|
On April 21 2010 03:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:01 Chrustler wrote:On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote:
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money. Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that. What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money. Our nuclear arsenal is incredibly small, tiny far beyond what the US and Russia are proposing cutting back to. Saying "in this climate we don't need 10, look, the US is cutting back to 1000" doesn't entirely follow. That said, it has no military purpose and as long as we're in NATO it will not. But times change and it'd be shit to have to restart a nuclear project from scratch. It's a waste of money but I've seen worse wastes and I expect the running costs are considerably lower than the cost of stopping it then restarting it a decade down the line.
In this climate no country needs ANY nuclear weapons as far as I'm concerned. If this (or any) country ever needs to worry about using their nuclear weapons then I won't be thinking about the cost in terms of GBP. The UK/US and Russia being in possession of nuclear weapons is only an encouragement for others to do the same, no country should have them and the sooner that everyone signs a complete non-proliferation treaty the better, but for now I'll be happy just to get rid of trident.
Edit: If you really think that nuclear weapons are a 'protection system', you're wrong. Regardless, it's debatable whether Iran even has nuclear weapons and doubtful that any nuclear missile they could possess could even reach as far as the United Kingdom. North Korean missiles would only be able to strike US soil in Alaska, they have such short range. I'd say Great Britain is pretty safe from the worlds boogymen right now.
|
United States44239 Posts
On April 21 2010 03:18 Chrustler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:08 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 03:01 Chrustler wrote:On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote:
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money. Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that. What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money. Our nuclear arsenal is incredibly small, tiny far beyond what the US and Russia are proposing cutting back to. Saying "in this climate we don't need 10, look, the US is cutting back to 1000" doesn't entirely follow. That said, it has no military purpose and as long as we're in NATO it will not. But times change and it'd be shit to have to restart a nuclear project from scratch. It's a waste of money but I've seen worse wastes and I expect the running costs are considerably lower than the cost of stopping it then restarting it a decade down the line. In this climate no country needs ANY nuclear weapons as far as I'm concerned. If this (or any) country ever needs to worry about using their nuclear weapons then I won't be thinking about the cost in terms of GBP. The UK/US and Russia being in possession of nuclear weapons is only an encouragement for others to do the same, no country should have them and the sooner that everyone signs a complete non-proliferation treaty the better, but for now I'll be happy just to get rid of trident.
The cat is out of the bag. Any country that subsequently got them in secret would be able to bully the others, stopping them from restarting their own nuclear programs with the threat of force. For that reason no country would disarm. They'd just keep their programs secret but everyone would know about it and be suspicious that every other country was about to declare theirs and try something.
Public and accountable is the best way. They can't be uninvented and at least they serve as a cap on major wars.
|
The Grand Design episode of Yes Prime Minister parodies the whole trident//nuclear weapons debate quite brilliantly imo
|
Well even if it has warped my eyes, I want Labour to stay in power and intend to vote tactically Lib Dem to at least attempt to make my constituency less Conservative than it already is. It's a shame really though that all my local MPs suck
Also, about the live TV debate, I'm not too keen on this, it was quite boring, they all said samey stuff and we're electing a whole party not some sort of President
|
I watched the first debate and was just disgusted. Right from the start all three were trying to out right wing each other on immigration. I'm a member of the labour party but i think i'll vote green.
Still an exciting election though, if the polls hold then it's not hard to see some sort of PR getting adopted. Maybe next election my vote can be worth a damn 
|
I've been out so I'm just going to do a few replies, seeing as I'm interested here and there are some people whose views I'd like to examine for my own voting reasons (editing them in):
|
On April 20 2010 22:58 KwarK wrote:
The vast majority of hereditaries are now gone and the remaining ones had to justify their stay on the grounds of sufficient expertise to be worthy of appointing to the job if they hadn't inheritted it. And their children will not inherit it, the hereditary House of Lords is gone, there are just a few survivors from the last generation.
Was your point in the first part of this post (page 4 top) to basically express an opinion that Labour will fail to deliver on this?
On April 20 2010 22:58 KwarK wrote:
Elected and a council of elders are mutually exclusive. At present the House of Lords is utterly independent of politics because they cannot be removed. Once you add elections you turn these elders, many of whom are still busy within their own fields, into politicians. They need to campaign, network and finance themselves. That undermines the entire point of the House of Lords in my opinion.
I can see how what you're saying makes sense, I too saw it as a major stumbling block. But isn't it the party in power who gets to appoint lords? And the cash for peerages scheme, didn't that show that the Lords is already mired in politics?
What if only accredited scientists were polled when voting scientists into the HoL, University Dons polled for their like, historians (let's be inclusive  ) for their like etc? You still think it wouldn't be able to avoid greased palms and campaigning? Does being a lord give one that much power and money? Is that changeable?
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote:
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
I disagree quite a lot here: I think having the party leaders confront each other's policies and battle them with their own (god damn I'm missing out SO many pokemon analogies D is healthy for the public to get discussing policies and such. It's not very hardcore debate though and it's still full of too much sound-byte, coached politics. I also think it's very important that everyone realises we are not supposed to vote for leaders first, rather for parties first, cabinet second and leaders third.
On April 21 2010 00:53 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
Let's try and keep this civil.
I'd like to echo this point. This thread should be informative and civil. If we care about our country then we should maintain a certain standard of decorum and also pay respects to people who clearly know more about the subjects than us. But also remember that if someone knows more than you, your analysis may still be very valid and different; so raise questions with the purpose of firming up your personal voting decision.
On April 21 2010 03:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote:
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money. The French currently have a bigger and better fleet than us and you want to scrap some more subs? Dying inside here.
I was under the impression that some of our navy had to be given to the French because of some EU resolution. Any veracity there? Also, what's the deal with fishing zones, has the EU given some of ours to France?
PS. You got any good sources for a nice, brief history of politics in the UK? I've been learning about Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair etc but I'd like to know a little more detail BUT not too much!
PS. In the Daily Politics foreign policy debate, the spokesperson for foreign affairs in the Lib Dems said he isn't opposed to nuclear deterrent he just thinks that Trident is outdated and could be replaced with something cheaper and more relevant. Surely all we really need is the most minimal we can get.
|
I really like the format of the debate, it really strives to stir the pot and the issues. I'm not one to follow UK politics but the quick wit was certainly an interesting hour and a half.
|
United States44239 Posts
On April 21 2010 05:22 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote:
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money. The French currently have a bigger and better fleet than us and you want to scrap some more subs? Dying inside here. I was under the impression that some of our navy had to be given to the French because of some EU resolution. Any veracity there? Also, what's the deal with fishing zones, has the EU given some of ours to France?
As far as I know that's total nonsense. They have a bigger navy because Britain has realised that the navy is becoming obsolete as a weapon and is spending money in other areas. It's depressing only because historically we're a naval power.
As for the cash for honours scandal, unavoidable but I imagine given the scandal and the media attention it'll be harder for someone to try it again. I still think an appointed House of Lords is the best way.
Edit: As for sources, I'm afraid not. I did A-levels in Politics and History which together gave me a grounding in the post war situation in Britain but those text books were fairly hard going. I'm also about four years out of date now. 
|
My other question was you know can you just explain how Lords are appointed. Is it entirely down to the party in power and do they have to justify their appointments to the House of Commons, Lords or any independent body?
|
United States44239 Posts
On April 21 2010 06:02 sc4k wrote:
My other question was you know can you just explain how Lords are appointed. Is it entirely down to the party in power and do they have to justify their appointments to the House of Commons, Lords or any independent body?
It comes under Royal Prerogative which are the powers of the monarch wielded by the PM. However in 2000 the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created as one of the recommendations regarding House of Lords reform. It's purpose is basically to ensure transparancy and prevent partisan placements although for obvious reasons they allow a degree of partisan leeway. It was the objections of the Commission that led to the cash for peerages scandal.
On a slightly related note, Blair squeezed a peerage for his old friend Faulkner just before the commission came into being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Faulkner,_Baron_Faulkner_of_Worcester
|
"You shut up. No you shut up. No you..."
I don't Really think anyone is arguing that Britain or America are better than one another, or whether our military spending is ridiculous...Can we keep talking about the election? It's Actually pretty interesting y'know.
|
United States44239 Posts
On April 21 2010 06:12 Piy wrote:
"You shut up. No you shut up. No you..."
I don't Really think anyone is arguing that Britain or America are better than one another, or whether our military spending is ridiculous...Can we keep talking about the election? It's Actually pretty interesting y'know.
Who are you replying to? :S As far as I can tell we're pretty much on topic at the moment.
|
On April 21 2010 06:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 06:12 Piy wrote:
"You shut up. No you shut up. No you..."
I don't Really think anyone is arguing that Britain or America are better than one another, or whether our military spending is ridiculous...Can we keep talking about the election? It's Actually pretty interesting y'know. Who are you replying to? :S As far as I can tell we're pretty much on topic at the moment.
Meh, I get uppity in political discussions anyways, but theres been about 2 pages of people talking about missile shields :S
|
Yes I found that irritating too. It was Kwark basically giving people a history lesson.
CHRSIT PPL LURN UR FACTS YEAH
*nervous glances*
|
United States44239 Posts
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote:
Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died.
Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows.
While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
|
I'd like to contest that, but I couldn't do it without the perpetual nagging doubt that you're right.
Reading their manifesto. Oh my god. Apparently I'm watching it. With library music in the background...
Edit: It does seem to me that the objection 'the Lib Dems have never been gov't so they haven't enough experience' isn't very fair. I like the Lib Dems' frontline politicians and I think some might be competent with extra-political experience, but there looks to be a shallowness to the roster, so to speak. It would be nice if there could be a main manifesto points section in the OP?
Oh Jesus their website is terrible
|
On April 21 2010 06:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote:
Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe? This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
|
Uh no I believe that's exactly what Kwark doesn't want.
|
United States44239 Posts
On April 21 2010 07:19 noddyz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 06:57 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote:
Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe? This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet. Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
