Jezza

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

Thinking of starting up his own party to rival Labour and dent Starmers bid for No10.

Seriously why does this anti Semitic racist still bother with politics?

George Galloway firmly behind him so say no more.

 

[glasshalffull]

He’s already done enough damage for one lifetime.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

He’s already done enough damage for one lifetime.

 

[TSSeasider]

Labour would lose 20%+ of their vote I'd have thought; it would put a serious dent in the Labour lead.

Purity v Pragmatism is a deep rooted issue for left.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Labour would lose 20%+ of their vote I'd have thought; it would put a serious dent in the Labour lead.

Purity v Pragmatism is a deep rooted issue for left.

Stretched out across all constituencies I doubt it would be that problematic. Besides a centre-left party that can get into office is a far better draw than a left wing party of strong and established conviction, that hadn't a hope. But then, I reckon you could have written that yourself.

 

[TSSeasider]

Stretched out across all constituencies I doubt it would be that problematic. Besides a centre-left party that can get into office is a far better draw than a left wing party of strong and established conviction, that hadn't a hope. But then, I reckon you could have written that yourself.

I think as well as losing the votes from the purists; it would amplify the narrative the KS stands for nothing but power - and is no different from the Tories (FWIW I don't hold that view).

I get that if it's spread thinly it may not matter but it might make some constituencies closer than they currently are or ought to be.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Thinking of starting up his own party to rival Labour and dent Starmers bid for No10.

Seriously why does this anti Semitic racist still bother with politics?

George Galloway firmly behind him so say no more.

He's not anti-semitic. He's anti-Israel.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

I think as well as losing the votes from the purists; it would amplify the narrative the KS stands for nothing but power - and is no different from the Tories (FWIW I don't hold that view).

I get that if it's spread thinly it may not matter but it might make some constituencies closer than they currently are or ought to be.

Hmm, not convinced.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

He's not anti-semitic. He's anti-Israel.

He’s anti a few things including getting rid of our nuclear arms.
Just what you want to do when you’ve got nut jobs like Kim Jong-Un, Putin and Iran very near to achieving them.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

He’s anti a few things including getting rid of our nuclear arms.
Just what you want to do when you’ve got nut jobs like Kim Jong-Un, Putin and Iran very near to achieving them.

Perhaps he doesn't fancy killing millions of people. Strange that.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

Perhaps he doesn't fancy killing millions of people. Strange that.

It’s a deterrent.

But I’m sure you know that.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

It’s a deterrent.

But I’m sure you know that.

OK, if we're off on that conversation then you need to understand the NATO rules.
1. Take arms against one member you take arms against them all.
2. The UK would never deploy strategic nuclear weapons without US agreement.

3. If the UK were to be picked on individually for a nuclear strike, the US would retaliate. Ditto Germany, Benelux, Spain, Scandinavia Poland and any other NATO country.

4. Potential enemies know this.

So, how would our money be better spent? I say, by providing a well equipped, well manned, highly technological conventional UK defence force and a highly skilled, specialist attack and response force as part of NATO. I am sure that would suit America and our European allies. Our nuclear force is only maintained in order to retain a place at the top table. And a bloody expensive boast it is too!

 

[Upwards]

He’s anti a few things including getting rid of our nuclear arms.
Just what you want to do when you’ve got nut jobs like Kim Jong-Un, Putin and Iran very near to achieving them.

If he is anti getting rid of nuclear arms, then he is in favour of retaining them.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

OK, if we're off on thar conversation then you need to understand the NATO rules.
1. Take arms against one member you take arms against them all.
2. The UK would never deploy strategic nuclear weapons without US agreement.

3. If the UK were to be picked on individually for a nuclear strike, the US would retaliate. Ditto Germany, Benelux, Spain, Scandinavia Poland and any other NATO country.

4. Potential enemies know this.

So, how would our money be better spent? I say, by providing a well equipped, well manned, highly technological conventional UK defence force and a highly skilled, specialist attack and response force as part of NATO. I am sure that would suit America and our European allies. Our nuclear force is only maintained in order to retain a place at the top table. And a bloody expensive boast it is too!

But to sit at the top table you have to have a nuclear capability.

We now have just 225 nuclear missiles the lowest ever total since the height of the Cold War in the early 60’s.

In comparison Russia has over 6,000 and the USA 5,500.

Since we've had a nuclear capability we’ve never been in a position where we have to use them so I’d like to think a deterrent does exactly what it says on the tin.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

If he is anti getting rid of nuclear arms, then he is in favour of retaining them.

Eh?

 

[1966_and_all_that]

But to sit at the top table you have to have a nuclear capability.

We now have just 225 nuclear missiles the lowest ever total since the height of the Cold War in the early 60’s.

In comparison Russia has over 6,000 and the USA 5,500.

Since we've had a nuclear capability we’ve never been in a position where we have to use them so I’d like to think a deterrent does exactly what it says on the tin.

So, our nuclear deterrent stopped Egypt closing the Suez Canal? It stopped Argentina invading the Falklands? It stopped Russia's invasion of Ukraine? If anything, the world's supply of nuclear weapons has helped to facilitate conflicts right across the globe.

 

[Wizaard]

Labour would lose 20%+ of their vote I'd have thought; it would put a serious dent in the Labour lead.

Purity v Pragmatism is a deep rooted issue for left.

20%? Once Galloway is involved you can cut that down to nearer 5% and only in metropolitan seats.

Far less of a threat to Labour than Reform under Farage is to the Tories.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

So, our nuclear deterrent stopped Egypt closing the Suez Canal? It stopped Argentina invading the Falklands? It stopped Russia's invasion of Ukraine? If anything, the world's supply of nuclear weapons has helped to facilitate conflicts right across the globe.

Eh?

What has Suez and Russia invading Ukraine got to do with us?

And why would we have used nuclear weapons against a county (Argentina) that does not have them?

Think you need to look up what actually a nuclear deterrent actually means.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Eh?

What’s has Suez and Russia invading Ukraine got to do with us?

And why would we have used nuclear weapons against a county (Argentina)
that does not have them?

Think you need to look up what actually a nuclear deterrent actually means.

Never mind.

 

[TSSeasider]

20%? Once Galloway is involved you can cut that down to nearer 5% and only in metropolitan seats.

Far less of a threat to Labour than Reform under Farage is to the Tories.

I'm not convinced Reform have any kind of traction.

They have meant the Tories have probably gone too far right for the majority of the country, and I think was unnecessary.

The centre ground is where an election is won and lost; that and basic competency, which what down the toilet with Truss.

It's why KS is hoping he can win on "I'm not them" and then introduce policies which are more suited to his desire for a more just country.

 

[Lost Seasider]

But to sit at the top table you have to have a nuclear capability.

We now have just 225 nuclear missiles the lowest ever total since the height of the Cold War in the early 60’s.

In comparison Russia has over 6,000 and the USA 5,500.

Since we've had a nuclear capability we’ve never been in a position where we have to use them so I’d like to think a deterrent does exactly what it says on the tin.

4 x Vanguard class, 16 missiles each, so 64 missiles total, if they're not moving them from one boat to the next, which they might do, each missile can carry up to 8 warheads, so in theory 512 total, but some are usually dummies, so 225 (source?) is likely the number of warheads.

However, there is a basic question, how dead do you want the other side to be, and what is "more dead".

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

4 x Vanguard class, 16 missiles each, so 64 missiles total, if they're not moving them from one boat to the next, which they might do, each missile can carry up to 8 warheads, so in theory 512 total, but some are usually dummies, so 225 (source?) is likely the number of warheads.

However, there is a basic question, how dead do you want the other side to be, and what is "more dead".

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

Like I said current stockpile 260 warheads yes not missiles like I said.

 

[Lost Seasider]

Like I said current stockpile 260 warheads yes not missiles like I said.

The question remains, if you can't solve your problems with perhaps 120 x 400kt nuclear warheads, what exactly will do the job?

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

The question remains, if you can't solve your problems with perhaps 120 x 400kt nuclear warheads, what exactly will do the job?

So what actually is the problem you mention? I’m not actually aware we have one have we?

 

[Wizaard]

The question remains, if you can't solve your problems with perhaps 120 x 400kt nuclear warheads, what exactly will do the job?

Presumably the opposition have some capacity to shoot them down, hence the need for literal overkill?

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

I'm not convinced Reform have any kind of traction.

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reform are taking around 10% of the vote and almost all are disenfranchised former Conservative voters.
Polls have shown this consistently and in fact they are becoming more popular as the graph above shows.
Reform could well be a major contributor to a potential Tory wipeout at the next GE, as they have ruled out doing a deal with Sunak.

In what way do they not have 'any kind of traction'? It simply isn't true, they are part of a large existential headache for the Conservatives.

 

[Lost Seasider]

So what actually is the problem you mention? I’m not actually aware we have one have we?

Whatever problem it was that 225 missiles wouldn't solve.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

As regards the O/P, to set up a brand new national party that would stand in every constituency in time for a looming GE is a virtually impossible task. If Corbyn does go down this road, I would expect his new party to stand in a handful of inner city seats where he would certainly attract some support and split the Labour vote.
Personally, I would expect Corbyn to stand as an independent and be elected in his Islington North seat where I think he is very popular. However, I wouldn't expect him to form a new party and if he did it could well end up like Chukka, Anna Soubry and Luciana Berger's new centrist party that was a damp squib and fizzled out very quickly. Berger has since rejoined Labour precisely because Starmer has dealt with Labour's antisemitism problem which Corbyn was central to. The cynic within me would think that Jezza wants some leverage to get himself readmitted to the Labour party - putting out veiled threats like this is an attempt to get Starmer's attention.