Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Herzlos wrote:

But is it a deterrent if everyone knows we won't use them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-trident-debate-nuclear-bomb-yes-live-latest-news-a7143386.html

It's not as if we have enough to actually scare any foreign states.

Trident missiles have an accuracy of 80 metres, and each submarine carries 48 missiles. Each missile has a detonating power several times larger than Hiroshima. We have four such submarines.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like enough missiles to me to wreck a country. You wouldn't kill everyone, but I'm pretty certain wiping out 160 of the largest cities/towns, combined with the fallout would end any immediate conventional menace.

Anyone likely to do that is likely to do so every if we have nukes.

Are they? Even if they were just bluffing, could you take the chance, when the stakes are literally the lives of everyone in Britain? I'm going to shoot for a 'No' on that one.

Nukes only really hold off the Russians

Currently. The atom bomb is a seventy year old physics problem, it's really not hard to replicate by modern standards. Most of the difficulty comes from sourcing the equipment, generating the materials, and working out a viable delivery system.

and we don't have the capability to do them any real damage.

See above. If that's not an estimation of 'real damage', I'm not certain what is.

I'm also sure that if we're still part of NATO then we've still got all of NATOs nukes as a deterrent (we could potentially chip in towards the upkeep of, say, French nukes).

Like I said, sure, that's one option. Rely on the spending on foreign powers, and hope that they a) keep on spending it on nukes, and b) maintain current alliances with you.

Our real threats at the moment and for the forseeable future are all from groups that won't be worried about being nuked. We can't nuke a suicide bomber. We can't nuke insurgents. We can't nuke ISIS (because by destroying the local infrastucture we'd only create a new threat).

Forseeable. Sure. But who foresaw ISIS? Not many. The Falklands? Nobody. Conflicts have a habit of popping up where you least expect them. And on the day Marine Le Pen somehow influences a facist French coup, nobody will have seen that coming either. Not that I think that's likely, but that's kind of the point. If you've been disarmed of nukes for fifteen years and realise you suddenly need them, that's the point it's too late.

There's nothing wrong with us keeping up to date on the ability to re-arm with nukes should the world climate every change in a way that would require it (and other than the cold war heating up again, I can't think of any). Plus, anti-missing technology is advancing the point that potentially we couldn't hit anyone with a nuke even if we fired it.

In order to keep up to date though, you have to maintain production at a certain level. I mean, I suppose you could take us down to one sub, but then all that means is that a potential enemy has to start crap when it's being refitted. Not to mention that as you yourself point out, anti-missiles are getting better, and one payloads worth might not be sufficient. It would still take another four years of construction in order to build additional subs, so we wouldn't really be much better off than if we didn't bother.

Frankly, I think that the half-way house option is the most pointless of them all. Either have them or don't, you know?

I'm not talking about getting rid of the subs, I think the current sub strategy is a good approach as there's (theoretically) always 1 out and 2 'ready'. We can keep up to date with some production, without having to actually arm the subs. But since (as I understand it) the warheads are pretty much bought in anyway, and whoever is developing them will still be developing them (Lockheed Martin, California) for other nations, do we really need to be keeping up to date personally? I've no idea how long they'd take to deliver a stock (it's up to 320 warheads per sub [8 missiles*, 40 warheads each], so 1280 in total).

Whilst May said she would fire them, I believe she still needs parliamentary approval for it, and would parliament agree?


*I don't think they've carried the full 8 missile compliment in years, it's normally 4/6.

Herzlos wrote:
I'm not talking about getting rid of the subs, I think the current sub strategy is a good approach as there's (theoretically) always 1 out and 2 'ready'. We can keep up to date with some production, without having to actually arm the subs. But since (as I understand it) the warheads are pretty much bought in anyway, and whoever is developing them will still be developing them (Lockheed Martin, California) for other nations, do we really need to be keeping up to date personally? I've no idea how long they'd take to deliver a stock (it's up to 320 warheads per sub [8 missiles*, 40 warheads each], so 1280 in total).

So just to clarify, are you talking about maintaining 4 subs appropriately equipped to fire the relevant missiles, without actually buying the missiles, on the assumption that we can purchase them if we think we're going to need them?

I'll be frank, I don't think that would work on the basis that we'd still be incurring the majority of the cost and that it would still take sufficient time to rearm as to be potentially irrelevant if we needed them.

We do purchase them in (which is unwise in my opinion), but we're still reasonably involved in the design and development process, it's not quite as simple as us buying them off the shelf. British nuclear technology has been tied to America since we sent our research over in WW2, we've co-operated very closely at every stage.

Whilst May said she would fire them, I believe she still needs parliamentary approval for it, and would parliament agree?

There are sealed orders regarding nuclear strikes in every submarine from the PM which are valid upon receiving the appropriate signal from her office. In the event of her or her office being uncontactable and no signal received, there are a few more names (in order of command priority), and then instructions for the course of action to be pursued if none of them can be reached. Parliament is completely uninvolved in the process. The responsibility and authority derives from May and her chosen appointees, and them alone.

Sure, should Parliament disappear the subs have orders to follow. But by that point we'd be fethed anyway. Would parliament agree to launching the warheads if we haven't already been attacked and not yet working in a retaliation mode? Your London under threat example, for instance (which I assume requires some state to be pointing a nuke at London, and we have the option of eradicating them first, assuming of course the nuke is in a position that we'd disarm it at the same time, and our missile defense systems weren't likely to handle it).

 Ketara wrote:

So just to clarify, are you talking about maintaining 4 subs appropriately equipped to fire the relevant missiles, without actually buying the missiles, on the assumption that we can purchase them if we think we're going to need them?

No I'm talking about maintain 4 subs with conventional warheads, but configured such that we could re-arm them with nuclear should that ever be required. We can pose just as much of a deterrent, and still dish out enough damage, but without the radiation part which everyone seems to dislike. It means we don't risk mutating Glaswegians any further than they already are*, and we don't need to worry about turning anywhere else into a nuclear wasteland.

Whilst I agree that Hiroshima was the best available option at the time, because of it we're never going to do the same thing. The political fallout would be too severe, nevermind the radiation.

*I'm from Glasgow, I'm allowed to say it.

Except you might not have time to restock or rearm the submarines.

If we get hit by an attack, I'm fairly certain they'll knock out Farslane in the opening minutes, thus removing our threat.

Herzlos wrote:
Sure, should Parliament disappear the subs have orders to follow. But by that point we'd be fethed anyway. Would parliament agree to launching the warheads if we haven't already been attacked and not yet working in a retaliation mode? Your London under threat example, for instance (which I assume requires some state to be pointing a nuke at London, and we have the option of eradicating them first, assuming of course the nuke is in a position that we'd disarm it at the same time, and our missile defense systems weren't likely to handle it).

It depends really. I provided one scenario, but there are plenty of others. If we were a month into a conventional conflict or an air war for example, the Prime Minister wouldn't even consider consulting Parliament.

Generally speaking, the Cabinet only consults Parliament on matters of conflict when it feels like it, they derive their authority in such circumstances from the royal prerogative as opposed to the chamber. Thatcher didn't have a parliamentary vote over the Falklands, for example. She simply informed the house of the proceedings after authorising the formation of the task force. There is no law compelling any Prime Minister to consult the Commons over anything to do with hostilities or a shift in foreign policy. And historically, they generally don't bother to do so in any matter of import (which I would consider Nukes to qualify as).

 Ketara wrote:

No I'm talking about maintain 4 subs with conventional warheads, but configured such that we could re-arm them with nuclear should that ever be required. We can pose just as much of a deterrent, and still dish out enough damage, but without the radiation part which everyone seems to dislike. It means we don't risk mutating Glaswegians any further than they already are*, and we don't need to worry about turning anywhere else into a nuclear wasteland.

Whilst I agree that Hiroshima was the best available option at the time, because of it we're never going to do the same thing. The political fallout would be too severe, nevermind the radiation.

If we're remaining just as involved in the development process, still building all the submarines, maintaining storage facilities in case we do have to buy them, and remain willing to buy nukes anyway, it seems strange to me to refuse to just buy the things anyway on the basis that people don't like storing them in Britain. It sounds like putting in all the money and effort whilst reaping few of the rewards in an actual nuclear crisis.

I think most peoples objection to Trident is the fact it's nuclear, over the fact it's expensive. If you made them non-nuclear (powertrain excepting) there'd be a lot less issue with them.

I admittedly don't know how the cost would compare, but I'm pretty confident non-nuclear weapons must be cheaper to buy, store and maintain.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except you might not have time to restock or rearm the submarines.

If we get hit by an attack, I'm fairly certain they'll knock out Farslane in the opening minutes, thus removing our threat.

But wouldn't that happen anyway? I mean, even nuclear armed a single hit to Faslane would knock out 3/4trs of our sub force and re-arming capability, as well as irradiating most of Western Scotland.

Herzlos wrote:
I think most peoples objection to Trident is the fact it's nuclear, over the fact it's expensive. If you made them non-nuclear (powertrain excepting) there'd be a lot less issue with them.

To put it in perspective, it's like spending the money to develop a new incendiary bomb, deliberately building half a dozen extra squadrons on an airframe deliberately modified to take those bombs, building all the appropriate storage facilities for them, training all your crew on their handling and usage. And then not buying any, but assuming you can buy them from a factory in America if you want them whilst being aware that it'll take several months to build them (longer in quantity).

It's not unreasonable, wouldn't you agree, to ask whether or not it would be worth going through all that effort when you're not actually going to have them to hand?

But wouldn't that happen anyway? I mean, even nuclear armed a single hit to Faslane would knock out 3/4trs of our sub force and re-arming capability, as well as irradiating most of Western Scotland.

We don't keep three subs parked normally, we usually only have one in for servicing. In a conflict or anticipated nuclear stress point, three would be at sea without question, and the fourth would be kitted back out, leave cancelled, and launched within a day or two.

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I think most peoples objection to Trident is the fact it's nuclear, over the fact it's expensive. If you made them non-nuclear (powertrain excepting) there'd be a lot less issue with them.

To put it in perspective, it's like spending the money to develop a new incendiary bomb, deliberately building half a dozen extra squadrons on an airframe deliberately modified to take those bombs, building all the appropriate storage facilities for them, training all your crew on their handling and usage. And then not buying any, but assuming you can buy them from a factory in America if you want them whilst being aware that it'll take several months to build them (longer in quantity).

It's not unreasonable, wouldn't you agree, to ask whether or not it would be worth going through all that effort when you're not actually going to have them to hand?

Except I'm not talking about running them empty. I'm talking about running them with conventional warheads with the ability to re-fit nuclear. They'll still be capable of raining down death and destruction, but the friendly approved kind.

We don't keep three subs parked normally, we usually only have one in for servicing. In a conflict or anticipated nuclear stress point, three would be at sea without question, and the fourth would be kitted back out, leave cancelled, and launched within a day or two.

1 out long term, 1 on training, 1 parked in standby, and 1 in service. Except when 1 breaks and you have 1 in service, 1 waiting on service, 1 standby and 1 in the field. Training one unlikely to be carrying live warhead, so once you take out the reloading facility, you're still left with 1 useful sub which could be anywhere, but probably far away from Europe.

It seems to me that the point of nuclear weapons is that they are very unfriendly indeed.

Herzlos wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I think most peoples objection to Trident is the fact it's nuclear, over the fact it's expensive. If you made them non-nuclear (powertrain excepting) there'd be a lot less issue with them.

To put it in perspective, it's like spending the money to develop a new incendiary bomb, deliberately building half a dozen extra squadrons on an airframe deliberately modified to take those bombs, building all the appropriate storage facilities for them, training all your crew on their handling and usage. And then not buying any, but assuming you can buy them from a factory in America if you want them whilst being aware that it'll take several months to build them (longer in quantity).

It's not unreasonable, wouldn't you agree, to ask whether or not it would be worth going through all that effort when you're not actually going to have them to hand?

Except I'm not talking about running them empty. I'm talking about running them with conventional warheads with the ability to re-fit nuclear. They'll still be capable of raining down death and destruction, but the friendly approved kind.

I'm fully aware of that. Seriously, I understand what you're saying. But just because I keep those aircraft in my analogy equipped with other explosives as a standard is kind of irrelevant to the analogy made. Just because it's capable of firing /something other than the incendiary bomb has no bearing on the costs invoked in developing and designing the capability to use that incendiary bomb.

1 out long term, 1 on training, 1 parked in standby, and 1 in service. Except when 1 breaks and you have 1 in service, 1 waiting on service, 1 standby and 1 in the field. Training one unlikely to be carrying live warhead, so once you take out the reloading facility, you're still left with 1 useful sub which could be anywhere, but probably far away from Europe.

How long do you think it takes a sub on standby to reactivate? The answer is, normally as long as it takes to get the crew on board and out to sea. The order for which would be given as soon as a crisis with a nuclear country began. Submarines on training also carry warheads. They don't 'train' an entire crew every time they do a training run, or we'd be overrun with qualified submariners! It's usually just a handful of crew. A Vanguard has a complement of 135, you might find a sixth of the crew are on training, and for many it won't be their first run/time in a submarine. Submarine crew are heavily cross-trained on different functions throughout the sub in case something happens to the bloke manning a particular post, so that someone else can take it over and operate just as well.

Seriously, our submariners are pretty hardcore, the training course has one of highest standards in the world. I considered taking it for a while when I weighing up my post-uni options. Just because a sub is out on 'training' doesn't mean it's full of fumbling rookies they aren't going to let near a live weapons system.

The problem with "non nuclear warheads" is that, if someone sees you launch a missile from a submarine they're going to assume, by default, that it's a nuke.

Now, if they or their friends have nukes, it doesn't matter how much you get on the phone and tell them "That missile we just shot at your capital isn't nuclear", they simply won't believe you. And therefore they will not unreasonably launch their actual nuclear weapons at you.

Non-nuclear-warhead armed subs aren't a good idea. It's either nukes, or nothing. In between is like pulling a pistol on someone armed with a machine gun and then complaining that it was only armed with blanks after they shoot you.

If anybody wants to start a thread on the value/practicality/military worth of Trident, rather than the politics behind it, I'm happy to contribute...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will say my standard comment on any trident debate, which is this:

If MPs want it so badly, let them moor it on the Thames outside the House of Commons. rather than inflicting it on a nation that does not want it...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If anybody wants to start a thread on the value/practicality/military worth of Trident, rather than the politics behind it, I'm happy to contribute...

Point taken.

Boris seems to be trying to pass himself off as a serious statesman. If he keeps it up for four or five years, he might even be able to do it convincingly.

I haven't heard much out of May's office beyond generalities. I suspect any major announcements are being saved for the Autumn budget, and much will become clear then. The lull feels a little strange if anything, after several weeks of major politicking. I've gotten used to interesting updates every hour and a half!

Herzlos wrote:
I think most peoples objection to Trident is the fact it's nuclear, over the fact it's expensive. If you made them non-nuclear (powertrain excepting) there'd be a lot less issue with them.

I admittedly don't know how the cost would compare, but I'm pretty confident non-nuclear weapons must be cheaper to buy, store and maintain.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except you might not have time to restock or rearm the submarines.

If we get hit by an attack, I'm fairly certain they'll knock out Farslane in the opening minutes, thus removing our threat.

But wouldn't that happen anyway? I mean, even nuclear armed a single hit to Faslane would knock out 3/4trs of our sub force and re-arming capability, as well as irradiating most of Western Scotland.

But the important thing is they would miss the last one which would be able to counterattack.

Besides, it's only Scotland. You wouldn't notice the difference (I kid)

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If anybody wants to start a thread on the value/practicality/military worth of Trident, rather than the politics behind it, I'm happy to contribute...

Point taken.

Boris seems to be trying to pass himself off as a serious statesman. If he keeps it up for four or five years, he might even be able to do it convincingly.

I haven't heard much out of May's office beyond generalities. I suspect any major announcements are being saved for the Autumn budget, and much will become clear then. The lull feels a little strange if anything, after several weeks of major politicking. I've gotten used to interesting updates every hour and a half!

Wasn't having a go at you Ketara, trying to spare you from the mods' wrath.

EDIT: forgot you were a mod


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I think most peoples objection to Trident is the fact it's nuclear, over the fact it's expensive. If you made them non-nuclear (powertrain excepting) there'd be a lot less issue with them.

I admittedly don't know how the cost would compare, but I'm pretty confident non-nuclear weapons must be cheaper to buy, store and maintain.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except you might not have time to restock or rearm the submarines.

If we get hit by an attack, I'm fairly certain they'll knock out Farslane in the opening minutes, thus removing our threat.

But wouldn't that happen anyway? I mean, even nuclear armed a single hit to Faslane would knock out 3/4trs of our sub force and re-arming capability, as well as irradiating most of Western Scotland.

But the important thing is they would miss the last one which would be able to counterattack.

Besides, it's only Scotland. You wouldn't notice the difference (I kid)

I would notice the difference!

You're the country that invented the deep fat fried mars bar, any exposure to radiation would only be an improvement :p

 welshhoppo wrote:
You're the country that invented the deep fat fried mars bar, any exposure to radiation would only be an improvement :p

That's an urban myth. Over the years, I've been to all parts of the UK, including Wales, and everybody was at it. Any excuse to bash Scotland

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
You're the country that invented the deep fat fried mars bar, any exposure to radiation would only be an improvement :p

That's an urban myth. Over the years, I've been to all parts of the UK, including Wales, and everybody was at it. Any excuse to bash Scotland

I thought that was a Texas State Fair invention.

I do enjoy a Scottish Egg from time to time.

Scotch Egg! Do get your Britspeke right, please!

I thought Scotch was a type of tape and Scottish was the type of Egg.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If anybody wants to start a thread on the value/practicality/military worth of Trident, rather than the politics behind it, I'm happy to contribute...

Point taken.

Boris seems to be trying to pass himself off as a serious statesman. If he keeps it up for four or five years, he might even be able to do it convincingly.

I haven't heard much out of May's office beyond generalities. I suspect any major announcements are being saved for the Autumn budget, and much will become clear then. The lull feels a little strange if anything, after several weeks of major politicking. I've gotten used to interesting updates every hour and a half!

To be honest I think everyone needs a couple of weeks of less drama and more time to think. Theresa May is off to tour Europe. BoJo needs to see if he can get all of his gak into one sock. The Labour Party needs to work out what it is or isn't. (As Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, this is an important constitutional function.)

And most of all, I need to decide if I am going to continue with Pimms this afternoon, or switch to Golden Hen summer ale, or red wine.

I worry that red wine will put me in a coma well before bed time, but it will go much better with the DIY pizza I am having for my dinner tonight. However if I lapse into a coma, how can I finish watching Tales of the Gold Monkey?

These are serious issues for our times.

 kronk wrote:
I thought Scotch was a type of tape and Scottish was the type of Egg.

Nope, it's both. If you liked scotched eggs, try and find a rissole. Nom nom.

 kronk wrote:
I thought Scotch was a type of tape and Scottish was the type of Egg.

Scotch is the tape, the egg and the whisky.

 r_squared wrote:
Something that is puzzling me, why are some Brexit supporters determined to have article 50 enacted now? I've seen demonstrations of people arguing for it to be enacted immediately, but that seems like the most ridiculously destructive thing, apart from a leave vote of course, that the UK could do.
Are they so afraid that their position is so tenuous, and their argument so flawed, that they feel that they must push us into an irreversible sh1t spiral without the least bit of preparation?
Anyone on the forum here who supports an immediate enactment care to explain their reasoning?

Because until Article 50 is enacted, we haven't actually initiated the legal process of withdrawal. I.e. its not really happening until the button is pressed. Until then, I will remain skeptical that a Prime Minister who opposed Brexit, heading a government that consists mostly of Remain campaigners, and a Parliament which is largely in favour of EU membership...will actually respect the result of the referendum.

It has nothing to do with any self doubt and lack of convictions in our arguments, and everything to do with a healthy distrust of the pro-EU Elite (whether in Britain or across Europe) and their reputation for ignoring inconvenient votes when referenda don't go their way or forcing a second referendum years later.

I still do not believe we will actually withdraw from the EU, I'm expecting some sort of dirty tricks or a political fudge, or the Government will simply spend the next several Parliaments debating, prevaricating and stalling and nothing will ever actually be done. I will believe Brexit when I see it.

Such is my lack of faith and trust in the British political classes.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/18/voting-intention-conservatives-lead-eleven/

The results of the poll, carried out over the first full weekend since Theresa May announced her cabinet, show a heavy swing towards the Conservatives since our last voting intention poll in April, in which Labour led by three points.

The boost for the Conservatives could be the first sign of a “new leader bounce” – parties under new leadership tend to poll relatively higher in the weeks and months following the appointment of a new leader. The results could lead to renewed calls from Conservatives for Theresa May to capitalise on her initial popularity and call a general election - as Gordon Brown famously failed to do when he was experiencing his own new leader bounce.

However, it could be part of a longer term trend towards the Conservatives as swing voters are put off Labour by the party's constant infighting. Currently 90% of 2015 Conservative voters plan to vote for them again, compared to 76% of 2015 Labour voters.

Worryingly for Labour, the Conservatives are now ahead of them in every region of the country except the North, as well as among Labour's key C2DE voter demographic.

Obviously some of this is UKIP people (re)turning to the Tory party after the ref.

doesn't paint an optimistic future for Corbyn though eh ?

..I'll also point people to page#10 of the latest issue of Private Eye --- think that's called karma perhaps ?

 reds8n wrote:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/18/voting-intention-conservatives-lead-eleven/

The results of the poll, carried out over the first full weekend since Theresa May announced her cabinet, show a heavy swing towards the Conservatives since our last voting intention poll in April, in which Labour led by three points.

The boost for the Conservatives could be the first sign of a “new leader bounce” – parties under new leadership tend to poll relatively higher in the weeks and months following the appointment of a new leader. The results could lead to renewed calls from Conservatives for Theresa May to capitalise on her initial popularity and call a general election - as Gordon Brown famously failed to do when he was experiencing his own new leader bounce.

However, it could be part of a longer term trend towards the Conservatives as swing voters are put off Labour by the party's constant infighting. Currently 90% of 2015 Conservative voters plan to vote for them again, compared to 76% of 2015 Labour voters.

Worryingly for Labour, the Conservatives are now ahead of them in every region of the country except the North, as well as among Labour's key C2DE voter demographic.

Obviously some of this is UKIP people (re)turning to the Tory party after the ref.

doesn't paint an optimistic future for Corbyn though eh ?

..I'll also point people to page#10 of the latest issue of Private Eye --- think that's called karma perhaps ?

Jeremy is quite happy building his movement, whether through grass roots support or a high fibre diet. You'll all see, something spectacular will come to fruition and cast the Tories from number 10 in a wave of popular support.

Honestly it really isn't surprising considering the shambles Labour are making of post brexit politics.

Also, is anyone else getting sick of hearing of hearing the word comrade bandied about by Labour MP's regarding this leadership contest?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

I still do not believe we will actually withdraw from the EU, I'm expecting some sort of dirty tricks or a political fudge, or the Government will simply spend the next several Parliaments debating, prevaricating and stalling and nothing will ever actually be done. I will believe Brexit when I see it.

As an outsider, I really think Brexit was a horrible idea, but that's your business.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I thought Scotch was a type of tape and Scottish was the type of Egg.

Scotch is the tape, the egg and the whisky.

I prefer Irish whiskey, as it's closer to bourbon.

 reds8n wrote:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/18/voting-intention-conservatives-lead-eleven/

The results of the poll, carried out over the first full weekend since Theresa May announced her cabinet, show a heavy swing towards the Conservatives since our last voting intention poll in April, in which Labour led by three points.

The boost for the Conservatives could be the first sign of a “new leader bounce” – parties under new leadership tend to poll relatively higher in the weeks and months following the appointment of a new leader. The results could lead to renewed calls from Conservatives for Theresa May to capitalise on her initial popularity and call a general election - as Gordon Brown famously failed to do when he was experiencing his own new leader bounce.

However, it could be part of a longer term trend towards the Conservatives as swing voters are put off Labour by the party's constant infighting. Currently 90% of 2015 Conservative voters plan to vote for them again, compared to 76% of 2015 Labour voters.

Worryingly for Labour, the Conservatives are now ahead of them in every region of the country except the North, as well as among Labour's key C2DE voter demographic.

Obviously some of this is UKIP people (re)turning to the Tory party after the ref.

doesn't paint an optimistic future for Corbyn though eh ?

..I'll also point people to page#10 of the latest issue of Private Eye --- think that's called karma perhaps ?

I would take that with a huge pinch of salt, it would appear that Stephan Shakespeare maybe a Tory outrider. Also, the Tories more popular than Labour in Scotland? That hardly seems right. Even with the drubbing they've been taking over the last few years, that seems unlikely.

 kronk wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

I still do not believe we will actually withdraw from the EU, I'm expecting some sort of dirty tricks or a political fudge, or the Government will simply spend the next several Parliaments debating, prevaricating and stalling and nothing will ever actually be done. I will believe Brexit when I see it.

As an outsider, I really think Brexit was a horrible idea, but that's your business.

You are an American, yes? Would you be in favour of a political union with Canada and Mexico comparable to the European Union?