Jeremy Corbyn Elected

Portillo has argued for ages to get rid of Trident.

Sorry, I havent a clue what your angle is Gracesgran.

Anniebach and Iam64. You personally are not going to get bombed if you go shopping.
Yet that counts for nothing to you.

I had no idea people walked around their normal life thinking that. Not a single person.

As someone else said, this is not, as implied, a matter that concerns only those on the left of the political spectrum.

For several years, Michael Portillo (former Defence Secretary) has been expressing his opposition to Trident, and in May this year he said on BBC's This Week that plans to replace the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system were 'a waste of money'.

He also said:

"A former defence secretary and some Generals [this week] wrote a letter demanding the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme......

"Our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and doesn't constitute a deterrent..."

"I mean, Britain now has a minute army and a microscopic navy. And as these have become smaller so the status symbol of having nuclear weapons becomes more important, at least to some people.

"Our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and doesn't constitute a deterrent against anybody that we regard as an enemy. It is a waste of money and it is a diversion of funds that might otherwise be spent on perfectly useful and useable weapons and troops. But some people have not caught up with this reality."

In January, Crispin Blunt, Conservative, and only 19 Labour MPs were brave enough to vote against the renewal of Trident, Blunt basing his views on when he worked as a special adviser at the Ministry of Defence, when he realised he found it impossible to envisage a scenario in which Britain would decide to use nuclear weapons.

As for the statement that we have peace because of the so-called nuclear deterrent, I am absolutely astonished. There are wars going on all over the world, many of them resulting from other powerful countries inciting political unrest and arming the side they wish, for strategic, political or economic reasons, to support. Just because we're not living in bombed out hovels and dodging bullets every time we go out, doesn't mean that it isn't happening to other people.

Maybe it's because we have Trident, that we live in relative peace?!!

Oh not many on here will agree with that nellie.

If we live in relative peace, why did Cameron have to kill British people in Syria using drones for our protection?

"Our Week of Action against the Tory Party Conference is starting tomorrow! Our timetable of events is looking far more attractive than the Tories conference timetable. The whole of Manchester will be a buzz with anti-austerity protest, rallies, meetings, cultural events and actions."

From the People's Assembly.

Then how do you explain the rest of Europe living in peace Nigglynellie , exception of France

For the same reason bearing in mind NATO. As for drones, would you rather those monsters (because that's what they are) came back here and murdered people?! A week of action?! Why is it that Labour can have their conference in peace, but the Tories sadly have to put up with rent a mob? Hardly democratic!!! but there we go! We'll get over it !!

I've just read there's been another mass shooting at a school (college) in America, and I've been mulling over a niggle in the back of my mind and conclude that having a gun 'to use in self defence' is on par (albeit obviously in a smaller way) with having a nuclear weapon 'in self defence', the danger being it's more down to the person 'in charge' - be it gun or Trident, to destroy either a bunch of innocent kids in a playground, or a mass of innocent people in another country. All it needs is for that person/country to feel they need revenge, and the 'Code' is as easy as the trigger....

Difference being that those guns are used daily.

Nigglynellie , are you claiming having trident has stopped us being attacked ? If so what has stopped the rest of Europe from being attacked ?

If there is a demonstration at the Tory conference it will not be by a rent a mob, it will be people angry because of the poverty the Tories have placed so many , little point in demonstrating against any party which isn't in power is it?

Not at all on a par.

I have to agree with your gun example boheminan. They do say be careful about carrying weapons of defence as they can often be turned on you and kill you.

Anniebach and Iam64. You personally are not going to get bombed if you go shopping. Yet that counts for nothing to you. I had no idea people walked around their normal life thinking that. Not a single person.

Soon it does not surprise me that you don't realise normal people living a normal life do not think in the way that you do. My son lives in Australia. He is probably safer than we are but they do not have nuclear weapons. My brother lives in America and works in a University. As we are seeing on the news at the moment he is more likely to be killed, even though they have nuclear weapons, than those in many countries without them. He is also more likely to be killed by a citizen of his own country than someone from elsewhere - what good this dreadful weapon then?

Funny that - rentamob will turn out for one party but not another. As mercenaries their thinking is are not financially practical.

You just don't get it, do you? Nuclear weapons are not a defence or deterrent against other forms of attack, just the nuclear option.

So the eight countries with nuclear warfare do not attack us because we have Nuclear warfare . I would so like those who claim this to explain why 186 countries without this evil has not been attacked

How many countries have been attacked with nuclear weapons? (not counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

When two countries have been at war, how many nuclear attacks have been threatened by one party if the other doesn't yield (not counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when the power of a nuclear bomb was unknown to Japan before it was dropped)?

As I've said previously (on this or another thread), why would they be? No nuclear-equipped country is going to blast another off the face of the earth just because they can.

The repercussions would be enormous and they'd risk a counter-attack by friends and allies of the defenceless country they'd destroyed.

To those that refer to people who demonstrate as "rent a mob", I have been on several demonstrations and I object to being referred to in such a way. I am a good deal more courteous and respectful than some of the people that post on here.

One of the cornerstones of a democracy is the right to protest - otherwise we would all be living in Pinochet's Chile or Stalin's Russia.

What Elegran and Ana said.

But actually, when a small minority of posters here or elsewhere are not able to see that we dont get bombed or attacked when we go shopping, and live in relative peace, then talking about anything else with them seems pointless.

So you think it's okay, niggly for a prime minister to go completely against what the majority of parliament has decided, just because you deem them monsters? Anybody who is in Syria fighting for IS will either be bombed by Assad or any other group over there, Russians as well now. There was no need for Cameron to flout the will of parliament, but he does it all the time.
The reason for fighting in Syria is to keep the ideal of democracy going. Cameron does not accept democracy. Why should Assad? Actually I believe he was democratically elected, just the same as Cameron.
Cameron is acting just like him, just not killing quite so many people, and not in our own country. He'll go along with the UN providing it does what he wants; otherwise he'll ignore it.

I await condemnation for this view.

This is how I see it. If nuclear weapons are ever used the world will be a changed place. The impact of a nuclear attack will be felt over an enormous area and will never be restricted to a single country. The weather will ensure this. So what is the point of having nuclear weapons unless we are prepared to be the first to use them?

Trident should be scrapped for these reasons. The other reason is the cost which I find an obscene amount of money (plus at the end of the day it's likely to be more than one billion pounds because nothing comes in on budget).

My perception is the government wants to remain a nuclear power to give the impression it is still a world power, that is almost a cosmetic requirement to enable the public to think we're a world player. We're not.

I don't object to some of the Trident money being spent on other defence related costs like modern weapons, aircraft and ships. Things which will help defend the UK if we are attacked.

Well said, Wilma.

Yes, well said Wilma

Re the protests at the Conservative Party Conference I will repeat my post 1 Oct 01.17

It will be seen by some as a demonstration of 'people power'

To others it will endorse their concerns that this is how the 'left of politics' cannot accept democracy/debate/discussion unless it is on their terms. More of it to come.

Some will find it funny, amusing empowering.

Some will find it intimidating, bullying.

I am pleased the Labour Party Conference wasn't subjected to intimidation/protest but I couldn't imagine for one moment why it would be.

We are supposed to live in a democratic country are we not? and attending a political conference is simply a democratic process. Well to most peoply anyway.

I will add that we will only know if there is a 'rent a mob' mentality by seeing how the protesters behave during the conference period. If I see , hear abusive behaviour I will happily call it a 'rent a mob' mentality.

It is not how one individual feels they behave but how the overall group behave that determines how a protest is viewed.

Yes we have a right to protest in the UK. The fact is had the boot been on the other foot and the Labour Party Conference had had to endure protests there would have been an outcry by those both inside and outside of the Conference, quite rightly so.

We may have a 'right to protest' but we don't have a 'right to cause disruption' just because we don't like/agree with another's views and that is exactly what I expect to see happening over the coming days/years.