Pre Election, Prime Ministerial Debate 1

[FoxyPV]

The chances of a 'rogue state' firing a nuclear weapon first or denotating one are extremely slim to the point of never. It would cause too much damage to their cause and it would bring about worldwide condemnation (I'm discounting the West). Conventional methods of 'terrorism/ freedom fighting' are cheaper, easier to use and don't turn your own public opinion against your cause.

[Finnegan]

The chances of a 'rogue state' firing a nuclear weapon first or denotating one are extremely slim to the point of never. It would cause too much damage to their cause and it would bring about worldwide condemnation (I'm discounting the West). Conventional methods of 'terrorism/ freedom fighting' are cheaper, easier to use and don't turn your own public opinion against your cause.

While I am thoroughly for global, nuclear disarmament; I'm not completely naive and you are basing your argument on the leaders of these terrorists or rogue states being logical, rational and mentally sound individuals who share your ethics, ethos and world view. That is somewhat hopeful.

[Jon the Hat]

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

Erm, no. I think everyone else is quite clear about what the aims of Trident are. The questions are around whether it is required or not. Cruise Missile based weaponry might well be a viable alternative, but I have not seen anyone claim it achieves the defense against a first strike attack.

You see to be getting your knickers in a twist about this for no apparent reason. Labour are in support or Trident, as are the Tories.

[FoxyPV]

While I am thoroughly for global, nuclear disarmament; I'm not completely naive and you are basing your argument on the leaders of these terrorists or rogue states being logical, rational and mentally sound individuals who share your ethics, ethos and world view. That is somewhat hopeful.

They are probably more logical, rational and morally sound than the leaders of the West (they launched a campaign that has killed over a million people so far over oil ). A nuclear attack would end your cause as everyone in the world would be part of the quest to seek out and destroy the group that did it (unless it was the US again).

I agree with their anti western stance but many of the things they propagate at completely at odds with me.

[Jon the Hat]

Back on topic, anyone think Clegg can actually keep this popularity up? I think once the public hear some of his policies they will drop him like a hot potato. this week will be the pek of his political career. Unless of course it turns out that Mr Clegg is a hypocrite, and will forgo the change he is flogging and form a coalition with the incumbents...

[Benji]

Back on topic, anyone think Clegg can actually keep this popularity up? I think once the public hear some of his policies they will drop him like a hot potato. this week will be the pek of his political career. Unless of course it turns out the My Clegg is a hypocrite, and will forgo the change he is flogging and form a coalition with the incumbents...

Personally i'd be worried if he came into power without experience first as an opposition party. Maybe one day, but I hope his policies are actually attacked this week because last week was one big facade where there was absolutely no substance just a "im not the other two" argument.

[sw_fox]

Back on topic, anyone think Clegg can actually keep this popularity up? I think once the public hear some of his policies they will drop him like a hot potato. this week will be the pek of his political career. Unless of course it turns out the My Clegg is a hypocrite, and will forgo the change he is flogging and form a coalition with the incumbents...

It will be useful for the Lib Dems if they come to government to form a formal coalition, or informally prop up one of the other parties. This is because they would not have a clear mandate, and although they may be able to twist arms and deliver some of the legislation they propose, they can always claim that they were blocked by one of the other parties. Therefore there is a huge get out clause for them, and will not leave them looking hypocritical.

And to be honest, I don't think there are many policies that people will be really worried about. All parties have policies that are unpopular, it just depends in what way people are voting, whether indeed they are voting on issues, and what issues the public see as the most important. At the moment I would guess that they probably have the lead on the biggest issue- the economy- by having the soundest economics spokesman in Vince Cable, and the fact that their budget is fully costed and spells out the budget cuts that need to be made.

[breadandcheese]

They are probably more logical, rational and morally sound than the leaders of the West (they launched a campaign that has killed over a million people so far over oil ). A nuclear attack would end your cause as everyone in the world would be part of the quest to seek out and destroy the group that did it (unless it was the US again).

I agree with their anti western stance but many of the things they propagate at completely at odds with me.

You always know you can discount any point that begins with "They are probably more logical, rational and morally sound than the leaders of the West" when discussing dictatorships and despots.

The whole point with nuclear weapons is that they are the ultimate insurance. We do not know what the geopolitical world will look like in 20 years. If you had told someone in in 1980 that communism would have been defeated in 1989, they would not have believed it. Now there are more nations than ever looking at acquiring nuclear weapons, all of which are unstable or ruled by dictators. As nice as it would be to believe that nations like Iran and North Korea will give up their weapons if we do, it is also extremely naive.

[marbelladave]

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.

That assumes that an enemy exists that has the capability of launching a first strike against the UK without involving the USA or Nato, the only situation that our nuclear deterrent is under independent UK control. Though such a situation could be imagined, it is in reality virtually impossible.

The cruise missile system is not a deterrent against a first strike by a major nuclear power (and I never for one moment suggested that it was) but it a flexible response system that can be used in isolation or in support of conventional forces as an essentially tactical response to an attack on the UK by a terrorist or other 'rogue' organisation or state.

The fact that Trident is being given this limited strike capability, a single warhead with a sub 10kiloton yield, is an admission that the Terrorist / Rogue State scenario is more likely than a first strike from a major power. Using Trident as a Tactical system is hopelessly inefficient and expensive when far simpler (and cheaper) weapon systems could be used.

That the UK does not currently deploy such systems is a political decision largely based on the Governments mistrust of the military to deploy and control nuclear weapons systems alongside conventional forces. The concentration of Nuclear weapons in a single system (Trident) has the advantage of keeping all the UK's nuclear weapons under political control.

[breadandcheese]

That assumes that an enemy exists that has the capability of launching a first strike against the UK without involving the USA or Nato, the only situation that our nuclear deterrent is under independent UK control. Though such a situation could be imagined, it is in reality virtually impossible.

What about if a rogue state fired a nuclear missile against one of our allies? Whilst Iran or North Korea couldn't hit us directly, what if North Korea fired a nuclear missile onto Seoul, or Iran fired one into Saudi Arabia?

[marbelladave]

You always know you can discount any point that begins with "They are probably more logical, rational and morally sound than the leaders of the West" when discussing dictatorships and despots.

The whole point with nuclear weapons is that they are the ultimate insurance. We do not know what the geopolitical world will look like in 20 years. If you had told someone in in 1980 that communism would have been defeated in 1989, they would not have believed it. Now there are more nations than ever looking at acquiring nuclear weapons, all of which are unstable or ruled by dictators. As nice as it would be to believe that nations like Iran and North Korea will give up their weapons if we do, it is also extremely naive.

Whilst this is mostly true, it is whether the kind of threat that that we may face will be deterred in the first place and whether a massive retaliatory strike of the kind Trident is designed to deliver is an appropriate response that are the real questions.

That Trident is being equipped to perform an essentially tactical function makes it a very expensive 'sledgehammer' deployed to crack a very modest nut.

[marbelladave]

What about if a rogue state fired a nuclear missile against one of our allies? Whilst Iran or North Korea couldn't hit us directly, what if North Korea fired a nuclear missile onto Seoul, or Iran fired one into Saudi Arabia?

The obvious answer is that the US would respond in these or any other even remotely possible scenarios, but just for a moment let us assume that they do not and leave the response up to the UK.

Would a full scale Trident missile strike be the appropriate response in this situation? It is more likely that even if a nuclear response is desirable a more measured response can be delivered by a non-strategic system.

[FoxyPV]

Back on topic, anyone think Clegg can actually keep this popularity up? I think once the public hear some of his policies they will drop him like a hot potato. this week will be the pek of his political career. Unless of course it turns out that Mr Clegg is a hypocrite, and will forgo the change he is flogging and form a coalition with the incumbents...

I think there is a possibility that Clegg may have shunted the LibDems further into the limelight and that alongside Cable the electorate will see them as a real alternative to the Tories/ Labour. Clegg is a career politician so he does have parliamentary experience and if the LibDems manifesto can be packaged in a couple of snappy soundbites then I think we'll finally have a three horse race.

ICM poll today said that Labour would somehow come out with the most seats even with their drop in points

You always know you can discount any point that begins with "They are probably more logical, rational and morally sound than the leaders of the West" when discussing dictatorships and despots.

The whole point with nuclear weapons is that they are the ultimate insurance. We do not know what the geopolitical world will look like in 20 years. If you had told someone in in 1980 that communism would have been defeated in 1989, they would not have believed it. Now there are more nations than ever looking at acquiring nuclear weapons, all of which are unstable or ruled by dictators. As nice as it would be to believe that nations like Iran and North Korea will give up their weapons if we do, it is also extremely naive.

It's all about perspective so just because their cause/ behaviour is seen as irrational (generally by biased western thought) doesn't mean that the thought processes that go into them are not rational nor logical.

Take the blinkers off.

[breadandcheese]

It's all about perspective so just because their cause/ behaviour is seen as irrational (generally by biased western thought) doesn't mean that the thought processes that go into them are not rational nor logical.

Take the blinkers off.

I'm sorry but you cannot call any moral equivalence between any Western government and say Kim Jong-il, a man who has presided over a million deaths through famine in his own country because he preferred to look after himself rather than his people. The same goes for Ahmadinejad, a man whose election victory was contested and chose to use violence as a means to put down protests so he could stay in power.

[FoxyPV]

I'm sorry but you cannot call any moral equivalence between any Western government and say Kim Jong-il, a man who has presided over a million deaths through famine in his own country because he preferred to look after himself rather than his people. The same goes for Ahmadinejad, a man whose election victory was contested and chose to use violence as a means to put down protests so he could stay in power.

Our sly bastards transport their lack of morality - Iraq and Afghanistan over one million dead because the US wanted more oil and the UK gladly followed. They made up LIES to sell the war to the rest of parliament and because of this interferrence 7/7 bombings and other attempted attacks.

Does Rendition ring any bells? UK explicit in helping torture detainees but as a society we'll brush over it as they are bad guys.

Guantanamo bay- detention without trial - no everyone is entitled to a fair trial in front of a jury except when we don't want it. Why not bring back internment? It worked so well in 70s and 80's in Northern Ireland - the single biggest recruiter for the PIRA was internment and the British govt.

This is just in recent years - what about western colonialism? The whole reason the middle east is a fvcking mess is because of the West, same for Africa and Latin America. These were done under the guise of helping the natives - fvck that went well.

The control of the population in the West is a lot more insidious - give everyone some SKY tv, cheap booze and perpetuate the notion that they are happy as long as they consume and the state can do whatever the fvck it likes.

The West makes all the right noises but they are just a bunch of hypocrites.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

wow talk of nuclear holocaust

despite his athiest claims Is Nick Clegg god?

His emergence has really shaken up the Tories. Cameron needs to shine in the coming debate - politics is football in that respect (and we should know...), once you've lost a few games its hard to break the cycle. Camerons claim that Lib Dem votes are just votes for Labour is essentially true...I'd be interested to see what swing they'd have to get to achieve power? Anyone know? Or want to work it out?

Whats pleasing is that Cleggs emergence really has made people finally see Cameron and his crew for what they are - not much

[FoxyPV]

wow talk of nuclear holocaust

despite his athiest claims Is Nick Clegg god?

His emergence has really shaken up the Tories. Cameron needs to shine in the coming debate - politics is football in that respect (and we should know...), once you've lost a few games its hard to break the cycle. Camerons claim that Lib Dem votes are just votes for Labour is essentially true...I'd be interested to see what swing they'd have to get to achieve power? Anyone know? Or want to work it out?

Whats pleasing is that Cleggs emergence really has made people finally see Cameron and his crew for what they are - not much

Cameron's whole appeal of late seems to be centred around his freshness but Clegg has well and truly blown him out the water. A LibDem govt would be a bit of a laugh - I think they'd shit themselves.

With the LibDems growing as a viable force, there is a possibility that a LibLab pact could keep the Tories out of govt for a long time.

[Webbo]

Whats pleasing is that Cleggs emergence really has made people finally see Cameron and his crew for what they are - not much

The Liberals have pushed Labour into 3rd, what have people seen of Brown and his crew?

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

Very true - I can see a Lib/Lab pact. However if the polls are to be believed Labour will still come out with a majority.

The Tories are panicking - this debate on Thurs is crucial, who'd have thought a reaction on this scale was possible. Do you think Cleggs emergence is a good thing?

[sw_fox]

You always know you can discount any point that begins with "They are probably more logical, rational and morally sound than the leaders of the West" when discussing dictatorships and despots.

The whole point with nuclear weapons is that they are the ultimate insurance. We do not know what the geopolitical world will look like in 20 years. If you had told someone in in 1980 that communism would have been defeated in 1989, they would not have believed it. Now there are more nations than ever looking at acquiring nuclear weapons, all of which are unstable or ruled by dictators. As nice as it would be to believe that nations like Iran and North Korea will give up their weapons if we do, it is also extremely naive.

You are confusing morality with rationality. If you think about it, it is perfectly rational to, if you are sure you are going to be defeated in an election, rig it and hold on to your power through violence. Dosn't make it right, but its a whole lot more rational than giving up your power after just 5 years because a majority of people put an X in a box next to a different person's name.

Similarly, there is a school of International Relations thought that applies the Rational Actor Model, in which states go into every situation as potential maximisers (ie to gain as much as they can) from each situation, because in the international system 'life is nasty, brutish and short'. The international system is, in their view, one of anarchy, there is no government to stop one state picking on another. So in these circumstances you can see why it is both completely rational for North Korea and Iran to want the bomb.

Iran wants it because it most likely has the whole Israeli nuclear arsenal aimed at it right now, and wants a deterrent to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction. The fact the West and the Israelis are constantly talking of attacking them does not help too in this situation.

North Korea has, since the 1990s and the end of the cold war, used its Nuclear program as a bargaining tool to wring more concessions out of the West. First it assured imports of crude oil to keep the lights on in Pyongyang. Now it is using it to import food for its people, and its missile program brings it much needed hard currency. Simple as that, potential maximising behaviour. Furthermore Pyogyang does not even need a nuclear deterrent- it is supported by China, and has enough of a deterrent by having hundreds of heavy artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and various US bases around S. Korea, and a huge, well equipped conventional army. It knows invading it has never been an option since the Korean War in 1953, and the language between the West and it has always been a language of peace, and negotiation, not threats.

[Jon the Hat]

if the LibDems manifesto can be packaged in a couple of snappy soundbites then I think we'll finally have a three horse race.

I can do that for you:

We are not like the old parties! (We have no idea how to turn our rhetoric into policy)

Ban Nuclear Power! And Coal! (Go to bed when the sun goes down!)

Tax cuts for everyone! (No child tax credits!, no child trust funds!, 50% captial gains tax! Mansion Tax! More tax!!!)

Electoral Reform! (Lets submit ourselves to never ending coalition Governments! We like this becuase we are completely pointless otherwise!! Perhaps we should ask the Germans what they think or their system first.)

Soft on crime! (No short sentences, fewer people in prison, more shit caring about the criminals more than the victims!

Votes for Criminals! (more for US!!!)

Open Doors on Immigration! (No Caps!!!)

More power to the EU!!

Join the EURO!!

In reality we have one choice at this election. Vote Tory and get a new Government. Vote Labour or Lib Dem and get a Lib/Lab coalition with Harriet Harman or Alan Johnson as PM, Vince Cable as Chancellor, and another 4 years of pandering to criminals, no plans to sort out of power generation problems, failure to to sort out the deficit, more immigration, and the slowly dawning realisation that it wasn't just Gordon but the whole Labour party who where dragging the country down.

[breadandcheese]

Opinion presented as fact, the West is bad, etc.

I will provide rebuttals to your points, but as this is not the thread for it, I won't post any more on this topic. So my rebuttal.

You cannot equate the afghanistan and iraq wars. That is disingenuous. Afghanistan is a just war and legal under international law. The iraq war is not. I do still believe that in 20 years time, Iraq will be the largest and most successful Arab country, but that is academic.

Guantanamo Bay is a grey area precisely because the justice system is not sure how to handle the prisoners. I believe Obama wanted to shut Guantanamo and found that actually, he couldn't, because of the difficulty. A massive proportion of inmates released have gone on to commit acts of terror back in the Middle East. So we are now left with a situation of the lesser of two evils. Add to that the difficulty of trying people in civilian courts when they are basically prisoners of war.

Western colonialism is not a cut and shut debate. It has left terrible scars, but it has also sowed seeds and left lasting impressions that have been positive. For every negative the British colonialist past wrought, you can speak of a positive. This is not to hide the negatives, as they were long, but you cannot ignore the positives. Liberal democracy, legal systems, systems of education, abolition of slavery, all of these can be seen in quite a number of former colonies. In the same way that the Roman invasion of Britain was probably a right b*stard at the time, it had a lastin influence and brought us technological advancement, road building methods (the Fosse Way, Watling Street are still in use today), borders (Hadrian's wall), new systems of governence, aquaducts, etc. So colonialism is never a cut and shut debate although it is presented as such. I'm not advocating a return to colonialism, I'm just saying that the common belief that colonialism was a systematic r*pe of other countries is not strictly correct.

The West serves its own interests, but my point still stands that a liberal democracy is more moral, and has more of a moral standing than any dictator or despot, who will not allow his own people to choose their own leadership or give freedoms that many of us consider as a human right.

[Benji]

I can do that for you:

We are not like the old parties! (We have no idea how to turn our rhetoric into policy)

Ban Nuclear Power! And Coal! (Go to bed when the sun goes down!)

Tax cuts for everyone! (No child tax credits!, no child trust funds!, 50% captial gains tax! Mansion Tax! More tax!!!)

Electoral Reform! (Lets submit ourselves to never ending coalition Governments! We like this becuase we are completely pointless otherwise!! Perhaps we should ask the Germans what they think or their system first.)

Soft on crime! (No short sentences, fewer people in prison, more shit caring about the criminals more than the victims!

Votes for Criminals! (more for US!!!)

Open Doors on Immigration! (No Caps!!!)

More power to the EU!!

Join the EURO!!

In reality we have one choice at this election. Vote Tory and get a new Government. Vote Labour or Lib Dem and get a Lib/Lab coalition with Harriet Harman or Alan Johnson as PM, Vince Cable as Chancellor, and another 4 years of pandering to criminals, no plans to sort out of power generation problems, failure to to sort out the deficit, more immigration, and the slowly dawning realisation that it wasn't just Gordon but the whole Labour party who where dragging the country down.

Jon, do you think Kenneth Clarke should take over from George Osborne?

I think George just comes across as too inexperienced and weak and I imagine his out of the limelight tactic isn't helping to sway the voters when the lib dems have someone like vince cable talking at least a small amount of sense. Every time I listen to Ken he strikes me as someone that would get in, do the job and do it well and with common sense.

[Jon the Hat]

Jon' date=' do you think Kenneth Clarke should take over from George Osborne?

I think George just comes across as too inexperienced and weak and I imagine his out of the limelight tactic isn't helping to sway the voters when the lib dems have someone like vince cable talking at least a small amount of sense. Every time I listen to Ken he strikes me as someone that would get in, do the job and do it well and with common sense.[/quote']

Yes I do. The problem is Osbourne and Cameron are very close, and Ken is seen as a risk as he is Pro Europe. then again if voters are going to ignore the fact that the Lib Dems are pro Europe that may not matter.

[FoxyPV]

I can do that for you:

We are not like the old parties! (We have no idea how to turn our rhetoric into policy)

Ban Nuclear Power! And Coal! (Go to bed when the sun goes down!)

Tax cuts for everyone! (No child tax credits!, no child trust funds!, 50% captial gains tax! Mansion Tax! More tax!!!)

Electoral Reform! (Lets submit ourselves to never ending coalition Governments! We like this becuase we are completely pointless otherwise!! Perhaps we should ask the Germans what they think or their system first.)

Soft on crime! (No short sentences, fewer people in prison, more shit caring about the criminals more than the victims!

Votes for Criminals! (more for US!!!)

Open Doors on Immigration! (No Caps!!!)

More power to the EU!!

Join the EURO!!

In reality we have one choice at this election. Vote Tory and get a new Government. Vote Labour or Lib Dem and get a Lib/Lab coalition with Harriet Harman or Alan Johnson as PM, Vince Cable as Chancellor, and another 4 years of pandering to criminals, no plans to sort out of power generation problems, failure to to sort out the deficit, more immigration, and the slowly dawning realisation that it wasn't just Gordon but the whole Labour party who where dragging the country down.

Disagee but lol

I will provide rebuttals to your points, but as this is not the thread for it, I won't post any more on this topic. So my rebuttal.

You cannot equate the afghanistan and iraq wars. That is disingenuous. Afghanistan is a just war and legal under international law. The iraq war is not. I do still believe that in 20 years time, Iraq will be the largest and most successful Arab country, but that is academic.

Guantanamo Bay is a grey area precisely because the justice system is not sure how to handle the prisoners. I believe Obama wanted to shut Guantanamo and found that actually, he couldn't, because of the difficulty. A massive proportion of inmates released have gone on to commit acts of terror back in the Middle East. So we are now left with a situation of the lesser of two evils. Add to that the difficulty of trying people in civilian courts when they are basically prisoners of war.

Western colonialism is not a cut and shut debate. It has left terrible scars, but it has also sowed seeds and left lasting impressions that have been positive. For every negative the British colonialist past wrought, you can speak of a positive. This is not to hide the negatives, as they were long, but you cannot ignore the positives. Liberal democracy, legal systems, systems of education, abolition of slavery, all of these can be seen in quite a number of former colonies. In the same way that the Roman invasion of Britain was probably a right b*stard at the time, it had a lastin influence and brought us technological advancement, road building methods (the Fosse Way, Watling Street are still in use today), borders (Hadrian's wall), new systems of governence, aquaducts, etc. So colonialism is never a cut and shut debate although it is presented as such. I'm not advocating a return to colonialism, I'm just saying that the common belief that colonialism was a systematic r*pe of other countries is not strictly correct.

The West serves its own interests, but my point still stands that a liberal democracy is more moral, and has more of a moral standing than any dictator or despot, who will not allow his own people to choose their own leadership or give freedoms that many of us consider as a human right.

Just once more for kicks - I wholeheartedly disagree