2015 General Election

They are not a waste. The whole point is that the others who have them dont use them because they would lose too. You really think the Russians would give them up? And you think they wouldnt then what happens when they decide to invade some more countries and we say 'we will come with our couple of tanks.' They will fly a wing of fully loaded nuclear bombers over norfolk knowing we wouldnt risk a war because we would get a pasting.

Azriel - it is a complacent view to think that if we get rid of them, everything will be ok.... see my comments above. I can't believe with the amount of history of war that we have to look back on that people would even contemplate it. It is human nature for the strong to take advantage of the weak.... if that dont work kill them all.

They will fly a wing of fully loaded nuclear bombers over norfolk knowing we wouldn't risk a war because we would get a pasting.- Lance

No because the aim is two fold- 1 to not need to have dangerous nukes lying about the place at great expense, and 2 top reduce the number of countries and nuclear weapons in the world. It might not change anything, but it doesn't stop it being the moral thing to do.

The safety net is the aim is not to disarm as a nuclear retaliatory state, not at this point in history,but to reduce the total amount of nukes in the world and the cost and get out the way of fire more.
We just need to belong to a club that can provide much greater fire power to add to ours if the Russians do threaten. And who have nuclear capabilities.
Fortunately we are already in one. For NATO to be effected it doesn't need everyone to have nukes, the organsiation just needs to have nukes. And Scotland has done is fair share of hosting them. Its someone elses turn.

the whole concept of having nuclear weapons on this tiny planet is absurd and humanity sucks. maybe it would be better if we just blew ourselves up to smithereens let the planet heal itself and then let her get on without us. we are shit.

I'm in favor of Trident, of easy immigration, of the welfare state, of a federal UK, and increased regulations on the financial sector.

I'm against interventionist foreign policy and knee-jerk tax cutting, and I'm skeptical of the EU.

I follow UK politics a bit but I dunno if any of the parties tick all those boxes.  {{{Particularly since I'm also in favor of a United Ireland. }}}

Going into coalition with the Tories was probably the dumbest thing Clegg could have done in 2010, but I do wish that he'd succeeded on the alternative vote idea. Proportional representation would be even better, and the UK is already halfway there, since there's no residency requirements for candidates and the parties seem to shuffle their people around to various constituencies with basically no restrictions.

I'm in favor of...

I'm curious to see if we'll still hear about the "big three" parties after this election if the SNP does indeed win roughly twice the number of seats as the Lib Dems, as tracking suggests they will.  I wonder if the Lib Dems can survive a blow like that.  It's gotta sting to be tracking so low, since at this point in the campaign last year it seemed plausible for them to win 100+ seats and permanently disrupt the two-party system that had been dominant for most of the 20th century.  Then again, the comparatively underwhelming results for the Lib Dems in 2010 should be a warning against counting ones ballots before they're cast.

http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/

Petty - good luck with that. Why not get rid of the military completely since we are just worried about the moral high ground?

Also, I am not sure the stance of 'we want to be protected by nukes... just someone elses' is really fair. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Let someone else take the expense of protecting me so I can live a better lifestyle than them.

Eldo - in my opinion, the problem with the EU is that it is a half arsed attempt at a union. Everyone is so precious about 'their' land that at this point a European federal state along the U.S. lines just wouldnt happen but it is probably exactly what needs to happen to make it work properly. Right now, when push comes to shove countries in the E.U. will look after their own... of they dont they get voted out.

I pretty much agree with you on both of those points, Lance.  Re: nukes, they're an important component of a strong modern military.  One shouldn't neglect conventional forces in favor of nukes (particularly since the conventional forces are the ones that are going to have to be used at some point), but if I was in the UK I wouldn't want to go without either.  You can't place all your bets on NATO being around forever, and military protection is the first responsibility of the state.

As for the EU, I think you're right about it being half-assed.  I don't think a fully federal EU is now or ever has been a plausible scenario.  Nationalism is still too potent a force, and frankly considering the mistreatment of national minorities in existing countries, I wouldn't necessarily trust an even larger and more powerful one.  But at the same time, having a currency union without a full union of fiscal policy hasn't really worked out that great.  I do think stuff like Schengen is pretty cool, but I'm also sympathetic to the argument that the EU is not democratic or responsive enough.  I used to be really psyched about the whole idea but the more I've learned about it the more I think it overreached.

I am voting for these guys. They most nearly echo my concerns and beliefs.

– We recognise and value an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background.

– Official documents will be published in English and, where appropriate Welsh and Scots Gaelic.

– We will ensure that the law is rigorously enforced in relation to ‘cultural’ practices which are illegal in Britain, such as forced marriages, FGM and so-called ‘honour killings’


– We oppose the bedroom tax because it operates unfairly, penalising those who are unable to find alternative accommodation and taking insufficient account of the needs of families and the disabled.

– Child benefit is only to be paid to children permanently resident in the UK and future child benefit to be limited to the first two children only.  

– We will ensure there is an initial presumption of 50/50 shared parenting in child custody matters and grandparents will be given visitation rights.


- We would review all legislation and regulations from the EU (3,600 new laws since 2010) and remove those which hamper British prosperity and competitiveness.

– We would negotiate a bespoke trade agreement with the EU to enable our businesses to continue trading to mutual advantage.

– We will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).

– Inheritance tax will be abolished.

– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.

– We will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover

– Subject to academic performance we will remove tuition fees for students taking approved degrees in science, medicine, technology, engineering, maths on the condition that they live, work and pay tax in the UK for five years after the completion of their degrees.

- we supports the principle of Free Schools that are open to the whole community and uphold British values.

– Schools will be investigated by OFSTED on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors.

– We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.

– We will guarantee those who have served in the Armed Forces for a minimum of 12 years a job in the police force, prison service or border force

– We will change the points system for social housing to give priority to ex-service men and women and those returning from active service.

– A Veterans Department will bring together all veterans services to ensure servicemen and women get the after-service care they deserve.

– Veterans are to receive a Veterans’ Service Card to ensure they are fast tracked for mental health care and services, if needed.

– All entitlements will be extended to servicemen recruited from overseas.

– We will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents.

– We will stop further use of PFI in the NHS and encourage local authorities to buy out their PFI contracts early where this is affordable.

– We will ensure that GPs’ surgeries are open at least one evening per week, where there is demand for it.

– We oppose plans to charge patients for visiting their GP.

–We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK, saving the NHS £2bn pa. we will commit to spending £200m of the £2bn saving to end hospital car parking charges in England.

– We will replace Monitor and the Care Quality Commission with elected county health boards to be more responsive scrutineers of local health services. These will be able to inspect health services and take evidence from whistle-blowers.

– We oppose the sale of NHS data to third parties.

– We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession.

– We will amend working time rules to give trainee doctors, surgeons and medics the proper environment to train and practise.

– There will be a duty on all health service staff to report low standards of care

– We recognises the benefits of limited, controlled immigration.

– We will leave the EU, and take back control of our borders. Work permits will be permitted to fill skills gaps in the UK jobs market.

– We will extend to EU citizens the existing points-based system for time-limited work permits. Those coming to work in the UK must have a job to go to, must speak English, must have accommodation agreed prior to their arrival, and must have NHS-approved health insurance.

– Migrants will only be eligible for benefits (in work or out of work)  when they have been paying tax and NI for five years and will only be eligible for permanent residence after ten years.

– We will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spouses and children to the UK.  

– We will not offer an amnesty for illegal immigrants or those gaining British passports through fraud.

– We will return to the principles of the UN Convention of Refugees which serves to protect the most vulnerable.

– By leaving the EU, the UK will leave the Common Agricultural Policy.  Outside the EU UKIP will institute a British Single Farm Payment for farms.  

– We will let the British parliament vote on GM foods.

– We will leave the Common Fisheries Policy and reinstate British territorial waters.

– Foreign trawlers would have to apply for and purchase fishing permits to fish British waters when fish stocks have returned to sustainable levels.

– Food must be labelled to include the country of origin, method of production, method of slaughter, hormones and any genetic additives.

– We will abolish the export of live animals for slaughter

– We will protect the Green Belt.

– Planning rules in the NPPF will be changed to make it easier to build on brownfield sites instead of greenfield sites.  Central government is to list the nationally available brownfield sites for development and issue low-interest bonds to enable decontamination.

– Houses on brownfield sites will be exempt from Stamp Duty on first sale and VAT relaxed for redevelopment of brownfield sites.

– Planning Permission for large-scale developments can be overturned by a referendum triggered by the signatures of 5% of the District or Borough electors collected within three months.

– We believe that full sentences should be served and this should be taken into account when criminals are convicted and sentenced in court. Parole should be available for good behaviour on a case-by-case basis, not systematically.

– We will repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new British Bill of Rights. The interests of law-abiding citizens & victims will always take precedence over those of criminals.

It all sounds well & good, there's a lot I agree with there but, ( suspicious old bag that I am ) how are these changes going to come to fruition ? Thats what bothers me & is often the unpleasant punch line once these people get in.

Mrs Figg wrote:I am voting for these guys. They most nearly echo my concerns and beliefs.

– We recognise and value an overarching...

UKIP?

I agree with a fair amount of their policies, but alot of it just seems a little too...bold, UKIP have never held any real power, and come across as more of a right wing protest party than a serious threat to the big three i.m.o, I'm not convinced they would know what to do if they got a large number elected.

Nigel Farage himself says they are only aiming to get a few elected MP's this year, 2020 being their real goal...

thing is, reading these policies I haven't actually seen any evidence of the right wing. or racism for that matter. if they stick to these policies and don't waver from them, they seem pretty sensible to me. I doubt they will threaten the big 3, but the thought of smarmy Clegg bricking it, makes it worth it.

Wouldnt mind hearing that Cameron's been up all night with gastric farts & several dashes to the loo either

Bravo Mrs Figg!
I'm a big fan of protest voting. It permits you to vote freely for a policy or set of policies you think are important, without any fear that it will actually pass (in which case it would inevitably get f***ed up by political process and become something very different than what's written. )

Except in a very close race, your vote counts more when cast for a minority party, because whoever wins will tend to take the good will of the people who voted for them for granted and dismiss the opinions of the people who voted for their chief opponent.

But every political strategist wants to win more of the unaligned independent voters, and so they look very closely indeed at those numbers when they're trying to figure out how dissatisfied the People are.

Of course the down side is that I often find I'm voting with some rather eccentric people for some rather eccentric candidates, but that's really only a theoretical issue, as they have a snowball's chance in Amon Amarth of winning.
(If they ever did, it could be scary...

I have no doubt that UKIP have a snowballs chance in the Balrogs underpants of getting power, but it does make me laugh whe people get on the high horse over them. When you think of the horrific abuse of kids that went on for decades by so called respectable political parties. That means labour and the Conservatives and no one scoffs at voting for them. Obviously a party claiming to want to control immigration is going to attract nutters, but only because the big 3 have ignored peoples concerns for 20 years and had to watch the creeping plague of politically correct pussy footing around, hence grooming gangs etc etc

Regarding Trident.

I dont think it is an effective use of money.

Take a look at recent history- where has having nuclear weapons been a deciding factor in recent times? Did they stop the rise of Al Queada? Did it stop ISIS? Genocide in Rwanda? Did it stop Israel getting nukes? Did it stop North Korea getting nukes? Any war atrocity of recent memory in fact, and any current enemy- the effect of having nukes has had on these events is zero. Who is it deterring?

All the problems in the Middle -east- Trident is no good at all- what you need there is strong conventional forces- but our expenditure on those has been cut and cut to play for nukes- to the point that UK forces in Iraq earned the nickname "The Borrowers" they were so under-provided with basic equipment.
And we don't have a Navy worth the name any more.

So we are poorly placed to deal with the sort of wars we do have to face, whilst spending a fortune on a weapon that we cant use for a war we cant win if it does happen.

As if it did come to using it its no good, for every missile we have pointed at Russia it has at least 20 pointing back. So as a bluff its hopeless. Using it is suicide. And if we are struck first it makes no odds if we have it or not, we still lose.

Lastly nothing has changed on these arguments since Polaris. Russia will not invade western Europe, it will annex it bit by bit, just as it has done recently in Ukraine- no one is going to press the button over that- so as a means of deterring Russian aggression its useless. Sanctions have provided a more effective means of dealing with rogue states than nukes every have.

Granted this is played for humour- but nothing is different about the basic argument, replace 'west Germany' with Ukraine its the same thing-



So what is Trident for?

Another debate tonight. No Cameron and no Clegg but everyone else is there.
Miliband v UKIP and Miliband V SNP should be interesting though- its on at 8pm GMT.

Of course it doesnt deter everyone all the time in all circumstances, nothing does. But did it stop an invasion of west europe/the U.S during the cold war... probably. Also probably stopped it happening the other way round.

I am all in favour of making sure our conventional forces are up to scratch too but the overall force should be balanced and that includes nukes.

You keep saying 'nobody will ever use them so what's the point'.... that is the point. Nobody will use them because other people have them. If the West were to truly disarm completely I bet we would be in another world war within 15-20 years. Conventional forces wouldnt matter as most would probably be destroyed within the first weeks of a conflict.... probably by the nukes everyone else has.

Again... why do people never learn from history? They only say 'here is what has happened over the last few weeks so this is how we should plan our entire future.'

Really?

We are fighting a war thats over with nukes. They have no strategic value on the modern battlefield.
As you say their only possible use is we have them so oyu cant use yours. Thats fair enough, I have never argued for NATO disarming in the present climate or becoming non-nuclear.
I am arguing against the UK renewing Trident however. Its just a waste of money which we cannot afford.
Why are we arming up with nukes? NATO has plenty of members who take a turn hosting US nukes as part of being in the club but who do not spend a huge swathe of their national budget buying their own nukes. Why does Britain need to have its own at huge expense?
And I dont want them on my doorstep either for that matter. They have been here half a century- time for someone else to have a go.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: They have been here half a century- time for someone else to have a go.

Well, I live less than 15 miles from Portsmouth, so you wouldn't be the only victim of a 'first strike'

I can sorta see where the others are coming from, it's reassuring to have a deterrent with Iran, North Korea etc being so unpredictable, on the other hand It's a hell of a lota of money in running and replacement costs, our defense budget has already been slashed enough so it would probably be money better spend on equipment or soldiers that actively protect us, after all we are in an alliance in NATO, other countries could shield the burden.

The UK isn't a massive world power anymore.

The UK isn't a massive world power anymore.- Malick

Exactly- but we are spending money like we are still a world player with an Empire just to stay sitting at the Big Boys Table. And its bankrupting us at a time when services and our other defence forces are being brutally slashed.
And I for one don't think spending 100 billion on being reassured is a good way to spend tax payer money.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The UK isn't a massive world power anymore.- Malick

Exactly- but we are spending money like we are still a world player with an Empire just to stay sitting at the Big Boys Table. And its bankrupting us at a time when services and our other defence forces are being brutally slashed.
And I for one don't think spending 100 billion on being reassured is a good way to spend tax payer money.

It reminds me of that 'special relationship' you read about, we need America and NATO much more than they need us, it almost seems given our prior history the government feels compelled into buying into the 'Big Boys Table' to keep the status quo...though they seem quite ok with the idea of doing it on the cheap.

I think it massages the ego of politicians- makes them feel important- problem is their importance comes at the expense of the tax payer. And we cant go on chucking away the sort of money we currently do trying to keep up with genuine superpowers.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: And we cant go on chucking away the sort of money we currently do trying to keep up with genuine superpowers.

Neither should we, and we're a so-called superpower.

In the 70's the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties, SALT I and II, worked out a diplomatic template for ramping down the stockpiling of weapons that nobody ever wants to use. I think the hope was that the process would continue, but several perfect opportunities have been missed since then, like the breakup of the Soviet Union for example.

I wish we'd take another look at that model....