UK Election June 08

[peejaye]

Course; the most obvious thing to do would be all employers to pay a decent living wage, that would also be a good solution for the benefit reforms within the DSS. Also everyone would pay tax. When I say decent I mean £10+ an hour minimum. Probably nearer £12.

[broncofan]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-35645715.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rent-manifesto

Everyone with a conscience knows that there is no way to use nuclear weapons without it being a war crime. This is true even if it is a second strike in response to a war crime. But I've heard from a lot of lefties about how M.A.D doctrine is effective and helps prevent nuclear war because everyone is rational enough to avoid national suicide. In my view, with the increasing number of rogue states trying to develop them this is probably not true, and the doctrine might not result in stability the more countries there are that possess them.

But it seems to me that in order for a nuclear deterrent to have any effect there needs to at least be a pretense that you might use it. This is why you hear leaders say stuff like "all options are on the table". It doesn't mean they are eager to use first strike but rather that strategically they don't want to rule anything out and they don't want adversaries to believe they would rule anything out. Corbyn also seems to be saying he would not kill Al-Baghdadi if given the chance. Of course nobody tied his hands and demanded that he be willing to strike ISIS no matter what collateral damage there would be. But he has ruled out any engagement in Syria, either against ISIS or against Assad, and also ever using a nuclear weapon. These may be sound policies, but I think strategically one is supposed to leave open the possibility of force.

[Stavros]

Everyone with a conscience knows that there is no way to use nuclear weapons without it being a war crime. This is true even if it is a second strike in response to a war crime. But I've heard from a lot of lefties about how M.A.D doctrine is effective and helps prevent nuclear war because everyone is rational enough to avoid national suicide. In my view, with the increasing number of rogue states trying to develop them this is probably not true, and the doctrine might not result in stability the more countries there are that possess them.

But it seems to me that in order for a nuclear deterrent to have any effect there needs to at least be a pretense that you might use it. This is why you hear leaders say stuff like "all options are on the table". It doesn't mean they are eager to use first strike but rather that strategically they don't want to rule anything out and they don't want adversaries to believe they would rule anything out. Corbyn also seems to be saying he would not kill Al-Baghdadi if given the chance. Of course nobody tied his hands and demanded that he be willing to strike ISIS no matter what collateral damage there would be. But he has ruled out any engagement in Syria, either against ISIS or against Assad, and also ever using a nuclear weapon. These may be sound policies, but I think strategically one is supposed to leave open the possibility of force.

Corbyn has been opposed to nuclear weapons for most of his adult life, and is not about to change. Defence was considered a major weakness for Labour during the Thatcher years, but with the end of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war receding it ceased to be a major issue, where 'security' in relation to terrorism at home or abroad has taken a higher profile. Killing al-Baghdadi might be a headline in the news but would not deal with the support Daesh has in Iraq even if a lot of it is based in the mostly Sunni areas of Iraq and among former Ba'ath party/Saddam loyalists and ex-militay who may have used Daesh for their own purposes.

The fear now is not of rogue states using nuclear weapons, it is debatable if even North Korea is a 'rogue state'. The creation of a 'dirty bomb' has been discussed for decades but so far nobody has been able to make or use one, whereas chemical weapons, illegal in international law since 1928 have been used to kill people by Iraq, Israel and Syria. In fact the fear is that the USA is now most likely to use nuclear weapons, depending on who makes the decision. The strikes in Syria were not ordered or even agreed to by the President who has farmed out these decisions to the military, his indifference to military matters and the fact he spends most of his time playing golf at tax-payer's expense while 'doing deals' with foreign governments to extend his private business interests across the world means the military are now free to choose whom to strike without the President looking over their shoulders.

Were North Korea to sink a US vessel as it has threatened to do, there will be retaliation but one wonders of what kind, where, and to what end? On the other hand, the US operation in the Yemen that led to the death of Ryan Owens was ill-prepared, poorly run and produced nothing of importance, other than an opportunity for the golfer-in-chief to gloat over a man's death as if it proved his Presidency was robust and aggressive where Obama's was passive and ineffectual. In fact, given the way things are going maybe we should entertain the thought that if there is a 'rogue state' with nuclear weapons, it is the USA.

[broncofan]

Corbyn has been opposed to nuclear weapons for most of his adult life, and is not about to change. Defence was considered a major weakness for Labour during the Thatcher years, but with the end of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war receding it ceased to be a major issue, where 'security' in relation to terrorism at home or abroad has taken a higher profile. Killing al-Baghdadi might be a headline in the news but would not deal with the support Daesh has in Iraq even if a lot of it is based in the mostly Sunni areas of Iraq and among former Ba'ath party/Saddam loyalists and ex-militay who may have used Daesh for their own purposes.

The fear now is not of rogue states using nuclear weapons, it is debatable if even North Korea is a 'rogue state'. The creation of a 'dirty bomb' has been discussed for decades but so far nobody has been able to make or use one, whereas chemical weapons, illegal in international law since 1928 have been used to kill people by Iraq, Israel and Syria. In fact the fear is that the USA is now most likely to use nuclear weapons, depending on who makes the decision. The strikes in Syria were not ordered or even agreed to by the President who has farmed out these decisions to the military, his indifference to military matters and the fact he spends most of his time playing golf at tax-payer's expense while 'doing deals' with foreign governments to extend his private business interests across the world means the military are now free to choose whom to strike without the President looking over their shoulders.

Were North Korea to sink a US vessel as it has threatened to do, there will be retaliation but one wonders of what kind, where, and to what end? On the other hand, the US operation in the Yemen that led to the death of Ryan Owens was ill-prepared, poorly run and produced nothing of importance, other than an opportunity for the golfer-in-chief to gloat over a man's death as if it proved his Presidency was robust and aggressive where Obama's was passive and ineffectual. In fact, given the way things are going maybe we should entertain the thought that if there is a 'rogue state' with nuclear weapons, it is the USA.

It has only been 72 years since the first nuclear detonation. Why this gives everyone so much confidence that they could not be used is beyond me. There are two incompatible claims by people on the left; one, that it does not matter who gets nuclear weapons because nobody would use them and two, they pose the greatest threat to world peace and disarmament is advisable. I agree with the second claim. I am sorry if it sounds like first world arrogance that I don't think their development should be democratized to the point of 190+ states having them. I doubt this is maximum stability, whoever is and isn't a rogue.

On the other hand, I also think that if you are relying on a weak doctrine like M.A.D to defend yourselves, you have to at least maintain strategic ambiguity. That does not mean an actual willingness to use them, only a willingness to use phrases like, "we will do what's necessary to defend our interests". I did not think Obama was at all ineffectual or that Trump is remotely effective. I do not think tough talk is helpful, but not revealing your cards probably is.

I'm not sure in what sense North Korea is not a rogue state, since rogue state is used to refer to states that are threats to world peace. North Korea tried to help Syria develop nuclear weapons, has threatened to use nuclear weapons against at least three states I can think of, and uses their nuclear arsenal as a bulwark against international intervention to prevent the appalling human rights violations taking place in their country. You are right that chemical weapons have been used more often than nuclear weapons, but the threat of nuclear warfare is one that poses a more catastrophic outcome.

You would be right to indicate that the phrase rogue state is one that is applied in a highly biased way and would apply to the U.S. as well given our history of intervention. It applies doubly against the U.S. under Trump. And while nuclear disarmament is the eventual goal, I haven't seen anyone offer to do it unilaterally. If Corbyn does, then kudos to him. We will see if voters feel comfortable being the first state to begin a trend that would make everyone safer if other countries follow suit. The essence of a collective action problem is that you rarely have anyone willing to make the first sacrifice.

[broncofan]

Anyway, I regret using the phrase rogue state, since it is often used in a hypocritical way. I am only suggesting that disarmament might be done in a multi-lateral or gradual way. And that no country wants to be the first one to jump in; which I think is why the Labour party felt the need to clarify Corbyn's statements. For all the Republicans tried to paint Obama as weak, and for all of his talk about disarmament, I don't think he ever promised to go as far as Corbyn has. At least the results of his eight years in office were to leave us with something like 4,500 warheads...

[Stavros]

Some snippets from the election here:

Polls are suggesting the Conservatives will return to Scotland by taking seats from the SNP, and that they will eat away at Labour seats in Wales producing the worst result in Wales for Labour since the 1920s; and one poll has a Conservative majority of 150 in the House of Commons. But we all know about polls, do we not?

The United Kingdom Independence Party held a farcical news conference in London in which the leader, Paul Nuttall refused to say if he is standing for election, and presented a policy programme which was basically an attack on Muslims, calling for a ban on the full-face Burqa 'for security reasons', and inspections of young women returning from South Asia to assess whether or not they have been subject to Female Genital Mutilation. No similar ban will be imposed on bee-keepers and so far there is no plan to make boys aged 12 and under returning from South Asia drop their trousers to assess whether or not they have been circumcised. Nuttall then avoided press questions by locking himself into a side room, and refusing to answer any more questions as he rushed from the building. On historical evidence, it will not be surprising if Nuttall is replaced as leader of UKIP in the next few weeks though what this party is for, other than being anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim is not clear. Whether or not Nigel Farage will return guide the party is not known, but given he has described his own party as made up of 'low-grade opportunists' this seems unlikely. He does, however, love being in the public arena as it convinces him that he is important.

Aaron Banks, the millionaire (via mining and insurance or so we are told) who funded UKIP and the Leave.eu campaign, arrived in Clacton-on-Sea yesterday to announce he is standing for Parliament. On a miserably cold day he purchased an ice-cream, gave interviews to the press, and three hours later announced he had changed his mind and was not going to stand. Well, I don't mean to be rude, but have you been to Clacton-on-Sea? Some things are best left alone.

Yesterday Jeremy Corby went to Scotland. That is news. The message to the Scottish Trade Union conference appeared to be: the workers, united, will never be defeated.

[Laphroaig]

Corbyn has been opposed to nuclear weapons for most of his adult life, and is not about to change.

I think that's a key point, Corbyn is now stuck between a rock and a hard place with regards to nuclear weapons. He's being made out to be "weak" for refusing to use them, but he'd probably be portrayed as even weaker and indecisive, if he was to do a U-turn on the issue. I can't say that I'm a fan of Corbyn, but in many ways, his idealism and willingness to stick to his principles in the face of criticism are his biggest selling points.

On the subject of the 4 extra national holidays. Firstly, election "bribes" are part and parcel of electioneering, whether it's promises for extra funding, tax cuts, etc, etc. At least this is novel (though I'm sure Stavros's vast knowledge will come up with a previous example) and in many ways perfectly targets traditional Labour supporters. In any case, just because there are extra public holidays, doesn't mean all employers would stick to them. I'm certain they'd find a way to reduce holiday entitlements for their employees, so overall it would probably have a negligible effect.

[Stavros]

Corbyn does have some integrity, that is true. He is just not a leader, he cannot bring people together in a combined endeavour, and he is notorious for not listening to people he doesn't agree with.

In the 1983 Election, Labour promised to take the UK out of the European Economic Community, a policy considered madness at the time and one part of the 'longest suicide note in history'. Labour I believe promised to abolish the House of Lords in every manifesto from 1945 until I think the 1990s.

One other items of news: the Communist Party of Great Britain, which is backing Labour, has decided not to field a candidate in the election for the first time since it was founded in 1920. The combined vote for Communist Party candidates in the last election was around 425, quite a fall since 1945 when two MP's were returned to the Commons (Phil Piratin and Willie Gallacher -the latter first elected in 1935).

One of the daftest election promises was made by candidate Newton Gingrich in the USA in his bid to be Republican Party presidential nominee -to establish a colony on the Moon by the end of his second term (ie 2020). Apparently Mars is now the favoured planetary destination where a wall will be built around the American sector.

[Jericho]

Apparently Mars is now the favoured planetary destination where a wall will be built around the American sector.

And they're getting the Martians to pay for it.
(sorry, couldn't resist)!

[peejaye]

Abolishing the House of Lords....now that IS a vote winner!