Pre Election, Prime Ministerial Debate 1

[sw_fox]

Some things have to be ringfenced. If you ware going to start cutting Trident, you will absolutley 100% result in the UK being off the UN security council within 5 years. We will continue our decline as a country of global influence, and get increasingly fooked over as time goes on. While we are at it, lets not forget that the Lib Dems want us to join the Euro, so why not get it over with and just hand the keys over the the EU now? Hmm? Bunch of idiots.

Erm...no.

There is no mechanism for 'kicking' someone off the security council. There is a reason why there are 5 'permanent' members, and that is because they are the victors of the Second World War. Nothing will change that whether we get rid of our trident replacement or not.

And also, the Euro is actually administered independently from Brussels. Although you have to be a EU member to take on the single currency, the European Central Bank is a completely separate institution from the EU. In fact the Germans and French demanded that it would be to prevent political concerns leaning on the single currency.

So I think you will find that joining the Euro would not 'hand the keys over to the EU', it would simply hand over the setting of interest rates to the European Central Bank, and prevent us from ever de-valuing our currency unilaterally. However there are various other fiscal ways round official devaluation, and interest rate changing, as we have learned from the Euro project. Joining the Euro would be good for Britain, but because of the ignorance of most of the population, and the happiness of the right wing political parties to stoke this ignorance by holding up the pound as some ever present symbol of British identity, I doubt we will ever get it.

[Webbo]

Wasn't impressed with any of them. Nick Clegg had nothing to lose and went for it big time, but this tactic may have backfired as he has already shown his cards.

Gordon, i'm afraid looks like a turkey before thanks giving....ready to be killed. He lacks charisma and this debate shows he lacks substance aswell...........it's amazing how all these wonderful policies and reform are only going to be implemented after the election, wtf has he been doing all this time

With Cameron, I was surprised he didn;t attack either of the opposition and held back quite abit. He looks the more slick but I haven't seen any substance..

Overall, nothing's changed, I like the Lib Dems but they are never gonna win......I wa really hoping Cameron would really provide substance to win my vote. So i'm still undecided, but one thing for sure, I will not be voting Labour!!!

I'd agree with this assessment. Cameron seemed to be pulling his punches on Brown, I don't know if this was a tactic but it didn't work for me.

As for Trident a lot of whats been said is true. we can't launch without American permission, it doesn't seem a practical solution to the type of future wars we might be involved with and it is a lot of money. I'm not some CND type loony but I could be persuaded to scrap it.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

Loved the almost banterous qualities of how Cameron came off today - his performance seems to steadily decreased in staturesince last night.

So petty, but still never miss a chance to stick the boot in. For me people are beginning to see through Camerons Conservatives.

Clegg effectively last night made the odds on a hung parliament a lot smaller - his performance was a credit to the him & the Lib Dems

[Benji]

My personal views on trident are that I'd much rather we overspent (defence being the only part of government spending i wouldn't make cuts on) and overestimated any potential threat and be called money-wasters for never having to use it than suffer from something that could have been prevented. I'm not in the cabinet, I don't have a clue about our relations with other countries or the potential threat another could hold, so this is one thing I'd rather just entrust the government with, seems the lesser of the two evils to me.

Regarding pulling out of Iraq, one thing strikes me, how would we be saving so much money by doing so? Where exactly would the army go? I imagine soldiers would still want paying whether they're in conflict or not, but then, if they're sat here doing nothing other than starting fights at nightclubs at the weekend then why pay them at all? We'd still need to renovate our weaponry to keep up to date with the times and be prepared for any future conflict? That's not a reason to stay IN Iraq, but I hardly see what pulling them out does for our economy.

[sw_fox]

My personal views on trident are that I'd much rather we overspent (defence being the only part of government spending i wouldn't make cuts on) and overestimated any potential threat and be called money-wasters for never having to use it than suffer from something that could have been prevented. I'm not in the cabinet, I don't have a clue about our relations with other countries or the potential threat another could hold, so this is one thing I'd rather just entrust the government with, seems the lesser of the two evils to me.

Regarding pulling out of Iraq, one thing strikes me, how would we be saving so much money by doing so? Where exactly would the army go? I imagine soldiers would still want paying whether they're in conflict or not, but then, if they're sat here doing nothing other than starting fights at nightclubs at the weekend then why pay them at all? We'd still need to renovate our weaponry to keep up to date with the times and be prepared for any future conflict? That's not a reason to stay IN Iraq, but I hardly see what pulling them out does for our economy.

We pulled out of Iraq now, so that is irrelevant. However we are still in Afghanistan so this is still important

Deploying troops in the field costs money because of the operational expense such as:

-Using ammunition

-Repairing broken down/battle damaged equipment/vehicles

-Using fuel

-Air strike munitions (that are really expensive)

-The extra pay that our troops get when on operations

-Paying for medical care to the injured

-Compensating employers when we deploy their employees in the TA

-Paying compensation to injured soldiers/paying compensation to dead soldiers' families

-Constructing new bases of operations

These are all reasons why sending troops on mission is more expensive than having them in base. More importantly, we had to pay to rebuild what we destroyed. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of both conflicts, these are expenses that we cannot afford, just to cuddle up to America and be their bitch.

[Benji]

We pulled out of Iraq now, so that is irrelevant. However we are still in Afghanistan so this is still important

Deploying troops in the field costs money because of the operational expense such as:

-Using ammunition

-Repairing broken down/battle damaged equipment/vehicles

-Using fuel

-Air strike munitions (that are really expensive)

-The extra pay that our troops get when on operations

-Paying for medical care to the injured

-Compensating employers when we deploy their employees in the TA

-Paying compensation to injured soldiers/paying compensation to dead soldiers' families

-Constructing new bases of operations

These are all reasons why sending troops on mission is more expensive than having them in base. More importantly, we had to pay to rebuild what we destroyed. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of both conflicts, these are expenses that we cannot afford, just to cuddle up to America and be their bitch.

My mistake I meant Afghanistan.

I see what you're saying but what do we do with the army? If we pulled out we know the government would just move them somewhere else, some commonwealth or african third world country that we think we can help and rid of some dictator. So, either we have the same expenses only being spent in another country (in fact probably more expense if it's a different terrain) or we have an army that we don't use but pay for?

[Lillehamring]

Some things have to be ringfenced. If you ware going to start cutting Trident, you will absolutley 100% result in the UK being off the UN security council within 5 years. We will continue our decline as a country of global influence, and get increasingly fooked over as time goes on. While we are at it, lets not forget that the Lib Dems want us to join the Euro, so why not get it over with and just hand the keys over the the EU now? Hmm? Bunch of idiots.

are we even that?

time to admit defeat i reckon - kinda like dropping down to league 1 for the first time to rebuild and come back stronger.

and probably time to drop the 'great' from 'great britain'...

[FoxyPV]

are we even that?

time to admit defeat i reckon - kinda like dropping down to league 1 for the first time to rebuild and come back stronger.

and probably time to drop the 'great' from 'great britain'...

Second that. The idea of Britain being a world player has been a fallacy now for several decades.

[sw_fox]

My mistake I meant Afghanistan.

I see what you're saying but what do we do with the army? If we pulled out we know the government would just move them somewhere else, some commonwealth or african third world country that we think we can help and rid of some dictator. So, either we have the same expenses only being spent in another country (in fact probably more expense if it's a different terrain) or we have an army that we don't use but pay for?

Because an Army is only really supposed to be for defence. Its like saying whats the point in having nukes if you don't use them. Having it is not an argument for using it. What makes you think we are going to go and invade someone else after we withdraw from Afghanistan? This country will be far too war weary for a good few years before we do/if we do. Sure we may go on peacekeeping missions but even African countries like Sierra Leone are doing that, it is seen as an international duty.

[l444ry]

Bloody strange that Nick Clegg seems to be fooling anti-nuclear supporters. Clegg knows full well that he has no intention of dismantling this so-called "deterrent".

He is as dishonest as the rest of them when he throws figures around like £100 billion savings. He knows that this is spread over 25 years yet used the debate to con the more gullible into thinking it is an instant saving. He also knows that his preferred nuclear "deterrent" option is estimated to save only £34 billions.

But then, Clegg's party aren't like the two old ones are they?

[MikeyT]

If you are bored and have a spare 30 seconds

http://www.slapometer.com/

[Nick]

If you are bored and have a spare 30 seconds

http://www.slapometer.com/

30 seconds ?

I've been on this 10 minutes and there's no sign of me stopping.

[Shrenchel]

Nice to see that after dribbling hot steamy diarrhea from his mouth in his closing statement about voting for hope not fear, Cameron is now scaremongering that a vote for the Lib Dems will let Labour in. Politics of fear again. Typical cvnt.

[Jon the Hat]

Nice to see that after dribbling hot steamy diarrhea from his mouth in his closing statement about voting for hope not fear, Cameron is now scaremongering that a vote for the Lib Dems will let Labour in. Politics of fear again. Typical cvnt.

Well keeping Brown in Number 10 would be an absolute disaster. If there was even the slightest chance of a Libdem Majority and Tory opposition that might even be preferable. Ideal world for me is Tory win, Lib Dem opposition. Secone choice Tory Lib Dem coalition.

[Guest]

Nice to see that after dribbling hot steamy diarrhea from his mouth in his closing statement about voting for hope not fear, Cameron is now scaremongering that a vote for the Lib Dems will let Labour in. Politics of fear again. Typical cvnt.

Do you not think Labour have been guilty of scaremongering too? They're all at it to a degree

[RobHawk]

Well keeping Brown in Number 10 would be an absolute disaster. If there was even the slightest chance of a Libdem Majority and Tory opposition that might even be preferable. Ideal world for me is Tory win, Lib Dem opposition. Secone choice Tory Lib Dem coalition.

Your preferrable choice scares the shit outa me! Unfortunately i don't earn enough to benefit from the Conservatives!

They only seem interesting in help themselves! Help the rich and screw the poor! Scary Times!

[Dr The Singh]

Anyway, to get back on track, the choice is either:

-Scrap Trident replacement and spend it on things that we need like mending the fiscal mess we are in, getting better equipment to our troops on the frontline and protecting our services in a a time of austerity

OR

-Spend £100 Billion (which a large chunk of it would have to be spent in capital outlay of the new equipment, lets say 20 or 30 billion), adding to our huge budget deficit of £167 Billion and probably leading to future cuts in equipment for our boys on the front line due to high maintenance and training costs

What will it be Dr. the Singh?

Like i've stated, Scrapping the trident is possibly not an option, Britain has made it's bed with the US, the trident project is probably protection monies to the US, or the US has bullied Britain into it. Either way, we will never know, but from the responses from the big two political parties in defence of purchasing it, which is very little, it seems to me it's more of a political issue rather then defensive, one which Britian feels the cost of the trident is justified, who knows what the big picture is. For me, as stated, Britain needs to stop there reliance on the US and invest sensibly on defence research, and be able to protect itself for any eventuality!!!

We all can say, scrap this, do that, but what happens behind doors politically is a different matter. There are many occassions in politics and national security, where a nation has brought some technology that has baffled the world, a good eg is the Indians recent purchase of a Gorshkoff aircraft carrier, and fighter plane upgrade form the ruskies for a stupid amount of money, infact defence analyst have stated that a aircraft carrier is practically useless in protecting India as it has no real blue water capability. There were far cheaper and better alternatives, but a few months later, india are developing long range icmp's and upgrading Agni III with success. The world knows India doesn't have the skill and technology for such advances, so where did the advancement come from??????????????????

Politics is a dirty game, done in mist of clouds and shadows....us public are just fed with what we need to know!!!!!

[marbelladave]

Like i've stated, Scrapping the trident is possibly not an option, Britain has made it's bed with the US, the trident project is probably protection monies to the US, or the US has bullied Britain into it. Either way, we will never know, but from the responses from the big two political parties in defence of purchasing it, which is very little, it seems to me it's more of a political issue rather then defensive, one which Britian feels the cost of the trident is justified, who knows what the big picture is. For me, as stated, Britain needs to stop there reliance on the US and invest sensibly on defence research, and be able to protect itself for any eventuality!!!

We all can say, scrap this, do that, but what happens behind doors politically is a different matter. There are many occassions in politics and national security, where a nation has brought some technology that has baffled the world, a good eg is the Indians recent purchase of a Gorshkoff aircraft carrier, and fighter plane upgrade form the ruskies for a stupid amount of money, infact defence analyst have stated that a aircraft carrier is practically useless in protecting India as it has no real blue water capability. There were far cheaper and better alternatives, but a few months later, india are developing long range icmp's and upgrading Agni III with success. The world knows India doesn't have the skill and technology for such advances, so where did the advancement come from??????????????????

Politics is a dirty game, done in mist of clouds and shadows....us public are just fed with what we need to know!!!!!

So cynical, but sadly nothing like cynical enough.

Trident is essentially a political statement and a bloody expensive one at that. It has never, even at the height of the Cold War, been necessary in a military sense, as a conflict requiring the use of strategic weapons would inevitably involve the US whose nuclear capabilities are far in excess of our own.

Interestingly the new Trident systems are being reconfigured to be less effective as a deterrent. Each Trident missile can carry up to 10 warheads (MIRV) which makes them effective and very powerful and also reasonable value for money. Thus in theory each platform (missile sub) can deliver 160 warheads of 100kilotons each. This is a devastating blow that would totally destroy most nations and cripple even the largest, (Russia, China, USA) but in the current world situation it is difficult to see such a massive response being required. With this in mind some Trident missiles are being fitted with just a single variable yield warhead to allow a 'limited' response to an attack or a threat from someone other than the usual superpower threats. Using Trident in this way is very wasteful and expensive.

So, the biggest current threat is from terrorist organisations or 'rogue states' who develop (or purchase) the capability to deliver some kind of nuclear weapon, probably by unconventional means. The nightmare scenario being the use of a Russian warhead (a number of which are unaccounted for) being reconfigured with a simple push button detonator and shipped into the target country in a regular shipping container and detonated 'on delivery'.

Even assuming that the culprits can be reliable located it is difficult to see why a Trident strike would be necessary except that the UK has 'painted itself into a corner' by refusing to deploy any nuclear weapons other than those within the Trident system.

Thus our latest generation of multirole attack submarines are perfectly capable of carrying out limited nuclear strikes by cruise missile except that they do not have the nuclear capability for political reasons.

[Jon the Hat]

So cynical, but sadly nothing like cynical enough.

Trident is essentially a political statement and a bloody expensive one at that. It has never, even at the height of the Cold War, been necessary in a military sense, as a conflict requiring the use of strategic weapons would inevitably involve the US whose nuclear capabilities are far in excess of our own.

Interestingly the new Trident systems are being reconfigured to be less effective as a deterrent. Each Trident missile can carry up to 10 warheads (MIRV) which makes them effective and very powerful and also reasonable value for money. Thus in theory each platform (missile sub) can deliver 160 warheads of 100kilotons each. This is a devastating blow that would totally destroy most nations and cripple even the largest, (Russia, China, USA) but in the current world situation it is difficult to see such a massive response being required. With this in mind some Trident missiles are being fitted with just a single variable yield warhead to allow a 'limited' response to an attack or a threat from someone other than the usual superpower threats. Using Trident in this way is very wasteful and expensive.

So, the biggest current threat is from terrorist organisations or 'rogue states' who develop (or purchase) the capability to deliver some kind of nuclear weapon, probably by unconventional means. The nightmare scenario being the use of a Russian warhead (a number of which are unaccounted for) being reconfigured with a simple push button detonator and shipped into the target country in a regular shipping container and detonated 'on delivery'.

Even assuming that the culprits can be reliable located it is difficult to see why a Trident strike would be necessary except that the UK has 'painted itself into a corner' by refusing to deploy any nuclear weapons other than those within the Trident system.

Thus our latest generation of multirole attack submarines are perfectly capable of carrying out limited nuclear strikes by cruise missile except that they do not have the nuclear capability for political reasons.

Given that the whole rationale of the Submarine based Nuclear deterrent is that anyone taking a first strike approach to a war with us will still get destroyed themselves, the choice of a more limited range, time and location restricted and nosier attack submarine based cruise missile system would appear to be completely pointless. If the enemy can find you, then you don;t have a deterrent.

[l444ry]

Given that the whole rationale of the Submarine based Nuclear deterrent is that anyone taking a first strike approach to a war with us will still get destroyed themselves, the choice of a more limited range, time and location restricted and nosier attack submarine based cruise missile system would appear to be completely pointless. If the enemy can find you, then you don;t have a deterrent.

How come our "deterrent" never stopped Argentina invading the Falklands then?

[Jon the Hat]

How come our "deterrent" never stopped Argentina invading the Falklands then?

Are you aware of the first Strike concept? Fool.

[l444ry]

Are you aware of the first Strike concept? Fool.

Ha Ha Ha. I was on the anti-Cruise missile marches when you were still in your nappy mate. So you are now saying that nuclear weapons are only there to "deter" nuclear states. Talk about moving the goalposts in an argument!!

[Jon the Hat]

Ha Ha Ha. I was on the anti-Cruise missile marches when you were still in your nappy mate. So you are now saying that nuclear weapons are only there to "deter" nuclear states. Talk about moving the goalposts in an argument!!

Your mind must be going in your old age

My point was that the purpose of the Trident undetectable missile submarine approach - much more expensive than land based missiles for example - is to counter the threat of another nuclear state using the First Strike Approach in a nuclear war. You obviously missed the point completely and are now wittering on about wars with non nuclear states. The likelihood of the UK ever launching Nuclear Weapons against a non-nuclear armed state are so close to zero as to be not even worth discussing, yet you decided to bring up the Falklands. Typical Labour style debate. Well done.

[l444ry]

Your mind must be going in your old age

My point was that the purpose of the Trident undetectable missile submarine approach - much more expensive than land based missiles for example - is to counter the threat of another nuclear state using the First Strike Approach in a nuclear war. You obviously missed the point completely and are now wittering on about wars with non nuclear states. The likelihood of the UK ever launching Nuclear Weapons against a non-nuclear armed state are so close to zero as to be not even worth discussing, yet you decided to bring up the Falklands. Typical Labour style debate. Well done.

In other words, you are moving the goalposts.

Better tell your Fuhrer while your'e at it then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/01/conservatives-trident-nuclear-missile-upgrade

[sw_fox]

So cynical, but sadly nothing like cynical enough.

Trident is essentially a political statement and a bloody expensive one at that. It has never, even at the height of the Cold War, been necessary in a military sense, as a conflict requiring the use of strategic weapons would inevitably involve the US whose nuclear capabilities are far in excess of our own.

Interestingly the new Trident systems are being reconfigured to be less effective as a deterrent. Each Trident missile can carry up to 10 warheads (MIRV) which makes them effective and very powerful and also reasonable value for money. Thus in theory each platform (missile sub) can deliver 160 warheads of 100kilotons each. This is a devastating blow that would totally destroy most nations and cripple even the largest, (Russia, China, USA) but in the current world situation it is difficult to see such a massive response being required. With this in mind some Trident missiles are being fitted with just a single variable yield warhead to allow a 'limited' response to an attack or a threat from someone other than the usual superpower threats. Using Trident in this way is very wasteful and expensive.

So, the biggest current threat is from terrorist organisations or 'rogue states' who develop (or purchase) the capability to deliver some kind of nuclear weapon, probably by unconventional means. The nightmare scenario being the use of a Russian warhead (a number of which are unaccounted for) being reconfigured with a simple push button detonator and shipped into the target country in a regular shipping container and detonated 'on delivery'.

Even assuming that the culprits can be reliable located it is difficult to see why a Trident strike would be necessary except that the UK has 'painted itself into a corner' by refusing to deploy any nuclear weapons other than those within the Trident system.

Thus our latest generation of multirole attack submarines are perfectly capable of carrying out limited nuclear strikes by cruise missile except that they do not have the nuclear capability for political reasons.

Precisely- the point being, the sort of threats we are supposedly facing these days we cannot deter. If a 'terrorist' wants to nuke us with a stolen nuke, and delivered as said, then who will we nuke back? The 'terrorist' will probably not do it on the behest of a state, so nuking a state will most likely start a nuclear exchange where all will be annihilated!

More importantly, say the terrorist is a Muslim extremist- if they dont give a shit whether they are taken out afterwards because they will be welcomed by 30 virgins at the gates of heaven etc, then how does a deterrent work?