picketing and strike laws one hah.
          [–]donaldtrumptwat 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
          ......  Someone kick this dozy the .......
          Jezza we ain't on a Sunday School tour !
          [–]superprez 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
          Carry on Jeremy, with you as leader the Labour party hasn't got a hope in hell of getting back in power thank fuck. Now if there was only an alternative to the Tories.
          [–]Cylia-Reb 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
          We should hand Jeremy over to the Argentinians instead
          [–]DrummkScotland 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
          Corbyn refused to rule out handing over the Falklands over the objections of the islanders. That's a red line for me and loses Labour my vote.
          [–]RavelsBolero 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          Makes me happy people are finally seeing Corby for what an ignorant fool he is. Labour are finished
          [–]AtrixerNorwich & Hull 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
          Sigh, stuff like this will just stop me voting for him.
          [–]RIngo2222 4 points5 points6 points  (5 children)
          ........so who do you think the next labour leader will be?
          [–]BenV94Greater London[S] 7 points8 points9 points  (2 children)
          There was a Fabians panel with Keir Stamer, Lisa Nandy and Dan Jarvis who all have relative gravitas, good backgrounds and can speak properly.
          Seemed like a beauty contest.
          [–]pikeybastard 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
          Starmer and Jarvis would also find it easier to command respect from the electorate as they both had good careers before politics.
          [–]workingnights 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          I like Corbyn, there are so many insults that used to be homophobic that can be brought back into daily usage because they now clearly mean corbyn.
          [–]mmlnhe 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          As an anti-war campaigner, Corbyn should be massively in favour of Trident. The entire point of having nuclear-armed submarines is as a war deterrent. You're not actually supposed to use them in any normal circumstance.
          [–]somescottScotland 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Oh my God.
          I'm starting to think Corbyn is so determined to make himself utterly unelectable that he would sooner shoot himself than become PM.
          Seriously, his Falkland island views are perhaps some of the most universally toxic to public perception you can voice without being immediately ousted by your own party. I've heard his stance on them before, but he must be completely shutting out any competent advisors if he's still talking about them publicly.
          [–]purdy1985 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
          It's like he is trying to make himself unelectable
          [–]Wrenthorpian 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          This guy is an idiot. The party has to get rid of him.
          [–]EmphursisWorcestershire 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
          It's like he's going out of his way to find the things he can say to make himself totally unelectable!
          [–]36105097 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          And people were pissed at labour for tyring to censor him
          [–]MonstrousPolitick 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          His foreign policy plan is once again a disaster unfortunately.
          [–]somebodyelse22 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          So, he's up for chatting about relaxing our ownership, despite the wishes of the inhabitants and the people who died and were injured fighting to assert this freedom. And he wants to sail submarines after leaving their nukes at home? What a gift this guy is to the other political parties.
          [–]casisa 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          All these gaffes from someone who's been a politician for longer than most of you have been drawing breath, please tell me how Corbyn is capable of leading an entire country.
          Even the most sincere do-gooder who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election must realise by now that a Julie Andrews approach to reality just isn't practical.
          [–]shrike348 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          No thank you to all of those
          [–]Anticlimax1471 1 point2 points3 points  (8 children)
          If anyone wants to watch the whole interview and make their own minds up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03fr07z
          Downvote buttons at the ready guys: I thought these were all entirely reasonable stances that he took.
          He's never been shy about his opposition to nukes, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that he's still on that riff. It seems to me like he's saying arming the subs with conventional weaponry, weaponry more appropriate to the current global situation, would be a fair compromise. I don't think he's ever said we can't afford Trident, just that the money spent should be going elsewhere, such as to more appropriate, conventional warfare. Those missiles can reach anywhere on Earth, surely it would be more useful to put something on the end of them that we can actually fire without bringing about an apocalypse? By the way, I am saying all this as someone who does NOT support unilateral nuclear disarmament.
          Secondary/sympathy strikes. All he said was they are legal in other countries, and they should be legal here. Other countries, where they are legal, have better Labour laws than here. I work in the health service, and I would be striking alongside the junior doctors if it was legal, because it affects my working conditions, and my ability to care for patients too.
          The Falklands: The debate has been had, the islanders have decided, to me that's done and done. But saying that, if Argentina come to us with a grievance about it, I don't believe saying "it's already been decided" bang-phone down, is a constructive way to conduct international affairs. Opening a dialogue with another country on a contentious issue is the right way to de-escalate said issue. He rightly says that, in the 21st century, we should be able to talk out our differences without blowing each other up. We're all big boys and girls now.
          ISIS back channels: the way in which this question was posed was very interesting, because Marr introduced it by saying the uk operated back channels with the IRA throughout the troubles, the west did the same thing with the Taliban, and with Al Qaeda, then asks if he thinks something similar should be happening with ISIS. If our current government are not operating back channels with ISIS right now then I would be very surprised. Its not like he's saying to open a dialogue with them, and it's not like he's justifying their actions, or saying they aren't committing war crimes. It's called intelligence gathering to bring about a diplomatic solution, and it would be counter-productive not to engage in it.
          Obviously most of the people in this thread disagree. I hope they watch the full interview in context before commenting back. 🍺
          EDIT: added the isis back channels bit.
          [–]skyboy90 19 points20 points21 points  (0 children)
          He rightly says that, in the 21st century, we should be able to talk out our differences without blowing each other up.
          We are able to do that, which is why we haven't blown each other up since the original conflict 30 years ago. I don't know where this idea has come from that Argentina are coming to us with reasonable requests and we're refusing to even listen to them. We're happy to talk to them, but the conversations are very short, because they're asking for full control of the island, and we want to respect the self determination of the residents.
          [–]aonomeEast Sussex 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
          He wants to revive manufacturing even though we can't compete? I'd have hoped the leader of the opposition would know why that's a bad idea.
          [–]geniice 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          It seems to me like he's saying arming the subs with conventional weaponry, weaponry more appropriate to the current global situation, would be a fair compromise.
          The problem is that that is how you get nuclear armageddon you want a clear seperation between nuclear and non nuclear weapons.
          Those missiles can reach anywhere on Earth, surely it would be more useful to put something on the end of them that we can actually fire without bringing about an apocalypse?
          You can't because people will assume they are nuclear. The cost of the missiles also means they aren't worth it to deliver a few tons of HE.
          [–]_kingtut_ 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          It seems to me like he's saying arming the subs with conventional weaponry, weaponry more appropriate to the current global situation, would be a fair compromise.
          No. You either have useful nukes (Trident replacement) or don't bother. Note that there are worries about whether submarines will be secure enough with ongoing improvements on detection, which feeds into this, and whether subs could be used for second strike capability. If you want second strike (and subs remain secure) then Trident replacement is the only realistic option. If not, then Trident sub replacement is a really expensive option for delivering weapons.
          Ballistic missiles aren't especially accurate, and would deliver a larger conventional payload than is generally worthwhile. There are pretty much zero scenarios when ballistic delivery of conventional explosives are worthwhile, and none where they are cost effective.
          Secondary/sympathy strikes. All he said was they are legal in other countries, and they should be legal here.
          Different countries have different labour laws, and different unions. Personally I'm not averse to sympathy strikes when there is a very tight link - e.g. nurses for junior doctors. But there is a history of idiotic general strikes which cannot be ignored. Maybe there is a sensible middle ground between allowing all sympathy strikes, and none.
          The Falklands [...] Opening a dialogue with another country on a contentious issue is the right way to de-escalate said issue.
          Not necessarily. For example, one reason why Argentina thought it could get away with invading the Falklands was because the UK government were vacillating and vague on the subject. Entering into debate when you aren't willing to give ground is a waste of time, and can lead the other party into incorrectly thinking you're going to do so. There is zero ground the UK government should give on this subject - better to just be honest and say as such. There's a similar argument for not negotiating with terrorists - by saying you won't, it makes it less likely that terrorists will take hostages hoping to negotiate with you in the future.
          ISIS back channels
          In theory, this should be (and probably is) happening. ISIS isn't a homogenous mass - we should be aiming to break it up and negotiate with less extreme elements. But there must also be an understanding that many will never change from their position. Corbyn needs to be very clear on what he will/won't give ground on. And he's generally pretty poor about being clear, or giving specifics.
          [–]snaab900 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Those missiles can reach anywhere on Earth, surely it would be more useful to put something on the end of them that we can actually fire without bringing about an apocalypse?
          The Americans looked into arming Tridents with conventional warheads a while back. They scrapped the idea after it was discovered they would look just like nuclear Tridents to the Russian systems and bring about an apocalypse regardless.
          Regarding the Falklands comment. I don't think anyone here is against open and friendly dialogue with other nations. It's just the topic is so politically toxic. I guesstimate he just lost about 500,000 votes with that one.
          [–]DeathHamster1 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I'm afraid you've wasted your breath - everyone's gnawing the narrative like a big juicy bone, and to hell with the interview itself.
          [–]GOOOOOOOOOOOOOBY 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          This is funny. I really hope he fucks off soon so labour actually have a chance next election.
          [–]DeathHamster1 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Has anyone here actually watched the interview?
          [–]Al559Scotland [score hidden]  (0 children)
          This just about sums up my problem with Corbyn, he seems obsessed with fighting yesterday's battles, in particular the battles he fought in lost in earlier part of his career during the 80's
          Perhaps this country needs a radical Prime Minister but it should be one focuses on the big issues of today and tommorow. Corbyn seems to be expending any political capital he has refighting the battles he has already been on the losing side of. It's a bit self indulgent.
          [–]SerTinfoilScotland -9 points-8 points-7 points  (45 children)
          Before we get what happened in the last thread with a bunch of guys moaning about the falklands look at what Corbyn actually said:
          On the Falklands, he said: "I think there has to be a discussion about how you can bring about some reasonable accommodation with Argentina.
          "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we’d be getting into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it." Asked whether islanders should ultimately have a veto, he said: "Veto, they’ve got a right to stay where they are. They’ve got a right to decide on their own future and that will be part of it. Let’s have that discussion and lets not set agendas in advance."
          So no he's clearly not giving away the islands just yet. I see this more as part of his non-violent international policy. He's trying to avoid any possible conflict at all costs.
          EDIT: Also the answer was in response to a question from Marr regarding Argentinian requests for dialogue. Actually watch the interview before you make up your mind please.
          Although once this gets the shitty media outcry I'm sure half of Labour will tell us how much they disagree with him and the whole thing will go round in circles again.
          [–]HawkUKWest Cornwall 66 points67 points68 points  (24 children)
          He's advocating negotiations where there's nothing to negotiate.
          [–]the_beees_kneesEngland 39 points40 points41 points  (5 children)
          It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we’d be getting into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands
          except this isn't true at all. There is no large conflict and there is not a risk of one. The islands voted to remain British and they are never going to be invaded by Argentina in a hundred years. He is deliberately implying that we are somehow on the verge of conflict to scare people and push his beliefs that the islands should be surrendered. He doesn't give a fuck about their self determination.
          Unless of course by "large conflict" he means an occasional ambassador being summoned as a token gesture of displeasure. Truly we live in turbulent times...
          Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
          REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
          π Rendered by PID 24543 on app-400 at 2016-01-18 03:25:35.696858+00:00 running c3eca1a country code: DE.
          Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
          0%
           
          10%
           
          20%
           
          30%
           
          40%
           
          50%
           
          60%
           
          70%
           
          80%
           
          90%
           
          100%