That Corbyn fella...

That Steve Bell image is brilliant.

The one worrying thing for me is the trident issue. If Corbyn doesn't back down on this he will lose half his shadow cabinet.

Polls are obviously just polls but it surely MPs' support for renewing/replacing Trident is highly undemocratic?

http://cnduk.org/campaigns/no-to-trident/opinion-polls

The polls predicted Labour might win the election. All the labour MPs were elected on a manifesto that pledged to renew trident.

Polls are just polls. I'm not sure that there was a pro-Trident platform as such during the election, though.

I really struggle to understand how people can advocate the UK (or anywhere in fact) having nuclear weapons. It's just utter nonsense - even Blair knew it was bullshit.

That list shows selection bias (Guardian etc) and different questions being used (e.g. In a February 2014 ComRes poll, 65% said they would feel uncomfortable living near a nuclear weapons base and 64% think there should be an international convention banning nuclear weapons.). Some of the questions are in the context of the economy, some are evoking nimbyism.

I wouldn't assume that what the CND present is really what the country thinks. They have an agenda, and however noble that agenda may be, are biased by it. This is shown by presenting a guardian poll as evidence that "a consistent majority of the British population are against nuclear weapons" without discussion of selection bias.

Obviously the CND have an agenda but I don't believe that given the option the majority of the British public think that £100bn is best spent on an enormous international dickwaving exercise.

really struggle to understand how people can advocate the UK (or anywhere in fact) having nuclear weapons. It's just utter nonsense - even Blair knew it was bullshit.

The big what if question and a strong lobby. The subs are being built in a pretty deprived part of the UK. Those jobs are needed, hence people will fight for them. Powerful people will make loads of cash. Loads of reasons - question is are any of them worth it?

Easy answer is no.

the British public

The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express readers? There are a lot of them out there....I wouldn't be so sure about what the the British public think.

Of course it would be better if there were no nuclear weapons. The argument is, though, that removing the UK's deterrent would make no difference whatsoever to the arsenals or nuclear proliferation policies of Russia, China, Pakistan or the USA etc.

That's yours, it's probably mine (I accept I can't possibly answer it as I really don't know all the facts)...other people? Who knows but there opinion is as valid as yours or mine.

I'm not being very intelligent about this I know - I'm struggling at the moment to tap my general bafflement/immense rage at Government policy. Trident is a classic example of the Government being little shits and frightening people into thinking that the ridiculous thing is worth the enormous price-tag.

From the Guardian:

In his memoirs, Tony Blair said of Trident: “The expense is huge and the utility … non-existent in terms of military use.” He said he could clearly see the force of the “common sense and practical argument” against Trident, but in the end he thought that giving it up would be “too big a downgrading of our status as a nation”.

PS maybe selective quoting - I haven't read Blair's memoirs.

People's opinions are valid only insofar as they are entitled to have them. They can still be wrong.

And the jobs argument just doesn't wash.

“too big a downgrading of our status as a nation”

I don't know what the real word out come of that would be, could be horrific, could be minimal.

Do you think removing only the UK's nuclear weapons would, worldwide, make a nuclear strike more or less likely?

There was a poll flagged recently (I think on here but I can't find it on search) which showed about 40% support for trident and a further 30% support if renewing it was of a reasonable cost (I can't remember exactly how that was phrased).

That was used variously as people support Trident (70% in favour) and people didn't (60% against).

For many, I don't think it's the actual weapons, the deterrent, the possibility of using them, etc. It's more that having nuclear weapons still shows that the UK is relevant and one of the top countries.

(Edit: Seems to be the same as what Blair was saying)

I think it would make next-to-fuckall difference and the outcome would be catastrophic either way. The fact is that it's just not going to happen - it's a status symbol and nothing else.

It's outrageous for the UK and US to push for international nuclear de-escalation and yet hold the rest of the world to ransom with their own weapons.

Out of interest, who's going to be nuking us?

I though your starting point was public opinion is x so government should do x. Where does right or wrong come into it?

It does for the person about to lose his job. That person have the same number of votes as you.

Couldn't they make something useful instead? Machinary that could be exported or put to use earning money?
Or just pay the workers direct for sitting around not building something.

Given the nature of the conflicts which we seem very keen to involve ourselves in recent years are all against very poorly armed/insurgent type foes it might be an idea to (say) take that 100 billion and invest it in ships, planes and soldiers, rather than leasing nukes from the Americans (we don't own any of our own, the weapons themselves remain the property of the US of A, we just build the delivery system), which are totally inappropriate for use against an ex-Shepherd with an AK-47.

All this talk of "being relevant" might look significantly different if we had a large and well equipped army, navy and airforce - rather than sacking most of the sailers, soldiers and aviators, selling their kit and investing in the aforementioned nuclear cock waggling.

I'd like this, they could make trains for a newly privatised railway. Lovely.

I think most would argue that the UKs relevance does not come from its nuclear arsenal. It's power is soft power, and is cultural.