Isn't it both the subs and the missiles?
Didn't think the existing missiles were up to penetrating Russias anti-missile defences any more (although how exactly anyone would know that is an interesting question).

Russia's ICBM defenses only cover Moscow, that would still leave an awful lot of places that could be turned into radioactive glass. plus if we were redeploying ICBMs we'd certainly not be using 30 year old designs.

The idea of having a purely conventional sub fleet is actually not that unusual, quite a lot of nations have them. And an ICBM sub without ICBMs actually has a lot of space to carry an absolute buttload of conventional armaments, or a fair number of special forces troops that could be deployed from shallow offshore (which I'm pretty sure happens already, but they don't talk about it). It would certainly still be a very effective weapons platform, even if it can no longer destroy an entire continent.

A weapon-free Trident is useless. Jeremy Corbyn must be brave | Caroline Lucas | Opinion | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... isarmament

Who doesn't want to see Jeremy Corbyn elected? It would be a glorious six-day reign | Frankie Boyle | Opinion | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ed-murdoch

Labour faces huge challenges to win 2020 election, says Margaret Beckett | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... et-beckett

Sounds about right

It's one of the best things he's written in ages...

Jeremy Corbyn wants power-sharing deal for Falkland Islands | UK news | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... -argentina

Islanders are thinking, 'Er, why?'

Jeremy Corbyn ‘preparing Labour for losses in local elections’ | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-scotland

He could be managing Man United before long

UN regulations make self-determination paramount, and every time they have been asked the Islanders have said they want links to the UK to be maintained. Passing the Falklands over to Argentinian authority would be genuine political suicide. Giving away something lots of British soldiers died to keep is simply not going to wash with a lot of people, regardless of their political persuasion.

However you do have to recognise that 'defending' the Falklands costs a ruddy fortune and we're either going to stick with entrenched positions forever or talk eventually. It's possible we could come to a more civilised arrangement with Argentina that would be for the benefit of all parties assuming sovereignty is not a discussion point.

Also, I believe there have recently been elections in Argentina and the new administration is more moderate than the outgoing (frankly) nutball was.

unless oil is found ...

Not unless the price goes back up. The South Atlantic isn't exactly an easy place to do stuff like drill for oil and therefore the profit in doing so is reduced. With the current price of oil I suspect the profit per barrel would be pretty marginal. There'd have to be an absolutely massive amount down there to make it worth anyone's while.

If the price goes back up, maybe but right now probably not.

Plans to give Labour's NEC more say over policy attacked as 'political and divisive' | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... d-divisive

In theory, it should be left to the MPs. In reality... 'Labour MPs?!'

i see no reason why that should be. An MP's job to stand for their constituents in Parliament. That doesn't mean at all that they should be the ones who decide what the stated policy of the party they claim membership of is. It's one way of doing it certainly but it's no more or less valid than any other democratic method.

The thing is the role of an MP doesn't require the party system at all. Independent MPs prove that every day. Political parties are a convenience, a way to make things easier at voting time because the party becomes a shorthand for the policies the candidate believes. Who makes the policy for the party is one of those 'any way you like it' questions.


Frankly, I wouldn't leave most of the current lot in charge of a child's bicycle.

I'm thinking that because they've been elected by the public, as opposed to... not

But also it's part of the whole debate around Corbyn tbh; broad church until your leadership becomes untenable, benevolent dictator, and so on... he always winds up having to pick a side every other week on some issue.

Corbyn was elected party leader by many times more people than any individual MP has been elected by as an MP. Union leaders are elected to their post again by massively more numbers of people than any MP. It's not as if MPs have a monopoly on democracy.

(Note I'm not saying they should run the party either, just pointing out that being elected as an MP doesn't give you a blanket mandate to decide everything all the time, just because roughly 30,000 people thought you were the best choice) . In reality od course people do vote for a party not an MP in the main but nevertheless MP's democratic mandate does have limits. They're representatives in the HoC, not for the whole world.


Unless he figures out a way to stop all the squabbling. he's only having to fight fires because the 'moderate' wing of the party is spitting their dummy out and running to the press every time they don't get their way. The Tories have just as many disagreements but they're famously good at keeping them in-house and not worrying the children.