Re: The UK General Election Thread

[Eric Air Emu]

What the hell's a nuke boat, something you've imagined?

Slang. Subs are also called boats btw rather than ships.

They're all submarines, HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengenace (Vanguard Class of Ballistic Missile Submarines).

I think they're all based at Clyde. Ugly beautiful things the lot of them, I wouldn't mind serving on one one day. I've seen one up close on one of my forays with the Reserves, I've been regaled about them as well.

I agree with a lot of what Clegg says, but fear he'd sell us to the EU and rape our armed forces.

A moot point anyway, he may have won the debate but not enough of those polled will vote for them at a general election.

Our armed forces need a good raping and I just wish someone had the cojones to say so. They're a great big sacred cow. The reality is the MOD is second highest spending goverment department and you would be hard pushed to name even one conflict they've been involved in since WW2 which has furthered our country's interests. I do feel sorry for the poor young people getting killed or grieviously injured in Iraq/Afghanistan (I've got family in the army for what it's worth) but they're professional soldiers out there of their own volition. If they wanted out they could quite easily return to civy street. Lovely as it sounds it's just daft to expect you can make them mostly bomb or bullet proof with some armoured cars and helicopters. War is a gruesome bloody thing however well funded your army is.

And also all this 'our brave lads' cr*p it seems illegal to question in anyway. A number of them are stupendously brave and devoted to their duty but it is rather counterbalanced by the widespread drunken, violent antics of squaddies (anyone fancy a night out in Colchester when the paras are home?) who apparently make up for going on for 20% of our prison population.

Armies mostly exist to fight wars- if Tony Blair hadn't obliged the MOD would have found a war somewhere or other. For the long forseeable future the UK just does not face a conventional military threat and we don't need an army any bigger than any of our fellow EU countries. If you wanted to cut that old deficit the army could justifiably be shrunk in half and it would be job done. No-one, apart from me on the lunatic fringe, would openly say that though.

Sorry about that rant. I'd thought I'd test on it an internet forum before using it in the real world.

[JKLever]

You big pinko sandal wearing liberal.

[Chivalry Augustus]

War is money - anyone who thinks this country would be better off with a smaller armed forces and a bunch of largely uneducated louts staying within rather than without is something of a moron. Added to that is all the peripheral jobs that 'defence' work provides. War is jobs. It is convenient for the economy as a whole to remain in a permanent state of war.

[JKLever]

Interesting sun/yougov poll

Conservatives 33% (-4), Lib Dems 30% (up , Labour 28% (-3), Others 9 (-1)

[Allan D]

War is money - anyone who thinks this country would be better off with a smaller armed forces and a bunch of largely uneducated louts staying within rather than without is something of a moron. Added to that is all the peripheral jobs that 'defence' work provides. War is jobs. It is convenient for the economy as a whole to remain in a permanent state of war.

This is what George Lansbury, the Labour Leader, stated in a message to the Fulham East CLP in October 1933 at a time when there was mass unemployment (around 20% nationally - much higher in some areas) and a chronic housing shortage:

I would close every recruiting station, disband the Army and disarm the Air Force. I would abolish the whole dreadful equipment of war and say to the world "do your worst.

Unfortunately Adolf Hitler had taken over in Germany some 9 months before and he took Lansbury at his word.

[LeFromage]

Interesting sun/yougov poll

Conservatives 33% (-4), Lib Dems 30% (up , Labour 28% (-3), Others 9 (-1)

Knee-jerkers of the world unite.

[Zat]

From an outsider's perspective (the debate was surprisingly screened in full on Sky News in Aus last night)

Brown and Cameron sounded remarkably similar, just bitching about what the others would do and didn't show a great deal of vision. That Clegg chap seemed the most aspirational. But then again, I guess promising everyone everything they want is a good way to sound like that.

I don't envy your shitty choices, poms.

[Allan D]

Not like Krudd & Abbo - Nothing better than an Ozzie being culturally superior over the quality of politicians.

[Eric Air Emu]

War is money - anyone who thinks this country would be better off with a smaller armed forces and a bunch of largely uneducated louts staying within rather than without is something of a moron. Added to that is all the peripheral jobs that 'defence' work provides. War is jobs. It is convenient for the economy as a whole to remain in a permanent state of war.

Really the argument you're making here is the same for any public sector jobs- it's more beneficial for society and the economy to keep them even if their practical worth is questionable. I do tend to believe in a lage public sector (as opposed to leaving things to the free market) but why shouldn't army jobs and spending be targeted in the same way most other areas of public sector spending is?

[Eric Air Emu]

War is money - anyone who thinks this country would be better off with a smaller armed forces and a bunch of largely uneducated louts staying within rather than without is something of a moron. Added to that is all the peripheral jobs that 'defence' work provides. War is jobs. It is convenient for the economy as a whole to remain in a permanent state of war.

This is what George Lansbury, the Labour Leader, stated in a message to the Fulham East CLP in October 1933 at a time when there was mass unemployment (around 20% nationally - much higher in some areas) and a chronic housing shortage:

I would close every recruiting station, disband the Army and disarm the Air Force. I would abolish the whole dreadful equipment of war and say to the world "do your worst.

Unfortunately Adolf Hitler had taken over in Germany some 9 months before and he took Lansbury at his word.

Allan D in harking back to the days of WW2 shocker.

[JKLever]

but why shouldn't army jobs and spending be targeted in the same way most other areas of public sector spending is?

Because you don't fart about with defence of the realm? (although our pollies are doing a damn good attempt)

[Allan D]

Although Clegg made a good point on Thursday night about the waste and mismanagement at the MoD and the proliferation in the higher, deskbound ranks such as the 2 admirals per ship and the four brigadiers per brigade. Just as in the NHS, an axe needs to be taken to the bureaucracy that's strangling the front-line services.

[Eric Air Emu]

but why shouldn't army jobs and spending be targeted in the same way most other areas of public sector spending is?

Because you don't fart about with defence of the realm? (although our pollies are doing a damn good attempt)

Who does the realm need defending against then? Large conventional armies aren't much good against Johnny terrorist and it's going to be a long old while before the French and Germans go back on the warpath again. Defence of the realm is as anachronistic as it sounds.

[JKLever]

but why shouldn't army jobs and spending be targeted in the same way most other areas of public sector spending is?

Because you don't fart about with defence of the realm? (although our pollies are doing a damn good attempt)

Who does the realm need defending against then? Large conventional armies aren't much good against Johnny terrorist and it's going to be a long old while before the French and Germans go back on the warpath again. Defence of the realm is as anachronistic as it sounds.

Russia have been testing our airspace regularly, do you trust them? Iran could gain nuclear weapons, and have pinpointed us as enemy number 1. Do you trust them?

'British interests', we also have 12 million nationals living overseas. That's the trouble with Pinkos, they think defence begins at the white cliffs of Dover. It amazes me how much ignorance there is over how being militarily strong enables Britain to be strong economically (yes still) and give us a decent standard of living and a say in the world we otherwise would not have

In 20-30 years energy resources are going to be scarce and conflict will erupt over dwindling stocks. If you're happy with your children growing up with everything 3 times more expensive because a few countries have all the fuel to transport it and are charging an extortionate price for it or insurance companies are charging a pretty penny for transporting it because we as a country can't defend supply from attack from pirates, knock yourself out.

I'm anti-war because we've this tendency to join uncle sams jaunts but pro-military strength which enables the country not to be cocked around. The general trend around the world is that countries are strengthening their armed forces but for some reason you think the UK should hug them to death?

[Allan D]

The Thatcher Government thought we wouldn't need a surface fleet anymore then the Argies invaded the Falklands. The longest active operation the British Army has been involved in - a committment that lasted 30 years - was dealing with the internal security of Northern Ireland. It is very difficult to forecast where the next security threat may arise.

[JKLever]

ROFL

[Allan D]

Might have been more amusing if you had resized it before posting so half of it wasn't cut off!

[JKLever]

Anyone noticed the big Tory and Tory media smear campaign on the Libdems this weekend?

Bound to happen as a Lib dem rise actually affects the Tories more than Labour.

[JKLever]

Might have been more amusing if you had resized it before posting so half of it wasn't cut off!

Has everyone got mini lcd screens or something? Looks perfectly viewable to me?

[PeterCS]

Just because you've got the 70" screen, Lever ...

[Chivalry Augustus]

He's got to do something to make up for being Essex scum, having a small knob, and only being able to find a lady ten years his junior to groom marry . . .

[Allan D]

Anyone noticed the big Tory and Tory media smear campaign on the Libdems this weekend?

Bound to happen as a Lib dem rise actually affects the Tories more than Labour.

It does if the Lib Dem vote rises in Lab-Con marginals thus splitting the opposition vote in the same way the Lib Dems hurt Labour from 1983-92. Cameron's strategy since December 2005 when he became Leader has been to appeal to Lib Dem voters (hence his 'green' agenda). It must be declared a rank failure.

However there are many areas - notably big cities like Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield and areas such as the North-East and even parts of London like the one I'm in where the Conservatives have virtually disappeared and the Liberals are the only serious challengers to Labour. Brown is obviously relying on the Lib Dems to keep him in power with a promise of a referendum on AV - which will not necessarily deliver any more seats to the Lib Dems but just give Lib Dem voters the power to choose between a Labour or Tory MP.

Brown may live to regret playing nice with Clegg if on election night a shedload of Labour seats fall to the Lib Dems. Also Clegg may not necessarily play ball. In any event Cameron should remain relaxed since if the Lib Dems do support a minority Labour Government the Conservatives become the only viable opposition, the Lib Dems become associated with unpopular Labour policies (would Brown really agree to the dropping of the ID scheme and Trident just to stay in power?) and Lib Dem support, always brittle at the best of times, collapses his way without having to suck up to or imitate them.

As on previous occasions when the Liberals have been in coalition or supported a minority government, once their support falls they become prey to internal division, the rank-and-file will become critical of Clegg for siding with Labour, Clegg will eventually part company with Brown and another election would have to be called with a good chance of Cameron winning it with both his opponents left disunited and dispirited.

Cameron's best strategy in the debate next Thursday is to portray the Lib Dems as being to the left of Labour on issues such as scrapping Trident and supporting an amnesty for illegal immigrants. This may actually encourage some disillusioned Labour voters to switch to the Lib Dems whilst alienating everyone else. In 2005 the Lib Dems picked up 12 seats from Labour largely because of their opposition to the Iraq War and student top-up fees.

The important thing for the Tories is not to panic and overly-react to short-term movements in the polls, however dramatic. As I have shown earlier, the Lib Dem balloon of support can deflate as rapidly as it inflates. Cameron must look to the longer- or medium-term and realise that it may take two goes to remove Labour - just as it did in 1950-1 - and allow his opponents to make the mistakes rather than commit errors himself.

[JKLever]

2 more polls out, very interesting now.

Comres: Tories 31% LibDems 29% Labour 27%

ICM: Tories 34% Labour 29% LibDems 27%

[LeFromage]

As I'm all for a hung parliament: good times.

Not that I believe many more than their usual quota will seriously plump for the LimpDems when push comes to shove.

[JKLever]

As you're probably aware from my support of the armed forces above, i'm hoping for a military coup.

[Sponsored content]