The latest Peter Hitchens Article That Everyone Is Talking About (they are always in endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn) contains the line:
Even if we decide to go ahead with [Trident], I confidently predict we will have to cancel it (at great cost) when the long-awaited economic crisis finally strikes.
Forget, "a small arsenal of H-bombs or nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, just in case, for far less." It is this or nothing.
The next Crash is well on its way. So, it is nothing. But not before vast sums had already been expended. For nothing, either way.
Even in the meantime, if every NATO member-state in Europe is covered by this thing, then why is ours the only one that has to pay for it?
Divide the cost per head of population, and dispatch the invoices.
Divide the cost per head of population, and dispatch the invoices.
Send the bill to Berlin.
He always puts in a little "Of course, I don't agree with Corbyn" bit, but he is not fooling anybody and I reckon he only puts it in because the Mail makes him.
ReplyDeleteHitchens will say vote Labour in 2016, so will Oborne. Which way do you think they'll go for London mayor? Same question about Spiked and the Morning Star?
ReplyDeleteThe Star will back Khan, in order to avoid embarrassing Corbyn. But it will carry pro-Galloway articles by the man himself, by John Wight, possibly by Neil Clark (who has yet to declare), and so on.
DeleteSpiked may back Galloway, just to be provocative.
Oborne and Hitchens have histories of appearing on his television programme and on platforms with him; there has even been talk of a tour.
So the endorsement of either or both, if only along the lines of "If there must be this office at all", ought not to be ruled out.