« No more troops | Main | Subsidy for the rich »

September 22, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

KayTie you appear to have missed the point that the TORIES ARE AGAINST THE BROADBAND TAX. Unlike the list you mention, some of which are justifiable on grounds of good vale administration, some are not, this is a new tax. Broadband to domestic homes is a luxury not an essential.

Kay Tie

"We waste a third of our food"

We? I don't waste much food. I have to pay for my groceries - unlike MPs - and I use a simple money-saving technique called "not buying too much".

rwendland

Paul, the quote came from page 7 of the White Paper summary. There is more detail in 5-7 to 5-9 of the White Paper, including that "continuous deterrence can be maintained for limited periods when only two are available."

The Independent has quotes from Gordon's BBC Radio 5 Live interview, and the key one seems to be "We are looking at the moment at the number of submarines and will continue to look at that in detail." This wording just seem an exact reflection of the words in the 2006 White Paper.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/brown-avoids-vow-on-warheads-1791985.html

Paul Flynn

Thanks Rwendland. I'll chase up the references. What is encouraging is that the climate has changed and a British PM is apeing a de-nuclearising American President - and doing it with Tory support. That's a good start.

rwendland

Looking again at my point that the three Trident subs idea was in the 2006 Trident replacement White Paper, if you look simply at the number10.gov.uk announcement, rather than the spin reflected in the newspapers, there seems absolutely nothing new in Gordon's announcement. It was under considered in 2006, and now in 2009 Gordon is "prepared to consider" exactly the same.

Here are the quotes. From the 2006 Trident replacement White Paper:

"We are not yet in a position to make a firm judgement about ... maintain[ing] continuous deterrent patrols with a fleet of only three submarines. A final decision on the number of submarines that will be procured will be made when we know more about their detailed design."

Recent official govt press release:

"The Prime Minister has said he is prepared to consider cutting the UK's fleet of Trident missile-carrying submarines as part of a global agreement to reduce nuclear arms."

So, without the spin, nothing really new here. Unless Gordon means decommissioning one of the current Vanguard subs now ahead of its end-of-life, rather than building one fewer replacement. The official announcements don't seem at all clear on that distinction.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20709

Kay Tie

"We waste a third of our food, the Americans half."

Are you seriously telling us you throw away a third of the food you buy? Do you know anyone who does? I don't. So who are these people? They must have more money than sense and not care about how much their food cos.. hang on a minute! It's you lot, isn't it? MPs with groceries on expenses and subsidised catering.

Paul Flynn

It was America I was talking about KayTie. We waste a third of our food, the Americans half. The recent past was an age of extravagance, self-indulgence and the profligate plundering of the planet. The future will be an age of austerity, thrift and reverence for our fragile human habitat. This is a splendid time to top up the knowledge banks and create a New Socialism.

Kay Tie

"We will be known as the profligate generation. Will any other nation in the future throw away half of its prepared food?"

You've been listening to Gordon Brown again, haven't you? He made that figure up, just like he made up the "10% of our electricity is wasted on appliances in standby." You'd be better off quoting the Daily Mail.

Paul Flynn

Amen to that John.

We will be known as the profligate generation. Will any other nation in the future throw away half of its prepared food?

Paul Flynn

kayTie, they will be better off, healthier and happier with fewer resources to waste. they will appreciate them more and enjoy life.

Paul Flynn

John Hutton was open minded on anything rwendland except New Labour notions that he digested in full measure. It is not a new idea and it make very little difference but it is a change of direction. We had a depressing speech from John Reid in 2007 in the PLP. He has been wrong on everything. It is hard to believe that we have a nuclear disarmer as President. He has had an effect on Brown. Will it be contagious in the rest of the world?

Gwyn Jones

I could swear that there was a paragraph supporting Baroness Scotland here this morning. Did you remove it because you now know something that we plebs don't?

rwendland

I'm very unimpressed with the 3 Trident subs idea, which is not new - it was an idea in the 2006 white paper.

What does intrigue me is if this announcement indicates we plan to drop the Barrow sub yards after these replacements.

BAE insist we must build a nuclear powered sub every 22 months to utilise the nuclear powered sub cuilding facility efficiently. If we don't do that, the subs will be more expensive (so effectively reducing sub orders saves little money).

So by reducing the Trident subs by one, we must either order an extra Astute sub, close the yard down, or fund the expensive yard to do less useful work (maybe a patrol ship could be built in the sub yard).

You can see why Barrow MP Hutton takes the line he does. I cannot understand why a Barrow MP was made a MOD minister, he could never be open minded on Navy procurements.

Kay Tie

"That we have in little over 50 years plundered most of the earths resources and wasted much of them in a huge frenzy of consumption means that our grandchildren will live in an impoverished world."

And our grandchildren will be still paying off the debts we ran up for them.

Hee hee! What a wheeze: we get to consume their resources now, and get them to pay for it too. Now that's what I call "redistribution"!

John

THat we fail to preserve and value nature in the never ending pursuit of progress and growth is to our eternal shame and indeed maybe the path to our extinction.
That we have in little over 50 years plundered most of the earths resources and wasted much of them in a huge frenzy of consumption means that our grandchildren will live in an impoverished world.
We will look back at this generation with utter disbelief that we were so shortsighted and selfish.
Global warming or not it really is irrelevant the fact is that we need a huge seed change in our human interactions or this once pristine and beautiful planet will be a distant memory. The many millions of species that we have lost the many areas of wilderness that is our birhtright that we have lost. We must learn to step lightly on this our home or we will have no home left.

Paul Flynn

Sackcloth and ashes for me Patrick. You took me to task for this before.'the planet' is a convenient shorthand for human and animal life. I won't do it again.

patrick

"Encouragingly the others judge the fate of the planet as the most vital issue."

The planet is NOT in danger.

It's only the ruling animals that have failed to live within the earth's ecosystem capabilities because of an obsession with money that are in any kind of jeopardy.

The comments to this entry are closed.