Jump to content
blandy

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Eames said:

True - but the point that Chris was making is very clear - as was Corbyn's. (Keep the Unions happy  - lose the bombs) 

 

fixed

just saw the front page of the sun as I stopped to get lunch  ..... seems they still haven't found bottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Observer - Trident Costs Rise Again...

Quote

But the report reveals that the total cost of the project’s assessment phase, at the end of which a decision on whether to proceed with Trident’s successor will be taken, will rise to £3.3bn, nearly £300m more than the MoD originally indicated.

In times of austerity with our steel industry going down the toilet due to the offloading of subsidised steel from China, it's nice to know that the report and assessment of Trident (note: not Trident, just an assessment), will cost us £3.3 Billion. That's 'billion' not 'million'.

The cost of the actual project is pretty much unknown, somewhere in the tens of billions, definitely north of 20 billion, probably less than 100 billion. .

Who's the enemy these nukes will be detering? If it's China, why let them close our steel industry and why give them money to build nuclear power stations in england? If it's Russia, why have we allowed ourselves to have just 15 days of fuel storage in the UK whilst being reliant on piping in gas from mainland europe?

£20 / £30 / £40 billion would buy quite a lot of border security, jobs, fuel storage, fighter planes, army boots, windfarms......

 

I'm not for or against, I'm just struggling to find a reasoned debate beyond hippy vs hawk.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Observer - Trident Costs Rise Again...

In times of austerity with our steel industry going down the toilet due to the offloading of subsidised steel from China, it's nice to know that the report and assessment of Trident (note: not Trident, just an assessment), will cost us £3.3 Billion. That's 'billion' not 'million'.

The cost of the actual project is pretty much unknown, somewhere in the tens of billions, definitely north of 20 billion, probably less than 100 billion. .

Who's the enemy these nukes will be detering? If it's China, why let them close our steel industry and why give them money to build nuclear power stations in england? If it's Russia, why have we allowed ourselves to have just 15 days of fuel storage in the UK whilst being reliant on piping in gas from mainland europe?

£20 / £30 / £40 billion would buy quite a lot of border security, jobs, fuel storage, fighter planes, army boots, windfarms......

 

I'm not for or against, I'm just struggling to find a reasoned debate beyond hippy vs hawk.

you know the rules  , convert those amounts into nurses  or it's not valid  ....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stuff about 15 days of fuel storage isn't true either.

I agree it's a hell of a lot of money and that it would probably be better spent elsewhere, but don't fib about other stuff ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked up the 15 days gas storage from the interweb, so happy to be corrected on the fuel storage if you've got a more accurate number......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I'm just struggling to find a reasoned debate beyond hippy vs hawk.

I know. It's like the whole world has gone mad, or at least the part of it that we live in.

Corbyn "whatever anyone says or does or whatever pro or cons or changes in the world or military advice, ever, I will always say no nukes"

Tories "Look  - Corbyn is a threat to our security".

[people] tell us why, tories.;

tories "Look  - Corbyn is a threat to our security".

[people] "oh never mind...so are you for multilateral nuclear disarmament?"

tories "Oh yes, nukes are bad, we think the world should get rid of them?"

[people] "so your reason to get us some new ones is, perhaps going against the whole disarmament obligation and making the world safer thing, a bit then?"

tories "Oh No, Look  - Corbyn is a threat to our security"

[people} "so nukes are bad, other people shouldn't have nukes and we should all get rid of them...but our nukes are good, because they keep us safe, even though everywhere else seems to have been kept safe without them - you know, Germany, Spain, Australia, etc and so forth and everywhere. And nukes will indiscriminately kill millions of people and wreck countries for decades to come if they are used. They seem very bad. Shouldn't we be getting rid of ours, saving the money and using our deeds to encourage others to do the same? or couldn't you perhaps make a case, a reasoned argument as to why we should keep them?"

tories "Corbyn is a threat to our security"

[people] sigh...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

I know. It's like the whole world has gone mad, or at least the part of it that we live in.

Corbyn "whatever anyone says or does or whatever pro or cons or changes in the world or military advice, ever, I will always say no nukes"

Tories "Look  - Corbyn is a threat to our security".

[people] tell us why, tories.;

tories "Look  - Corbyn is a threat to our security".

[people] "oh never mind...so are you for multilateral nuclear disarmament?"

tories "Oh yes, nukes are bad, we think the world should get rid of them?"

[people] "so your reason to get us some new ones is, perhaps going against the whole disarmament obligation and making the world safer thing, a bit then?"

tories "Oh No, Look  - Corbyn is a threat to our security"

[people} "so nukes are bad, other people shouldn't have nukes and we should all get rid of them...but our nukes are good, because they keep us safe, even though everywhere else seems to have been kept safe without them - you know, Germany, Spain, Australia, etc and so forth and everywhere. And nukes will indiscriminately kill millions of people and wreck countries for decades to come if they are used. They seem very bad. Shouldn't we be getting rid of ours, saving the money and using our deeds to encourage others to do the same? or couldn't you perhaps make a case, a reasoned argument as to why we should keep them?"

tories "Corbyn is a threat to our security"

[people] sigh...

 it doesn't really explain away the people within the Labour party who are also pro-nuke offering the same argument  though does it ?

It's a tough one for Corbyn , yet again he appears to have had to turn from his principals ( see his republican humiliation) in order to appease his party (and his paymasters)  .. it was  his republicanism, his anti nuke and his tree hugging lentil eating that appealed to Twitters bandwagon and put him where he is ..every time he u-turns in a bid to appease his party , he loses the people that put him where he is to start with ...

If he's  doomed , I'd like him to go down his way and keep his principals intact (even if I don't agree with some / most  of them )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

it doesn't really explain away the people within the Labour party who are also pro-nuke offering the same argument  though does it ?

No, but they're not. They're not saying (as far as  I know) " Corbyn is a threat to our security " which seems to be the sum of the tory argument in favour of them.

Like Chrisp says, there's a complete lack of reasoned, intelligent, analytical debate/discussion/examination by the media or any party. It's all either firmly held principles about flowers and pixies, or how much of a danger corbyn is.

There are top military folk, politicians and others all very capable of presenting sound arguments for and against, but we're not hearing them, are we? It's pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blandy said:

No, but they're not. They're not saying (as far as  I know) " Corbyn is a threat to our security " which seems to be the sum of the tory argument in favour of them.

Like Chrisp says, there's a complete lack of reasoned, intelligent, analytical debate/discussion/examination by the media or any party. It's all either firmly held principles about flowers and pixies, or how much of a danger corbyn is.

There are top military folk, politicians and others all very capable of presenting sound arguments for and against, but we're not hearing them, are we? It's pathetic.

well they sorta are in a way aren't they ?

Quote

 

On Wednesday morning, shadow rail minister Jonathon Reynolds tweeted his resignation from the front benches, citing concerns about the Labour leader’s relationship with the Stop the War Coalition.

“I cannot in good conscience endorse the world view of the Stop the War Coalition,” he said, adding he believed them to be “fundamentally wrong” in their approach to UK security.

a bit further down on the linked page  Kevan Jones letter also mentions Security behind his resignation

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was all to do with ISIL/Paris/Syria wasn't it? Stop the war are to a large degree massively deluded anti-west anti-US knobheads, frankly, with enormous hypocrisy and double standards and Corbyn being their president  or whatever it was isn't a good thing (IMO). Fair play to the MPs who felt they couldn't stay on while he was part of STW.

But it wasn't about nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to split hairs then arguably the threat to our security line  isn't (solely ) about trident or even Corbyn either 

 

Quote

so it isn't about Corbyn then ....

No. It's entirely about building a positive perception of the Conservative party at the expense of everyone else.

The strategy is to make the Tories seen as the party of 'security' during their second term in Government.

They want to be seen as a safe bet and for everyone else to be seen as a gamble.

 

Edited by tonyh29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

  ..every time he u-turns in a bid to appease his party , he loses the people that put him where he is to start with ...

 

Membership of the Labour party is rising, and apparently has a further rise everytime he says anything in a reasonable tone of voice and the media attack him, Labour membership up 200,000 now since he became leader. Now I'm not saying that will win an election, far from it. But the people that put him where he is appear very happy with his performance so far.

------

On the trident measured as a unit against nurses, I did a fag packet round numbers calculation - taking the average nurse wage and presuming they work a 40 year career, trident is the equivalent of a job for life of an additional 32,000 nurses. 

I don't think that particular trade off has been put to all the ageing tory voters of the Express and Mail that can't have a place in a care home or get a 15 minute home visit slot twice a day from an east european care assistant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reasonable debate to be had about whether losing one election is a price worth paying if a massively increased and more-involved membership is the result, especially now that the Tories are cutting Labour's funding at the knees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military wise, we are nothing without Trident, an would need to be very very careful when entering other peoples wars without it. Our little Island would be a threat to no one.

Also Corbyn is a dinosaur, who will get know where with Labour, its just like a play thing for his ego, to prove his still got it, though I very much doubt he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our security isn't provided by Trident, it's provided by America. Trident is how we pay America for the privilege. It's an enormous amount of money for a system we will never use, would never plan to use and is there to protect us from enemies we don't have. The stuff last year where the US asked any country that wanted to be in their gang to ensure they they're spending at least 2% of their GDP on arms is the same - it's a tax, it's there to keep us in the club. Physically, we're no safer with or without Trident, I guess the question would be how much we'd upset our protector if we didn't buy it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I picked up the 15 days gas storage from the interweb, so happy to be corrected on the fuel storage if you've got a more accurate number......

Sorry didn't reply Chris, have been busy with "other stuff" :)

As ever, the answer is never straightforward.

 Total UK gas storage when 100% full is 4,700mcm (Million Cubic Meters). Maximum withdrawal capacity is around 79mcm, so at maximum withdrawal, it would last for around 60 days. However, the answer is slightly more complicated as we don’t just have one storage facility, but 1 large one and 7 smaller facilities, as well as some LNG storage. Some of the facilities are considerably larger than others, so if we were withdrawing at full capacity (every facility withdrawing its maximum), the smaller facilities would empty quite quickly, meaning that the overall withdrawal was lower. Accounting for this, the average withdrawal throughout winter is around 50mcm, which accounts for around 94 days.

Current storage levels in the UK are 86.20% full (as of yesterday evening).

So we definitely have more than 15 days cover! :D

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, blandy said:

I know. It's like the whole world has gone mad, or at least the part of it that we live in.

Corbyn "whatever anyone says or does or whatever pro or cons or changes in the world or military advice, ever, I will always say no nukes"

Tories "Look  - Corbyn is a threat to our security".

[people] tell us why, tories.;

tories "Look  - Corbyn is a threat to our security".

[people] "oh never mind...so are you for multilateral nuclear disarmament?"

tories "Oh yes, nukes are bad, we think the world should get rid of them?"

[people] "so your reason to get us some new ones is, perhaps going against the whole disarmament obligation and making the world safer thing, a bit then?"

tories "Oh No, Look  - Corbyn is a threat to our security"

[people} "so nukes are bad, other people shouldn't have nukes and we should all get rid of them...but our nukes are good, because they keep us safe, even though everywhere else seems to have been kept safe without them - you know, Germany, Spain, Australia, etc and so forth and everywhere. And nukes will indiscriminately kill millions of people and wreck countries for decades to come if they are used. They seem very bad. Shouldn't we be getting rid of ours, saving the money and using our deeds to encourage others to do the same? or couldn't you perhaps make a case, a reasoned argument as to why we should keep them?"

tories "Corbyn is a threat to our security"

[people] sigh...

In principle this is great but the practice is that this exact tactic worked perfectly at the recent election. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...
Â