***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
==========================================================
Well he's not going to have to stand for Prime Minister against Dave Cameron, is he, since Dave said he won't stand for another term if I remember correctly? It'll be Gideon Osborne/Alexander Johnson and Tim Farron he's standing against.
Corbyn v Boris. Now there's a general election to relish.
I admire Corbyn's principled positions and welcome the return of a proper Labour party in opposition. I won't be voting for him/them though. Unilateral nuclear disarmament? No thanks. Red line right there for me. Nothing else could compensate for that. It simply can't be allowed to happen.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 21 Sep 15 at 01:04
|
24 things that Jeremy Corbyn believes
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34209478
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 01:25
|
>> 24 things that Jeremy Corbyn believes
>>
>> www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34209478
Surprisingly large number of those have, or might be expected to have, broad popular support.
|
>> Surprisingly large number of those have, or might be expected to have, broad popular support.
Like most lefties you are very good with the broad statements and ideals but poor on detail - how many and how broad - precisely.
And lets look at some of the things in detail? Not sure Irish reunification will go down well with the majority of those in NI. Or an arms embargo with the jewish population, or the higher taxed "rich, and the general population will roast him for defence spending cuts, they will despise him for the return of the falkland islands, the general population have never heard of Diego Garcia nor care about its inhabitants,
I love "quantative easing for the people" what a cute term for "printing more money than we can afford to finance uncontrolled spending"
And the term "no arbitrary deadline for paying off the defect" - which means Never.
Corbyn, like most idealistic radical socialists can't separate fantasy from reality and plain ruddy common sense.
|
>> Like most lefties you are very good with the broad statements and ideals but poor
>> on detail - how many and how broad - precisely.
I didn't say all of them, I said a surprising number.
Nationalisation of the railways and energy companies, abolition of Student loans and rent controls are specific examples from a recent survey in, I think, the Independent. Neither can a debate on Trident any longer be closed down by portraying opponents as Moscow stooges as was case 30yrs ago.
Opposition from the Jewish population isn't an embargo on popular support.
Some of them, allotments, cycling and opportunity for all kids to learn music are 'motherhood and apple pie' territory.
Others, like a negotiated settlement for the Falklands are clearly not popular. But that doesn't make him wrong in saying it's the way forward.
|
>>
>> >>
>> I didn't say all of them, I said a surprising number.
>>
>> Nationalisation of the railways and energy companies,
So how good were the railways before nationalisation?
Genuine question as I don't use them (Apart from a trip on a C2C from Upminster to Fenchurch Street last year I haven't been on an overground train for 25 years).
|
>> So how good were the railways before nationalisation?
I assume you mean privatised, because they were nationalised in 1946.
>> Genuine question as I don't use them (Apart from a trip on a C2C from
>> Upminster to Fenchurch Street last year I haven't been on an overground train for 25
>> years).
Appalling for the most part. Truly Truly utterly appalling. I know of what I speak, having commuted by train for most of the 70s. and on and off in the 80s & 90s. There were bright spots, intercity was a glimmering beacon hope, but not cheap.
privatisation has improved them immeasurably, tho it has to be said the weak link is still Network Rail.
|
>> >> So how good were the railways before nationalisation?
>> I assume you mean privatised, because they were nationalised in 1946.
Yes.
Nationalised BR was a bit sluttish, couldn't be bothered. Privatized isn't much better, but it is a bit. More expensive of course down the line so to speak as it were...
|
>>Unilateral nuclear disarmament? No thanks. Red line
>> right there for me. Nothing else could compensate for that. It simply can't be allowed
>> to happen.
You don't really think we could use it unilaterally do you. As has already been pointed out (a) in a nuclear conflagration with Russia its a sparkler at a firework display (b) the US has too much hold over it and probably a 'backdoor' into the launch process. We need their consent to its use.
Or are we going to fire it at Tehran or some future ISIS land?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 11:06
|
Maybe.
It's a deterrent though. I'm sure you understand that argument, it's been made often enough and it's conclusive in my eyes. It's worked so far. Keep it and we'll never use it. Lose it and someone else will use them against us. You can't disinvent the wretched things, so you might as well have some yourself.
We've made enough enemies in this world to need it I reckon. Someone like maybe Finland doesn't need it, but us? Yeah, there are enough places out there willing to do us harm to justify keeping it.
|
I was amused to hear this morning on the radio that Corbyn has appointed John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor.
So, just to be clear, Labour are offering, as their man to run the economy, a chap who has been quoted as saying his pastime is "fermenting the overthrow of capitalism"
Oh dear. They really don't get it, do they?
Last edited by: DP on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 11:30
|
>> So, just to be clear, Labour are offering, as their man to run the economy,
>> a chap who has been quoted as saying his pastime is "fermenting the overthrow of
>> capitalism"
Taking the role of duty pedant...
I think you mean fomenting rather than fermenting.
|
>> I think you mean fomenting rather than fermenting.
I guess that was what he meant. Either way, it doesn't bode well.
|
>> I think you mean fomenting rather than fermenting.
But he did say fermenting. He probably meant to say fomenting but he didn't.
|
>> Oh dear. They really don't get it, do they?
How the world has changed. Overthrowing capitalism, albeit perhaps only in a figurative sense, used to be standard Labour territory. That's what clause VI said.
|
>> Overthrowing capitalism, albeit perhaps only in a figurative sense, used to be standard Labour territory. That's what clause VI said.
Quite. It's the whippersnappers who 'don't get it'. They've been corrupted and led astray by rabid and cunning crypto-fascist Americans.
|
>> It's a deterrent though. I'm sure you understand that argument, it's been made often enough
>> and it's conclusive in my eyes. It's worked so far.
My objection is specifically to Trident and the idea of UK ICBMs. The opportunity cost for more useful military (and other) spend is barmy. More agnostic about tactical n-weapons. As you say we cannot disinvent the damn things.
In so far as it's worked sine the fifties it's the US v USSR/Russia arsenal that's done the job. Of our European partners only the French have 'the bomb'. I've not noticed Germany or Italy being held to ransom.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:52
|
But that's my point. Britain and France have far more enemies and potential enemies in the world's trouble zones than Germany or Italy. If I was in Germany or Italy I'd be against nuclear armament. But Britain is a different kettle of triple-eyed fish.
Without fear of recrimination, a nuclear armed enemy could lay waste to Britain, safe in the knowledge that the US would shrug its shoulders for fear of becoming embroiled in nuclear confrontation itself.
The opportunity cost is far from barmy when we risk having nothing more than an irradiated wasteland to spend the money on. We're not in such a mire of societal poverty that we have to take the risk. I'd rather it weren't thus, but it is.
|
>> Without fear of recrimination, a nuclear armed enemy could lay waste to Britain, safe in the knowledge that the US would shrug its shoulders for fear of becoming embroiled in nuclear confrontation itself.
Poppycock, comrade.
|
I said could. That's not poppycock, comrade. It's a risk I'd not personally wish to bear. Your appetite for risk may differ, but you can't deny the risk is real.
I think people overestimate the love our special relationship partner has for us. The Yanks would ditch anyone in a storm to protect their own skins, they can't even support us over the Falklands.
|
There's certainly risk from a 'dirty bomb' but ICBM's are not much use responding to that threat.
Can we identify the states that, on account of our role in the world, present a threat to the UK AND have the remotest possibility of gaining nuclear technology together with ballistics to hit the UK. If we need a deterrent against such a threat surely it could be provided without a 4 sub ICBM setup.
|
Um, let's start with Russia.
Actually, that'll do.
|
>> Um, let's start with Russia.
>>
>> Actually, that'll do.
Putin. You know, the bloke who is quite happy to shoot down civilian airliners in European Airspace?
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 15:57
|
>> Can we identify the states that, on account of our role in the world, present
>> a threat to the UK AND have the remotest possibility of gaining nuclear technology together
>> with ballistics to hit the UK. If we need a deterrent against such a threat
>> surely it could be provided without a 4 sub ICBM setup.
>>
Its been looked into a few times answer always comes back the same. It was recognised back near 50 years ago other solutions for the UK are limited. SLBM is the only way to do it properly. The cost savings vs other nuclear solutions are not as large as commonly thought.
|
>> The Yanks would ditch anyone in a storm to protect their own skins, they can't even support us over the Falklands.
Yeah, obviously. The US is terrified of being devastated by Argentina. Stands to reason. Tchah!
|
>> >> The Yanks would ditch anyone in a storm to protect their own skins, they
>> can't even support us over the Falklands.
>>
>> Yeah, obviously. The US is terrified of being devastated by Argentina. Stands to reason. Tchah!
>>
>>
You misunderstand me. Deliberately, I expect. Never mind.
|
>> The US is terrified of being devastated by Argentina.
It was what you seemed to be saying. Accidentally, I expect. Never mind.
:o}
|
>> >> Without fear of recrimination, a nuclear armed enemy could lay waste to Britain, safe
>> in the knowledge that the US would shrug its shoulders for fear of becoming embroiled
>> in nuclear confrontation itself.
>>
>> Poppycock, comrade.
>>
>>
Do you actually believe that the USA puts other nations interests above it own? It may support and fund them if it is for their benefit.
|
>> Do you actually believe that the USA puts other nations interests above it own? It may support and fund them if it is for their benefit.
It isn't every man for himself ON. Beyond a certain point 'the West' is more like a house of cards. Our interests (or some of them) are linked to theirs.
|
>> It isn't every man for himself ON. Beyond a certain point 'the West' is more
>> like a house of cards. Our interests (or some of them) are linked to theirs.
>>
Aye right, Europe and the far Pacific rim are Americas buffer zone. NATO, ANZUS, treaties with Japan, Korea, the Philipines, etc are for Americas protection. They are happy to fund wars there to keep it off their soil.
|
>> NATO, ANZUS, treaties with Japan, Korea, the Philipines, etc are for Americas protection. They are happy to fund wars there to keep it off their soil.
Divide and rule. They learned it from us of course, especially when we were doing it to them. What go around, er, come around sort of thing.
|
>> Of our European partners only the French have 'the bomb'. I've
>> not noticed Germany or Italy being held to ransom.
Nato my old fruit, Nato. Nuke Germany and the yanks would push the button. As would we.
|
As a nation surrounded by water, I find the idea of submarines as part of our defences reassuring, if we choose not to have them we lose the capability for good as the required capabilities can't be quickly / cheaply restarted if required at some future point.
If we have a nuclear deterrent (my opinion - I agree with Al., we live in an uncertain world) then we need some way of delivering it, a submarine is the best option in most experts (I am not one in any way) opinion.
|
Not forgetting the Falklands.
Argentina is more scared of us with submarines than without.
Yes, I know Jeremy would give them the Falklands anyway
|
>> Not forgetting the Falklands.
>> Argentina is more scared of us with submarines than without.
>> Yes, I know Jeremy would give them the Falklands anyway
The idea that we'd use a Trident nuclear weapon against Argentina is absurd. What's needed round the Falklands are the sort of subs that can sink shipping or perhaps in extremis launch cruise missiles. Less trident, more of that sort of conventional stuff.
And sooner or later yes, we'll need to negotiate a deal with Argentina. Maybe not or another 20 years but eventually....
|
>> And sooner or later yes, we'll need to negotiate a deal with Argentina. Maybe not
>> or another 20 years but eventually....
Why?
|
>> Why?
Because the cost of the status quo will eventually become unsustainable.
|
>> Because the cost of the status quo will eventually become unsustainable.
>>
It wasn't unsustainable for the first 150 or so years, it may not be an issue 20 years from now
You are guessing, Bromp, Argentina is far from being politically and economically stable, anything can happen.
|
>> Because the cost of the status quo will eventually become unsustainable.
>>
If there's oil there it'll be more than cost effective.
|
>> >> Why?
>>
>> Because the cost of the status quo will eventually become unsustainable.
If oil is found there, It will suddenly become very financially sustainable indeed.
|
Oil may be a game changer but have they actually found any yet? My memory is that while oil and or gas has been on the horizon since not long after 82 proven, extractable and commercially viable stuff is still in the future.
While it's likely that oil prices are unsustainable at current levels and normality may return if/when China grows and OPEC exercises control neither of those things are certain. US fracking/shale gas may have changed the paradigm. If the price stays uncertain exploration in cold deep and difficult water won't be easy to fund.
Do Argentine claims and sabre rattling affect the confidence of investors? If so thn that's another driver for compromise.
As commerdriver says I'm only really guessing but I don't think the idea that UK can and will hang on to the islands in perpetuity is a given.
Can anybody call international politics in 20yrs time?
|
>> As commerdriver says I'm only really guessing but I don't think the idea that UK
>> can and will hang on to the islands in perpetuity is a given.
>>
>> Can anybody call international politics in 20yrs time?
>>
>>
I think the oil issue is a red herring. I can't either see it being anything like do able for the foreseeable future.
I'd disagree on the islands themselves, public feeling would ensure they'll be under our protection for everyone's lifetime on here.
|
>> Can anybody call international politics in 20yrs time?
My point exactly. How can you understand that principle and be in favour of ditching our nuclear deterrent? I don't get it.
|
>> The idea that we'd use a Trident nuclear weapon against Argentina is absurd.
Who said anything about using trident against Argentina? It's just that they are the only subs we have/will have, they also carry conventional torpedoes, I believe.
Again, the threat is more important than firing anything. Nobody wants to use the weapons, but Argentina has form for reacting to our reduced naval capabilities.
This is not a debate between those who want to nuke the world and te rest. Nobody wants, ever, to see those weapons used, but some people, me included, want to see the capability maintained.
As for a negotiated agreement with Argentina who knows what will happen?
|
>> Who said anything about using trident against Argentina? It's just that they are the only
>> subs we have/will have, they also carry conventional torpedoes, I believe.
I'm sure ON will be along to correct me if I'm wrong but I think we retain several 'hunter/killer' submarines of at least two different types. At least that's what it says on the RN's website.
It we're relying on the Trident replacements to guard the Falklands and our trade routes as well as lie low ready to launch ICBMs then we really do have problems. The more so as I'm told we still need four of the Vanguard replacements because up to three can be 'off mission' at any one time.
|
>> I'm sure ON will be along to correct me if I'm wrong but I think
>> we retain several 'hunter/killer' submarines of at least two different types. At least that's what
>> it says on the RN's website.
>>
>> It we're relying on the Trident replacements to guard the Falklands and our trade routes
>> as well as lie low ready to launch ICBMs then we really do have problems.
>> The more so as I'm told we still need four of the Vanguard replacements because
>> up to three can be 'off mission' at any one time.
Point is, we do have hunter killer subs, we have already used them once to take out their flagship, so they wont know if they are there or not - the threat is enough.
|
>> And sooner or later yes, we'll need to negotiate a deal with Argentina. Maybe not
>> or another 20 years but eventually....
>>
There's nothing to negotiate. It's been our patch since 1765 and re-asserted in 1833.
Furthermore and more importantly, the people that live there wish to be ruled by us... what is there to talk about?
|
We have six fleet (nuclear propelled) submarines, this means two newish ones and four very old (unreliable) ones. You would be lucky to have two operational at any one time. A bit thin on the ground.
In an ideal world the trident submarine on patrol should have one for protection as should the proposed aircraft carriers. Others would be used for annoying other nations, intelligence gathering etc.
This shows what a poor state our navy is in.
|
|
IIRC, HMS Conqueror did OK!
|
>> IIRC, HMS Conqueror did OK!
Best it could do now is give someone a nasty cut - its razor blades.
|
|
If you look on Google maps at Rosyth dockyard Conquer is one of the three hulks in the South Eastern corner of the basin, the hulks of the four Polaris submarines can also be seen. At the moment HMS Queen Elizabeth (the new aircraft carrier) takes up the whole west wall of the basin.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 19:58
|
>> If you look on Google maps at Rosyth dockyard Conquer is one of the three
>> hulks in the South Eastern corner of the basin, the
Had an interesting trip up the Tamar past Devonport while visiting Miss B down in Plym last month. Quite a few decommissioned subs there too I think. Had a sh8t ourselves moment when the nulear alarm went off. With the Bank Holiday we'd forgotten it was Monday and therefore test day.
|
>>Had a sh8t ourselves moment when the nulear alarm went off. With the Bank Holiday we'd forgotten it
>> was Monday and therefore test day.
>>
Not a problem, just drive upwind very fast, the Speeding ticket will be the least of your problems. :-)
|
|
That was the speel checker!
|
>> There's nothing to negotiate. It's been our patch since 1765 and re-asserted in 1833.
The same could have been said for many, many other places that were once red on the map. If the cost in cash, politics or military casualties is too high all the evidence is that history counts for nowt.
>> Furthermore and more importantly, the people that live there wish to be ruled by us...
>> what is there to talk about?
And a political agreement securing that principle while dealing with question of sovereignty is at least theoretically possible. Wasn't such an arrangement canvassed before 1982?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 18:13
|
And a political agreement securing that principle while dealing with question of sovereignty is at least theoretically possible. Wasn't such an arrangement canvassed before 1982?
I believe it was, although no one now admits to it. Any current party that signed the islands away would be seeing their last glimpse of power for a very long time.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 21:06
|
>> The same could have been said for many, many other places that were once red
>> on the map. If the cost in cash, politics or military casualties is too high
>> all the evidence is that history counts for nowt.
>>
While that is true, I cannot recall any of the countries "that were once red on the map" having "changed colour" to anything but independent, except for Hong Kong and that was only leased anyway.
I don't think we would have as much of a problem with the Falklands declaring independence as we and they would have with becoming Argentinian.
Last edited by: commerdriver on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 09:38
|
snip quote for the lazy person who couldn't be bothered!!!
>> And sooner or later yes, we'll need to negotiate a deal with Argentina. Maybe not
>> or another 20 years but eventually....
>>
Nuc subs carry torpedoes.
As the Belgrano found.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 23:23
|
>> Nuc subs carry torpedoes.
>>
>> As the Belgrano found.
At risk of repeating myself nuclear powered 'hunter/killer' subs, such as the one that sank Belgrano, are completely different beasts from the Vanguard class ships that carry Trident.
|
>> My objection is specifically to Trident and the idea of UK ICBMs. The opportunity cost
>> for more useful military (and other) spend is barmy.
Only if you think the deterrent is not necessary. If it is, then defence of the realm, national security or however you describe trumps other "opportunities".
|
|
I think JC's choice of shadow justice a bit odd, an unelected lord?
|
>> I think JC's choice of shadow justice a bit odd, an unelected lord?
Not really given the history of the post. Charlie Falconer is a safe pair of hands and there will be a deputy in the Commons.
The role of Lord Chancellor has a long history which was straightened out by the Constitutional Reform Act (CRA) under Blair. Initially the PM's 'back of a fag packet' plan was to abolish the role altogether (in order to rid himself of Lord Irvine). Trying to untangle an office of state pre dating Henry VIII proved too difficult and the more sensible step was to unravel the conflicting roles of judge (and therefore lawyer), speaker of the Lords and effective Minister for Justice. Large parts of the LC's role vis a vis the judiciary, particulalry allocation and discipline moved to the Lord Chief Justice.
After the CRA the post remained in the Lords - Charlie Falconer - until Jack Straw took over in 2007. He was still a lawyer as was the first holder of the post in the coalition - Ken Clarke.
Chris Grayling was the first non lawyer LC for nearly 500 years, current incumbent Gove is second.
My personal view is that the prisons should be punted off back to the Home Office with the LC's special role vis a vis the judiciary and the constitution recognised by reserving the post to someone with standing to hold judicial office - a barrister or solicitor of Nyears standing.
|
|
I'm sure that's technically and historically accurate but that wasn't really my point. More that someone of his political outlook would choose an unelected lord.
|
>> I think JC's choice of shadow justice a bit odd, an unelected lord?
He is the least of your worries. Choosing as chancellor a bloke who ken livingstone kicked out for cooking the books of the of the GLC is a real odd choice.
|
|
If he ends up with job for real I'm sure it be good experience.
|
>> Choosing as chancellor a bloke who ken livingstone
>> kicked out for cooking the books of the of the GLC is a real odd
>> choice.
While Livingstone's book suggests McDonnell played fast/loose with the figures the real dispute was political. Curiously though, Livingstone was on WATO today singing McDonnell's praises.
|
>> What on earth is WATO?
World at One. A news programme broadcast on BBC Radio 4. Companion to Today, PM and The World Tonight.
|
>> >> What on earth is WATO?
>>
>> World at One. A news programme broadcast on BBC Radio 4. Companion to Today, PM
>> and The World Tonight.
>>
Well why not say so?
Some of your silly "acronyms" are more confusing than typing the whole thing
If you are the only one who understands it, it's not a useful abbreviation
:-)
W at O might have been better but shortening 10 letters to 4 isn't worth doing.
|
|
Not that I use Twitter or Facebook, but W@O would be better than WATO. If World and One are shortened to one letter each, then shouldn't that At be shortened too making it WAO?
|
From a book that I wrote...
Abbreviations and buzzwords.
This is a big issue, especially where technical correspondence is concerned. As a rule no abbreviation (or buzzword) should be used, without first spelling it out in full with the abbreviation in brackets. This of course does not apply to abbreviations in common usage as part of the English language. No one needs to be told, or cares, that “eg†means exempli gratia. There are also a few abbreviations in common usage where the full meaning is not known to the majority of people, the product is never sold as such, and explanations help no one. In the automotive sector, SRS and ABS are two common examples, and in home entertainment, the 21 pin connecting lead often used is always referred to as a SCART lead, and never a Syndicat des Constructeurs d’Appereils Radio Receptuers et Televisieurs lead. Where a technical abbreviation or term is misused by the writer of the original letter, rather than point this out, if you can discern the meaning the reply is best couched in terms that avoid its use as the writer has misunderstood the usage so may likewise be confused about related terms.
I'll probably remove the SCART reference if I recirculate it, perhaps putting HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) in its place.
|
|
When I write technical/design documents for even internal use, a glossary/abbreviation section is expected.
|
I Googled one frequently used on here the other day....and even Google didn't give an answer, or at least no more than I would have expected it to mean. In which case I don't understand it.
SQ4LB???????
Pat
|
>> SQ4LB???????
>>
>> Pat
It stands for Daves Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Has Flared Up Again.
or something like that.
|
Over use of the quote message button so the duty Mod has removed unnecessary text.
Snip Quote 4 Long B..?
|
I'll probably remove the SCART reference if I recirculate it...
...or at least get the French spellings right.
};---)
Pat'll call me a pendant now, but I've got things to do, can't just hang around all day.
|
>> I'll probably remove the SCART reference if I recirculate it...
>>
>> ...or at least get the French spellings right.
>> };---)
>>
>> Pat'll call me a pendant now, but I've got things to do, can't just hang
>> around all day.
She'll see the light
|
At least I have the ability to laugh at my own typo's:)
Pat
|
To be fair I don't think it's Bromps invention, the Beeb either devised it or adopted it. There are other acronyms I use frequently so if writing without thinking too much I might inadvertently use them and some readers may not understand. I was asked the other day what btw stood for, I think we mostly know that. TV and radio show names have shortened versions for Twitter... (ISIHAC, HIGNFY spring to mind).
|
>> To be fair I don't think it's Bromps invention,
It's certainly a Beeb abbreviation for twitter etc purposes. I also thought we'd discussed it previously when it became apparent that some members were unfamiliar with names of any of Radio 4's daily news programmes.
|
It's been discussed before and found that many of us are unfamiliar with some of the abbreviations used by some of the posters.
Surely if a post is worth making, it's worth making it easily read and understandable by all of us?
The annoying thing is when a pendant uses unfamiliar ones....I simply don't understand how they can square that in their mind.
Pat
Note for Mods: If some forum members don't understand what your prehistoric morse code means we are not likely to know we have disobeyed your rules so it is a complete and utter waste of your time shortening it as you'll just have to do it more often......:)
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 08:25
|
>> The annoying thing is when a pendant uses unfamiliar ones....
Am I a pedant if I pick you up on pendant?...;-)
|
There's a witty remark there somewhere about long/lanky/hanging but you're absolutely the wrong shape for that, WP!
Pat
|
>> W at O might have been better but shortening 10 letters to 4 isn't worth
>> doing.
I still wouldn't have known what that meant.
We all have differing levels of knowledge on various subjects, it's up to the writer to ensure the reader has a reasonable chance of reading all the message... and not to have to guess or try to look it up on an acronym website (where you often still can't find it).
|
|
It didn't take long for Corbyn to ditch his life long opposition to nuclear weapons.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 18 Sep 15 at 18:02
|
|
Already, ON, i thought it would be at least next year before he changed his mind?
|
|
Nice to see he'not consistent. His loopier followers will be tearing out their hair. So I expect 250,000 bald Labour supporters..
|
|
Ahh right. I thought it might be more of a move. Nato he'll move on later when it's pointed out its totally unrealistic. The more time he spend as leader he'll find his options get smaller not larger.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 18 Sep 15 at 19:29
|
|
Like Tsipras in Greece, Corbyn is finding out that spouting all sorts of revolutionary nonsense is ok when you're at the back of the room, but once you have the hot seat and the realities are pointed out to you your tune has to change pretty quickly. Should he ever get the PM's job a look at the books will show him his spending plans are simply impossible.
|
Should he ever get the PM's job a look at the books will
>> show him his spending plans are simply impossible.
>>
I've never known a lack of funds stop any previous Labour government from going on a spending spree that the country couldn't afford !
|
>> pretty quickly. Should he ever get the PM's job a look at the books will
>> show him his spending plans are simply impossible.
He has a plan to overcome that - print money.
|
Labour leader announced - No FM2R
