|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 12, 2017 9:27:38 GMT
Should be easy to avoid, if only the Tories could come up with somebody decent. Ah... How much do we know of Ruth Davidson? - from the little I know about her, I would quite like to see her step up to the plate - anyone with any more insight? Whoever takes over as leader though, it won't solve the problem of being a minority or a more or less unworkable majority even with the dodgy coalition. Are we not just going to get what would happen if we had proportional representation as opposed to the first past the post system - a shifting series of coalitions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 9:29:42 GMT
Rather like the Italians then, different parliaments for almost every year and a further descent into school playground politics. Progress then.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2017 9:39:26 GMT
What is so wonderful about Trident? The yanks control the weapons, they store the weapons and they service the weapons. Bugger, that worked out well then. We cannot even fire the weapons that are at sea independently and even if we could, who would we be in a position to fire them at? Trident is a white elephant at best and a waste of money at a realistic level. Why spend so much money on weapons we have so little use for? Why NOT spend the money on conventional weapons that we can use and have a need for? Much of that isn't correct. We can certainly fire them independently.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jun 12, 2017 9:45:04 GMT
I don't think Ruth Davidson would be allowed to take the job since she is an MSP and not an MP. I've never met her but one of my friends has and thinks she comes across as a driven, energetic and focused person. Other than that I don't have a clue!
I think if the Conservatives want to fight Labour effectively, they need to start telling a story of hope to young people and to engage with them properly through social media. Someone like Priti Patel has much more in common with young people than TM who most would consider was well past it. Corbyn would probably receive the same thoughts but what came out his mouth sounded much more attractive.
The Tory's either need to make a big change to the way they are perceived or we will see a 1970's form of socialism return: the fact that the Labour party changed the way the leader is elected has also guaranteed that Corbyn's type of ideology will almost certainly rise to the top regardless. The only saviour might be a David Milliband (Chuka Umunna?) type character but a lurch towards the centre won't go down so well with the leader voting party faithful even though it would almost certainly lead to a return of Labour to power.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jun 12, 2017 9:50:54 GMT
The Trident missiles are stored not a million miles from where I am and are totally under UK control.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 12, 2017 9:52:40 GMT
What is so wonderful about Trident? The yanks control the weapons, they store the weapons and they service the weapons. Bugger, that worked out well then. We cannot even fire the weapons that are at sea independently and even if we could, who would we be in a position to fire them at? Trident is a white elephant at best and a waste of money at a realistic level. Why spend so much money on weapons we have so little use for? Why NOT spend the money on conventional weapons that we can use and have a need for? Er..no. We build and service the subs. We build the nuclear warheads. We bought the missiles from the US but they are serviced in the US as they need to be taken out of active service every so often for maintenance. It makes sense to take ours over to the States where they are removed from the sub and replaced with fresh ones from the common pool. The US has no veto on the use of UK nuclear weapons, or any means of control over them.
|
|
|
Post by grampa on Jun 12, 2017 9:54:35 GMT
I don't think Ruth Davidson would be allowed to take the job since she is an MSP and not an MP My bad - I thought she was an MP (I did say I didn't know much about her!). Shame, I would like to see what she could bring to the party. From what I've seen of Chuka Umunna, he would be someone I would listen closely too - I'm not bothered whether I vote red or blue, I would go for whoever comes up with a manifesto that best aligned with my thoughts - suppport business, don't castigate the wealthy but appreciate we all need them, improve public services but ask everyone to do their bit... Whether from the surge of Corbyn support anyone like Chuka Umunna would ever be able to turn labour around I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by grampa on Jun 12, 2017 9:56:22 GMT
Just seen a comment about Nigel Farage:-
The bad news? Nigel Farage is coming back to Westminster. The good news? Richard Hammond is driving him there.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 12, 2017 10:22:27 GMT
Just seen a comment about Nigel Farage:- The bad news? Nigel Farage is coming back to Westminster. The good news? Richard Hammond is driving him there.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jun 12, 2017 10:25:41 GMT
I think if the Conservatives want to fight Labour effectively, they need to start telling a story of hope to young people and to engage with them properly through social media. Someone like Priti Patel has much more in common with young people than TM who most would consider was well past it. Corbyn would probably receive the same thoughts but what came out his mouth sounded much more attractive.
That was what was so inept about the May led campaign. The magic money tree requirement to fund all the free shit that Corbyn kept promising people was an open goal that they didn't even try to attack. I get that people don't like Boris, but he managed to get elected as mayor twice in London - which is a very red place when I look at the voting map. If they don't want somebody like him, then the conservatives need to skip a generation and go for a 40-something newbie who has no baggage.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 12, 2017 10:41:12 GMT
I'm prepared to be shot down as being completely wrong here but haven't the Tories made a complete hash of the PR about who they are individually and collectively?
With the exception of David Davis and Theresa May they appear to have managed to give the impression that they are all ex-Eton types (Cameron, Osborne, Johnston) who live in castles with duck ponds that they expect the taxpayer to maintain for them (was that Rees-Mogg) and a lot of their 'pat on the back life Peerage types are extremely wealthy non-doms (Lord Ashcroft).
I KNOW THAT'S NOT TOTALLY ACCURATE but in a world where most people don't do much research I think they've got themselves into a position where a lot of, probably young, voters feel absolutely no commonality between them and the decision makers.
I also know Labour have plenty of these types as well but they seem better able to keep them hidden.
Actually ref the Ruth Davidson comments above she's from Buckhaven in Fife and being a Tory there is a lot less common than being a lesbian. She may also be from a wealthy family but Buckhaven isn't really one of those places. Being nice about it I'd call it a shithole.
|
|
|
Post by grampa on Jun 12, 2017 10:55:30 GMT
I'm prepared to be shot down as being completely wrong here but haven't the Tories made a complete hash of the PR about who they are individually and collectively? With the exception of David Davis and Theresa May they appear to have managed to give the impression that they are all ex-Eton types (Cameron, Osborne, Johnston) who live in castles with duck ponds that they expect the taxpayer to maintain for them (was that Rees-Mogg) and a lot of their 'pat on the back life Peerage types are extremely wealthy non-doms (Lord Ashcroft). I KNOW THAT'S NOT TOTALLY ACCURATE but in a world where most people don't do much research I think they've got themselves into a position where a lot of, probably young, voters feel absolutely no commonality between them and the decision makers. I also know Labour have plenty of these types as well but they seem better able to keep them hidden. Actually ref the Ruth Davidson comments above she's from Buckhaven in Fife and being a Tory there is a lot less common than being a lesbian. She may also be from a wealthy family but Buckhaven isn't really one of those places. Being nice about it I'd call it a shithole. I don't think you're far off there - even John Major never made much of his background which was about as far from the perception of a typical 'Tory' you can get - given that their biggest attackers are people who say they're for the rich and don't cared about the ordinary man or those who are struggling, you'd think this would be something they would do a lot of work on. For instance I don't think I once heard it mentioned during the campaign that they had brought large increases in the tax free allowance, which for many is very significant. And May (or maybe that weird couple?) seemed to completely forget her speech from the day she became Prime Minster which had a lot of people thinking, "Oh she might be OK"
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2017 11:01:29 GMT
Even the 40-somethings have baggage - Stephen Crabb anyone? The branding stigma is clearly there and the message of getting Tories out simply because they're the Tories is enough to mobilise some people. I suspect the issue is finding a message that 'cuts through' in a time of fake news. The Conservatives were complacent, Fox hunting shouldn't have been anywhere near the manifesto as it is so divisive. They should have also made more of a play of JC's view of Europe. He has been against the EU for years so those who think he'll keep us in or soften Brexit are deluded. As one commentator said earlier today, he ran an impressive and enthusiastic campaign, imagine what the referendum result might have been like if he'd been as enthusiastic about that.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 12, 2017 11:02:39 GMT
I think if the Conservatives want to fight Labour effectively, they need to start telling a story of hope to young people and to engage with them properly through social media. Someone like Priti Patel has much more in common with young people than TM who most would consider was well past it. Corbyn would probably receive the same thoughts but what came out his mouth sounded much more attractive.
That was what was so inept about the May led campaign. The magic money tree requirement to fund all the free shit that Corbyn kept promising people was an open goal that they didn't even try to attack. I get that people don't like Boris, but he managed to get elected as mayor twice in London - which is a very red place when I look at the voting map. If they don't want somebody like him, then the conservatives need to skip a generation and go for a 40-something newbie who has no baggage. They completely failed to understand the youth vote, influence of social media, failed to connect in anyway with most of the electorate, offered little in the way of hope or light at the end of the tunnel, thought that banging on all the time about Labour's history of fiscal mismanagement would still bring enough votes, and had a PM who bottled it with the TV debate. For all Corbyn's faults he campaigned in a dignified way and didn't get into mud slinging and a lot of people found that refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 12, 2017 11:25:09 GMT
I am more concerned about John McDonnell than Jeremy Corbyn. He seems the real Bennite throwback. Corbyn is clueless about economic and legal matters. McDonnell is not clueless – merely dangerous and wrong.
We were having this discussion yesterday with my aunt and uncle. My wife, who is quite left-wing, didn't see (a) what was so bad about the Labour manifesto and raising taxes on the richer and (b) didn't see the relevance of what happened in the 1970s to today on the grounds that "they are different people".
She was obviously quickly disabused of this by my uncle, who is a man of few carefully expressed words and significant gravitas. He pointed out the following (i) that Corbyn and McDonnell have been in politics since the 1970s and didn't learn the lessons then and haven't changed their core beliefs and policies since; (ii) that in the 1970s the marginal rate of tax on earned income hit 83% and the marginal rate of tax on unearned income (eg dividends) hit 98% and yet that resulted in Britain going effectively bankrupt and having to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail-out. Coming from someone who lived through it, that packs a greater punch than if I tell her.
Now, if my wife, who has a first class masters degree in economics and generally well-informed (she's an avid reader of news and commentary) can have that view of the Corbyn manifesto and level of ignorance about what 1970s Britain was like or what Corbyn/McDonnell really represent ideologically, that does not bode well for the under-30s in Britain who voted for Labour. They think scare stories about the 1970s are just that or worse – FAKE NEWS!
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 12, 2017 11:34:23 GMT
The branding stigma is clearly there and the message of getting Tories out simply because they're the Tories is enough to mobilise some people. I suspect the issue is finding a message that 'cuts through' in a time of fake news. The Conservatives were complacent, Fox hunting shouldn't have been anywhere near the manifesto as it is so divisive.
Yes but don't forget that, currently, most of the mainstream media are pro-Tory (although obviously that can change) and even with that benefit they still didn't have an effective campaign against Labour.
The fox hunting issue just highlights my comments above, I don't think many people see it as a 'common' pastime yet it found its way quite prominently into the manifesto whereas it should be an irrelevance.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 12, 2017 11:43:54 GMT
What is so wonderful about Trident? The yanks control the weapons, they store the weapons and they service the weapons. Bugger, that worked out well then. We cannot even fire the weapons that are at sea independently and even if we could, who would we be in a position to fire them at? Trident is a white elephant at best and a waste of money at a realistic level. Why spend so much money on weapons we have so little use for? Why NOT spend the money on conventional weapons that we can use and have a need for? Much of that isn't correct. We can certainly fire them independently. Ok but the bigger question with Trident is whether it is really a deterrent. If we were not to have nuclear weapons, are we really at more risk of attack? ISIS don't appear too concerned about our nuclear deterrent. You can't drop one on them in Syria because it would destroy 50x as much of the civilian population and It's not as if we could have dropped one on their suicide bomber as he wondered towards the Manchester arena. We certainly couldn't use it to defend against the cyber attack on the NHS. In the modern world and the threats we actually face, is there any point in nuclear weapons? Maybe the concern that N.Korea might have some but we've got the technology within the RAF to take out their missile silos before they even get the chance to launch them.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jun 12, 2017 11:49:15 GMT
I reckon ISIS is responsible for possibly 50% of the attacks it claims it is.
We need a nuclear deterrent: France has nuclear weapons and as any fule noe they are our oldest foe.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2017 11:49:46 GMT
Much of that isn't correct. We can certainly fire them independently. Ok but the bigger question with Trident is whether it is really a deterrent. If we were not to have nuclear weapons, are we really at more risk of attack? ISIS don't appear too concerned about our nuclear deterrent. You can't drop one on them in Syria because it would destroy 50x as much of the civilian population and It's not as if we could have dropped one on their suicide bomber as he wondered towards the Manchester arena. We certainly couldn't use it to defend against the cyber attack on the NHS. In the modern world and the threats we actually face, is there any point in nuclear weapons? Maybe the concern that N.Korea might have some but we've got the technology within the RAF to take out their missile silos before they even get the chance to launch them. We have more than one enemy. ISIS are one, North Korea and Russia are potential others. Do you think the Americans would have dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the Japanese had had an effective nuclear deterrent?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 12, 2017 11:55:57 GMT
The branding stigma is clearly there and the message of getting Tories out simply because they're the Tories is enough to mobilise some people. I suspect the issue is finding a message that 'cuts through' in a time of fake news. The Conservatives were complacent, Fox hunting shouldn't have been anywhere near the manifesto as it is so divisive.
Yes but don't forget that, currently, most of the mainstream media are pro-Tory (although obviously that can change) and even with that benefit they still didn't have an effective campaign against Labour.
The fox hunting issue just highlights my comments above, I don't think many people see it as a 'common' pastime yet it found its way quite prominently into the manifesto whereas it should be an irrelevance.
Young people don't buy newspapers so whether or not they are pro-Tory is irrelevant to them.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 12, 2017 12:21:42 GMT
Ok but the bigger question with Trident is whether it is really a deterrent. If we were not to have nuclear weapons, are we really at more risk of attack? ISIS don't appear too concerned about our nuclear deterrent. You can't drop one on them in Syria because it would destroy 50x as much of the civilian population and It's not as if we could have dropped one on their suicide bomber as he wondered towards the Manchester arena. We certainly couldn't use it to defend against the cyber attack on the NHS. In the modern world and the threats we actually face, is there any point in nuclear weapons? Maybe the concern that N.Korea might have some but we've got the technology within the RAF to take out their missile silos before they even get the chance to launch them. We have more than one enemy. ISIS are one, North Korea and Russia are potential others. Do you think the Americans would have dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the Japanese had had an effective nuclear deterrent?
I can't completely make my mind up on this issue but am starting to lean towards the view that the nuclear deterrent is no longer required.
I don't quite picture Kim Jong Un sitting on his massive golden throne and plotting to attack the UK. Hell, his missiles won't reach anywhere close to here and he doesn't have any subs for them. He'd attack someone much closer at hand (Japan) and then be obliterated by the US.
Russia is sort of the same except you know Putin isn't going to attack us, the US would retaliate and that would be it. Plus all his wealthy oligarchs like their money and London-based property too much to see it destroyed in a nuclear strike.
The one that really brought home how pointless it probably is, though, was Libya.
If we'd had some aircraft carriers parked off the coast and something to actually fly off them we would've been more effective than sending a few Tornados from East Anglia. But we didn't and we have Liam Fox to thank for that in large part. For all I know we could've had a couple of subs parked off the coast but they would never have been used.
Spend the money on something we can actually use instead. Then we can have Boris as leader and build some gunboats for him to send to trouble spots around the Empire
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2017 12:25:30 GMT
I don't think you can not invest in your own independent deterrent because 'the US will look after us'. Your certainty that Russia isn't going to attack us is comforting but probably in part based on us having a nuclear deterrent. We aren't just investing in them for the threats we face now but potential threats for the next three decades.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 12, 2017 12:29:22 GMT
Potential threats off the top my head:
Iran - growing economically and looking to extend its influence through the Middle East.
Turkey - growing islamist movement that now has a figurehead in Erdogan who is gradually sweeping away democracy and the secular Turkish state.
Pakistan - nuclear armed and always pandering to the internal islamists whose influence extends through the government and security services.
and France, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 12, 2017 12:54:04 GMT
Potential threats off the top my head: Iran - growing economically and looking to extend its influence through the Middle East. Turkey - growing islamist movement that now has a figurehead in Erdogan who is gradually sweeping away democracy and the secular Turkish state. Pakistan - nuclear armed and always pandering to the internal islamists whose influence extends through the government and security services. and France, of course.
Never forget France
I agree with your list Bob but my feeling is that the US will always do a first strike on those countries (apart from Pakistan which will have India) so, at best, we would simply be throwing our bombs onto fires that are already burning. Seems a bit pointless.
Michael, a similar question to yours came up in one of the debates for the Scottish Referendum 3 years ago. The answer was something along the lines of "Why do you think the Russians would bypass Finland (an old enemy), Norway (oil rich), Iceland and the Faroes with the single intention of attacking an independent Scotland?"
I think the same applies. There are plenty of countries between us and them and they've not invaded (apart from Ukraine obviously but that's different to my mind) or looked like it for decades. Why would they target us? I'm not suggesting we bin our nuclear deterrent, thumb our noses at the Yanks and face the world 'naked'. Merely that we would be second, or third to any nuclear shooting party. Apart from when the French inevitably attack us, of course
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 12, 2017 12:54:37 GMT
Do the Aussies have nuclear weapons?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2017 13:01:04 GMT
Never forget France
I agree with your list Bob but my feeling is that the US will always do a first strike on those countries (apart from Pakistan which will have India) so, at best, we would simply be throwing our bombs onto fires that are already burning. Seems a bit pointless.
Michael, a similar question to yours came up in one of the debates for the Scottish Referendum 3 years ago. The answer was something along the lines of "Why do you think the Russians would bypass Finland (an old enemy), Norway (oil rich), Iceland and the Faroes with the single intention of attacking an independent Scotland?"
I think the same applies. There are plenty of countries between us and them and they've not invaded (apart from Ukraine obviously but that's different to my mind) or looked like it for decades. Why would they target us? I'm not suggesting we bin our nuclear deterrent, thumb our noses at the Yanks and face the world 'naked'. Merely that we would be second, or third to any nuclear shooting party. Apart from when the French inevitably attack us, of course
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, do you think they'd have been invaded if they'd had them? Most of those countries you mentioned are members of NATO obviously so if they were attacked we have a duty to respond. I'm not sure how proximity is an argument, Russia is clearly hostile to us, they test our airspace every week by flying bombers into our airspace. There's a lefty at work who is against, well anything pretty much, so my line on nuclear weapons with her is simply that they're cool. Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons, the country just looks like they've been used there a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 12, 2017 13:03:39 GMT
And we'd still be a member of NATO too. Russia haven't attacked Finland or Norway, neither of whom have nuclear weapons.
I'm not a leftie, I just think that currently its a poor choice of thing to spend money on. That feeling's only going to get larger as we embark on the fiscal disaster that Brexit is going to be.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 12, 2017 13:05:08 GMT
Do the Aussies have nuclear weapons? They have a crack squadron of nuclear equipped kangaroos. They're a technological jump ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jun 12, 2017 13:25:41 GMT
Do the Aussies have nuclear weapons? They have a crack squadron of nuclear equipped kangaroos. They're a technological jump ahead. Those eucalyptus trees full of koalas are actually missile silos. They crack open like a tinny and a missile shoots out of the top faster than Shane Warne's hairpiece.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jun 12, 2017 13:40:26 GMT
Russia is sort of the same except you know Putin isn't going to attack us, the US would retaliate and that would be it. Plus all his wealthy oligarchs like their money and London-based property too much to see it destroyed in a nuclear strike.
Surely the deterrent there is to wire up the housing in the posher post codes with explosives and make it known that the key will be turned if Russia looks a bit tasty in the weapons and attack department. Racing may not agree with that strategy.
|
|