[Closed] Election Campaign

I was just making a point, London and SE transfer £34bn on taxes to the rest of the country every year, that pays for a lot of stuff.

wanmankylung - Member

Prove it.

After 4 and half years working in national politics I know there are some very smart cookies in most of the parties.

After 4 and half years working in national politics I know there are some very smart cookies in most of the parties.

I feel that your definition of smart and mine are probably polar opposite. Spinning shite is not smart.

In the end a lot of people now think that the MAD policy actually worked

You mean it didn't? (Checks out of window to see scene of devastation)

wanmankylung - Member

I feel that your definition of smart and mine are probably polar opposite. Spinning shite is not smart

Maybe...

However the case remains if Labour get enough MPs where the numbers add up then the SNP are going to get bounced into a very difficult position. Labour's first shot will be to lay down a Queen's speech and if the SNP don't vote for it then it will be defeated and bring down the potential Lab government.

You seem to be forgetting that when it comes to political nouse the SNP are miles ahead of anything Westminster currently has to offer.

You seem to be forgetting that what we see on the news is NOTHING AT ALL to do with what actually happens in politics or government.

You lot are all arguing over nothing. You might as well discuss East Enders vs Corrie. It's worthless.

You lot are all arguing over nothing. You might as well discuss East Enders vs Corrie. It's worthless.

Are you new here? 😀

It's worthless.

Some have said the same about your Passat or your overtaking skills....

However the case remains if Labour get enough MPs where the numbers add up then the SNP are going to get bounced into a very difficult position. Labour's first shot will be to lay down a Queen's speech and if the SNP don't vote for it then it will be defeated and bring down the potential Lab government.

Hmmm - surely that's more of a problem for Labour, as they'd be the ones letting the Tories back into power.

Labour are seeing Eds personal opinion rating increase, they are running a coherent issues based campaign and thrashing the opposition in the ground war which might be crucial in those key Tory/Lab marginals.

No problem with any of that*. However, most people's only information about the campaign comes from picking up a newspaper or turning on the tv news. There's not much labour can do about the tory press, but Cameron seems to be getting much more exposure on the telly. Maybe tonight's QT will redress the balance somewhat?

*not had any labour people round my way in Calder Valley (no. 92 on the marginal list so quite low down I guess)

fr0sty125 - Member

Labour's first shot will be to lay down a Queen's speech and if the SNP don't vote for it then it will be defeated and bring down the potential Lab government.

People keep saying that- but the queen's speech is not the whole of a parliament. They could vote for a queen's speech then vote against every other thing the government ever wants to do. Or, more pragmatically, say "We can't vote in favour of X as it stands but here's the compromise that gets us on side"

ninfan - Member

You mean it didn't? (Checks out of window to see scene of devastation)

Well it is hard to prove that MAD worked, the idea behind it being that if those with WMDs knew that if they used them that they themselves would be completely wiped out would be enough of a deterrent that no one would use them.

In a perfect world the fact that these weapons are totally immoral would be enough to not use them but, we already did use them.

MAD plays on self preservation which is a very strong human instinct. By firing a nuke you would be in effect committing suicide for you and all you care about.

As an aside - would the SNP winning every seat in Scotland be the substantive change that would lead to the SNP pursuing another referendum?

Northwind - Member

People keep saying that- but the queen's speech is not the whole of a parliament. They could vote for a queen's speech then vote against every other thing the government ever wants to do. Or, more pragmatically, say "We can't vote in favour of X as it stands but here's the compromise that gets us on side"

Still wouldn't be a problem, SNP would have to continually support the Lab government or bring it down. As soon as they bring it down Lab can get its seats back.

In the end a lot of people now think that the MAD policy actually worked
You mean it didn't? (Checks out of window to see scene of devastation)

Depends on your definition of "worked" - we didn't have a global thermonuclear war, we did have lots of smaller wars which still resulted in millions of deaths.

The argument that we have to have nuclear weapons to be able to argue for disarmament is hilarious. "I'm going to buy a new gun, so I can persuade my neighbour to get rid of his guns. He won't listen to me unless I have a gun."

Why does the UK need nuclear weapons when other similarly-sized countries don't? Do we have more enemies? If so, maybe we should look at why that is.

People keep saying that- but the queen's speech is not the whole of a parliament.

As someone else said, there's still a lot of stuff a govt can do even if it can't pass legislation. The only requirement is to get a queen's speech and budget bill through. And in an informal support arrangement that's all that would be agreed upon.

As an aside - would the SNP winning every seat in Scotland be the substantive change that would lead to the SNP pursuing another referendum?

If it happened (which it won't) then I'd have said that could be viewed as a very comprehensive rejection of Westminster politics - so quite possibly yes. Especially if the following happens:
1) More than 50% of votes in Scotland go to the SNP
2) We end up with another Tory led government

Still wouldn't be a problem, SNP would have to continually support the Lab government or bring it down. As soon as they bring it down Lab can get its seats back.

Can you please explain the reasoning behind this.

As someone else said, there's still a lot of stuff a govt can do even if it can't pass legislation.

They can however be stopped from doing that sort of thing at any time however, by a vote of no confidence.

fr0sty125 - Member

Still wouldn't be a problem, SNP would have to continually support the Lab government or bring it down.

No, not at all- a government doesn't have to win every vote to stay in power as this current government has demonstrated, in fact there's relatively few critical ones.

And it would lead directly to Labour campaigning in Scotland on the basis "We refused to do what you voted for, so vote for us". Not even Jim Murphy can think that's a winning proposition

Still wouldn't be a problem, SNP would have to continually support the Lab government or bring it down. As soon as they bring it down Lab can get its seats back.

No it wouldn't. Fixed term parliament means you can't just bring down the government by voting against one thing.

And Labour getting its seats back? By saying "Look, you voted SNP to get them to push some policies at Westminster - they did, so vote for us now please?"

Still wouldn't be a problem, SNP would have to continually support the Lab government or bring it down. As soon as they bring it down Lab can get its seats back.

So is that insider confirmation that labour has abandoned Scotland to it's fate? 🙂 This is the point I was trying to make a few pages back about labour not needing to do a deal with the SNP. I'm not so sure though that it's a shoe-in that labour will get it's seats back in the event of the SNP bringing down a labour govt. I agree though that the chances of the SNP ever doing that would be very small.

Northwind - Member

No, not at all- a government doesn't have to win every vote to stay in power as this current government has demonstrated, in fact there's relatively few critical ones.

Would go something like this.

Labour put legislation down, gets voted down several times by SNP, Labour can no longer control the commons so the PM resigns. Then there is a 2 week period where another government can be formed this would only be possible if either Lab or SNP supported the Tories, which is extremely unlikely. Then we have another general election.

So is that insider confirmation that labour has abandoned Scotland to it's fate? T

hahaha, No we are still fighting hard for a majority Lab government but it will be tough.

jambo's philosophy is held more more widely...

Heres an idea... instead of viewing this as some sort of charity, How about trying to create a balanced, functional economy that works for the entire [s]country[/s] continent, instead of just one gilded, indulged area of concentrated wealth instead?

Which is why the EU doesn't work.

Why does the UK need nuclear weapons when other similarly-sized countries don't?

The answer is historical. We went to the trouble of developing them, so we became a nuclear power way back. The question of should we disarm is very different to the question of should we arm, don't you think?

As for other countries of similar size - the only other countries in a similar position, with sufficient resources to do this I think were prevented at the time (ie just after the war) by post-war treaties. France has them, Germany does not for example.

I agree though that the chances of the SNP ever doing that would be very small.

If we're getting to the point of Labour being as unpopular in Scotland as the Tories are (and some polls are saying that's not far off being the case) then it'll be a lot more likely. Certainly it'd be a mistake for Labour to progress on the basis that the SNP would always support them so as not to be seen to open a door for the Tories.

Then we have another general election.

At which point the SNP can say "Look, we tried to work with Labour, we offered again and again. Labour refused to compromise with what the voters of Scotland wanted, so the government collapsed."

A collapsing Labour government isn't exactly a great recruiting tool for Scottish Labour if the reason the Labour government collapsed is that it wouldn't work with the SNP.

hahaha, No we are still fighting hard for a majority Lab government but it will be tough.

If Labour was still a socialist party and had even half-decent leadership this election would be a walk in the park.

The answer is historical. We went to the trouble of developing them, so we became a nuclear power way back.

Well, firstly that's a sunk cost argument - we shouldn't waste more money now just because we spent a lot then. Secondly, it's not independent any more - the missiles, the really critical bit, are shared with the US. So it's not even that we've got proprietary technology that could be used for other applications, civilian launches for instance. That died with the Blue Streak.

[i]If the SNP fielded candidates in the north of England they'd probably win most of the seats from labour.[/i]

Tell me you're not being serious Dez?

If the SNP fielded candidates in the north of England they'd probably win most of the seats from labour.

Tell me you're not being serious Dez?

You think Labour are more popular in the North of England than they are in Scotland?

Tell me you're not being serious Dez?

Ok maybe not 'most' but quite a lot. Certainly enough to put the labour party out of the business of government. Christ, even the UKIP nut-jobs nearly took a seat off them in Middleton-Heywood, so what would the SNP do?

[i]Well, firstly that's a sunk cost argument - we shouldn't waste more money now just because we spent a lot then. Secondly, it's not independent any more - the missiles, the really critical bit, are shared with the US.[/i]

And therein is the answer to your question. We are a nucleur partner of the US and as such we get enormous support from them as a result.

Ok maybe not 'most' but quite a lot. Certainly enough to put the labour party out of the business of government. Christ, even the UKIP nut-jobs nearly took a seat off them in Middleton-Heywood, so what would the SNP do?

Problem is with the North East of England is that it's still in England - so the various bribes of free prescriptions/Greggs pasties/university education etc. etc. wouldn't be applied to us.

That said, I do agree that whilst Labour is the default voting choice I suspect it's more of an anti Tory vote, UKIP may hoover up a sizeable number of Labour numbers.

the idea behind it being that if those with WMDs knew that if they used them that they themselves would be completely wiped out would be enough of a deterrent that no one would use them.

Yes, we all know that, however it becomes far more complex since there's afairly strong argument that the existence of nuclear weapons and MAD prevented a conventional war between the superpowers since every attempt at gaming a successful outcome by either side resulted in escalation.

Without nuclear weapons and MAD, conventional warfare was a near inevitability - one side or the other [b]could[/b] win, it was only the near certainty that the losing side in a conventional war would have to escalate that held this at bay.

Remember 1982 when we were in the shit against the French exocets...well despite the fact that we were up against a South American country, they (the USA) gave us a newly a developed missile that allowed us to take out their French planes before they even came over the horizon.

THAT is a 'special relationship' that we keep our end up by committing to Trident.

so the various bribes of free prescriptions/Greggs pasties/university education etc. etc. wouldn't be applied to us.

Which is why there won't be any candidates in England. However if the SNP were to turn itself into a UK-wide party and abandon it's pretensions at scottish independence then maybe a different story? Of course that would probably mean losing much of it's support in scotland but it's an interesting, if crazy, idea.

there's afairly strong argument that the existence of nuclear weapons and MAD prevented a conventional war between the superpowers

Remember 1982 when we were in the shit against the French exocets...well despite the fact that we were up against a South American country, they (the USA) gave us a newly a developed missile that allowed us to take out their French planes before they even came over the horizon.

No they didn't. What they gave us was a better version of a short (visual) range missile that outperformed the earlier version of the same missile that the Argentinians used, particularly in head-on engagements.

Well, firstly that's a sunk cost argument - we shouldn't waste more money now just because we spent a lot then

It's nothing of the sort!

I told you why we had them. I'm not justifying it with that statement.

However I will throw some justification in the mix: I think that is rather useful that a selection of allies have them, just in case. Because the potential consequences if we get rid of them don't really bear thinking about.

The "Cold War as Long Peace" argument is terrible

But the cold war as lack of nuclear war isn't. Nuclear war being far far worse than the wars that did happen.

The conventional wars still happened and millions died, it's just that they didn't happen to be Europeans or Americans.

Global annihilation was avoided but, given this was only possible due to the nukes, its hard to argue the only implement capable of global annihilation prevented global annihilation.

Given the distances America and Russia could not really engage directly with each other as lots of countries are in the way nor could one expect to successfully invade the other.
Personally I dont think nukes created peace but it can be argued they did.

[i]
No they didn't. What they gave us was a better version of a short (visual) range missile that outperformed the earlier version of the same missile that the Argentinians used, particularly in head-on engagements.[/i]

The majority of Sidewinder variants utilize infrared homing for guidance; the AIM-9C variant used semi-active radar homing

(not wanting this to go OT but that seems to back up what I said)

lobal annihilation was avoided but, given this was only possible due to the nukes, its hard to argue the only implement capable of global annihilation prevented global annihilation.

Annihilation of HALF the world was possible by one side having nukes. So what else was there but to keep up with them and bet on MAD?

Given the distances America and Russia could not really engage directly with each other

You know the earth is actually round, don't you? And that Russia and America are neighbours?

You know the earth is actually round, don't you? And that Russia and America are neighbours? 😀

Damn you molgrips you just made a very reasonable point that defeated my argument.......flounces.

Fair point fella, fair point
Edit to your edit:
and then you stole defeat from the jaws of victory

You know the earth is actually round, don't you? And that Russia and America are neighbours?

Its unlikely they will choose to invade over land that way and yes Alaska and Siberia are neighbours but I doubt even you wish to argue that either side would try to launch a land offensive over that frozen route via the bering sea.
Its really not feasible to see either side launching a land operation against the other homeland is it ?

I think it rather sad that people view prescriptions and education as "bribes" rather than "rights"

@molgrips 😀

However you can't really invade via Alaska, the territory is pretty much impassable

I think it's interesting for quite some time we have been arguing about UKIP impacting the Tory vote and potentially Labour and actually it's the SNP who look like having the biggest imapact. They sort of crept up unnoticed.

Its unlikely they will choose to invade over land that way

Well you suggested that the number of countries in the way would.prevent a land invasion. However they could do it by sea, although it would be hard. You'd have to win sea and air superiority first which I suppose would indeed be difficult since without ICBMs you cannot do the usual attrition on airfields and factories and so on.

America managed to invade France across the Atlantic but I guess only because they had the UK to work with.

why do you do two posts when one would do ?

I bet there are electoral frauds but let's see who got the most this time. 😯

I am in the NE red army territory so am getting a bit paranoid and anxious now because my postal ballot papers have gone missing.

If it were me I'd conquer Mexico first via South America.. Go for the long run.. It could've started a much much longer global campaign of empire building.

The conventional wars still happened and millions died, it's just that they didn't happen to be Europeans or Americans.

So it worked then!

Even if you include US casualties in Vietnam and Korea, it's still a fraction of the likely losses that would have occurred in event of another conventional war in Europe.

If it were me I'd conquer Mexico first via South America

nah, fracturing of NATO, a communist coup in Mexico followed by Land and air invasion of Midwestern USA by Mexican and Nicaraguan forces backed by Cuban and Russian advisors - there may be a film about this 😀

If it were me I'd conquer Mexico first via South America

Take out Canada first as it has much better riding.

jambo's philosophy is held more more widely...

I bet there are electoral frauds but let's see who got the most this time.

Labour are off to an early start and we can expect a lot more of this given it's become a consistent problem across a number of cities over the last 2 local / national elections:

Warnings in 2012 - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-19397157

Reality in 2015 -

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/573964/Muslim-vote-Labour-Prophet-Mohammed-descendant-endorsement

and

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/12919255.Blackburn_Labour_council_election_candidate_arrested____on_suspicion_of_electoral_fraud_and_integrity_issues___/

why do you do two posts when one would do ?

The majority of Sidewinder variants utilize infrared homing for guidance; the AIM-9C variant used semi-active radar homing

(not wanting this to go OT but that seems to back up what I said)

It was AIM9-Ls that the US gave to Britain in the Flaklands, still IR homing, still visual range but designed as "all aspect" so able to be fired head on at oncoming fighters rather than needing to home in on the jet exhaust from behind.

Anyway, I don't buy the argument that nuclear weapons kept the peace. Its a kind of historical trope that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. What Cold War conflicts would have escalated to conventional all out warfare between NATO and the Warsaw Pact if there had been no nuclear weapons?

However you can't really invade via Alaska, the territory is pretty much impassable

why do you do two posts when one would do ?

Me? I only edit posts up to a few minutes on a busy thread, becuase if you add more content after a few more posts it doesn't get read.

What Cold War conflicts would have escalated to conventional all out warfare between NATO and the Warsaw Pact if there had been no nuclear weapons?

It's the conflicts that didn't happen at all. Without nukes, the whole thing might've played out completely differently with say, the Soviets conquering territory in South America with a view to invading the US eventually. Empire building if you like.

Different game entirely.

The conventional wars still happened and millions died, it's just that they didn't happen to be Europeans or Americans.

So it worked then!

a) you think millions of people dying is what success looks like

b) you think millions of people dying is what peace looks like

Much as I'm enjoying the armchair nuclear generals tangent, back to the topic in hand...

Is there any significance in the libdems leaking coalition policy discussion documents? Perhaps an indicator of their labour supporting intentions or just a knee-jerk tactic to get Clegg elected? Either the tories and libdems have an agreement to let bygones be bygones after the election, or the libdems have made their decision already to part ways. If not the former, then it's going to be quite difficult to form a new coalition after all this mud-slinging.

A government that couldn't [s]meddle[/s] pass legislation might be novel. No new initiative, just get on with executing what you have properly. I might vote for that 😉

I know you have to take much of what the SNO says with a bucket if salt, but given that Nics has promised to work together with Labour to keep the Tories out even if the Tories have 40 more seats, why would they then vote down a Queens speech or play silly beggars. Are they not good for their word after all?

Forget the SNP, the people who are really against Trident are the heads of the armed forces. That's just kept quiet though.

Me? I only edit posts up to a few minutes on a busy thread, becuase if you add more content after a few more posts it doesn't get read.

Naturally i demand a word count though 50% of mine will be someone elses words

Whose turn is it to reply to Just5 minutes latest punt and run Tory head office press release?

Is there any significance in the libdems leaking coalition policy discussion documents?

Politics IMHO trying to both harm the tories and boost themselves
One can only imagine what the Tories would have done had they been able to have a majority without support.

it's going to be quite difficult to form a new coalition after all this mud-slinging.

The majority of Sidewinder variants utilize infrared homing for guidance; the AIM-9C variant used semi-active radar homing

As someone else pointed out it was the all-aspect AIM-9L's that made the difference in the Falklands. The AIM-9C was a very old 1st generation variant that I'm fairly sure was never used by the UK (I used to know that sort of stuff intimately but I admit it was a long while ago!).

I served on Sandy Woodwards staff a few years after the Falklands (when he was CINCNAVHOME) and we were still going through changes based on what happened in that conflict, so it's something that's always been of interest to me.

It's the conflicts that didn't happen at all.

+1 there was a very real threat that Russia would push west post the end of WW2 or into Asia. Nuclear weapons, intelligence and a few others reasons prevented that.

While no one would ever proclaim millions dead is a success proxy wars didn't have anything like the number of deaths a full on war between major power. There were ~2 million killed as a result of Korea and Vietnam, compare that to the 22-20 million military deaths alone in WW2.

Back on topic:

Is there any significance in the libdems leaking coalition policy discussion documents?

Danny Alexander is shiteing himself that he will lose his seat. That's probably the main thrust of the "leak"

Post election it will mean nothing. Despite various protestations of who will work with who political pragmatism will win the day and very few deals will actually be off the table especially for centrists like the Lib Dems

dragon - Member

+1 there was a very real threat that Russia would push west post the end of WW2 or into Asia. Nuclear weapons, intelligence and a few others reasons prevented that.

Yep, the US nuclear program was very effective then. And the nuclear arms race despite bringing us to the brink of armageddon a couple of times did bankrupt the USSR and was a major reason for its fall.

But the UK's deterrant? Achieved **** all, ever. Apart from apparently travelling back in time and getting us a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which would be fairly impressive. Trident of course achieved less than any previous UK deterrant, which is 0.1 **** alls- perhaps the only weapon in history which will lose no effectiveness when retired.

And considering that Trident's replacement was designed as a minimum effective deterrant, and has since been reduced below that minimum effective level, it'll achieve even less. Apart from diminishing our conventional forces that is.

Dunt cleggy look good for 48? Looks younger than Ed; who is 3 years his junior.
Mind you, Dave has the best looking wife. Punching well above his weight there. Must have a big whacker. Oh no, he's rich. Forgot about that.

And considering that Trident's replacement was designed as a minimum effective deterrant, and has since been reduced below that minimum effective level, it'll achieve even less. Apart from diminishing our conventional forces that is.

So Cameron is going if he doesnt win a majority.

UK and French deterrents did something very important

They tied the US in for the ride

Had the Russians rolled west, with their massive superiority in conventional forces (quantity has a quality of its very own) It would have been perfectly possible for the U.S. to step back and leave Europe to our own devices (as they nearly did in WW2) - they couldn't do that because of the inevitable escalation if the UK or France went nuclear.

below that minimum effective level

The 40 deployed warheads (ramped up to 140+ At fairly short notice if the political climate changed) is enough to give any continental superpower a bloody bad headache

So miliband has gone even further on the SNP issue. A little too far maybe as there was no need for him to say he'd rather not be in govt if it meant having a deal with them. Looks like the labour leadership are going for broke, but it gives no clues as to what they plan to do if the Tories can't get a majority.

I think Miliband had no choice but to rule it out, the question is whether he will stick to that pledge , I'd like to think he would, he stood up to Murdoch and as a result has seen a very cynical concerted attack from the Suns and the Times and as for Daily Mail.... !

Either way I think its a nod to help prop up Muppet Murphy

Yes, that was rather daft by Miliband - though really it's not much different from what he's been saying for a while. Only rules out a formal deal, not case-by-case negotiations.

Still, it was badly phrased and won't help him in the slightest north of the border. Both parties are now desperately trying to outdo each other in how much they want to disenfranchise Scots.

Mind you, Dave has the best looking wife. Punching well above his weight there. Must have a big whacker. Oh no, he's rich. Forgot about that.

Sad little comment.

Still, it was badly phrased

Too right. There is no wriggle room in that statement at all. Any sort of arrangement, even for specific votes, will be the 'deal' that he has strenuously ruled out.

Then again, he's screwed north of the border - any statement which leaves the possibility of an SNP arrangement betrays 50-odd Labour candidates.

Lose-lose situation. Does anyone think that he doesn't actually want the poisoned chalice of a minority government dependent on a party which has so much bad blood with the Labour Party?

If it was true he may as well have said ...I dont want to be PM vote for me.
Very daft thing to do from Ed.

I think Miliband had no choice but to rule it out, the question is whether he will stick to that pledge

He had every choice and as you note [those of us savvy enough- ie everyone interested in politics who can do maths] know he will have to do some deal with them to be PM so it was incredibly unwise ; he will have to do a Clegg now to be PM

What a tit...even I am struggling to vote for him now but they ar eall I have to beat the Tories.....how i wish we had PR

Miliband's stance makes perfect sense to me for the following reasons;

If Labour enter a coalition with the SNP Scottish voters will know voting SNP can get them into government/position of influence in Westminster. That will solidify the SNP vote in GE's into the future. That is very bad for Labour and short term pain on not being in a coalition government is worth bearing. Miliband is also taking the view that the stance will help Labour in this election.

Second, the SNP are very unpopular South of the border. The belief that Labour could enter a coalition with the SNP could cost them seats in the rest of the UK due to tactical anti SNP (Labour) voting

Finally, Miliband looks incredibly weak vs Sturgeon and Salmond, rightly or wrongly the electorate believe the SNP would exert undue and unwelcome influence over Labour. Ruling out a coalition shows him standing up to the SNP and their version of "what will happen" - same as the currency issue in the referendum where the SNP kept telling everyone how it was going to be even when it was ruled out by the 3 main UK parties.

FYI I didn't watch any of the QT stuff - all pointless show baoting IMO