D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I Vow To Thee My Country.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
I Vow To Thee My Country.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
And once again, no questions were answered.
Cameron's even just making stuff up about what he's been asked now as well, at no point in the last question was it said that the woman was a pensioner, but apparently it's Corbyn's fault for not doing his homework about bedroom tax not applying to pensioners.
Fucking hell.
Curious? In what way is a poem written by an Englishman, then set to music by another Englishman a cracking welsh tune?
Fernando Fernandez
Member
Mr slippery in action. I wish someone would call him on his bullshit.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yes to both. Both great, both better than GSTQ and separating England and the UKs is a good idea IMO. Give me some good fight music for when we batter Bales in the Euros.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Always assumed Parry was Welsh. My bad. To be fair, he sounds Welsh.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Fuck off May you have no idea how this works.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think Jerusalem is better than Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, although I hate to admit it, because I'm not a great singer and Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau demands too much range. It's not as bad as Star Spangled Banner, which only sounds good when sung professionally, but close.
I Vow To Thee is also better than all of them.
That's true. I guess I'm spoilt by listening to my Welsh friends sing it, they absolutely nail the entire song. Star Spangled Banner is absolutely horrible though.
No argument on I Vow To Thee, amazing song.
CharmingCharlie
Member
I could get behind "The Birdie Song" becoming the National Anthem or Spitting Images "The Chicken Song" both are vastly superior to the utter shite we have right now. However at this moment in time I think there are more pressing concerns than some silly song that's only purpose in life is to give me an audio reminder to mute the telly.
It's a private members bill. It's not taking up any parliamentary time that would be used for government legislation.
CyclopsRock
Member
I like O Canada.
If it's not going to be the greatest anthem ever, This is the One by the Stone Roses, then I suppose that Jerusalem is an acceptable substitute.
Alternatively we have Vindaloo as our national anthem and confuse every foreigner.
Alternatively we have Vindaloo as our national anthem and confuse every foreigner.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
And I thought you had good taste.
Serious talk: the national anthem of the Soviet Union is legit.
Jezbollah
Member
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Because she is running the Home Office, while the Prisons Service comes under the Ministry of Justice?
I look forward to a republication of the proposal then, because the word "reasonable" does not appear in it in relation to these proposals.
CyclopsRock
Member
Given the vote at the last Labour conference, how much can their policy realistically change?
G4S are also picking up contracts to work privately for the police.
If you can think of a better way to facilitate her corruption then I'd like to hear it.
If you can think of a better way to facilitate her corruption then I'd like to hear it.
dapperbandit
Banned
Have you ever imagined what it would be like if you mixed the Brexit campaign with the trailer for The Force Awakens?
This is the result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVESt_27vnA
This is the result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVESt_27vnA
I think some of you guys have a warped sense of how a government works. These contracts probably wont even be seen by a government minister until near the end after they have been reduced to just a few. Even then it would most likely be a junior minister that makes the call (SofS deal with the bigger policies only) . Most times that call is in line with the perm sec/division director etc who is briefing them, especially with this government as alot of the Ministers have 'gone native'.
Trust me, if May was bypassing the civil service to help G4S, it would have been whistle blown by now.
The real reason G4S wins alot of government contracts is down to the most basic of reasons. They are cheap. So in my opinion, the question isn't how they get alot of government contracts but rather how G4S treat their staff. Which is in all honesty fucking appalling, especially considering how much they pay staff.
Which is why I enjoyed the Olympic security shit show, when security staff collectively told G4S to shove it
So this morning on Marr.
Corbyn went with some solid vote winners.
- Backing secondary strike action
- Suggested still building subs for Trident but not having them loaded with warheads (!!!!)
- coming to an "accomdation with Argentina over the Falklands."
Jesus. He really doesn't want to be PM.
Corbyn went with some solid vote winners.
- Backing secondary strike action
- Suggested still building subs for Trident but not having them loaded with warheads (!!!!)
- coming to an "accomdation with Argentina over the Falklands."
Jesus. He really doesn't want to be PM.
Jezbollah
Member
He also promoted negotiating with ISIS along the same levels of diplomacy that was pursued with the IRA...
Fernando Fernandez
Member
All vote winners for me! He's already got my vote though, which is probably the problem there!
I don't know why any Labour party goes on Marr. They always get grilled whilst any Conservative members get almost a sycophantic treatment from Marr.
I don't know why any Labour party goes on Marr. They always get grilled whilst any Conservative members get almost a sycophantic treatment from Marr.
Surely if you're against trident then building the subs without the warheads is just a total and utter waste of money? Whats the point?
the tory trade union bill is terrible and absurdly punitive and gains little. corbyn could oppose that on sensible grounds. instead he gifts the press his desire to bring a return of sympathy strikes, something that's incredibly unpopular. tories can just shut down debate instantly with 'i'm not taking lectures from someone who wants to take us back to to winter of discontent', makes talking about union policy only about winter of discontent vs nearly no employee collective rights, which the tories can win through scaremongering and seeming like the moderate force in the debate.
it's classic corbyn. absolutely destroying the left in this country week by week through his idiocy. clueless.
it's classic corbyn. absolutely destroying the left in this country week by week through his idiocy. clueless.
Fernando Fernandez
Member
To protect jobs? There's plenty of non nuclear deterrents. It's just a suggestion at the moment. At least it's not as bad as building aircraft carriers without the planes.
It does remind me of a tweet I saw awhile back "Just tell everyone we have these missles and save 100 billion"
Jezbollah
Member
But what is the point in creating the submarines (at a cost of £1.5bn each) if it just means keeping jobs? I'm sure KMag might be able to add any detail of what other roles those boats are for, but for an opposition so against cuts, spending £6bn just to keep 520 jobs going is not effective, surely?
(EDIT: I'm more than happy to be corrected on the amount of jobs affected by the building & maintenance of the boats - I really want to know the impact of keeping the boats and not the missiles, as was proposed today)
Fernando Fernandez
Member
There's probably a need to have submarines just not nuclear missles. We are part of NATO so we automatically have a nuclear deterrent there.
Is it right that we rely on the French and the Americans to provide the nuclear umbrella though? A European nuclear deterrent would be a possible alternative to going it alone, as would building SSGN's (cruise missile carriers) as opposed to the Vanguard replacements, but there's no time to come up with those alternatives. The Vanguard replacements need approving as soon as possible, or else we lose the independent nuclear deterrent.
That may be acceptable. But the time for looking at alternatives has long since passed, thanks to previous governments kicking this decision down the road.
Fernando Fernandez
Member
100%. I'm sure we do our fair share/have done our fair share of things for NATO.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
What on earth is the point of subs without warheads? Baffling statement.
You wouldn't be creating the Vanguard replacements (the Trident boats), you be creating another 4 or 6 Astutes (hunter killers/guided missile subs)
We currently don't really have enough; only 6 active atm (4 Trafalgars, 2 Astutes with 7 Astute total planned but they'll be replacing the Trafalgars 1 for 1) to protect two carriers in the unlikely event we'd put both in the sea at the same time, considering you'd need two for normal carrier protection, and you need one for UK territorial waters and one for the Falklands/south atlantic. Considering two are normally being serviced at any one time There's also the HK's 'primary' role which is trundling around the north Atlantic looking for Russian ballistics and trying hard not to collide with other subs.
The HK's are far cheaper than the bigger ballistics. The later Astutes are coming in at about £760m (initially £1.15 billion) each compared to £6 billion est (and rising) for the Vanguard successor. The main problem with UK military procurement is for the big ticket items we don't ever build enough for the costs to come down. We typically put an initial order for enough for the bean counters to lower the total individual unit cost, then we cancel a number of the units, which increases the unit cost and we also normally pay BAE extra for the privilege of cancelling.
There's some issues with Corbyn's plan because while we'll probably need more than 7 not really sure we'd need 11 or 13. Although it's worth pointing out we've used the subs to attack land targets in Iraq and Libya. And we've already sunk quite a lot of dosh into the R&D for the Vanguard replacement, although primarily I believe that's been in the new PWR3 power plant design which would be usable in future subs.
The Astutes could launch cruise missile carried nuclear warheads which would be analogous to Japan's capability.Japan is non nuclear in name only, as they have the material, knowledge and resources to be nuclear armed in short order. They've also got ground launched ICBM designs (M-V). I imagine the half way house would have the UK maintain readiness to rearm at a 'screwdrivers turn' which is essentially the Japanese position.
Actually looking at the detail it seems they might be suggesting building the Vanguard replacements but not arming them with Nukes. Which is fucking madness, they're too big, expensive to be useful for anything else.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Maybe put paying passengers in them? Only joking.
Hmmm .Definitely interested to see where things go.
You joke, but the Yanks converted some of their Ohio class submarines into SSGN's (cruise missile carriers) with two lockout chambers for special forces to launch from. Vanguard replacements could be adapted to have such a feature as well.
Nuclear cruise missiles would have their own problems. We'd have to develop the warhead firstly, and that'd take a while. Range would be the biggest issue though. It's alright for Japan because they could launch a cruise missile from their domestic waters and still hit Beijing or Pyongyang, but we'd have to sail right up to the Norwegian coast to hit Moscow. That's a lot less of a deterrent.
JonathanEx
Member
Dunno, call them a national form of transport, privatise them, and boom! Cash windfall for the government.
Fernando Fernandez
Member
It's been coming for awhile. Let's hope Osborne has us prepared.
QuicheFontaine
Member
CyclopsRock
Member
Like launching the bears in Red Alert 3.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked