+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 131
General Chat Thread, Depressed if we have a Tory goverment. in General; Originally Posted by Gibbo How about the rise of the surveillance society under Labour? (I've been arrested and detained twice ...
  1. #46

    Andrew_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester
    Posts
    2,979
    Thank Post
    64
    Thanked 378 Times in 288 Posts
    Rep Power
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Gibbo View Post
    How about the rise of the surveillance society under Labour? (I've been arrested and detained twice for "anti-terrorism" reasons just because I like to take photos of buildings). The farce of ID cards? The thousands of jobs lost at BAE? The Gulf War? Afghanistan? And now sabre rattling at Iran?
    Do you HONESTLY think the Tories would have done ANY of that differently? Well, other than leading us into war, rather than following the USA.

    If the Tories win, I'm moving to Mars!

  2. #47
    ICT_GUY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Weymouth
    Posts
    2,261
    Thank Post
    646
    Thanked 283 Times in 204 Posts
    Rep Power
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by nicholab View Post
    So why support a new Trident with out reviewing. To me it seems silly that Trident is not part of the strategic defence reviews. As a country we must have wasted a fortune on Nuclear weapons.
    Its a waste if it didn't do its job. Its a deterrent, the whole point is that if its effective we never have to use it. Therefore it can be argued that it has been worth every penny.

  3. #48

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,181
    Thank Post
    285
    Thanked 774 Times in 584 Posts
    Rep Power
    336
    As a deterrent, keep our seat on the UN Security Council etc.
    One thing you should realise, LibDem don't plan to renew Trident, but they DO want a nuclear deterrent. The problem is, we would have to develop our own system which would cost far more than Trident and would also breach nuclear testing bans.

  4. #49

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,181
    Thank Post
    285
    Thanked 774 Times in 584 Posts
    Rep Power
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew_C View Post
    Do you HONESTLY think the Tories would have done ANY of that differently? Well, other than leading us into war, rather than following the USA.

    If the Tories win, I'm moving to Mars!
    Errm, yes I do, so would the LibDems and almost any other party except Labour.

  5. #50

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,697
    Thank Post
    854
    Thanked 899 Times in 744 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by ICT_GUY View Post
    Its a waste if it didn't do its job. Its a deterrent, the whole point is that if its effective we never have to use it. Therefore it can be argued that it has been worth every penny.
    A deterrent to what? Under what circumstances would you actually consider firing it? I bet we wouldn't even if were being invaded. I wonder if a better deterrent, especially in this day and age, would be to better equip our armed forces and plough some extra dough into intellegence gavering and anti-terrorism units.

    Spennding millions on something you're not going to use under any circumstances and justifying it as a 'deterent' is just loonacy! (IMHO).

  6. #51
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    No but I have seen both Labour and Tory in national government in a 'leading' role !

    Can I ask a related question - Why do we need Trident at all?
    dunno. don't really have an opinion one way or t'other.

    realistically, what concessions will the libdems get in return for supporting lab or con. anything on trident ? i doubt it. electoral reform ? dunno.

    the point is even if they do get concessions and have influence they would be very much in a 'supporting' role, so in supporting the tories they'd try and influence on not making 6bn [a tiny fraction of govt. spending] 'efficiency savings' this year. There attitudes toward deficit reduction seem more conservative than labours focus for deficit reduction.....i'm not sure they are the progressive party on certain important issues. And the juries out as to what they would actually do for real.

    or as broc says, the whole coalition thing could fall apart within a few months and we end up who knows where as far as whose making the decisions the country needs to make to get out of the hole we're in.

  7. #52

    broc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,046
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 401 Times in 265 Posts
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by torledo View Post
    have you seen libdems in local govt. in a 'supporting' role ?

    if you had you probably wouldn't identify them as a diluter of conservative goals. If anything, they are to the right of labour and more likely to have a conservative influence on the labour party as far as issues such as deficit reduction.
    Labour in local government is a very different animal from 'New Labour' at a national level. I regard 'New Labour' as centre-right compared with Labour in local government. Many LibDem policies (at a national level) seem to be centre-left compared to New Labour. At a local level my limited experience of my fathers local council (Libdem majority) is that these positions are reversed, as you suggest.

  8. #53

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Watford
    Posts
    879
    Thank Post
    381
    Thanked 116 Times in 74 Posts
    Rep Power
    77
    lol ive seen these kind of threads appear on various forums..It usually ends up with someone getting banned for life

  9. #54

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,697
    Thank Post
    854
    Thanked 899 Times in 744 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by andyturpie View Post
    lol ive seen these kind of threads appear on various forums..It usually ends up with someone getting banned for life
    Don't worry, we're quiet tollerent here. So long as you agree to march with us at the next BNP rally

  10. #55

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,181
    Thank Post
    285
    Thanked 774 Times in 584 Posts
    Rep Power
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    A deterrent to what? Under what circumstances would you actually consider firing it? I bet we wouldn't even if were being invaded. I wonder if a better deterrent, especially in this day and age, would be to better equip our armed forces and plough some extra dough into intellegence gavering and anti-terrorism units.

    Spennding millions on something you're not going to use under any circumstances and justifying it as a 'deterent' is just loonacy! (IMHO).
    First off, you're making the assumption that any future threats are going to be the same as what we are currently facing, chances are they won't be. The more bases we cover, the better defended we are. If we plough all our resources into equiping the army for anti-terrorism then we leave ourselves weakly defended in other areas. The problem in Afghanistan is that our government along with our allies completely underestimated the threat posed by the Taliban. If they'd taken it seriously and put in the resources, equipment and troop numbers plus didn't get distracted by invading Iraq then the Afghan problem would've been solved years ago.

  11. #56
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    Errm, yes I do, so would the LibDems and almost any other party except Labour.
    i hate it when people use the 'would it have been any different ?' argument. IT's pure conjecture, the fact is only one party did it for real. Are we supposed to excuse the record of the incumbent govt. because, well, we're pretty sure it would have ended up the same way whoever was in power....hypothetically.

    it's nonsense. just as it's nonsense that some people point to very high interest rates of the 80's/90's.....when it's extremely unlikely to reoccur today because of the way the monetary system and CB operations work these days and because of a political switch from monetarism to inflation targetting which happened BEFORE 1997 and new labour .....nothing to do with the color of the rosette in power.

    then again the some of the people who won't vote for the tories because of the high rates of the ERM era, probably wanted us to join the euro until recently. madness.

  12. #57
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by broc View Post
    Labour in local government is a very different animal from 'New Labour' at a national level. I regard 'New Labour' as centre-right compared with Labour in local government. Many LibDem policies (at a national level) seem to be centre-left compared to New Labour. At a local level my limited experience of my fathers local council (Libdem majority) is that these positions are reversed, as you suggest.
    but the deficit reduction strategy is a [national] libdem goal. if that's more conservative/right-of-center than what labour are proposing, then it's not something specific to local libdems is it ?

  13. #58

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    A deterrent to what? Under what circumstances would you actually consider firing it? I bet we wouldn't even if were being invaded. I wonder if a better deterrent, especially in this day and age, would be to better equip our armed forces and plough some extra dough into intellegence gavering and anti-terrorism units.

    Spennding millions on something you're not going to use under any circumstances and justifying it as a 'deterent' is just loonacy! (IMHO).
    As an interesting point - a large part of the reason Trident is a very effective deterent is because unlike land-based missiles it is much harder to target or saboutage. A large part of this is due to the secrecy, and the fact that mobile subs are harder to find than big missile silos.

    So, the harder your deterent is to find and target, the better it is, and the less likely to actually be fired.

    Carrying on from that, for a mere £1 000 000 I can design and build a perfect deterent which will be impossible for our enemies to find and destroy. So long as it never needs to be used, it will function perfectly. If it does need to be used we'll all be dead anyway, but I'll have had £1 000 000 and our defense budget will have been nicely slashed.

  14. Thanks to jamesb from:

    CHR1S (5th May 2010)

  15. #59
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by andyturpie View Post
    lol ive seen these kind of threads appear on various forums..It usually ends up with someone getting banned for life
    it's only politics [and a bit of economics]. it's like one of those exam quesitons where there is no right or wrong answer....just interpretations and opinions.

    this thread won't get out of control.....everyone will get bored before it get's to that stage.

  16. #60

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,697
    Thank Post
    854
    Thanked 899 Times in 744 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    First off, you're making the assumption that any future threats are going to be the same as what we are currently facing, chances are they won't be. The more bases we cover, the better defended we are. If we plough all our resources into equiping the army for anti-terrorism then we leave ourselves weakly defended in other areas. The problem in Afghanistan is that our government along with our allies completely underestimated the threat posed by the Taliban. If they'd taken it seriously and put in the resources, equipment and troop numbers plus didn't get distracted by invading Iraq then the Afghan problem would've been solved years ago.
    Possibly, but like a good politico - you didn't actually answer the question Under what circumstances would you put your finger on the big red button and say to your self 'you know what, this is the right thing to do'.

    Because of their very nature most civilised nations are pretty much agreed that there is no plausable circumstance where such mass genocide can be considered in any way the moral thing to do. It's only a detterrent so long as your enemys actually believe you would possibly uses. Really, I don't think we ever would. So it'd not a detterrent, just a huge waste of tax payers money.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tory government not backing BSF?
    By jason2234 in forum BSF
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 30th April 2010, 06:08 PM
  2. Tory Councilers complain at Tory Education Policy!
    By tmcd35 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 27th April 2010, 03:52 PM
  3. [Pics] I've never voted Tory before...
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22nd February 2010, 12:53 AM
  4. I'm depressed....
    By mattx in forum General Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10th January 2008, 10:51 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •