adam@gec-mi-at.co.uk (Adam Quantrill) (08/26/86)
>Just out of curiosity how do the NDP and Britain's labour party differ. >Are both not beholden to the labour unions? Are both not non-militaristic >to the point of pacificism? [] > >J.B. Robinson I can't speak for the NDP but our beloved Labour party isn't non-militaristic, on the contrary they would support a conventional army. They (quite rightly) just want to wash their hands of nuclear weapons.
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (09/03/86)
In article <190@miduet.gec-mi-at.co.uk> adam@miduet (Adam Quantrill) writes: >>Just out of curiosity how do the NDP and Britain's labour party differ. >>Are both not beholden to the labour unions? Are both not non-militaristic >>to the point of pacificism? [] >> >>J.B. Robinson > > I can't speak for the NDP but our beloved Labour party isn't >non-militaristic, on the contrary they would support a conventional army. >They (quite rightly) just want to wash their hands of nuclear weapons. Question: are they for unilateral or multilateral disarmament? - there is a big difference. Also, would they do as our NDP say they would, and pull your country out of NATO? J.B. Robinson
adam@gec-mi-at.co.uk (Adam Quantrill) (09/09/86)
In article <2383@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >In article <190@miduet.gec-mi-at.co.uk> adam@miduet (Adam Quantrill) writes: >> >> I can't speak for the NDP but our beloved Labour party isn't >>non-militaristic, on the contrary they would support a conventional army. >>They (quite rightly) just want to wash their hands of nuclear weapons. > >Question: are they for unilateral or multilateral disarmament? - there is >a big difference. > >Also, would they do as our NDP say they would, and pull your country out >of NATO? > >J.B. Robinson 1: Yes and yes. 2: No, and you don't have to be a nuclear power to be in NATO. Adam.
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (09/14/86)
In article <214@miduet.gec-mi-at.co.uk> adam@gec-mi-at.co.uk (Adam Quantrill) writes: >In article <2383@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >>In article <190@miduet.gec-mi-at.co.uk> adam@miduet (Adam Quantrill) writes: >>> >>> I can't speak for the NDP but our beloved Labour party isn't >>>non-militaristic, on the contrary they would support a conventional army. >>>They (quite rightly) just want to wash their hands of nuclear weapons. >> >>Question: are they for unilateral or multilateral disarmament? - there is >>a big difference. >> >>Also, would they do as our NDP say they would, and pull your country out >>of NATO? >> >>J.B. Robinson > >1: Yes and yes. ^^^ >2: No, and you don't have to be a nuclear power to be in NATO. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Labour party said it would indeed toss Britain's nukes if it formed a government (probably the same place I read that it would decrease unemployment by massively expanding government services), however, I do not know whether they advocate such action for all western countries. If so, I would have to conclude that they are an extremely naive lot since there would be no means of defending the west against nuclear blackmail. BTW I am quite aware that a country does not have to be a nuclear power to be in NATO as demonstrated by Canada's membership. J.B. Robinson PS Would a Labour government reopen the uneconomical coal mines?
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (09/20/86)
In article <2388@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Labour party said it would >indeed toss Britain's nukes if it formed a government (probably the same >place I read that it would decrease unemployment by massively expanding >government services), however, I do not know whether they advocate such >action for all western countries. If so, I would have to conclude that they >are an extremely naive lot since there would be no means of >defending the west against nuclear blackmail. In comparison with the arsenals of the US and USSR, Britain's nuclear weapons are insignificant (unless we end up with Trident). British unilateral disarmament would have little or no impact on the balance of terror. The Labour Party is for that and there is support in some sections for the removal of US nuclear bases from our country. What the Labour Party is really saying is "Britain doesn't count as a superpower - we'll disarm unileterally and let the US and USSR get on with multilateral disarmament". >PS Would a Labour government reopen the uneconomical coal mines? I think not. The Labour party plan to reduce unemployment by increasing government spending in key areas like the health service and education. Most effort is planned for a programme of public works - building new roads, schools, hospitals and so on. "Uneconomic" coal mines are unlikely to stay open unless the cost of subsidising them is less than the lost economic output if they were to close. Jim ARPA: jim%cs.strath.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk UUCP: jim@strath-cs.uucp, ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jim JANET: jim@uk.ac.strath.cs "JANET domain ordering is swapped around so's there'd be some use for rev(1)!"