Jeremy Corbyn speaks to shadow cabinet over party discipline after Trident row | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... rident-row

About time. The d1ckheads took the jobs apparently forgetting who'd given them out

You have to wonder just how forceful or even angry he can get. I wonder if he used “teacher anger”.

More disappointed than angry?

Corbyn to call for part-nationalisation of Britain's steel industry | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... l-industry

Can they sell it cheap later? Can they, can they?
...

Press barons will do anything to halt Jeremy Corbyn, says Ken Livingstone | Media | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/n ... -sun-times

Doesn't The Guardian have some interesting tax affairs IIRC?

It's important to keep some steel capacity in the UK. If we really in imports we cannot control prices


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if you do want to buy a UK steel company with the intention of selling it off later, you're probably not going to get it any cheaper than it would be now. At this point there's really only two things that can happen - a) Things get better, so you sell it at a profit b) It completely collapses and it's worth nothing at all.

Camille makes a very good point though, it's not entirely about 'can we make a profit on this?'. There is a national policy issue here and it is simply this : Do we want, at some point in the future, to guarantee we can get steel in this country? Because skills and knowledge atrophy. Even if we don't want to keep making it on an internationally industrial scale, it might be a good idea to have some capacity to do the job should we have an urgent national requirement do so domestically in the future. Because at any point in the future, we can't guarantee anybody else in the world will be willing to sell us steel.

The question that falls out of that is 'how much will it cost us to maintain this capacity, and do we think offsetting that risk is worth the money'?

Look at it as a equivalent of 'should you know how to change a tyre?' on a national scale. Notionally, no you don't, because you can always join the AA or just drive it to the nearest mechanic's shop on a slow puncture. But some day you might be stuck in a remote spot in the middle of the night and it's a choice of changing the tyre or waiting god knows how long for the AA to reach you. And then you'll rather wish you knew how to do it yourself.


IIRC It's something like the that the newspaper isa owned by a charitable trust, and therefore pays next to no tax. Which would be an issue if the paper actually made a profit but it hasn't for years and shows no sign of ever doing so again.

It wouldn't matter if it was somehow pumping out GoT dragon eggs, the Tories would still sell it cheap because of their idiotic ideology.

Control prices?
Your options there are to force prices up by imposing tariffs to keep your state owned steel mills busy.
Otherwise the market is controlling prices, and you are just paying a massive subsidy to stay in game you can't win.

What percentage of UK steel must be manufactured locally and sold a loss to the taxpayer before you don't have to worry about ... whatever it actually is that you are worrying about here?

In 10 years time, when other countries are ready to pay more for their steel than us, and no one exports to UK, it'll be too late. That's also true with food by the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It really isn't. A boom in the price of any commodity encourages high investment followed by oversupply and falling prices.

It's the same for oil. Do you remember when everybody including, I expect, you, thought that there was a peak oil problem and it would become uncontrollably expensive? That didn't happen. Peak steel isn't a threat either. And neither is water or food.

I know you're itching for an argument but today you can just [LIFTED] right off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's also the additional problem that, in order to guarantee a domestic supply of steel, one not only has to have a secure means of industrial production but a guaranteed supply and price of raw materials.

Even if, by some feat of governmental intervention, we managed to keep even one blast furnace up and running, our current supplies of iron ore and coal come at least in part from some of the more ... interesting corners of the world. For instance, the two biggest suppliers of iron ore to the UK are Brazil and Venezuela. Meanwhile, between 2013 Q2 and 2015 Q2, the proportion of our coking coal supplied by Russia increased by 51.4% to just over a quarter of our total demand.

Corbyn comes out against 'shoot to kill' in UK after Paris attacks | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... cks-labour

Every case has to be taken on it's own merits, and even then you need appropriate legal cover and justice for the 'heat of the moment'. None more than with potential suicide bombers.

'Shoot to kill' here in NI was mostly a load of bollocks ironically touted by murderous terrorists - the British army and RUC would have had a fcuksight more kills if it had been policy. And it wasn't them calling it a war

However, there's no doubt that the SAS were often operating here on such a policy, and it's still a massive issue of contention decades later. It's something you either fully commit to Israeli-style or shouldn't be dabbling in unless absolutely necessary. And this government can't be trusted full stop.

The problem you have is with suicide bombers like in Paris. You can't afford to wound a suicide bomber or they'll just trigger whatever explosive they are carrying. The line between 'shoot to instantly incapacitate' and 'shoot to kill' is finer than most people can manage, even if they've been highly trained.

A blanket 'shoot anyone who you have reason to believe is a terrorist' rule is plainly mad but you do have to accept sometimes it's just not feasible to take someone alive.

Jeremy Corbyn challenged by Labour MPs over response to Isis attacks | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ot-to-kill

Utter berks. Still stuck in the shifty, PR over substance Blair years. They're putting words in Corbyn's mouth to discredit him, out of sheer panic as to what the press might make the public think. Brainwashed, lethally stupid and frightened of modern society aren't just ISIS traits...
...

The Guardian view on Labour and terrorism: Jeremy Corbyn deserves a hearing, but refuses to help Britain listen | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ain-listen

Again, he gives an honest answer but it's too complicated for the press who need an easy headline. I'm sure The Guardian thinks it's edging him along helpfully, but it just displays it's own lack of faith in a guy they'd clearly like to back, if only because they have no other alternative. They're hedging their bets and encouraging him to do the same, not just politically, but with potentially innocent lives and justice. That's not on in my book, especially considering the paper's general outlook and status.