Originally Posted by swanbet
I think exactly this.
Probably my biggest issue with Brown is the net effect of his control-freak personality. He has a very small clique & pretty much everyone else is excluded (i.e. everyone else in the Labour party & the civil service, let alone the rest of the house of commons or the electorate.....)
Disagreement with his point of view is not tolerated (as was amply illustrated last week).
This means that pretty much every decision in this country is being made by a tiny handful of people. And unfortunately for us, those people aren't honest or even talented. They are solely motivated by retaining power through newsflow management.
I've likened Brown to Hitler before & I am absolutely serious when I do so. I think he's a menace & I truly shudder to think of what he's capable of in a full term.
I literally cannot stand the thought of Brown somehow clinging onto power after Thursday & am just trying not to think about it.
My views entirely..
It was rough the last time the Tories were in,
I remember my parents voted Maggie in, and it was years and years and years before they would ever admit it as things went so bad.. They switched to Labour and I have only ever voted Labour..
... if there was a hung Parliamament it would only last a year or two I'm sure as they would call another election, then we'd have to decide all over again...
I would have that as a Lib Dem Pro, its a massive cost to us and for no tangible benefit. We will never use them offensively (you would hope) so they would only ever get used out of spite really, if somebody nuked us we would to them but it wont help us we are all dead anyway.
Originally Posted by SteveSharpe
Why have them then? The Mid East, in fact nowhere, will ever actually invade the UK whether we have Nukes or not. I can see no reason for having them at all. At the very least if they had any sense they would scrap it and just not tell anyone. Have three empty subs going about under the Sea, if the other countries "think" we have them still then they are doing their job. I really hope the MoD actually have actually been doing this since the 70s I would be so impressed.
Have a plan and stick to it
I don't get a vote myself, but interesting anyway. I don't know much about the parties and the politics of your island over there, so all my answers were a bit impulsive. My results were surprisingly similar to what BB got.
British National Party: 71%
UK Independence Party: 61%
Conservative Party: 41%
Does this mean I am a racist and/or old?
*Bans Bubbles and Nin*
There's a site called Vote for Policies - Vote for policies, not personalities! where my result was 33% Tory, 22% Green, 22% Lib Dem, 11% Labour and 11% UKIP so it shows you how useful these things are considering I was apparently mostly UKIP the other day.
Trident, the 'ergh?!' issue in the election but, IMO, effectively no difference in reality as to what will happen regardless of who wins.
If you believe in scrapping Trident then Chris Huhne stated that very position firmly when he tried to beat Nick Clegg to the Lib Dem leadership. Btw, I guess you could argue he did beat Clegg to the leadership but he just didn’t win. (It is said that if all the Lib Dem leader election votes which got caught up in postal backlog around Christmas 2007 had been allowed to count, Huhne would actually have been named the winner).
Instead, you have Nick Clegg, the man who proposed keeping Trident when he contested the Lib Dem leadership contest in late 2007. What the public recently heard from Clegg in the televised debates was all about Trident being a Cold War thing and we're not in Cold War times. I didn't realise we were in Cold War times in 2007 either, Nick? He can hardly argue it's the economic mess making him change his mind either because Cable was surely telling him about the impending DOOOOOooom!
Now when they’re going to the wider electorate, they propose neither view really just to include it in a review with no intention of unilaterally disarming our nuclear capacity as I think some people think they stand for. This means, Trident or no Trident, there would be a nuclear deterrent approach whoever was in office.
But if it’s not going to be Trident, how costly would a new deterrent be to research, design, build and maintain? How long would it take to be operational? How could it ever be built without breaching the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear arms? Isn’t there a good reason why when Russia, China and America have kept their triad delivery deterrent system (air, land, sea) that Britain, post Cold-War, deemed it acceptable to lose our air delivery to have a sole stealth-based submarine system? It's almost like these things just happened by chance or something and that's why a review is needed because no-one ever looked into the issue of nuclear deterrents since Trident came about!
If they were proposing a review because they were saying there’s significant evidence that there are real alternatives which are not only legal to develop but also provide an effective nuclear deterrent (that we apparently need if you’re not saying we should scrap them altogether) then fine but as it stands, it sounds like *hot air sound* to me.
Then you have New-Labour and the Tories who are both pro-Trident renewal and say it would not be included in a defence spending review. The reason they give us is that they have to a duty to protect us. Thanks dad. Seriously though, no-one would say they don’t have a duty but how exactly does Trident achieve this – in the very obvious way that you’d have to be mad to attack Britain or her allies when you could receive total destruction in return from either Britain or her allies? But we’re not going to use it, right? Why do we need it? Well I guess that’s why it’s a deterrent because no-one would ever want to use it and no-one would ever want it used on them.
But these two parties work on the basis we just ‘know’ why we need it when they should be conveying the reasons for it – after all, they are pro-Trident renewal! It’s not beyond reason to think that being a nuclear armed nation has in some way helped our position to do deals/diplomacy, is it? Situations we all now benefit from? Could they have been done by being a non-Nuclear armed country in a world where others are? Do say. But more importantly, tell us the end game. Hopefully it is to have no nuclear arms eventually by participating in, and having some say in a multi-lateral agreement to deplete and disarm nuclear weaponry. Why can’t we just unilaterally disarm? Is it because by 'leading the way' the actual consequence is counter-productive? That you lose any ability to help bring about the nuclear disarmament of the other nations? I’m guessing it is but say it if this is so.
Basically, in a hung parliament, I truly can't see what the other parties want to do with Trident actually being an issue for Clegg because he's too weak on it himself - the modernisation of the voting system is really his best card I think for those who vote for him should there be a hung parliament.
Just let me re-adjust on this rather poorly made soap box... there, much better. In summary, nuclear weapons are sickeningly destructive and a symbol of everything that is wrong with human kind. When you think of all the money that goes on them and what that money could achieve… well, it doesn’t bear thinking about. Then again, to assume the money saved by living in a non-nuclear world would actually go to those who need it is debatable. Well, it's not debatable - it wouldn't work like that just like for all the money that's floated around in the world thus far, we can see how it's been used and how not only across the world but within countries there is such a vast difference in wealth.
I think we imagine we can scrap Trident, the world becomes a better place for it, our trade deals are unaffected, our diplomacy is unaffected, our allies are unaffected and the poor will be all become less poor or taxes don't go up, or we stop sending troops into wars having to buy their own gear. But maybe we're just not being realistic.
Originally Posted by musicbox
If you assumed the UK did NOT have a nuclear weapon at present, would anybody suggest we spend £X Billion to get three subs going about underwater achieving sweet FA? No.
I think given the choice of the ten best hospitals in the World?, or free Higher education for all?, or a brand new railway network...... OR a Trident missle program (which will never be used), I know which I would pick.
Therefore, if you wouldn't buy it from scratch now, why are we still paying for it, other than habit?
Have a plan and stick to it
Yeah I know which I would pick as well. However, if your budgets are anything like ours, it wouldn't work. We bought a lot of shiny new torpedo boats a few years back that we pretty much have yet to use.. Last time I checked we couldn't use them because we couldn't afford to. But the reason we bought them was because the budget for military spending had so and so much money available for investing in new materials. The pot of money we used to buy those useless boats could only be used for investing in that, and could not be set aside for useful things like schools, hospitals or even tax cuts.
Originally Posted by Andy
And actually, the old torpedo boats that we had were renovated for something like £100 million in 2001 or 2002. Now they are laying around on some scrapyard
I am guessing your economy works anything like ours; the military has a certain amount of money to use on their budget for certain things (be it upgrades, maintenance or new boats or whatever), and if they don't use it, it won't get used at all and then in the next budgetary period they will get less money because some guy in the centralized government sees that they couldn't use the amount they were given last time around.
But to be fair it is not only in the military that we see this "if you don't spend it you will lose it" rule. It is sad to see that you actually get punished if you try to be responsible and not spend more than you have to.
On a side note, in the year 1277 (!), Norway had 279 operational military vessels in our fleet. Today we have about 10
By the way, paddy have already decleared Cameron as the next PM and that the conservatives will win the most seats,,
Surely no point in voting now? :O
Originally Posted by Paddy
Haven't bothered to do the test. If any part of my body came out as Conservative I would be forced to cut it off!
The Sun is covering important post-election employment issues today and to try and get you to vote Tory
Save these girls from dole queue | The Sun |News|Election 2010