David Miliband basically.
The UK Politics Thread
- Thread starter epic terrorist
- Start date
- Replies 219
- Views 27K
David Miliband basically.
DM had the face for it but he was way too ingrained in Blairite beliefs and associations for it to work. We need the equivalent of what he offers, but with something closer to Corbyn's values. He is a good example though: I saw DM at Dinner a month ago or so and he still has a certain presence around him. People take notice, people listen. He feels important, though not in an overbearing way. The only time I met Ed he seemed absolutely lovely but I was constantly worried that he was going to spill his coffee all over my shoes.
For me there's 3 options, each of which correlate with a different class:
- Upper. Staunch and authoritative leader like Tony Benn. Commands respect and presents a firm line against the Tories.
- Middle. Face like Miliband with the right values. Combines the appeal of Cameron/Blair with left wing politics.
- Working. Properly gruff type, currently found in high ranking positions (though not absolute top) of unions in my experience. Gravitas over charisma.
Basically you need someone with a dominating presence (which Corbyn does not have) or utter charisma. The upper class version appeals to authority, the working class to reliability. Corbyn has brilliant ideals but is essentially too caught between the 3 classes to be effective. He has this splash of the Islington genteel about him, his image is painfully middle class (in a bumbling Grandad in a jumper and nice mug of warm tea down the allotment way) and he has a blend of relatively working class and middle class ideals. The problem is he is a mismatch, a jack of all trades that doesn't have the specialism to actually appeal to anyone in a convincing way. He's that midfielder that can sort of run, tackle, pass, and shoot, but not do any of those jobs especially well. He is the Oscar of politics.
Last edited:
ninjaskill
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2012
- Messages
- 2,668
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Leadsom or May to be the next PM elected by the 150,000 or so Conservative members to lead the country.
Good thing we got rid of those unelected officials in Brussels, no wait...
Good thing we got rid of those unelected officials in Brussels, no wait...
We're at the point where the authoritarian, anti citizen Theresa May is the sensible choice...
I mean Leadsom still opposes gay marriage ffs.
I'm going to get **** here but I don't particularly care. The biggest mistake Corbyn is making, is his promise to get rid of Trident. Sorry. But that is a huge thing for me. Him getting rid of our nuclear weapons, is basically leaving us defenseless and that is something I can NEVER EVER vote for. Ever. It was tactical, and strategic nuclear weapons that stopped the Warsaw Pact forces marching down Whitehall in the first Cold War. I was around that period, and it was an extremely jittery period. If the collapse of the Berlin Wall had turned in another direction, we wouldn't be here simple as. The second Cold War is a new ball game. And to get rid of our only viable defense, with the Hitler wannabe that is Putin around-it's mindblowingly stupid.
epic terrorist
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,009
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I won't give you **** but I will point out that he does not want to get rid of our nuclear deterrent,
Much has been made of mixing up the mans personals views on nuclear weapons and what Labours defence policy actually is, now he does want to get rid of trident, we would keep the subs but without the nuclear weapons. He also wants to expand the Navy too, but what he wants to do is change our nuclear deterrent from submarines to aircraft, this was also something that was widely expected to be brought into place by Miliband, The Lib Dems have also been talking about an airborne deterrent and it an idea that is starting to gain traction with the Tory party too.
This is because of two reasons really,
1, There are now experts who think that the development of drone technology is going to render submarines kind of redundant because they can be tracked by underwater drones.
2, Building aircraft and expanding the Navy will protect manufacturing jobs but will save billions (upwards of £15B)
I read about that Drone thing and to be honest I don't buy into it. The Ocean is vast, vast area of water and currently it would be easy to "spook" a drone. And by the time drones were able to pose a threat, with the speed of technological advances, a counter to them would have been devised.
The problem with aircraft is also, vulnerability. Russia and it's allies are now more than able to easily defend themselves, either with their own aircraft, SAM's or nuclear tipped SAM's which would be able to deal with bomber/fighter squadrons per warhead. Although we have the edge in stealth technology, we are limited by it's cost per aircraft. It's a double edged sword.
For too long we've dismissed Russia as a threat, and we've been caught completely with our pants down. When the conflict between NATO and Russia does happen we're pretty much in a losing position. The speed with which they've advanced their recently restarted nuclear weapon technology has far outpaced our ability to defend ourselves against it. Russia as a whole is in a much stronger position now. The more NATO provokes them the more reason we give them to instigate something.
I've got to ask Gramps, how on earth do you think that Trident is actually going to defend us? We already have the capacity to do things to other countries that are effectively a nuclear deterrent. You're essentially defending us keeping a small tank to crack a walnut, whilst other people are saying it might be more economic to use a car to do it instead.
Seriously, what purpose does it serve in regards to Russia? They are not going to nuke us, and we are not going to nuke them. ****, we're not going to do anything even close to that and neither are they, because it's just complete suicide for both sides. We have plenty of MAD tools at our disposal that are not ridiculously expensive.
The principle of mutually assured destruction is a more effective method than complete disarmament in terms of preventing another nuclear attack.
Russians have enough of their own problems, they don't even consider attacking the west. Was the same with the Soviets too. That's the essence of Cold War: paranoid politicians on both sides being manipulated by lobbyists. They think we're about to attack, we think they're about to attack. It's been going since 1945, and only serves to benefit the arms manufacturers.
It's 2016, nobody fights war over land anymore.
It's 2016, nobody fights war over land anymore.
Wars often make great distractions for unpopular leaders.
What? Crimea? Gaza? A lot of people would also like to argue that every war committed in the middle east by the west has been motivated by oil.
For as long as populations continue growing and resources remain finite - humans will fight over land.
Agreed. The thing is, this isn't the Cold War, we don't need incredible expensive to maintain and update nukes for MAD anymore. There are other, equally horrific, methods (especially biological warfare) which cost a lot less money.
I'll admit I'm not really familiar with the alternatives. I'm more against the people who think we should just get rid of all our weapons because they're not very nice, and all conflicts can be solved over a table.
Also, completely missed you actually mentioned mutually assured destruction at the end of your post. I missed the acronym and thought you just really wanted to emphasize our mad toolz, yo.
Last edited:
Well said.
Crimea wasn't really about land, land is one thing that Putin is not lacking.
It was about Russians having naval base there, they wanted to preserve strategic capabilities of their fleet. It's similar to Gibraltar situation, basically. There were plenty of tensions between Spain and UK over that little rock.
Obviously Putin should have tried mediation, not invasion; but he actually had genuine military reasons. Don't go poking the bear in his military installations. I don't know what Ukrainians were even trying to accomplish. The only reason Crimea currently belongs to Ukraine, is because Soviet leaders got drunk one night in the 1950s and rearranged the maps a little bit.
Last edited:
Scouseinthehouse
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2015
- Messages
- 21,565
- Reaction score
- 4,741
- Points
- 113
Leadsom pulls out of the leadership 'race,' Apparently 'the abuse has been too great' for her to deal with. Which from a frontrunner of the campaign that's brought about an all time high growth in hate crimes is really something.
Though credit where it's due. Boris, Farage, Gove, and Leadsom have certainly delivered on their 'leave' pledge ..... None of the rats can get out of this shitstorm they've created quick enough!
Though credit where it's due. Boris, Farage, Gove, and Leadsom have certainly delivered on their 'leave' pledge ..... None of the rats can get out of this shitstorm they've created quick enough!
epic terrorist
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,009
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Dave absolutely ****** them all over. None of them actually expected to win, and they were all relying on him to bail them out if they did.
I must +1 this simply because of the Star Wars reference, and nod to one of my favorite characters of the movies (Vader first, then Emperor) lol