-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
CyclopsRock
Member
Hope it went well!
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Congratulations Sir Fragula, hope you had a day (and night 
)to remember.
)to remember.I don't believe so. Nukes are technologically and politically obsolete. But people thinks it gives us "status" like a chav with a pitbull terrier. And it doesn't help that movies have shown nukes stopping everything from pandemics to earthquakes.
Also think what we could do with an extra £10 billion. If you're really worried about the UK's defense we could make sure troops have enough body armour to go around.
Also think what we could do with an extra £10 billion. If you're really worried about the UK's defense we could make sure troops have enough body armour to go around.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Also stopped asteroids from hitting the earth. Win.
QuicheFontaine
Member
This face should be enough to deter North Korea
The military would probably be OK with dropping the Trident if the money was to go back into our devastated defence sector but the reality is it will just get pushed to some other fund like subsidised fags for Jeremy kyle types or wind farms that only work one day a year.
Jezbollah
Member
Trident isnt going anywhere. The first version of it came into service in 1979, and the current revision of the missile was introduced in 1990. For comparison, the USA have used variations of the Minuteman since the early 60s.
But yes, It's a political weapon as much as a deterrent - but it's still one major asset in our ever reducing military footprint.
But yes, It's a political weapon as much as a deterrent - but it's still one major asset in our ever reducing military footprint.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Nukes are absolutely necessary, they're the militaries single most important asset. north korea's let the cat out of the bag as it's essentially rendered the superpower helpless, we're going to see a massive increase in proliferation this century.
In what possible sense? Even the senior generals have ummed and ahhed over whether it's even necessary.
And i wasn't joking when I said they're technologically outdated. What possible scenario would you need a nuke over conventionaly munitions like the MOAB, which has the added bonus of not generating a cloud of radiation that blows across multiple countries.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Basically. I figure in the next 20 years our nuclear deterrent will merge with France's and we will hold a joint seat on the UNSC.
PJV3
Member
I wouldn't mind, USA, China and Russia call the shots anyway, I'm not sure how often we go our own way or use our veto when the USA doesn't (Falklands maybe?)
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035
I keep wondering how much more of a contemptable piece of shit Osborne can make himself, but here we are.
Absolutely fucking unacceptable. When you're parroting the fucking Daily Mail but while in power of the country, parody levels of "shit is fucked up" have been reached.
I keep wondering how much more of a contemptable piece of shit Osborne can make himself, but here we are.
Absolutely fucking unacceptable. When you're parroting the fucking Daily Mail but while in power of the country, parody levels of "shit is fucked up" have been reached.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
shoulda kept his big mouth shut
making use of tragedy for political gain is reprehensible and dumb. hate it when politicians do this.
making use of tragedy for political gain is reprehensible and dumb. hate it when politicians do this.
radioheadrule83
Banned
It is probably no coincidence that wading in to such high profile current affairs will help distract people from what a fucking shitty job he's done. Maybe we should have a debate about that. Smarmy cunt.
I wonder how he'd respond if asked whether his children would be (would have been) allowed to starve. All it'd do is give him greater publicity and feed his ever growing ego afterwards. Also, I'd say his appearances in the media contributed a significant amount to his lifestyle financially.
CyclopsRock
Member
Georgey Boy said:
Really? It's that awful, is it? We've been having the same debate on Gaf.
In other news, I read this earlier which is fairly amusing, with this being the standout passage for me:
But, on a serious side, what say you, GAF? Is Ed's reputation amongst the masses changing? Is Labour's current polling helping him, or emphasising his inabilities? Do you think he'll make it to 2015 as Labour leader, and make a good PM? Is he too tainted by the last Labour government in a way that Cameron and co were not tainted by the Thatcher/Major years?
fizzelopeguss
Banned
short of milliband coming out as a child molester, or something equally vile like being a benefits recipient he's gonna be the next PM.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Mick Philpott's lifestyle WAS a masterclass in fiddling his entitlements, but it required the complicity of two women subjugating themselves to an undignified lifestyle in his service, and squatting out more babies than made sense -- so its totally besides the point.
Its not like Gideon wants to have a debate on whether more could have been done to avoid such a scenario, like more vigilant intervention from social services or something, he just wants to waste parliamentary time with the bollocks and use the story to whip up hatred for people on benefits - who AREN'T setting up insane schemes with 19th century sized families.
This on the day we find out there's 32 trillion stowed away by the worlds rich in the Queen's Virgin Islands. Tax evasion and avoidance accounts for as much as 25x that lost on Benefit Fraud, although of course one is quite different from the other. HS2 alone will cost more than the annual loss and take 20 years to build. Delaying trident renewal (incl. actual updates of the nuc. class submarines) could have saved us at least 5bln.
Did anyone see David Cameron claiming North Korea's sabre rattling (and Iran, just because he felt like throwing that in there) mean we need our deterrent more than ever? Leave alone the notion that I just implied ongoing engine maintenance to existing subs and a delay could save us £5bln; he is apparently suggesting they can reach us from Korea, when they'd be quite lucky to reach out and touch Alaska before being turned into a parking lot.
One thing that pisses me off more than anything else about this lot is the carefully PR managed condescending bullshit, and distraction from problems arising out of their own governance. Apparently There Is No Alternative, but I'm fairly sure there is.
The thought of that just made me throw up in my mouth a little, milliband as PM... ugh.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
-Nobody knows who he is
-Labour have the polling they do purely because of the actions of the coalition
-He will be Labour leader in 2015 now david has left
-He will make a terrible PM
-He is tainted but not close to the extent that the conservative party as a whole was (and still is)
Who keeps the keys in that scenario?
CyclopsRock
Member
I think the real issue with the Philpott story isn't that he was fraudulently claiming benefits, it's that - for the most part - he wasn't. That's why Osborne didn't say "we need to clamp down on benefit fraudsters", but rather 'Mr Osborne said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that"'.
Edit: Also, re: North Korea, the biggest worry is not North Korea launching a nuke at us. It's that, under sanctions and with no income, they sell a nuke to someone else. There was a fantastic report in The Atlantic back in 2005 (here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/07/north-korea-the-war-game/304029/) about the realities of a war with Korea. It's fascinating and has everyone from Doves to Hawks on the panel. They disagreed with the best way to respond etc, but they all agreed that the biggest threat wasn't North Korea launching a nuke or invaded Seoul, it's them selling a nuke. It could be to a terrorist cell (in which case a nuclear deterrent is irrelevant) but it could be to Iran or anyone else.
radioheadrule83
Banned
A debate would be a waste of time, and the Chancellor of this country effectively suggesting the Philpott's lifestyle is a common occurrence, or that this one case is something so alarmingly detrimental to the country's finances that it requires a commons debate... well, it frankly stinks of a PR managed ploy to sow yet more distraction and distrust in to the cultural narrative.
A debate might be needed if it weren't such a fringe case. As I said, the Philpott's particular situation required the complicity of two women entering into some kind of bizarre threesome -- they weren't married so they weren't breaking the law. Until Lisa Willis left him - it was basically like two families cohabiting under one roof with an army of children to look after. You could legislate for that somehow, maybe try and block poly-amorous relations the way we currently block bigamy, or try and draw some legal line in the sand for how many kids the state is willing to pay for, or how many can legally live under one roof before you have to intervene -- but are the cases like this sufficient in number or costly in the grand scheme to warrant spending the time on it? Does it really require 'debate' at that level?
Personally, the avenue I think should be taken with such reckless breeding men is exactly what Mick Philpott's council tried to do. They wouldn't let him have a bigger council house, they exacted the conditions that meant he would have to try and care for his family in the provided conditions. Had Lisa Willis and her children stayed with him, there might have been grounds for an argument with social services about whether they were really providing for all those children.
In any case - do we not have more realistic, immediate and pressing fiscal shortcomings for the Chancellor to address?
Miles Quaritch
Member
Nah, economy is fine. It's just readjusting to a lower growth, higher unemployment/self employment economy.
PJV3
Member
Why do people fear him becoming PM.
He isn't going to do anything radically different in any policy area
Deficit reduction will carry on, he might ease up by a few billion, big deal.
Education will carry on being removed from LEA control.
NHS he might repeal some aspects of commissioning
On and on, there is a middle of the road mafia in politics, Ed, David or whoever becomes PM.
CyclopsRock
Member
Is he? It doesn't read like that to me. It doesn't need to be a common occurrence for it to be indicative of a problem - that problem being that there's an incentive structure at play that doesn't always make work the most rewarding option, financially. This might be an absurd example of it, but it doesn't have to be absurd for it to be a problem. I mentioned several times throughout the "sweeping changes to the Dole" in Britian thread that I thought that the real problem at the heart of our welfare system is the way the system traps people and distincentivises work. In this context, the question of whether the state should be subsidising a lifestyle like Philpot's is entirely applicable, imo.
Incidentally, I don't think trying to fix these problems in the welfare system aren't pressing - to me, they are one of the biggest problems that need fixing, because it's only through improvements in employment that we can ever hope to balance our budget and get back to growth.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
I'm old fashioned, my thoughts on any military is the that they're there for defence first and foremost, anything else is bollocks in comparison. Those nukes are symbiont with the submarines, and we aren't getting rid of subs which are the best weapon in our arsenal for conventional state-vs-state threats.
This whole replacement rhetoric is military procurement gobshite and grossly irresponsible, we don't need a replacement for trident, it's dirty cunt cameron spinning a line for BAE. To put it in perspective, the yanks pushed back their trident replacement plans for another 20-30 years at minimum
PJV3
Member
Now we know why he's getting people off the sick, more parking spaces.
He's a walking disaster zone.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Osborne was basically dog-whistling when he says we should have a 'debate' in regards to the Philpott incident. Fact is people will always game a system unless it is so draconian that, in the case of a welfare system, it cannot sufficiently fulfil its function in entirety. Look at tax avoidance - gaming the loopholes. zomgwtfbbq has made the argument before that lawyers will always game a tax system and I believe the same applies to anything. You have to find the correct balance between function and exploitation. I don't know where that is, whether we are near that or far from it, but you do not find out through extreme examples. Because this guy was a mental. He should not be the basis of a wide-ranging policy.
As for Ed Milliband as PM - why would he be so inept? He is not an inspirational or charismatic leader, that is for sure. Most PMs, even Thatcher and definitely Attlee weren't (I do not expect him to match them, to be clear!). Blair was charismatic and he was awful. Is awful. A war criminal, a liar, a deeply disturbed man.
Is there anything really that suggests Milliband is particularly incompetent? Not really - he has some cabinet experience, not too much life experience, but the alternatives don't either. He does have an intellectual background, which is reasonably decent, though he hasn't shown it in any meaningful sense.
There appears to be an image of him as a wimp/bumbling person. I don't see it. He took on his brother - a much-loved figure (loved in a particular, political sense) and beat him in a vicious contest. While the 'brotherly fighting' aspect has been played up the media emphasis has always been on David's shock loss, not the reverse. Unlike David, he is actually quite ruthless and can make some tough decisions in that sense. He also tamed Labour, who really should have been schismatic following the last election and the collapse of both the Brownite faction and the Blairites. He doesn't get enough credit for that - occasionally in the telegraph, weirdly, but not much elsewhere.
Sure Labour aren't doing brilliantly, but should they? Yes, the Coalition has so many failings but let's face it New Labour were an abysmal failure and disappointment. On civil liberties, the economy, war, corruption. They can be seen as awful to every element of the political spectrum (they did do some decent things, granted, but my point is their perception is tarnished). Labour's current lead is basically the anti-conservative vote, which is very resilient (and growing).
I think Ed is a pretty ordinary candidate who's been smeared to be somehow worse and very different (Red Ed? I wish) from what he actually is.
As for Ed Milliband as PM - why would he be so inept? He is not an inspirational or charismatic leader, that is for sure. Most PMs, even Thatcher and definitely Attlee weren't (I do not expect him to match them, to be clear!). Blair was charismatic and he was awful. Is awful. A war criminal, a liar, a deeply disturbed man.
Is there anything really that suggests Milliband is particularly incompetent? Not really - he has some cabinet experience, not too much life experience, but the alternatives don't either. He does have an intellectual background, which is reasonably decent, though he hasn't shown it in any meaningful sense.
There appears to be an image of him as a wimp/bumbling person. I don't see it. He took on his brother - a much-loved figure (loved in a particular, political sense) and beat him in a vicious contest. While the 'brotherly fighting' aspect has been played up the media emphasis has always been on David's shock loss, not the reverse. Unlike David, he is actually quite ruthless and can make some tough decisions in that sense. He also tamed Labour, who really should have been schismatic following the last election and the collapse of both the Brownite faction and the Blairites. He doesn't get enough credit for that - occasionally in the telegraph, weirdly, but not much elsewhere.
Sure Labour aren't doing brilliantly, but should they? Yes, the Coalition has so many failings but let's face it New Labour were an abysmal failure and disappointment. On civil liberties, the economy, war, corruption. They can be seen as awful to every element of the political spectrum (they did do some decent things, granted, but my point is their perception is tarnished). Labour's current lead is basically the anti-conservative vote, which is very resilient (and growing).
I think Ed is a pretty ordinary candidate who's been smeared to be somehow worse and very different (Red Ed? I wish) from what he actually is.
Seeing as his driver is still in the car it could just be an opportunistic photo. After all, it is The
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Nope, the Mirror! It is a waste of time story though.
Fuck, I just saw the red top and presumed it was The Sun.
PJV3
Member
Yeah, the only thing it does is make Osborne look like a plonker, so it's just adds to the narrative the he's a PR disaster.
It wont be remembered in a weeks time, outside of jokes about the paralympics and blue badges.
CyclopsRock
Member
You really need a reason to think someone would be a good PM, not a reason not to. The fact he's held on for this long, got to be leader of the opposition by a quirk of a whacky electoral system and had a role in the finances of the last government is not, to me, top PM material.
If it's the best that we, as a country, can produce, then god help us. I actually can't think of a worse party leader right now - Clegg, Cameron, Farage, Salmond, Bennett - they're all far more affable, charismatic and more able to talk with some degree of zeal about why they believe what they believe. Ed sounds like he's just realised he's got his shirt on inside out and is terrified of anyone noticing every time he says anything.
If it's the best that we, as a country, can produce, then god help us. I actually can't think of a worse party leader right now - Clegg, Cameron, Farage, Salmond, Bennett - they're all far more affable, charismatic and more able to talk with some degree of zeal about why they believe what they believe. Ed sounds like he's just realised he's got his shirt on inside out and is terrified of anyone noticing every time he says anything.
PJV3
Member
Alex Salmond is in a different class, but I'm not seeing anything in Cameron or Clegg that you are.
Cameron has his PR experience which gives him an edge in looking smooth in controlled settings, saying one thing and meaning another(salesman skills) but he's also prone to just making shit up and getting caught out when put under pressure.
Clegg Hmm, Wallpaper is more interesting. Now and again I feel sorry for him
Farage is basically an unpleasant rude human being, which some people obviously like, but I wouldn't want him running a bath.
Ed- Mostly harmless is probably the best description, he isn't inspiring I give you that.
But we will hopefully get a better idea near the election where he actually stands on something.
APZonerunner
Member
Ed's like a Labour John Major. Just completely unremarkable in every way.
PJV3
Member
Edwina Currie in the stationary cupboard, why have you made me think of them going at it, when I'm about to go to bed.
Good comparison though.
Pretty much. But anyone> Cameron and that smarmy bastard Osborne.
Clegg and Cameron are solid candidates, they look the part and say what they need to say to get by.
Id class Farage in the same league as Salmond. Say what you like but Farage is UKIP in the same way that Salmond makes the SNP. If either of them left their respective parties they would be immeasurably worse off.
Incidentally if the Tories dropped Cameron they would be worse-off, Cameron is their greatest asset.
Ed Miliband is at the other end of the spectrum. He will not define Labour's strength at the polls to the same extent as the other candidates. The Labour party without either of the Eds would make the election more challenging for the Tories (though by the way things are going we are going to get a Lib-Lab coalition in 2015 anyway.)
PJV3
Member
You're looking at it differently to me, I wasn't really worrying about party dynamics, some good points though.
I think Ed is being hard done by, if we use your method. Labour after 13 years and a pretty shambolic exit shouldn't be in the running. He constantly gets the better of Cameron in PMQs (he has fluffed it on occasion), he's also gradually starting to assert himself, he slapped down Ed Balls recently.
It could all fall apart nearer the election when he has to start making decisions, but he's steering the party quite well at the moment.
As I say in my original post, he isn't exactly inspiring like Aneurin Bevan, but people wrote him off in the heady days of the David&Nick honeymoon.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think that Labour are talky doing better than expected - we are in a big down turn which always does damage to the government of the day, unless there's a world war. There are a lot of Lib Demv and Tory voters disenfranchised by what they see as the treachery of coalition. Then Labour has a monopoly on opposition. They are the only party to vote for in England if you don't like the coalition, except possibly UKIP in some areas.
Tory leaders typically always poll ahead of their party, though not by quite as much as Cameron has done.
Tory leaders typically always poll ahead of their party, though not by quite as much as Cameron has done.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
I'm increasingly liking my MP's that way, keep the theatrics and showmanship bollocks for the yanks. They're not my mates, they're nothing like me and i sure as fuck ain't gonna call-you-Dave.