Support NeoGAF

[Sir_Crocodile]

Why would the UK be the only country targeted though?

france

 

[Protome]

Why would the UK be the only country targeted though?

It's not likely, why would you build a deterrent that would fail in such an event though?

It's worth remembering that some of our closest allies now were some of our greatest enemies not that long ago in the grand scheme of things. A deterrent shouldn't just exist for current threats.

Spoiler

Also, France.

 

[twobear]

The idea being that the threat of retaliation would mean it doesn't happen in the first place. IMHO the reasoning is massively flawed, if people in charge of a country* are actually mad enough to launch a nuclear first strike then the thought of some of their own people dying is not going to stop them, so at that point it's about revenge (on other innocent people).


* The only people I can see actually using nukes are lone agents/terrorists against which nuclear retaliation is impossible anyway.

...wasn't there news like a few weeks ago that use of nuclear weapons against Afghanistan by the US was discussed during the run up to the 2001 invasion?

 

[PJV3]

Emperor Trump wouldn't let his UK airbases get nuked without responding, even if it was the French who did it.

 

[Protome]

...wasn't there news like a few weeks ago that use of nuclear weapons against Afghanistan by the US was discussed during the run up to the 2001 invasion?

Yeah, but what are the odds the US would elect someone who could Trump the trigger happiness of their previous leaders?

 

[Moosichu]

france

lol

Emperor Trump wouldn't let his UK airbases get nuked without responding, especially if it was the French who did it.

Ftfy

 

[Audioboxer]

https://youtu.be/8ABghHHFv5k

I'm so glad he isn't an interview trainwreck.

The cheap attempts to get a rise out of him are quite funny.

What the fuck was Holmes smoking?

 

[Moosichu]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/local-council-cuts-revealed-a6673461.html

The poorest councils have had the largest budget cuts. Big surprise.

 

[Uzzy]

RE: Trident argument

In what situation would it be acceptable for the nukes to be launched? Like, what's the line that would have to be crossed? Because surely for something to act as a deterrent, there needs to be the threat of it being used?

Existential threats to the UK. It was a lot easier thirty years ago when you could point to things like the 8th Guards Army crossing the Rhine, but it's trickier to see them now.

That doesn't mean you should disregard the threat. The world can change drastically in a short period of time and deterrence isn't something you can really develop quickly.

 

[phisheep]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/local-council-cuts-revealed-a6673461.html

The poorest councils have had the largest budget cuts. Big surprise.

It's pinch of salt time - or at least fact-check time.

For starters it is a bit rich for a paper called the Independent that prides itself on its independence to uncritically cite "Source: The Labour Party". And the data linked to is merely the raw government data for deprivation indices, which doesn't exactly support the headline. That's because the councils-with-the-highest-incidence-of-deprived-areas (which is roughly what the data are about) is not the same as the "poorest councils" (which is ostensibly what the article is about).

I'm not seeking to rubbish the article, just saying that even with the cited data in front of me I can't made head nor tail of what it is actually talking about.

EDIT: After a quick rummage I still can't tell whether this is referring to the allocation of central government grants, or to net spending per person, or to something entirely different.

 

[Beefy]

Good. Wish we never sold off Royal Mail either tbh. Unless there's already a tonne of competition in that particular industry or field, privatisation of said businesses is not the way forward.

The selling off of Royal Mail was a complete fuck up. The rest is going to sold of soon and I bet a lot of people lose their jobs.

 

[Moosichu]

It's pinch of salt time - or at least fact-check time.

For starters it is a bit rich for a paper called the Independent that prides itself on its independence to uncritically cite "Source: The Labour Party". And the data linked to is merely the raw government data for deprivation indices, which doesn't exactly support the headline. That's because the councils-with-the-highest-incidence-of-deprived-areas (which is roughly what the data are about) is not the same as the "poorest councils" (which is ostensibly what the article is about).

I'm not seeking to rubbish the article, just saying that even with the cited data in front of me I can't made head nor tail of what it is actually talking about.

EDIT: After a quick rummage I still can't tell whether this is referring to the allocation of central government grants, or to net spending per person, or to something entirely different.

From this:

The government looks at several factors such as crime, health, education, living conditions and unemployment, when monitoring whether an area or council is deprived.

I'm guessing that government calculationsare used for determining which councils are most deprived. But you are right, the article is light on information and the Labour party is the source.

 

[phisheep]

From this:

The government looks at several factors such as crime, health, education, living conditions and unemployment, when monitoring whether an area or council is deprived.

I'm guessing that government calculationsare used for determining which councils are most deprived. But you are right, the article is light on information and the Labour party is the source.

This is exactly the problem I have with it - these indices tell you (roughly, because of them being indices) whether there are deprived areas in a council territory. They tell you nothing at all about the council's revenues (council tax, retained business rates, central allocation etc) or reserves or assets, and therefore nothing about whether the Council (as opposed to some of the people in it) is deprived or not.

For example, Manchester has a relatively high proportion of deprived areas. But it also has a huge amount of council tax income, business rates income, rich areas too - and there's absolutely nothing in the data to show whether the one outweighs the other. So the deprived vs cuts narrative is basically meaningless guff.

 

[ruttyboy]

...wasn't there news like a few weeks ago that use of nuclear weapons against Afghanistan by the US was discussed during the run up to the 2001 invasion?

If that's the case then presumably it was disregarded as pointless/counter productive so it would back me up. If they can't make a case for nuking an actual terrorist controlled wasteland

Spoiler

sorry Afghanistan but, you know...

, then using them anywhere else is going to be a lot harder to justify.

 

[Moosichu]

This is exactly the problem I have with it - these indices tell you (roughly, because of them being indices) whether there are deprived areas in a council territory. They tell you nothing at all about the council's revenues (council tax, retained business rates, central allocation etc) or reserves or assets, and therefore nothing about whether the Council (as opposed to some of the people in it) is deprived or not.

For example, Manchester has a relatively high proportion of deprived areas. But it also has a huge amount of council tax income, business rates income, rich areas too - and there's absolutely nothing in the data to show whether the one outweighs the other. So the deprived vs cuts narrative is basically meaningless guff.

Thank you for clarifying that. There may be something to it but it's not as straightforward as the article paints it then?

 

[phisheep]

Thank you for clarifying that. There may be something to it but it's not as straightforward as the article paints it then?

I'd put it even more neutrally than that - there may or may not be anything to it - and we just can't tell. Which makes it, as a news story, pretty unnewsworthy.

There's plenty of things that Labour could quite sensibly make releases about, but this sort of spun-out-of-nothing crap is not the sort of "new politics" that I was looking forward to.

EDIT: Also the pie chart is rubbish. Think what it would have to look like if the top 10 undeprived councils had increased spending ...

 

[Jezbollah]

I have to admire Jeremy Corbyn's anti-nuclear position, but sadly it only really makes sense if other countries are willing to do the same. The chances of that is very remote. He can't determine the political dynamic in 10, 20, 30 years time - the lifespan of a renewed trident and eventually it's successor.

The existence of Trident as one subject is something, but to say that he wouldn't ever "press the button" is quite something. I would like to know what other hard military decisions he would be adverse to kick the tyres on..

EDIT: Just saw that Eamon Holmes "Interview". Typical bollocks from him. He gives all politicians stick on Sunrise to get viewers tuned in and tweeting. Trash level TV.

 

[phisheep]

I have to admire Jeremy Corbyn's anti-nuclear position, but sadly it only really makes sense if other countries are willing to do the same. The chances of that is very remote. He can't determine the political dynamic in 10, 20, 30 years time - the lifespan of a renewed trident and eventually it's successor.

The existence of Trident as one subject is something, but to say that he wouldn't ever "press the button" is quite something. I would like to know what other hard military decisions he would be adverse to kick the tyres on..

I rather like his approach. It's a sensible and principled one. By saying he wouldn't ever "push the button" (not that there is one) he takes away the deterrent factor of Trident and therefore its sole reason for existing. That clears the way for getting rid of it, if Labour wins the an election on that basis.

The world is a less dangerous place now than it was in the 60s and 70s, and the dangers it now faces are largely not such as would be susceptible to a nuclear deterrent anyway.

 

[Jezbollah]

The world is a less dangerous place now than it was in the 60s and 70s, and the dangers it now faces are largely not such as would be susceptible to a nuclear deterrent anyway.

I agree with you there - however if the countries that had nuclear weapons thought this then we would see a continual program if disarmament to get rid of the insane amounts of warheads still out there. New Start has halved it, but it doesn't go far enough. There is simply not the appetite to get rid of these weapons. No one can see into the future of a proposed renewal Trident lifespan to know that it will never be required.

 

[Moosichu]

You can't launch at the subs because they're out hiding in the middle of the Atlantic, it's why there's always one on patrol, and why due to the training, armament and maintenance cycles we have four subs. It takes 4 subs to allow for one to be operational at all times.

Surely if it's that easy to hide-out in the middle of the sea and not be detected, couldn't anyone who was going to launch nukes at the UK do that? If so, what would the UK gain by retaliating and targetting loads of civilians in whichever country launched nukes at it?

 

[Jezbollah]

Surely if it's that easy to hide-out in the middle of the sea and not be detected, couldn't anyone who was going to launch nukes at the UK do that? If so, what would the UK gain by retaliating and targetting loads of civilians in whichever country launched nukes at it?

Well, the idea of nukes is that you have them to stop your own civilians being nuked themselves. By having them means the other guy thinks first before firing first. This being the irony of the US Nuclear deterrent called "Peacekeeper" (LGM-118).

 

[phisheep]

I agree with you there - however if the countries that had nuclear weapons thought this then we would see a continual program if disarmament to get rid of the insane amounts of warheads still out there. New Start has halved it, but it doesn't go far enough.

Needs someone to make a stand. Gorbachev tried to - why not Corbyn?

There is simply not the appetite to get rid of these weapons. No one can see into the future of a proposed renewal Trident lifespan to know that it will never be required.

From another point of view, surely everyone can see far enough into the near future that it is kind of silly to have vast numbers of impossibly powered weapons of mass civilian destruction lying about all over the planet?

 

[Jezbollah]

From another point of view, surely everyone can see far enough into the near future that it is kind of silly to have vast numbers of impossibly powered weapons of mass civilian destruction lying about all over the planet?

The numbers even with New Start are still insane:

(USA/Russia)

Deployed missiles and bombers: 700
Deployed warheads (RVs and bombers) :1550
Deployed and Non-deployed Launchers (missile tubes and bombers): 800

 

[CyclopsRock]

Surely if it's that easy to hide-out in the middle of the sea and not be detected, couldn't anyone who was going to launch nukes at the UK do that? If so, what would the UK gain by retaliating and targetting loads of civilians in whichever country launched nukes at it?

That's literally the purpose of MAD innit? You don't gain anything by retrospectively nuking an aggressor - but they lose considerably by you doing so, which is (one of) the things that will help convince them not to attack you in the first place.

 

[Moosichu]

Came across an interesting article about discussing partly why Corbyn has been as successful as he has been so far and why he might benefit from continuing his current approach instead of becoming more 'proffesional'.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discu...ejected-new-labour-pr-for-a-more-civic-vision


Yes Prime minister :
https://youtu.be/DUzRJfAc-HU

 

[CyclopsRock]

Interesting fact, chaps and chappettes - Labour hold 95 of the 100 lowest turnout constituencies.

 

[Protome]

Interesting fact, chaps and chappettes - Labour hold 95 of the 100 lowest turnout constituencies.

Finally, leading in something!

 

[PJV3]

Finally, leading in something!

Nah, they have held that title for years.
Low voter registration, low/no expectations of the system.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Yikes

@britainelects: Midstocket / Rosemount (Aberdeen) result:
SNP - 40.9% (+2.0)
CON - 23.6% (+9.8)
LAB - 21.2% (-11.2)
LDEM - 8.3% (+2.0)
GRN - 6.0% (-0.4)

And another one, labour down and tories up. Extraordinary for that to happen after a party has been in government for over 5 years.

@britainelects: George Street / Harbour (Aberdeen) result:
SNP - 51.2% (+17.5)
LAB - 26.1% (-5.4)
CON - 10.4% (+3.7)
GRN - 7.2% (-0.1)
LDEM - 5.1% (-4.7)

 

[twobear]

Is it? They just got voted into power again which suggests a general level of happiness with their governance; combined with the the hack job the media has made about reporting Corbyn as well as the somewhat scatty first few weeks of his opposition I don't think it's too unrealistic to think that the Tories would be up.

 

[tomtom94]

I for one welcome our new Scottish overlords (and ladies)

 

[CyclopsRock]

Is it? They just got voted into power again which suggests a general level of happiness with their governance; combined with the the hack job the media has made about reporting Corbyn as well as the somewhat scatty first few weeks of his opposition I don't think it's too unrealistic to think that the Tories would be up.

Yeah maybe, but Corbyn's Labour will be left of the SNP. Ed's Labour were left of the SNP on most issues. The fact that the Tories gained - significantly in one, less so in the other - suggests that they're losing some voters to the right - in Scotland, land of communism and subsidised further education. We shouldn't read too much into such small groups, obviously, but to the extent we can read anything, it suggests that the move to the left will cost them somewhat. Will the gains make up for it? Who knows.

 

[PJV3]

Yeah maybe, but Corbyn's Labour will be left of the SNP. Ed's Labour were left of the SNP on most issues. The fact that the Tories gained - significantly in one, less so in the other - suggests that they're losing some voters to the right - in Scotland, land of communism and subsidised further education. We shouldn't read too much into such small groups, obviously, but to the extent we can read anything, it suggests that the move to the left will cost them somewhat. Will the gains make up for it? Who knows.

I don't think Corbyn registers much in Scotland, he's not likely to win an election and a lot of left wingers just want out of the union.

The SNP are going to have to make a mess of something for it to change.

 

[Jezbollah]

To be fair to Labour, apart from elect a new Scottish leader (as well as Corbyn) they haven't had the chance to do anything to put a dent into the SNP gains from the election.

 

[War Peaceman]

Yeah maybe, but Corbyn's Labour will be left of the SNP. Ed's Labour were left of the SNP on most issues. The fact that the Tories gained - significantly in one, less so in the other - suggests that they're losing some voters to the right - in Scotland, land of communism and subsidised further education. We shouldn't read too much into such small groups, obviously, but to the extent we can read anything, it suggests that the move to the left will cost them somewhat. Will the gains make up for it? Who knows.

People keep repeating this, but there is actually very little evidence to suggest Milliband's labour were that left wing. I mean look at this. It is mostly just basic stuff*

http://action.labour.org.uk/index.php/cost-of-living-contract

It has been said many times but Labour's policies were very popular. They weren't trusted to enact them. They paid the long-term price of New Labour's disillusioning politics and the short term price for a terrible opposition (I think their campaign broadly speaking was acceptable - the Tories were far more sophisticated and precise, but they didn't do badly all things considered). The problem wasn't that they weren't left wing enough. They weren't professional or trustworthy enough.


*with exception of the energy freeze policy


Also, remember how photogenic and media-savvy Tony Blair was? Those were the days...

 

[Moosichu]

I'm amazed, if I understand this correctly, Michael Gove is actually doing something good as job as justice secretary.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Goves-radical-shake-up-for-prison-reform.html

Still a long way to go, but definitely an improvement unless I'm not seeing something. Considering how much he screwed up with education I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The general consensus amongst all the lawyer people I know (both personally and who I follow on Twitter like JackOfKent) is that Gove is doing a really good job of undoing all the damage Grayling did during his time there.

 

[Moosichu]

That's really good to hear.

 

[Moosichu]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/soc...-as-real-poverty-in-21st-century-Britain.html

Alan Sugar lives in such a bubble.

Edit: Sorry about the double post!

 

[Maledict]

The general consensus amongst all the lawyer people I know (both personally and who I follow on Twitter like JackOfKent) is that Gove is doing a really good job of undoing all the damage Grayling did during his time there.

He's tinkering around the edges and doing some decent (but small) stuff with prisons.

He isn't touching any of the fundamental fuck ups that Grayling created, such as the part privatisation of probation, the massive reductions to legal aid, the massive budget courts to the court service etc.It's nice that someone is looking at prison reform because christ it needs it, but he's not fixing Graylings fuck ups.

 

[RedShift]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/soc...-as-real-poverty-in-21st-century-Britain.html

Alan Sugar lives in such a bubble.

Edit: Sorry about the double post!

His comment on microwaves reminds me of Fox News.

Maybe he's seeing how much fun the Donald is having and wants in on the action.

 

[tomtom94]

His comment on microwaves reminds me of Fox News.



Maybe he's seeing how much fun the Donald is having and wants in on the action.

The people who picked Sugar for the Apprentice knew more than they realised... he's even done the abandoning a political party thing.

 

[Par Score]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/soc...-as-real-poverty-in-21st-century-Britain.html

Alan Sugar lives in such a bubble.

Edit: Sorry about the double post!

 

[tomtom94]

The government is to introduce new rules to stop councils from engaging in what they call "politically motivated" boycotts; the net effect in practice is to stop Labour and the SNP boycotting Israel. Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34433313

 

[Uzzy]

The government is to introduce new rules to stop councils from engaging in what they call "politically motivated" boycotts; the net effect in practice is to stop Labour and the SNP boycotting Israel. Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34433313

So very petty, but who can be surprised that Whitehall wants to micromanage every aspect of the country? Hearing 'Militant Leftwing' again is certainly amusing though.

More generally, there seems to have been a move in foreign policy away from any kind of pushing better moral choices towards one that solely focuses on trade and profit. That's rather depressing.

Also, in some sad news, Denis Healey's died at the age of 98.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/soc...-as-real-poverty-in-21st-century-Britain.html

Alan Sugar lives in such a bubble.

Edit: Sorry about the double post!

Unfortunately the straw poll on that site says 69% of people agree with Ole Alan b'stard Sugar. If you go by Alan Sugars logic then even the people in Hackney weren't poor by that standard. I mean sure they may not have had a shilling for the meter but by god they had a roof over their head, they had a room to sleep in, previous generations didn't have that.

There is such a huge culture of denial in the UK it isn't even funny anymore.

 

[Coriolanus]

A telegraph online poll should be in line with telegraph's general editorial slant. No surprise there.

 

[Calabi]

I dont understand then. What are these people? What is poor? He believes it's perfectly reasonable to live like that with no way out or way to get up.

 

[Walshicus]

Just watching Have I Got News on repeat and man is that episode awkward...

 

[PJV3]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/03/ministers-hiding-details-nhs-cash-crisis

This lot, I don't know. They think they own the place. Leaning on people is their forte.