UK Politics

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.

**Ian Sturrock**

Centre right politicians have spent nearly 40 years spouting a business-first, laissez-faire, neoliberal rhetoric and all it's done in that time is concentrate wealth in the SE and in the hands of the 1%.

I'm glad this thread has moved on temporarily from Brexit, but I'm starting to get almost as bored of arguments that assume that there's just nothing that governments can do about rapacious free-market capitalism screwing us over. I mean obviously we can't oppose neoliberalism because neoliberalism makes sound economic sense... Wait.

**Ketara**

r_squared wrote:

Except for the fact that zero to bare minimum investment in infrastructure actively throttles local economies. This is a fact for every region outside of the south east and London, and the same old platitudes are rolled out, meanwhile Londoners can cross the Thames in novelty transport like fething gondolas, whilst Lincoln, Boston and Grantham wait decades for a fething bypass.

It's not good enough to not even try, and if Brexit showed anything, it's that the region's outside London are fething pissed off.

I don't think we're disagreeing particularly here.

My point was purely that adopting a 'build it and they will come' approach to infrastructure isn't an effective use of resources and guarantees nothing. Infrastructure investment needs to have an end goal, an aim which justifies the expenditure of national resource, in order to have effect. For example, I could build a high speed railway from Crewe to Stirling with no stops, but it wouldn't serve much point for the vast resources it would require. By the same measure, I'm thoroughly opposed to the ridiculous 'Garden Bridge' concept for London. There's a vanity project of little use if I ever saw one, and I'm shocked by how much money went into planning for it (thirty fething million!)

That does not mean I am not shocked at times how little infrastructure exists in parts of this country. I think many of the larger cities, Glasgow & Birmingham for example, are actually generally, doing alright. There has been a steady flow of capital to the secondary big cities I've noticed. Birmingham just opened a new stretch of their shiny new tramway, for example, and I beliueve Glasgow just got new rolling stock for their tube.

But for the cities beyond that, not so much. Newcastle is crying out for investment, and the difference between the place and Glasgow in terms of investment is painfully obvious. The buildings are crumbling around them practically. Meanwhile, the only effective railway through parts of Devon is a steam one, which is almost funny if it weren't so sad.

Ian Sturrock wrote:
Centre right politicians have spent nearly 40 years spouting a business-first, laissez-faire, neoliberal rhetoric and all it's done in that time is concentrate wealth in the SE and in the hands of the 1%.

I'm glad this thread has moved on temporarily from Brexit, but I'm starting to get almost as bored of arguments that assume that there's just nothing that governments can do about rapacious free-market capitalism screwing us over. I mean obviously we can't oppose neoliberalism because neoliberalism makes sound economic sense... Wait.

Trust me when I say I'm no neoliberal. But it's all very well to go 'Rar rar, the Government are all rich Tory bastards out to screw us over when they should be doing something', but when the question 'like what?' is posed in detail, most people go quiet very fast, and with good reason. It's just not that simple.

When DINLT bemoans the lack of a 'plan' for Britain, there's very much something to what he says. The Government knows what I've described above, and their response throughout the last forty years has been to shore up and improve upon what works (namely the financial, defence, and pharmaceutical sectors) and shed what doesn't. And you know? I think it was the right course of action to try and salvage something from our failing economy of the 70's. We really were in the economic doldrums, and as any good businessman will tell you, when the going gets tough, you have to focus on your core moneymakers and get rid of unnecessary expenditure.

But. And it's a very big but. I think that that excuse expired at the turn of the century. A good businessman will also tell you that if you remain risk-averse, sit on your laurels, and assume everything will go on as it is now, events will leave you behind.

From about 2000, we've been in a reasonably good place. The economy has been functioning, more or less, we know what our current core sectors are for economic growth, and our finances, whilst not always great, are stable. Blair and Brown should have sat down in 2000, and looked to the future. Said, 'Hey, what new industries can we subsidise or pump prime the infrastructure in an area to cater for? How can we pick up and turn around the most deprived parts of the country?' And taken action to that effect. Sure, a good chunk probably would have been wasted money. But nothing ventured, nothing gained, eh? They could have been trying to set Leeds up as a capital for robotics, Stirling as the place to go for microfinance startups, taken the oil money in hand and pumped it into building loads more hydroelectric power capability in Scotland. Whatever.

Instead, we got Brown claiming he'd eliminated boom and bust, and Blair pretending to be a US President for a decade or so. Then Cameron and Osborne came in, and they genuinely didn't care about much but keeping the place ticking over. They were so busy reacting to Brown's hash of things and the banking crisis at first they couldn't look ahead more than five minutes if they'd wanted to. But that excuse expired around 2014, and it's very apparent that even when things are running smoothly, they never had any real vision. Osborne's 'Northern Powerhouse' was simply a platitude to try and hide the fact he didn't really care.

And now we have May. I'm not overly hopeful. She's better than the Cameron/Osborne duo, I think, but she has her hands full of Brexit now. Not much time for forward planning even if she is inclined that way.

So we just get governments keeping things ticking over whilst they either play the statesman or are firefighting current events. No vision or planning. They just protect what they know works, and leave the rest to rot. And it's a damned shame. For a better calibre of politician in this country, eh?

**Kilkrazy**

My worry is that just as the UK starts to recover from nearly 10 years stagnation following the Triumph of Global Capitalism, we now are going to be mired in a new Doldrums caused by the medium-term fallout from Brexit. I foresee another 10 making 20 continuous years of bad economic progress. That would leave the UK very badly behind the place we could have got to. Infrastructure projects and enterprise zones need money that seemingly the government is unable to raise.

**Herzlos**

r_squared wrote:
Ketara wrote:
...With regards to infrastructure, the report you just cited mentions them as 'essential ingredients', and with good reason. It's not just a case of New Tramline=Amazing new local economy. Spain is living proof that blowing vast sums on amazing infrastructure can just leave you with empty buildings, airports, etc. Infrastructure investment needs to be targeted towards an end goal. Otherwise you can plonk down lots of shiny new infrastructure, and nobody uses it...

Except for the fact that zero to bare minimum investment in infrastructure actively throttles local economies. This is a fact for every region outside of the south east and London, and the same old platitudes are rolled out, meanwhile Londoners can cross the Thames in novelty transport like fething gondolas, whilst Lincoln, Boston and Grantham wait decades for a fething bypass.

It's not good enough to not even try, and if Brexit showed anything, it's that the region's outside London are fething pissed off.

And we had the ideal opportunity, whenever an industry closes down due to neglect, to use that massive workforce to produce the long neglected infrastructure. Presumably it'd have been better for the economy to pay miners to upgrade roadways, parks, railways, bridges and so on, than to pay them benefits to attend interviews for jobs that don't exist in anything like sufficient numbers?

Or is that getting a bit communist?

I mean, back in the Victorian era, we used to over engineer the gak out of stuff, and a lot of it's still largely in use 100+ years later, and we were at the forefront of the industry. Now a lot of places are scraping by on infrastructure that was old when their parent's were at school.

**reds8n**

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/a-grandmother-has-been-deported-with-just-ps12-in-her-pocket?utm_term=.ekPXDxv63#.joGnZYoAP

A Grandmother Has Been Deported With Just £12 In Her Pocket Despite Living In Britain For The Past 30 Years
Irene Clennell was put on a flight to Singapore on Sunday before she had the chance to speak to her lawyer or see her British husband to say goodbye

A grandmother who made headlines for being placed in immigration detention after living in Britain for nearly 30 years was forcibly removed from the country on Sunday.
BuzzFeed News revealed earlier this month that Irene Clennell, 53, was being held in Dungavel detention centre in South Lanarkshire because the government wanted to remove her to Singapore.
She is the main carer for her sick British husband, John, and has two British sons and a British granddaughter.
Speaking to BuzzFeed News from the plane on the runway at Edinburgh airport, she said she had just £12 in her pocket, nobody to stay with in Singapore, and no change of clothes.
Clennell had been planning to see a new lawyer on Monday morning to discuss the potential for a fresh case. She believes her sudden removal was planned for a Sunday so she would have no chance of getting hold of a lawyer to stop it.
Clennell, from Ouston, County Durham, said she didn’t have the chance to see her husband before being bundled off to the airport this morning. “I didn’t even get to say goodbye properly,” she said. She was allowed a phone call to tell him the news, but was barely able to speak. “I was just in tears, I wasn’t able to say much,” she said.
Speaking on a phone provided by one of her flight escorts, she described how suddenly events had unfolded: “They just came to get me this morning and said they’ve already given me a chance. Now I’m on the plane. Four people are taking me to Singapore.
“I don’t know what I’ll do when I land. I called my sister [in Singapore] and she said she can’t put me up, so I just don’t know. How can I stay anywhere? I don’t have a wallet with me, I’ve got about £12 in my pocket. I don’t even have my clothes, they’re at home. I just have what they took from the detention centre.”
Clennell said she was told that if she has no money and nowhere to go she should contact the regional office of the International Organisation for Migration when she lands.
She is the latest victim of the government’s spousal visa system, which requires the British partner to prove earnings of at least £18,600 – and the couple being able to show long stretches of uninterrupted time living in the UK.
Clennell spent too long out of the country while looking after her dying parents in Singapore, which meant she lost her leave to remain. Her subsequent attempts to get a more permanent visa have failed and her last visitor visa expired in 2014. The Home Office said she lost her indefinite leave to remain in the UK because she spent time living in Singapore.
Her husband was still in shock at the news that she was already on a flight to Doha, en route to Singapore. “I went to see Irene on Friday. I didn’t get a chance to see her this morning,” John Clennell said. “Dungavel is 150 miles up the road and I had no idea this was happening.”
He added: “She’s got nothing with her; all her clothes are here. What’s she supposed to do with £12? She’s got no clothes, no fresh underwear and nowhere to go.”
Speaking about the decision to remove her from the country at no notice on a Sunday, John said, “I think it was done deliberately so we couldn’t contact a solicitor or go through the courts.” The Home Office has been accused repeatedly in the past of removing migrants outside office hours to make it harder for them to put up a legal fight.
“I think it’s trickery to come on a Sunday when you can’t contact your lawyer,” John said. “I need people to see what these people have done.”
Speaking to BuzzFeed News earlier this month, Clennell talked of her fear of being forced to make a life in Singapore without her husband and children. She said: “I just want to be with my family. I don’t have anything in Singapore. I don’t have a house to go to, I don’t have a job. I feel closer to my mother-in-law and sister-in-law than my family in Singapore. My parents are both dead and I only have one sister there and we’re not that close.”
She added: “I’m British. When I’m here I feel at home. If I go to Singapore nobody will accept me there because they see me as a British woman. I wear Western clothes and my whole culture is here.”
Her only hope of a life in Britain now is an out-of-country appeal, which she has 28 days to lodge but no means to fund. BuzzFeed readers have already started pledging money for her legal costs on a GoFund me page.
A Home Office spokesman said: “All applications for leave to remain in the UK are considered on their individual merits and in line with the immigration rules. We expect those with no legal right to remain in the country to leave.”

Classy.

This is what we're doing now is it then ?

Mother of 2, grandmother of 1, carer for her husband.

shameful.

with regards to house prices :

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/haha-lets-all-rent-forever?utm_term=.uoP9ARyoG#.lt3E02NrD

TBf given climate change the boats might well be a wise investment.

**Ian Sturrock**

So it's going to sound like typical art lecturer stuff, but... Where Britain has really excelled for decades, probably even centuries, is in the production of art and culture. Out of all proportion to our population, we produce films, games, novels, music, comics, etc., that go on to have a massive worldwide impact.

And you know what? Our production of such art and culture does not wholly rely on government grants and investment... poorer areas would be making art anyway, and deprivation can breed inventiveness, new musical genres, amazing underground films. But nobody gets to hear about most of that underground art. Most of it, too, is not very good; it has energy and originality but little polish and refinement. Still, there are ways to nurture it, and that's what we're not doing, right now. We know better than we ever have done, how to teach art, how to teach creativity, how to refine raw passion and fire and turn it into something world-class. But we don't do it. We let it burn out. Because our rulers don't understand it, and don't care about it.

Anyway. I do get that there's no magic wand to regenerate screwed-over areas. Though there certainly is plenty that can be done. I mean the easy approach would be to move the seat of government out of London, followed by the civil service; take it all to various places in the North or West, Manchester and Leeds and Sheffield and Exeter...

Plus we could have some redistribution of wealth. Right now if you're rich, the UK is one of the best places to be; you will just get richer. You will avoid paying tax. Even inheritance tax can be worked around. Half of London is still owned by descendants of the Norman barons that came over in 1066. A big chunk of the rest of the country, too. Let's dismantle all that stuff and use those estates for the public good. Add in some rent controls. Nationalise the railways. In former manufacturing areas, reskill the unemployed to make solar panels and windmills so we can be energy-independent. And invest in the arts. It'd be a start.

**Future War Cultist**

Yet they bend over backwards to keep dangerous murders and terrorists in the country at our expense.

I dispise this country at times, I really do.

@ Ian Sturrock

Sound ideas. Incidentally, if we had a better class of politician Northern Ireland could become the Hollywood of Europe. There's a place here in the east called Hollywood too.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

When DINLT bemoans the lack of a 'plan' for Britain, there's very much something to what he says

@Ketara

It's just not the lack of a plan for the future, it's their inability to perform the basic function of any government: defence of the realm.

I won't launch into another rant about my grand plan for the UK's future

but even on a basic level, British governments are not upholding their primary duty to protect the realm and the people that live here...

Here's an example: East Anglia is one of the UK's biggest food producers for crops and cereals (birdseye have big farms out there) and it's also one of the biggest risk areas for flooding due to rising sea levels from climate change.

Given we know that, and given the recent flooding that has blighted communities across England these past two years is well documented, you would think that a massive flood defence scheme would be a national priority to protect food production and towns and villages at risk...

What do they get? Peanuts!

A few million quid and a vague promise about cleaning out drainage channels...

The billions that should be spent on the real threat of rising sea levels is instead spent on nuclear weapons to deter the phantom threat of Russia and North Korea...

It's ironic that areas such as London, and the South East, which are at risk to rising sea levels, should be the areas to get the lion's share of investment, when a sensible approach would be to move things around the country. Not having all your eggs in one basket etc etc

Sadly, we have a bunch of short sighted incompetents in charge. And good people will suffer because of these idiots...

We're just ordinary people on dakka with a layman's interest in these things, but if we can see the problems on the horizon, why can't they with all the resources of the state behind them?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Of course they see the problems. They're not stupid (well, not all of them). They simp!y don't care.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

To go back to Mhairi, the SNP MP. She makes a damned fine point that we can't afford certain things.....except Trident. We can totally afford that (never mind that we'll never use it, and nobody is actually loony enough to start a Nuclear war. And even if they were, the best Trident can do is get in some tit-for-tat genocide before we go the way of the Dodo). Massive cuts in tax for the wealthiest and businesses? Sure thing! NO DISABLED PERSON! NO MUNNEH FOR YOU! GROW SOME NEW LEGS LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it's not a Class War thing for me.

I don't despise the rich for being rich. They can't help being born into wealth and privilege anymore than a baby born with HIV and a heroin addiction can help their start in life.

But when a given rich person looks down on the Have Nots, and declares them lazy, work-shy layabouts even though their own wealth is entirely inherited, that gets right up my nose.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Of course they see the problems. They're not stupid (well, not all of them). They simp!y don't care.

They'll start caring when cars are floating down the streets and their Westminster offices are flooded out by the Thames!

Alas, it will be too late by then.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Of course they see the problems. They're not stupid (well, not all of them). They simp!y don't care.

They'll start caring when cars are floating down the streets and their Westminster offices are flooded out by the Thames!

No they won't, because they'll be able to afford food at any price; they just need to outspend the poor. If you're completely price elastic, then lots of concerns about supply and demand just go away. The cost of a loaf of bread is pretty much irrelevant if you make millions annually.

**Silent Puffin?**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Yet they bend over backwards to keep dangerous murders and terrorists in the country at our expense.

When the alternative is extradition of that individual to a country that heavily uses torture in its 'judicial' system? Of course.

The world is not a black and white place.

**reds8n**

..... how long shall we give'em before we tell then that Brussels isn't on the coast..?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Wouldn't it be curious if it sunk?

Proper scientific study into whether or not gak floats.

**Herzlos**

Are they allowed to sidestep the House of Lords?

Is there any requirement on *who* provides the notice? Will Brussels acknowledge Gove or will they expect it to come from May?

**reds8n**

That doesn't hold any legal power.

But that is, apparently, supposed to show that we're ready and up for it.

God help us all.

.. which was written by .......

leading the way in graphic design there.

**A Town Called Malus**

Herzlos wrote:
Are they allowed to sidestep the House of Lords?

Is there any requirement on *who* provides the notice? Will Brussels acknowledge Gove or will they expect it to come from May?

Brussels will not acknowledge Gove and the dumb MPs on the boat. In order for Article 50 to be legally enacted and binding on the UK it must pass both houses of Parliament, like all EU laws.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

leading the way in graphic design there.

Are they even allowed to call their ship HMS anything? Considering that HMS stands for His/Her Majesty's Ship. Seems like The Sun and Gove are assuming the power of the Royal Navy and the Monarchy by claiming their ship to be such.

**reds8n**

.. well I don't think they're 100% serious about the naming thing

was the ships actual name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwardian_era

The Edwardian era or Edwardian period of British history covers the brief reign of King Edward VII, 1901 to 1910, and is sometimes extended in both directions to capture long-term trends from the 1890s to the First World War. The death of Queen Victoria in January 1901 marked the end of the Victorian era. The new king Edward VII was already the leader of a fashionable elite that set a style influenced by the art and fashions of Continental Europe. Samuel Hynes described the Edwardian Era as a "leisurely time when women wore picture hats and did not vote, when the rich were not ashamed to live conspicuously, and the sun really never set on the British flag'".[1] The Liberals returned to power in 1906 and made significant reforms. Below the upper class, the era was marked by significant shifts in politics among sections of society that had been largely excluded from wielding power in the past, such as common labourers. Women became increasingly politicised

" the leader of a fashionable elite that set a style influenced by the art and fashions of Continental Europe. "

... reality is funny eh ?

Carnival in Dusseldorf this weekend

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/karneval-in-duesseldorf-trump-mit-freiheitsstatue-in-eindeutiger-pose-a-1136437.html

Spoiler:

.... ..least we're making them laugh eh ?

**Howard A Treesong**

As if driving wasn't expensive enough, insurance is going to shoot up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39101829

However, accident victims are set to benefit as they will receive higher pay-outs.
Lawyers who had campaigned in favour of the changes welcomed the news.

Well they would, many claims companies take a cut.

If they do this then they have to crack down on two pieces of bs.

The first being the spurious compo culture that has grown up with people racking up big claims for 'whiplash'. I had several companies calling encouraging me to make a claim when I was rear ended a few years ago at relatively slow speed.

The second is the high costs incurred by uninsured drivers that honest drivers have to burden, uninsured driver oddly enough are among the most accident prone drivers. There's no excuse at all for driving without insurance. But the penalties are not great, fines aren't much more than the unpaid insurance. People driving uninsured should have the book thrown at them, driving bans that are enforced.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

@ reds8n

As I've said to you before, the Thames battle between Farage and Geldof nearly killed me - I honestly thought my broken ribs would puncture my lungs, that's how hard I was laughing that day

For the sake of my health, please don't post photos of leave campaigners on boats

**welshhoppo**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To go back to Mhairi, the SNP MP. She makes a damned fine point that we can't afford certain things.....except Trident. We can totally afford that (never mind that we'll never use it, and nobody is actually loony enough to start a Nuclear war. And even if they were, the best Trident can do is get in some tit-for-tat genocide before we go the way of the Dodo). Massive cuts in tax for the wealthiest and businesses? Sure thing! NO DISABLED PERSON! NO MUNNEH FOR YOU! GROW SOME NEW LEGS LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it's not a Class War thing for me.

I don't despise the rich for being rich. They can't help being born into wealth and privilege anymore than a baby born with HIV and a heroin addiction can help their start in life.

But when a given rich person looks down on the Have Nots, and declares them lazy, work-shy layabouts even though their own wealth is entirely inherited, that gets right up my nose.

I'm actually of the opinion that Tridant is very important. It helps give us more international power by being a nuclear armed country, a lot more than we'd have without it.

Plus, all the jobs that come with them. Plus we can't exactly get rid of our nukes that easily, it would probably cost more to dismantle them than to keep on using them.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I don't think we should be getting ridding of our nuclear arsenal, but I do think that Trident is wasteful and unnecessary. We don't need an expensive fleet of nuclear submarines, we should be using a cheaper alternative. Bombers and missile silos?

**Ian Sturrock**

I know it makes me a dangerous radical to say that I don't think we need the capability to nuke anyone, ever. But I really don't. Just feels like an attempt to talk tough.

I mean Russia is a big threat and all but they've spent many years failing to invade the Crimea. If they do decide to land at Dover we will probably have about a thousand years to devise orbital bombardment weapons before they actually get here.

We'd be better off investing the money in intelligence work, if we were really worried about Russia, or anyone else for that matter.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Ian Sturrock wrote:
I know it makes me a dangerous radical

Oh don't flatter yourself. Its actually quite a trendy right on thing to say.

**Sentinel1**

Ian Sturrock wrote:
I know it makes me a dangerous radical to say that I don't think we need the capability to nuke anyone, ever. But I really don't. Just feels like an attempt to talk tough.

I mean Russia is a big threat and all but they've spent many years failing to invade the Crimea. If they do decide to land at Dover we will probably have about a thousand years to devise orbital bombardment weapons before they actually get here.

We'd be better off investing the money in intelligence work, if we were really worried about Russia, or anyone else for that matter.

I am a bit sceptical of the aging Trident missile system. We only have a few subs capable to launch the system and to my mind whether on not it 100% works you are putting all your eggs in one basket. If it came to ww3 all it would take would be for the Russians to spy our movements and sink the subs then Trident would be useless. I believe it is important to maintain a nuclear reserve, but to my mind it would be better to have more nuclear bombs and universal missiles which could be adapted to a certain style of warfare as the situation dictates. E.g supersonic bombers or mach 3 drones capable of dropping a nuclear warhead which could be replaced quicker, cheaper and at the cost of less operative lives.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ reds8n

As I've said to you before, the Thames battle between Farage and Geldof nearly killed me - I honestly thought my broken ribs would puncture my lungs, that's how hard I was laughing that day

For the sake of my health, please don't post photos of leave campaigners on boats

Bob Geldof was quite the PR disaster and you could tell Cameron was shocked and embarrassed over the whole episode. I couldn't stop laughing either!

**A Town Called Malus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I don't think we should be getting ridding of our nuclear arsenal, but I do think that Trident is wasteful and unnecessary. We don't need an expensive fleet of nuclear submarines, we should be using a cheaper alternative. Bombers and missile silos?

The UK has no bombers capable of carrying a nuclear payload. The last such aircraft was the Vulcan. Then there is the issue that if the bombers were kept on the ground they could be taken out with submarine launched missile attacks before having a chance to take off, nullifying our strike capability. That is why the US, when it used nuclear bomb wings as a large part of its main deterrent, ensured that it always had several wings in the air, within strike range of their targets, at any time, refuelling them in flight and having the crews operate in rotations.

Missile silos have huge infrastructure costs as they must be capable of withstanding a direct nuclear strike whilst still maintaining the capability to launch a return strike in order to be effective as a deterrent. The US and Russia both have an advantage in that they have huge swathes of land where they could build multiple large sites, spreading out their nuclear arsenal to make it more unlikely that it could be completely crippled by a surprise attack.

In short, if the UK wants a nuclear deterrent then a submarine carried nuclear system is the only viable form it could take.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Sentinel1 wrote:
Ian Sturrock wrote:
I know it makes me a dangerous radical to say that I don't think we need the capability to nuke anyone, ever. But I really don't. Just feels like an attempt to talk tough.

I mean Russia is a big threat and all but they've spent many years failing to invade the Crimea. If they do decide to land at Dover we will probably have about a thousand years to devise orbital bombardment weapons before they actually get here.

We'd be better off investing the money in intelligence work, if we were really worried about Russia, or anyone else for that matter.

I am a bit sceptical of the aging Trident missile system. We only have a few subs capable to launch the system and to my mind whether on not it 100% works you are putting all your eggs in one basket. If it came to ww3 all it would take would be for the Russians to spy our movements and sink the subs then Trident would be useless. I believe it is important to maintain a nuclear reserve, but to my mind it would be better to have more nuclear bombs and universal missiles which could be adapted to a certain style of warfare as the situation dictates. E.g supersonic bombers or mach 3 drones capable of dropping a nuclear warhead which could be replaced quicker, cheaper and at the cost of less operative lives.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ reds8n

As I've said to you before, the Thames battle between Farage and Geldof nearly killed me - I honestly thought my broken ribs would puncture my lungs, that's how hard I was laughing that day

For the sake of my health, please don't post photos of leave campaigners on boats

Bob Geldof was quite the PR disaster and you could tell Cameron was shocked and embarrassed over the whole episode. I couldn't stop laughing either!

Yeah, it was comedy gold - the funniest thing that happened last year

**Sentinel1**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
As if driving wasn't expensive enough, insurance is going to shoot up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39101829

Well yes that is annoying, but analysts say premiums will rise because of the cars themselves. Packed with more tech, wiring looms, composite materials, and sooner or later driverless capability the cost of repairs is set to soar. If insurance isn't bad enough, buy your car before the 1st of April, typical Conservatives are rebranding the tax scheme so that everyone pays more! My new cars tax is £30, same car 1st April '17 £135.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I don't think we should be getting ridding of our nuclear arsenal, but I do think that Trident is wasteful and unnecessary. We don't need an expensive fleet of nuclear submarines, we should be using a cheaper alternative. Bombers and missile silos?

The UK has no bombers capable of carrying a nuclear payload. The last such aircraft was the Vulcan. Then there is the issue that if the bombers were kept on the ground they could be taken out with submarine launched missile attacks before having a chance to take off, nullifying our strike capability. That is why the US, when it used nuclear bomb wings as a large part of its main deterrent, ensured that it always had several wings in the air, within strike range of their targets, at any time, refuelling them in flight and having the crews operate in rotations.

Missile silos have huge infrastructure costs as they must be capable of withstanding a direct nuclear strike whilst still maintaining the capability to launch a return strike in order to be effective as a deterrent. The US and Russia both have an advantage in that they have huge swathes of land where they could build multiple large sites, spreading out their nuclear arsenal to make it more unlikely that it could be completely crippled by a surprise attack.

In short, if the UK wants a nuclear deterrent then a submarine carried nuclear system is the only viable form it could take.

The UK also has more admirals than fighting ships, so a lack of nuke carrying bombers does not surprise me in the least.