The Politics Thread

[BlueSi13]

And it would have been one of the main causes of it too, if Russia didn't develop nuclear technology there wouldn't have been an escalated cold war and the very near destruction of the whole the planet.

 

An absolute pittance? £17-24bn (conservative government estimates) That is the deficit, would you rather have no deficit or a nuclear deterrent we will never use?

 

Re: Ukraine, that is not going to happen to us, we don't have disputed territory in the same way.

 

I am not saying that the whole world should give them up (although it would be nice) but as a small nation with a comparative handful of nukes we are irrelevant and barely even a pawn in the US Russia power game. If we and France followed through with our pledge to disarm then it would be a great statement and a significant step towards removing these and give us a platform to approach other nuclear powers, specifically India and Pakistan to follow suit.

 

No there would have been WW3, Churchill was particularly keen on driving on into Russia after the defeat of Germany and Japan in WW2 as he knew the iron curtain was being drawn over Europe with the threat of Communism sending shockwaves throughout the west.  The nuking of Japan by the Americans was meant to send a clear warning to Moscow to stay in check.  Nuclear weapons made sure the big boys kept their dicks in their pants, and continue to do so.  It's why the worst friction we'll ever have with Putin is the odd awkward press conference and moderate economic sanction rather than full-scale military deployment.

 

Once again compare the our nuclear deterrent to what the government spends elsewhere, it's a small % of the budget and absolutely worth keeping in a world where an emboldened Russia is regularly sending bombers to test our aerial defences, where China is becoming more and more assertive in its territorial ambitions in the Pacific, where Pakistan continues to descend into religious chaos, where North Korea continues to push the South Koreans into conflict, and where Iran now looks certain to get the bomb after openly declaring its wishes to wipe Israel from the face of the map. I believe the cliche (which happens to be ideal in this case) is "I'd rather us have them and not need them, then need them and not have them"

 

As for your suggestion that we'd somehow send a message to the rest of the world to disarm, no offence but that is absolute pie-in-the-sky.  No other nation is talking about disarmament nor are they likely too (the idea of India and Pakistan giving up their nukes made me chuckle though  )

[Guest MattP]

The country didn't vote for Trident to be renewed they voted for the 2 main parties that happened to have that as part of their manifesto, but that doesn't reflect the views of the country, or do you think we don't need a referendum on Europe as only 12% voted for an anti EU party?

 

Corbyn won the leadership with clear views such as not renewing Trident, so by your logic they should be opposed to Trident, but that is not how politics works, what would be good is to see a credible opposition that really force the Tories to justify their decision to renew it, and if they can get a huge amount of public support and maybe even force a referendum or possibly even defeat them in the commons, that would be huge and as a policy to pin their hat on for a couple of years it is not a bad one.

 

What I don't want from the opposition, is for them to spend five years posturing and not providing a decent opposition like they did last time.

 

False logic, a lot of people who want out the EU would vote Tory as well as they were offering the referendum, more than 50% of the voters voted UKIP or Tory.

 

There is 0% chance of it being defeated in the commons, the Tories all support it, as do the DUP, most Labour MP's support it, even the left wing MP's will be pressured by Unite the Union to support it, the SNP will vote against, Lucas will as well and then a few on the front bench, they'll do well to get 100 votes against it.

 

I want a good opposition as well, but at the minute all I'm seeing is an appalling front bench put together (no one can seriously say they would vote in people like McDonnell, Nandy and Abbott to run a country), a series of U-Turns on what he was elected on, and an absolutely ridiculous amount of obfuscation when it comes to anything on policy. It's been a horrific start and I don't think even those on the left would deny that.

 

Everything I've seen and heard from Corbyn so far makes me wonder why he isn't in the Green party, he seems far more in line with them than Labour, I presume it's because he wants to be elected, what was he doing for 15 years while New Labour were running the shop, if he seriously had the principles people ckaim he does he would be long gone.

 

I'm still laughing over the pigeon motion.

 

I do find it amusing that no Tories on here can write anything positive about Labour and vice versa.  Am I alone in agreeing with some Tory policy despite voting labour?  I just find it odd that voters can't bring themselves to disagree with their own parties policies or their parties MP's, it's like their political persuasion is akin to the football team they follow the blinkers go on and criticism is only given to their rivals.  Of course the ideologies of each political parties are different so I don't expect a lot of praise for the opposing parties but I would except some....or maybe I'm just weird.

 

Yeah it's only the Tories that do that, I mean we can't shut people like Ken up when he's telling us what the Tories are doing right. Come on, posters on here apart from a tiny few on both sides can see where parties are doing good.

 

I even commended Jeremy Corbyn on his anti-TTIP/EU stance and demand that Miliband gave a referendum, shame he's now done a U-Turn on both.

[BlueSi13]

Really? I've thought about it like you said, and the worlds gone mad if we think we can afford to piss away 2 BILLION pounds a year on something we'll never use. Imagine how many houses, hospitals and schools 2 BILLION a year could build. And I've never voted Labour in my life.

 

We spend 12 BILLION a year on foreign aid.  Imagine what we could spend extra on our infrastructure with just a third of that amount.

[BlueSi13]

Of course I know about the Cold War, there's no need to be sarcastic. In my opinion it was massively exacerbated by the presence of nuclear weapons. The world nearly ended, twice! There are plenty of other reasons it never became hot but you said, and I quote, "the sole reason the world didn't erupt into WW3, WW4 and WW5". Even a historian who had spent a lifes work trying to prove how beneficial nuclear weapons were in the conflict (which I can only assume you are not) wouldn't make that claim.

 

1000 posts, finally first team!

 

Sorry, apologies, didn't mean to sound sarcastic, thanks for pulling me up 

 

Congratulations on the 1000! 

[bmt]

Sorry, apologies, didn't mean to sound sarcastic, thanks for pulling me up 

 

Congratulations on the 1000! 

 

No prob, I do it all the time.

 

Thanks. 

 

Back to the nuclear question, although I fundamentally disagree with nuclear weapons and disagree with your view of their importance, if I was to accept that I still don't see the point in Trident. Surely we have a nuclear deterrent across the channel and another larger one across the atlantic ocean, in the form of France and the US. I don't see why Britain has to have any nuclear weapons for our own protection.

[Strokes]

Something that we all agree on would have to be non controversial. The subject just wouldn't arise.

I agree, so shut up.

[Guest MattP]

Back to the nuclear question, although I fundamentally disagree with nuclear weapons and disagree with your view of their importance, if I was to accept that I still don't see the point in Trident. Surely we have a nuclear deterrent across the channel and another larger one across the atlantic ocean, in the form of France and the US. I don't see why Britain has to have any nuclear weapons for our own protection.

 

Alliances change over time and I wouldn't want to ever pass our defence off to someone else anyway, what next, give up the army and ask the French the defend us? No thanks.

 

Assuming we have a Labour government under Corbyn I doubt we'd be counting the USA as an ally for a start given the things he has said about them, the staunchest ally in the World of Israel isn't going to be backing up a person who regards Hamas as friends.

[bmt]

Alliances change over time and I wouldn't want to ever pass our defence off to someone else anyway, what next, give up the army and ask the French the defend us? No thanks.

 

Assuming we have a Labour government under Corbyn I doubt we'd be counting the USA as an ally for a start given the things he has said about them, the staunchest ally in the World of Israel isn't going to be backing up a person who regards Hamas as friends.

 

I think in this day it doesn't matter that much who are our allies, the fact there are multiple nuclear powers on different 'sides' means that the chance a small western European country like us being attacked is minuscule. It's definitely something I would like to look much more into to be honest; I do think there should be a real debate on the issue which Corbyn (despite obviously having his own anti-nuclear opinions) is condoing.

[Webbo]

I think in this day it doesn't matter that much who are our allies, the fact there are multiple nuclear powers on different 'sides' means that the chance a small western European country like us being attacked is minuscule. It's definitely something I would like to look much more into to be honest; I do think there should be a real debate on the issue which Corbyn (despite obviously having his own anti-nuclear opinions) is condoing.

Sorry but that's crap, we're a leading member of NATO,with ,still, a large army and after America we're probably the most hated country by the crackpot nations. Out of all the countries likely to be attacked with nukes we're in the top 5.

[Izzy]

Out of all the countries likely to be attacked with nukes we're in the top 5.

Its good to know the UK is in the top 5 in the world for something

I'd rather it was for educational standards, lowest crime rates or employment, but hey ho!

[bmt]

Sorry but that's crap, we're a leading member of NATO,with ,still, a large army and after America we're probably the most hated country by the crackpot nations. Out of all the countries likely to be attacked with nukes we're in the top 5.

 

I'm factoring in which countries actually have nukes though...

 

I just don't believe anybody who has nuclear weapons would be stupid enough to use them against us, and if they were that stupid they'd probably go the whole way and attack the US instead.

[Rincewind]

Whoops!

 

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1255

One to you.

 

I do find it amusing that no Tories on here can write anything positive about Labour and vice versa.  Am I alone in agreeing with some Tory policy despite voting labour?  I just find it odd that voters can't bring themselves to disagree with their own parties policies or their parties MP's, it's like their political persuasion is akin to the football team they follow the blinkers go on and criticism is only given to their rivals.  Of course the ideologies of each political parties are different so I don't expect a lot of praise for the opposing parties but I would except some....or maybe I'm just weird.

I am the same although some would not think so. I have criticised past Labour governments as well as  Tory. In fact I have not been keen on any of them So is it my fault that a MP actually says things that I  agree with like being compassionate and having empathy and respect for those worse off as yourself as well as those better off.

 

 

Exactly, I strongly believe that grassroots activism and action has a huge place in the future of our country if progressive parties are to stand a chance against conservatism. We have one of those in Leeds too, I know it's really successful here!

I believe it started off in Leeds. There was a chef  who had been living in Australia and was shocked at the food waste. When he came back to England he and a few people started it off. There is a website but it hasn't been updated for a while.

[Captain...]

No there would have been WW3, Churchill was particularly keen on driving on into Russia after the defeat of Germany and Japan in WW2 as he knew the iron curtain was being drawn over Europe with the threat of Communism sending shockwaves throughout the west. The nuking of Japan by the Americans was meant to send a clear warning to Moscow to stay in check. Nuclear weapons made sure the big boys kept their dicks in their pants, and continue to do so. It's why the worst friction we'll ever have with Putin is the odd awkward press conference and moderate economic sanction rather than full-scale military deployment.

Once again compare the our nuclear deterrent to what the government spends elsewhere, it's a small % of the budget and absolutely worth keeping in a world where an emboldened Russia is regularly sending bombers to test our aerial defences, where China is becoming more and more assertive in its territorial ambitions in the Pacific, where Pakistan continues to descend into religious chaos, where North Korea continues to push the South Koreans into conflict, and where Iran now looks certain to get the bomb after openly declaring its wishes to wipe Israel from the face of the map. I believe the cliche (which happens to be ideal in this case) is "I'd rather us have them and not need them, then need them and not have them"

As for your suggestion that we'd somehow send a message to the rest of the world to disarm, no offence but that is absolute pie-in-the-sky. No other nation is talking about disarmament nor are they likely too (the idea of India and Pakistan giving up their nukes made me chuckle though )

The amount we spend in other departments is irrelevant, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.

As for Pakistan and India they haven't signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty one of the reasons stated is that the nuclear powers that have signed it have made no attempt to reduce the number of nuclear weapons they have. Seeing one of the key nuclear powers disarming would send the right message and could get them to sign up. It might not, but as it is they aren't going to agree to any sort of disarmament which would be a good thing for everyone.

[leicsmac]

No there would have been WW3, Churchill was particularly keen on driving on into Russia after the defeat of Germany and Japan in WW2 as he knew the iron curtain was being drawn over Europe with the threat of Communism sending shockwaves throughout the west.  The nuking of Japan by the Americans was meant to send a clear warning to Moscow to stay in check.  Nuclear weapons made sure the big boys kept their dicks in their pants, and continue to do so.  It's why the worst friction we'll ever have with Putin is the odd awkward press conference and moderate economic sanction rather than full-scale military deployment.

 

Once again compare the our nuclear deterrent to what the government spends elsewhere, it's a small % of the budget and absolutely worth keeping in a world where an emboldened Russia is regularly sending bombers to test our aerial defences, where China is becoming more and more assertive in its territorial ambitions in the Pacific, where Pakistan continues to descend into religious chaos, where North Korea continues to push the South Koreans into conflict, and where Iran now looks certain to get the bomb after openly declaring its wishes to wipe Israel from the face of the map. I believe the cliche (which happens to be ideal in this case) is "I'd rather us have them and not need them, then need them and not have them"

 

As for your suggestion that we'd somehow send a message to the rest of the world to disarm, no offence but that is absolute pie-in-the-sky.  No other nation is talking about disarmament nor are they likely too (the idea of India and Pakistan giving up their nukes made me chuckle though  )

 

Bollocks. Everything is fine over here and I live about 40 miles from the DMZ. The leadership up there might be crazy but they're not stupid.

 

And as for the rest...

 

I'm factoring in which countries actually have nukes though...

 

I just don't believe anybody who has nuclear weapons would be stupid enough to use them against us, and if they were that stupid they'd probably go the whole way and attack the US instead.

 

This is the key point that everyone is missing. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN A NUCLEAR WAR. If one nuke flies, detonates on the soil of a country that either has nukes of its own or is an ally of one then everyone is screwed, nukes or no nukes. Escalation would be inevitable, and the best we could do is fire off what we have before we get turned into Trinitite ourselves. So...other than the ego boost of getting off a parting shot before the world ends, what's really the point? 

 

And so...with that in mind, surely just two countries with opposing long term ideologies (like, say, the US and Russia) having them would be enough to maintain the global balance of power rather than everyone else having The Bomb too? 

[Guest]

I do find it amusing that no Tories on here can write anything positive about Labour and vice versa.  Am I alone in agreeing with some Tory policy despite voting labour?  I just find it odd that voters can't bring themselves to disagree with their own parties policies or their parties MP's, it's like their political persuasion is akin to the football team they follow the blinkers go on and criticism is only given to their rivals.  Of course the ideologies of each political parties are different so I don't expect a lot of praise for the opposing parties but I would except some....or maybe I'm just weird.

 

I do that ronnie and people think I'm strange. They can't see that most people have principles/wishes/beliefs that are covered by different parties.

[Guest]

Trident really is a false argument.

 

The people didn't vote for it.

 

It won't ever be used.

 

It's not a déterrent to Terrorists or "mental" States/Countries

 

What it truly is, is a chip to get us onto all the big team talking tables. We have to be included in discussions because we are a nuclear capability nation. If we didn't have it we would be relegated to " a small nation" and dictated to (not only by the U.S.) but by France too.

 

I think we should scrap Trident but it's the political power it gives us rather than the military threat that means we keep it.

[Jon the Hat]

Trident really is a false argument.

 

The people didn't vote for it.

 

It won't ever be used.

 

It's not a déterrent to Terrorists or "mental" States/Countries

 

What it truly is, is a chip to get us onto all the big team talking tables. We have to be included in discussions because we are a nuclear capability nation. If we didn't have it we would be relegated to " a small nation" and dictated to (not only by the U.S.) but by France too.

 

I think we should scrap Trident but it's the political power it gives us rather than the military threat that means we keep it.

 

This too.  UN Security council permanent would be gone in no time.

[Claridge]

No prob, I do it all the time.

 

Thanks. 

 

Back to the nuclear question, although I fundamentally disagree with nuclear weapons and disagree with your view of their importance, if I was to accept that I still don't see the point in Trident. Surely we have a nuclear deterrent across the channel and another larger one across the atlantic ocean, in the form of France and the US. I don't see why Britain has to have any nuclear weapons for our own protection.

Be fun ( tongue in cheek, before the worthies whinge about job losses hurting the poor,blah,blah,blah) to close the bases in Scotland and let the SNP explain the thousands of jobs lost.

A lot of the billions Trident costs goes on wages to people and is recouped through taxation anyway

[leicsmac]

Trident really is a false argument.

The people didn't vote for it.

It won't ever be used.

It's not a déterrent to Terrorists or "mental" States/Countries

What it truly is, is a chip to get us onto all the big team talking tables. We have to be included in discussions because we are a nuclear capability nation. If we didn't have it we would be relegated to " a small nation" and dictated to (not only by the U.S.) but by France too.

I think we should scrap Trident but it's the political power it gives us rather than the military threat that means we keep it.

This is true. Isn't it fvcking sad that to sit at the top table you have to have the capability to turn a significant portion of the earth into radioactive glass, though? Surely there are better ways to be a mover and shaker in the international community, if indeed you like the idea of the UK throwing its weight around like that.

[Jon the Hat]

This is true. Isn't it fvcking sad that to sit at the top table you have to have the capability to turn a significant portion of the earth into radioactive glass, though? Surely there are better ways to be a mover and shaker in the international community, if indeed you like the idea of the UK throwing its weight around like that.

 

Why wouldn't you like the idea of the UK having influence internationally?

[MooseBreath]

Why wouldn't you like the idea of the UK having influence internationally?

Because white guilt

[leicsmac]

Why wouldn't you like the idea of the UK having influence internationally?

Because that influence, regardless of the decisions we made, has resulted in a large number of angry people around the world who want to kill or harm U.K. citizens?

[bmt]

Why wouldn't you like the idea of the UK having influence internationally?

 

I'm not saying necessarily that I am against us having influence on the global stage, but there is an argument to be made that the amount of money we spend on different measures to make sure we have international influence could be better spent helping the poor and vulnerable in our own society.

[Merging Cultures]

Because white guilt

That argument can go both ways.

Lots of non-white people may die if we don't throw our weight around, and because of that we provide aid and military support. We could just let then die, but because of white guilt we do not.

[Rincewind]

Is having influence and throwing your weight around the same thing?

There is an argument to say the  latter can lead to the first if the others are scared of what you might do.