Support NeoGAF

[pulsemyne]

Nuclear weapons aren't to be used. It's for deterrent.

Yeah. Sub based or air it's still deters people.

 

[industrian]

I'd rather get rid of nukes and build a world-class navy and air force.

 

[iMax]

I'd rather get rid of nukes and build a world-class navy and air force.

Unfortunately these are not mutually exclusive. Without nukes, we're basically off this list.

 

[Uzzy]

I'd rather get rid of nukes and build a world-class navy and air force.

Define world class. Cause there's the US and everyone else, and we're not going to get close to the US level.

It certain is, in fact if we went with an air lauched deterrent from F35's then it's a much more flexible option and a crapload cheaper.

F-35's can be shot down, and aren't much of a second strike option. The whole point of Trident is to ensure we have a second strike capability, which is what works as a deterrent.

 

[industrian]

Define world class. Cause there's the US and everyone else, and we're not going to get close to the US level.

Quality over quantity.

We're not the world's policeman so we don't need 10 aircraft carriers. But at the same time it shouldn't take us 24 hours to intercept a Russian ship that strays into our waters either.

Nukes are a problem for Europe, NATO and pretty much the whole world to manage. Potential enemies getting to within striking distance of our coastline with conventional weapons is all on us.

 

[Juicy Bob]

There is absolutely no need for us to have nuclear weapons. Like Bennett said, it doesn't make me feel any safer and the only way the world could ever be free from the threat of nuclear war is if we had no fucking nuclear weapons in the world.

Of course, that's the world we live in, but I think it's appalling that we spend billions on something so terrible as a 'deterrent'.

 

[kmag]

Cameron really struggling on the Marr show.

Tim Montgomerie ن ‏@montie 39m39 minutes ago
Marr on camera: We're both enjoying this conversation this morning. Cameron off camera: Punches Marr.

 

[Jackpot]

Unfortunately these are not mutually exclusive. Without nukes, we're basically off this list.

No we're not. There's zero mention of nukes for membership criteria and the diplomatic fallout of pushing a country out would be enormous. Just baseless scare-mongering from people desperate to hold on to a pointless weapons system.

The whole point of Trident is to ensure we have a second strike capability, which is what works as a deterrent.

against what? Who would be invading us? Who has it deterred in the past?

 

[kmag]

No we're not. There's zero mention of nukes for membership criteria and the diplomatic fallout of pushing a country out would be enormous. Just baseless scare-mongering from people desperate to hold on to a pointless weapons system.



against what? Who would be invading us? Who has it deterred in the past?

How can anyone be voted off the UN Security Council, the permanent members can veto any vote so voting one of those permanent members off would seem to be impossible.

 

[JonathanEx]

Alright, so just under three weeks to go, shall we play predictions? We've been making a few as we go, but more as a thing. Not a strict vote share thing, more guesses on the political landscape in the outcome.

Obviously there's still plenty of time things can change, and we should run another round closer.

And feel free to give a few alternatives in your predicted circumstances, so coalitions that would fail, your preferred if unlikely outcome of that...

 

[anonymous_abc]

Dead Ringers Friday evening slayed me.
Loved the David being interviewed by Sutty skit. xD

 

[kmag]

Alright, so just under three weeks to go, shall we play predictions? We've been making a few as we go, but more as a thing. Not a strict vote share thing, more guesses on the political landscape in the outcome.

Obviously there's still plenty of time things can change, and we should run another round closer.

And feel free to give a few alternatives in your predicted circumstances, so coalitions that would fail, your preferred if unlikely outcome of that...

Con 278 seats, Lab 271 seats, LibDem 30 seats, Ukip 3, Green 1, SNP 45, Others 21

i.e Cluster fuck. No clear majority, the Lib Dems not having a clue what to do (not enough MP's between them and the Tories, but them and Labour could get over the queen's speech line in coalition with the SNP/others support). Auld Lizzie put on the spot as I have no doubt Cameron would try to cling on for as long as possible to de-legitimise any future Labour/Lib Dem conglomerate.

We'll probably end up doing this all again next year.

 

[industrian]

Alright, so just under three weeks to go, shall we play predictions? We've been making a few as we go, but more as a thing. Not a strict vote share thing, more guesses on the political landscape in the outcome.

Obviously there's still plenty of time things can change, and we should run another round closer.

And feel free to give a few alternatives in your predicted circumstances, so coalitions that would fail, your preferred if unlikely outcome of that...

I seriously think that the status quo will be maintained. Conservatives + Lib Dems.

The SNP will get 30-35 seats. UKIP 4 or 5. Green will get 2 or 3.

But to echo kmag's sentiments I see this government being unstable and being brought down within two years.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That wouldn't be that much of a clusterfuck. Nobody wants to fight another general election except the Conservatives because they're all broke. The Lib Dems are even more broke than Labour is, they're not going to force a second election for a while. The government will last at least until the party capable of bringing it down has the resources to contest for more seats.

 

[JonathanEx]

I'm thinking Cons biggest party. but not hugely significantly - but minority, and Lib Dem collapse makes it impossible for that to work.

The Conservatives/Lib Dems are starting to build the narrative that it's the biggest party that has the mandate to build a government, despite it being constitutionally bollocks and all a govt needs is to command the confidence. (Interesting piece on that)

So on the other side, I'm predicting Lab + SNP falling just short. If they could get the Lib Dems on side, Lab + Lib Dems (maybe in coalition?) with SNP for supply/confidence, it'd hit the numbers but not be hugely stable.

I don't see the SNP being a huge hurdle - they can claim red lines on trident all they want, they've staked their claim that their number 1 job is to keep the Tories out. I don't think they'll have as big a klout in decision making as they think. They keep Tories out, or they let them in. Simple option.

Lib Dems actions will depend on Clegg getting in, I think. Despite being keen to go with either, it seems to me that LD would prefer Tories because they're crazy. If Clegg goes, Labour is more an option, but they'll pin to this largest party bollocks. But -- when the other option is another election, they'll give in and go with Lab + SNP + LD.

Dead Ringers Friday evening slayed me.
Loved the David being interviewed by Sutty skit. xD

Yes! Quite a good Dead Ringers. I might put together a little thing of all the satire shows around right now, it's a fair bit of choice right now.

 

[RedShift]

Farage on the Sunday Politics now.

Andrew Niel trying to get him to accept that all UKIP a will achieve is preventing a Tory majority.

Also reaffirmed that he'll quit if he loses South Thanet. That would be the end of UKIP a right there.

 

[JosephManderley]

UKIP support seems to be slipping, a lot of it going back to the Tories I guess. I can see A Conservative government with a wafer-thin overall majority of less than a handful, getting propped up by the Unionists.

Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Farage on the Sunday Politics now.

Andrew Niel trying to get him to accept that all UKIP a will achieve is preventing a Tory majority.

Also reaffirmed that he'll quit if he loses South Thanet. That would be the end of UKIP a right there.

Why? UKIP will probably win 10% of the vote in this election. That doesn't disappear overnight. Those grievances still exist. Carswell is probably just as good as Farage, if not better, at representing them. I do think this whole "UKIP will collapse if Farage loses" thing is overblown.

 

[tomtom94]

Dead Ringers being back both delights and annoys me. Delighted because it was one of my favourite shows when it was on air. Annoyed because I can't fucking listen to it since I accidentally wrecked my laptop's ethernet port while extremely drunk and I can't get the iPlayer to work on wireless.

Predictions?

Cameron will attempt to form a CON-LIB coalition, and it will fail a confidence vote. The SNP will bluff the prospect of abstaining to try and get concessions out of Miliband, but ultimately they have nothing to gain by allowing the government to stand so even if they don't whip the vote, a free vote will see the government voted down.

Miliband, to appease the middle class elements of Labour's support and calm risks of the SNP influencing policy, will want the Lib Dems on side, but I don't see a full-blown coalition because that risks the SNP pulling out of negotiations altogether. A deal will be reached: some sort of devolution for Scotland in exchange for the SNP abstaining on English-only votes and voting through a repeal of fixed terms.

I think such a government would probably fold sometime around when Trident negotiations begin. Labour might be able to vote a full renewal - which I suspect is what they want - through with the help of the Conservatives but the cost would almost certainly be another round of elections.

 

[PJV3]

Cameron manages to scrape together a coalition, but unhappiness in the ranks forces him to resign early. The new leader Bill Cash struggles with the prospect of 3 years with Clegg and fighting for a 3rd term, and nukes Strasbourg after one too many sherries.
ScarJo professes her undying love for me, but I refuse her advances and cure cancer instead.

 

[JonathanEx]

As thrown around a few posts ago, here's a needless guide to all your election satire, comedy and alternative shows on TV and Radio. Because I love comedy.

BBC Two
Jack Dee's Election Helpdesk
Mondays, 10pm
Based on the format of one of his live shows, a panel of comedians try to 'help' people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05rjcb6

Charlie Brooker's Election Wipe
60 minute pre-election special, promising to add much-needed confusion to the campaign. No date yet. With Philomena Cunk, Barry Shitpeas, Jake Yapp and Morgana Robinson.

Rory Bremner's Election Report
30 minute post-election special. Probably similar to his recent Coalition Report programme.

BBC Radio 4
The Vote Now Show
Wednesday, Friday: 11pm
The Now Show team are on twice a week with late night specials - first episode was on Friday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05s7hm2

Dead Ringers
Friday, 6:30pm
Friday nights, two episodes on iPlayer. Usual impression based silliness and prank calls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pzstr/episodes/guide

BBC iPlayer
Frankie Boyle's Election Autopsy
17 May, iPlayer
Remember after the IndyRef, Frankie Boyle had a show where he was basically just bitter that it was a No and moaned at people who disagreed with him? Well, if that's your bag, it's another post-result iPlayer special.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32019679

ITV
Newzoids
ITV do that thing where they attempt topical comedy, everyone goes 'It's the new Spitting Image' but it turns out not to be of note. Anyway, impressions plus puppetry plus weird CG mouths. Your milage may vary.
https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/newzoids/series-1/episode-1

Channel 4
The Last Leg
Thursdays, 9pm
New series starts this week with three election specials. First has that fucker Piers Morgan on, second week has Paxman, and I think they're part of Channel 4's Election night too. They did a fantastic Nick Clegg interview and are fairly clued up on stuff - personally it's one of the best UK satire shows around right now.

Ballot Monkeys
Tuesdays, 10pm
5 episode series from duo behind Outnumbered, but more importantly... Drop the Dead Donkey team. It's set on the election battle buses, with the tagline 'Political comedy so topical it hasn't been written yet'. Interestingly it looks like the series will continue after the election itself for a couple of weeks...

More4
The Vote
Election Night, 9pm
Not strictly a comedy but worth a mention. Play from the writer of Coalition, which will be shown on the stage for two weeks before it's performed live on election night. Based around what happens at polling stations.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news...in-live-election-play-the-vote-for-more4.html

Absolute Radio
The Alternative Vote
Fridays, 7pm. Also a podcast.
Matt Forde hosts a panel show where funny types put forward their manifestos for the country.
http://absoluteradio.co.uk/schedule/the-alternative-vote-198/

Dave
Dave’s Election Night Special
Election night, 10pm
No, really. Dave are doing a special. 90 minute film with exclusive access to Al Murray's FUKP campaign.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Given the chance of an awkward coalition, I wonder how they'll deal with the fixed term act? To my knowledge it didn't have a sunset clause, so it's still in effect isn't it? Will the first point of order be to repeal it? That doesn't give off the strongest of messages and besides, and in a coalition that gives even the small parties a ton of power (esp the SNP since they wouldn't be in an official coalition) - brinkmanship ahoy, no?

In fact, what happens if a Vote of No Confidence is passed whilst the fix term bill is still in place?

 

[PJV3]

Given the chance of an awkward coalition, I wonder how they'll deal with the fixed term act? To my knowledge it didn't have a sunset clause, so it's still in effect isn't it? Will the first point of order be to repeal it? That doesn't give off the strongest of messages and besides, and in a coalition that gives even the small parties a ton of power (esp the SNP since they wouldn't be in an official coalition) - brinkmanship ahoy, no?

In fact, what happens if a Vote of No Confidence is passed whilst the fix term bill is still in place?

They can try for the two thirds vote for dissolution if they really want out without an embarrassing no confidence motion passing.
No confidence means two weeks of negotiations I think, it's a long time ago now.

 

[Faddy]

Con 278 seats, Lab 271 seats, LibDem 30 seats, Ukip 3, Green 1, SNP 45, Others 21

i.e Cluster fuck. No clear majority, the Lib Dems not having a clue what to do (not enough MP's between them and the Tories, but them and Labour could get over the queen's speech line in coalition with the SNP/others support). Auld Lizzie put on the spot as I have no doubt Cameron would try to cling on for as long as possible to de-legitimise any future Labour/Lib Dem conglomerate.

We'll probably end up doing this all again next year.

Even on that low Labour forecast they still make a majority.
Labour 271
SNP 45
Green 1
Plaid 3
SDLP 3
= 323 which is enough because of Sinn Fein won't take their seats

All those parties are committed to backing Miliband in a Queen's speech

 

[JonathanEx]

They can try for the two thirds vote for dissolution if they really want out without an embarrassing no confidence motion passing.
No confidence means two weeks of negotiations I think, it's a long time ago now.

I think it's two weeks, yeah.

If you're interested in the nitty gritty of this - I'd suggest this Radio 4 series: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b055g032

It's interviews with people who were involved last time, experts, going through what the processes are and how the fixed term act affects it.

There's three episodes left, 15 minutes each - and expire in a few days so be speedy.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Labour/SNP won't happen. You can't press for independence whilst having nice chats with the Queen. And besides, the SNP have had five years to watch what happens to the minority party of government.

If I'm betting anything it'd be a minority Labour government and a return to the polls in November. That gives UKIP time to collapse internally with the loss of Farage, Cameron to get backstabbed or get back in control of his party, the LDs to swap out Clegg for Farron (which is going to be awesome, he's a great dude) and the SNP to bask in their glory.

Then we all get carted out in November to vote in Labour with a small majority, I'd guess. We've seen this all play out in 1974.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ed "Sex bomb" Miliband making a fiance rather nervous.

 

[JonathanEx]

Ed "Sex bomb" Miliband making a fiance rather nervous.

That Ed is a real hit with the ladies. It's that raw, sexual energy.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Ed "Sex bomb" Miliband making a fiance rather nervous.

This is so weird, but so funny at the same time.

 

[RedShift]

Given the chance of an awkward coalition, I wonder how they'll deal with the fixed term act? To my knowledge it didn't have a sunset clause, so it's still in effect isn't it? Will the first point of order be to repeal it? That doesn't give off the strongest of messages and besides, and in a coalition that gives even the small parties a ton of power (esp the SNP since they wouldn't be in an official coalition) - brinkmanship ahoy, no?

In fact, what happens if a Vote of No Confidence is passed whilst the fix term bill is still in place?

Nah, a new election can still be triggered by a vote of no confidence:

Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:

- If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.

- If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

In either of these two cases, the monarch (on the recommendation of the prime minister) appoints the date of the new election by proclamation. Parliament is then dissolved 25 working days before that date.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011

 

[Huw_Dawson]

What's stopping a majority government from calling a new election, then?

Technically if you had enough of a majority to cover your ministerial seats plus one (because I'd guess your ministers can't vote for no confidence) then you could get your entire party to vote deliberately for no confidence.

Then you might run into a bizarre situation where the opposition is voting in support of the government.

Or alternatively a majority could just scrap the Act?

 

[Audioboxer]

There is absolutely no need for us to have nuclear weapons. Like Bennett said, it doesn't make me feel any safer and the only way the world could ever be free from the threat of nuclear war is if we had no fucking nuclear weapons in the world.

Of course, that's the world we live in, but I think it's appalling that we spend billions on something so terrible as a 'deterrent'.

Hear, hear!

 

[phisheep]

What's stopping a majority government from calling a new election, then?

Technically if you had enough of a majority to cover your ministerial seats plus one (because I'd guess your ministers can't vote for no confidence) then you could get your entire party to vote deliberately for no confidence.

Then you might run into a bizarre situation where the opposition is voting in support of the government.

Or alternatively a majority could just scrap the Act?

All of the above. Plus, there's no constitutional problem with ministers voting against the government either.

 

[iMax]

No we're not. There's zero mention of nukes for membership criteria and the diplomatic fallout of pushing a country out would be enormous. Just baseless scare-mongering from people desperate to hold on to a pointless weapons system.

Name one permanent member who doesn't have nukes.

Name one state with nukes that isn't a UNSC permanent member.

Spoiler alert:

Spoiler

it's the same list.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Con 278 seats, Lab 271 seats, LibDem 30 seats, Ukip 3, Green 1, SNP 45, Others 21

i.e Cluster fuck. No clear majority, the Lib Dems not having a clue what to do (not enough MP's between them and the Tories, but them and Labour could get over the queen's speech line in coalition with the SNP/others support). Auld Lizzie put on the spot as I have no doubt Cameron would try to cling on for as long as possible to de-legitimise any future Labour/Lib Dem conglomerate.

We'll probably end up doing this all again next year.

If the Lib Dems get 30 seats I think there's a genuine chance of the present coalition returning. I've seen forecasts that put Con around 290, so the extra 30 puts them veeeeery close. I'm not sure the Lib Dems will be so high this time around though.

 

[Uzzy]

Name one permanent member who doesn't have nukes.

Name one state with nukes that isn't a UNSC permanent member.

Spoiler alert:

Spoiler

it's the same list.

India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea.

In general though, I do think that our position as a UNSC permanent member will be harder to justify without Trident. Sure, we can't be forced out, but our position can be weakened quite a bit, and lead to the UNSC becoming a bit of an irrelevance.

 

[PJV3]

I think it's two weeks, yeah.

If you're interested in the nitty gritty of this - I'd suggest this Radio 4 series: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b055g032

It's interviews with people who were involved last time, experts, going through what the processes are and how the fixed term act affects it.

There's three episodes left, 15 minutes each - and expire in a few days so be speedy.

Cheers, will have a dabble later.

Ed "Sex bomb" Miliband making a fiance rather nervous.

Dail Mail: Mrs Miliband furious that Ed meets women.

 

[iMax]

India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea.

They're not treaty members, so doesn't apply. We are.

 

[Uzzy]

Quality over quantity.

We're not the world's policeman so we don't need 10 aircraft carriers. But at the same time it shouldn't take us 24 hours to intercept a Russian ship that strays into our waters either.

Nukes are a problem for Europe, NATO and pretty much the whole world to manage. Potential enemies getting to within striking distance of our coastline with conventional weapons is all on us.

Well, to start with, I don't recall Russian ships having strayed into our waters any time recently. If you know of any occasions where they have done, please share. I'd be interested in hearing about them. What they have done is sailed about in international waters close to us. Which they're perfectly allowed to do.

Now certainly, the loss of maritime patrol aircraft leaves a gap, and I'd be surprised if we didn't buy some in the next few years. But it's hardly an either/or thing.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Trident takes up such a relatively small part of our military budget that it's never going to be the difference between us having a world class air force and navy or us not, unless you also want to increase funding massively too.

 

[iMax]

Well, to start with, I don't recall Russian ships having strayed into our waters any time recently. If you know of any occasions where they have done, please share. I'd be interested in hearing about them. What they have done is sailed about in international waters close to us. Which they're perfectly allowed to do.

Now certainly, the loss of maritime patrol aircraft leaves a gap, and I'd be surprised if we didn't buy some in the next few years. But it's hardly an either/or thing.

...that you/we know of.

 

[kmag]

Trident takes up such a relatively small part of our military budget that it's never going to be the difference between us having a world class air force and navy or us not, unless you also want to increase funding massively too.

If things stay as planned the Trident replacement would take up 35% of the military procurement budget over the next decade.

 

[CyclopsRock]

If things stay as planned the Trident replacement would take up 35% of the military procurement budget over the next decade.

Procurement is only a relatively small part of the cost though. The associated costs are already being met, unlike if we used that money to buy, say, another few fighter jets, where you need more pilots, ground staff, hardware maintenance etc.

 

[kmag]

Procurement is only a relatively small part of the cost though. The associated costs are already being met, unlike if we used that money to buy, say, another few fighter jets, where you need more pilots, ground staff, hardware maintenance etc.

We're cutting the spend else where in the defense budget. So you take that operational spend plus the whopping great impact on the procurement, buy and fund something actually useful with it.

It's not like everything is staying the same and we're just splurging out £20 billion on some new subs. It's just a status symbol

 

[Kathian]

Well, to start with, I don't recall Russian ships having strayed into our waters any time recently. If you know of any occasions where they have done, please share. I'd be interested in hearing about them. What they have done is sailed about in international waters close to us. Which they're perfectly allowed to do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ack-Russian-submarine-in-Scottish-waters.html

Whether or not they come into our waters, we need to be able to identify and monitor threats - so not having a navy/airforce capable of doing so in the waters around us is a bit of an issue.

They are perfectly allowed to do it but why do you think they chose to spend on things their perfectly allowed to do? We should spend on the things were perfectly allowed to do as well. Our current military is still based on being capable of deploying into central Europe to fight a land war - but the Soviet Union has fallen, other countries are now on side and can provide that defensive capability in NATO; Britain should be highly operational across the Northern European skies and seas.

 

[kmag]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ack-Russian-submarine-in-Scottish-waters.html

Whether or not they come into our waters, we need to be able to identify and monitor threats - so not having a navy/airforce capable of doing so in the waters around us is a bit of an issue.

They are perfectly allowed to do it but why do you think they chose to spend on things their perfectly allowed to do? We should spend on the things were perfectly allowed to do as well. Our current military is still based on being capable of deploying into central Europe to fight a land war - but the Soviet Union has fallen, other countries are now on side and can provide that defensive capability in NATO; Britain should be highly operational across the Northern European skies and seas.

The fact we're an island nation with two surface naval bases (within 150 miles of each other on the same coast line) and no maritime patrol aircraft defies belief

I was on the fence when it came to cancelling the Nimrods, BAE were taking the piss and it was looking like the ongoing costs were going to be high due to the use of the Comet airframe, but it was a particularly capable aircraft for its role (BAE for all their money grabbing faults do build good systems, well except for the Astute's the use of the Vanguards power plant and propulsion ruined it). That we've not went out and at least leased some P-3's is just madness.

 

[MrS]

So what are the likely coalitions?

My guess,
Cons/Lib Dem

Cons/UKIP

Cons looking after economy, UKIP looking after immigration. Beautiful.

 

[Ding-Ding]

I'd rather get rid of nukes and build a world-class navy and air force.

Neither of which would deter anybody, especially the likes of China or Russia. We could literally double the sizes of our conventional forces and they still wouldn't give two shits

Nuclear missles on a boomer are a very effective deterrent as its the most lethal 1st strike weapon out there. While it will rarely prevent a conventional attack against something like the falklands, it does wonders for the purpose it was really built for.

Thats to stop nuclear blackmail against this country

 

[Storm Spirit]

I want to vote for cons but I don't want a cons/ukip coalition

what do I do

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I want to vote for cons but I don't want a cons/ukip coalition

what do I do

Depends on your constituency, but voting Lib Dem seems to be the solution.