General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[ainsworth74]

Presumably that would be based on the same reasoning by which if we'd had nuclear weapons, Argentina wouldn't have invaded the Falklands, and Russia wouldn't have provocatively flown any aircraft towards our airspace and Libya wouldn't have blown up an aeroplane over UK territory and ... oh hang on...

Hardly. Russia invading the Ukraine is clearly rather different to a Argentina invading some rocks 8,000 miles away from the UK. If Argentina had annexed the Isle of White and then started a civil war in Devon and Cornwall the situations might be a bit more comparable don't you think?

Both sides have always flown aircraft at each other, it's the way the game is played. The reason neither side pushes the envelope too far and begins to regularly penetrate each others airspace is that a) neither side wish to start a war with the other because b) it will most likely go nuclear.

Nuclear weapons are not supposed to deter terrorism.

 

[Johnuk123]

Presumably that would be based on the same reasoning by which if we'd had nuclear weapons, Argentina wouldn't have invaded the Falklands, and Russia wouldn't have provocatively flown any aircraft towards our airspace and Libya wouldn't have blown up an aeroplane over UK territory and ... oh hang on...

Not in any way comparable to Russia invading the Ukraine, in fact ridiculous comparison.

 

[me123]

Yes I'm sure that was the main criteria when they were deciding where to base Polaris back in the 1960s. 'Oh the silly Scots won't care so we put it there a nice long way away from any proper Englishmen!'. Yeah that seems about right for the evil English, who cares about that HMNB Clyde is in a easily defensible position, allows easy access to a deep water and at the time was close by a US Navy submarine base in Holy Loch?

I suppose this is why all the V-Bombers and their weapons were located in Scotland along with all the research, development and weapon storage and production facilities. Only they weren't and aren't. The V-Bombers were based throughout the UK and the R&D and production was handled in England along with materials storage and some warhead storage.

You'll forgive me for not buying the argument that Polaris and then Trident were located in Scotland because 'who cares about the Scots'...

I'm not claiming that the "evil English" are trying to keep themselves away from the nukes - in fact, I have no doubts that the reason for the decision was purely tactical (with perhaps the offer of jobs to the Scots being considered the sweetener).

But I think it's fair to say that moving our WMDs to a more politically sensitive area of England (where you're less likely to encounter a safe seat and therefore more likely to suffer political ramifications) wouldn't be quite as easy. Very few people in the UK want WMDs, and even fewer support the massive replacement costs.

Seriously think for a minute - who wants a nuclear submarine base near their home? Well, public opinion in Scotland is consistent and clear - we do not want them in our country.

(In actual fact, in the vanishingly unlikely event that there was a nuclear explosion at Faslane, us in Scotland would be wiped out instantaneously whilst it would be the English who suffer for longer).

 

[Aldaniti]

Hardly. Russia invading the Ukraine is clearly rather different to a Argentina invading some rocks 8,000 miles away from the UK. If Argentina had annexed the Isle of White and then started a civil war in Devon and Cornwall the situations might be a bit more comparable don't you think?

Both sides have always flown aircraft at each other, it's the way the game is played. The reason neither side pushes the envelope too far and begins to regularly penetrate each others airspace is that a) neither side wish to start a war with the other because b) it will most likely go nuclear.

Nuclear weapons are not supposed to deter terrorism.

Exactly. It is the last line of defence and gives a nuclear armed aggressor a moment for pause, to consider that their annihilation of the UK will probably result in the annihilation of their own country. Where it probably won't work is where nuclear weapons have fallen into the wrong hands as you quite rightly say. I actually wish that it was enshrined in law that we should have an effective nuclear deterrent - unless of course anyone can accurately predict the geopolitical status of the world for say the next 40 years. In which case I might reconsider.

 

[TheEdge]

Faslane - even if you get independence

Am i the only pro Trident person in the world not in government?

No, I fully support the ability to obliterate Moscow/Beijing/Tehran/Pyongjang/Paris!

The last year has proved that the days of threats from forces with a "proper" military are far from gone.

 

[Aldaniti]

Very few people in the UK want WMDs, and even fewer support the massive replacement costs.

Currently polling suggests it's a 50/50 split. Nobody wants nuclear weapons but they can't be de-invented. They are a necessary evil and it worries me that 50% of people either don't understand the reasons why we have them, or are not that bothered about those who come after us.

 

[radamfi]

Not only do most countries not possess nuclear weapons, nearly all countries are not even *allowed* to have them, even if they wanted them. So how can they be essential for safety?

 

[Qwerty133]

I shall certainly be watching, probably until 4 a.m or so.Who says it's DD's swansong though? This was said in 2010 and proved to be wrong. After all, the next election may be only months away!

Huw Edwards would be a most unsuitable replacement anyway. He might be able to do the royal pomp bit, but pomposity unallied to natural ability is not what is required on election night. Andrew Neil would be so much better, his political nous is second to none and he won't take crap from the political participants. Nick Robinson, assuming a full recovery from his illness, on hand to do the dissection of the results with his usual amusing insights is also a necessity. BBC News Channel also have a very able presenter/reporter called Clive Myrie who could be given a chance as a second stringer.

Clive Myrie is the worst presenter on the BBC news channel (except maybe Ben Brown), and anything more than 30 minutes of him is unbareable. Although other news channel presenters, who have a personality, and are able to do more than read word for word off the autocue, such as Simon McCoy, Jane Hill, or Martine Croxall could be acceptable choices.

 

[telstarbox]

I have just tuned into BBC Radio 4 in time to hear the end of a statement made by a spokesman of The Trades Union and Socialist Coalition in which he stated that they were fielding candidates in both the coming General Election and the local area elections.

Can someone with localised knowledge of this party say in which parliamentary area that they will achieve their best result in this General Election.

I don't think Prestbury is one of their target seats Paul if that's worrying you TUSC essentially split the vote on the left without retaining their deposits in the vast majority of seats where they stand.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Hardly. Russia invading the Ukraine is clearly rather different to a Argentina invading some rocks 8,000 miles away from the UK. If Argentina had annexed the Isle of White and then started a civil war in Devon and Cornwall the situations might be a bit more comparable don't you think?

The comparison is that part of the UK was invaded, and the country doing the invasion either didn't consider the fact that we had nuclear weapons, or calculated (presumably, correctly) that they were irrelevant because there was no way we'd have used them. And in my view that rather illustrates a problem: What do nuclear weapons deter against? Since the consequence of using them would be horrific, the provocation that might cause a country to use them would have to be extraordinary. You suggest Argentina annexing the Isle of Wight. I rather doubt that even something like that would be considered justification for - in effect - murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who happen to be Argentinian, so I rather suspect that even in that situation, use of nuclear weapons would have been out of the question, and our nuclear capability would therefore not have posed a deterrent.

So that raises the question: What possible plausible threat could nuclear weapons deter against? Maybe someone trying to exterminate a substantial portion of the UK population would be the kind of thing that might legitimately provoke a nuclear response, but the groups likely to want to do that are terrorist groups, who, as you imply, are not likely to be put off by nuclear weapons. The only vaguely plausible possibility I can think is a rogue Government like North Korea.

Of course if there was no cost to having nuclear weapons then you could put a good case for having them on a 'just in case' basis. But the cost of replacing Trident is huge - and I imagine would be enough to pay for - for example - a pretty substantial boost to our conventional forces, which seems rather more likely to be actually used (for example, that is what ultimately freed the Falkland Islands).

On balance I'm undecided on the issues, I can see arguments on both sides. But I don't think that picking on current conflicts (such as Ukraine) and saying, if they'd had nuclear weapons..., when it's patently obvious that it would have been politically impossible to use them anyway, because that would have amounted to such an overreaction, makes for a good argument.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

What will happen when the vote to start the renewal of Trident comes up in 2016 will be an alliance between whoever is in power (Labour or Conservative) and the opposition to support the renewal so the SNP votes against will be irreverent. However I will bet that the replacement won't be based in Scotland so the SNP will claim a victory in making Scotland free of nuclear weapons, even if that means they lose one of their trump cards in any independence negotiations.

 

[northwichcat]

Hardly. Russia invading the Ukraine is clearly rather different to a Argentina invading some rocks 8,000 miles away from the UK. If Argentina had annexed the Isle of White and then started a civil war in Devon and Cornwall the situations might be a bit more comparable don't you think?

I think there's more chance of Argentina invading Gibraltar than invading the Isle of Wight.

What could they usefully do with the Isle of Wight after winning an invasion?

What could they do with Gibraltar? Keep it as a military base in a prime location, or hand it to Spain.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes - that big evil Russia about to invade the UK! Terrifying! I'm quaking in my boots.

What if I move to Germany? Am I in more danger from Russia all of a sudden? Or, you know, do I remember that the UK and Germany are in NATO and that the chances of an assault on any NATO country is effectively nil, whether they personally own nuclear weapons or not.

Well, yes, the further East you move, the more at risk you are from Russia. The Russian Republic seems determined to nibble away at its borders.

Ukraine gave up its nukes, and now it has a full blown "civil" war with Russia.

Western Europe needs a nuclear deterrent, and since no one else is prepared to have one, that means us and our partners in France.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ukraine gave up its nukes, and now it has a full blown "civil" war with Russia.

You say that as if you think the two are connected, but I see no reason to think they are. Russia's actions have certainly been appalling, but I'd suggest much more likely factors in Vladimir Putin's calculations are the large minority (majority in some places?) of Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine who would prefer to be part of Russia anyway, and without whom a civil war would not have been possible, and the clear unwillingness of western nations to support Ukraine with conventional military forces.

 

[yorksrob]

You say that as if you think the two are connected, but I see no reason to think they are. Russia's actions have certainly been appalling, but I'd suggest much more likely factors in Vladimir Putin's calculations are the large minority (majority in some places?) of Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine who would prefer to be part of Russia anyway, and without whom a civil war would not have been possible, and the clear unwillingness of western nations to support Ukraine with conventional military forces.

You're right in many ways.

The unwillingness of the West to back up the Ukraine is, to my mind, precisely why we (and NATO) need to be absolutely clear that the nibbling has to stop, and that can only happen with a firm western power.

We've already demonstrated that we're essentially not that interested in the Ukraine. It's up to us as a country to demonstrate that we're prepared to defend ourselves and our neighbours, which is even more important now that we've not helped Ukraine. If you're negotiating, you have to start from a position of power, and in terms of Russia, that means having nuclear weapons.

 

[Metrailway]

Yes - that big evil Russia about to invade the UK! Terrifying! I'm quaking in my boots.

What if I move to Germany? Am I in more danger from Russia all of a sudden? Or, you know, do I remember that the UK and Germany are in NATO and that the chances of an assault on any NATO country is effectively nil, whether they personally own nuclear weapons or not.

Clearly the Germans recognise the threat. They have just announced a complete reversal of their policy regarding tanks and are bringing 100 back into service.

On a side note, there are nuclear weapons in Germany as well as in Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. All of these countries host US nuclear weapons and the hosts have the military capability to deliver them if needs must.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Not in any way comparable to Russia invading the Ukraine, in fact ridiculous comparison.

The Falklands example is a direct parallel, in fact. Indeed - they weren't even a nuclear power, which puts us in a stronger position! Yet, Argentina still invaded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Clearly the Germans recognise the threat. They have just announced a complete reversal of their policy regarding tanks and are bringing 100 back into service.

On a side note, there are nuclear weapons in Germany as well as in Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. All of these countries host US nuclear weapons and the hosts have the military capability to deliver them if needs must.

That's my point. The US clearly seems capable of paying for their own lot, which are miles beyond what is necessary anyway. I don't see why we should bother.

Frankly, if nuclear weapons were used against practically any country I imagine we would see almost immediate US involvement, and the rest of the world knows it. Any country that even threatens to use them will be completely ostracised on the international stage, making the entire exercise completely pointless.

 

[St Rollox]

You're right in many ways.

The unwillingness of the West to back up the Ukraine is, to my mind, precisely why we (and NATO) need to be absolutely clear that the nibbling has to stop, and that can only happen with a firm western power.

We've already demonstrated that we're essentially not that interested in the Ukraine. It's up to us as a country to demonstrate that we're prepared to defend ourselves and our neighbours, which is even more important now that we've not helped Ukraine. If you're negotiating, you have to start from a position of power, and in terms of Russia, that means having nuclear weapons.

Why does the UK need nukes when they could never use them without the go ahead from a US President?
A UK prime minister would never be allowed near the nuke button.
In fact, why should UK taxpayers pay for something that's controlled by America?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Falklands example is a direct parallel, in fact. Indeed - they weren't even a nuclear power, which puts us in a stronger position! Yet, Argentina still invaded.

The fact that the Falkland Islands are far nearer in terms of distance to Argentina than they are to Britain must have been in the minds of the leaders of the three wings of the Argentinian military, as once they had effected their invasion, they would have been aware that the British military task force would have taken some time to arrive in the south Atlantic, which would have given the Argentinian forces time to establish and then to consolidate their own military positions, such as the one at Goose Green.

The other matter concerns the relatively short distance to the Falkland Islands from the Argentinian mainland air force bases. A reading of the battle history of these waters between the two land forms called "Bomb Alley" reveals that the British naval forces did not escape unscathed in that particular area of conflict.

The sinking of the "Atlantic Conveyor", albeit in error by the Argentinians who were looking to sink a British aircraft carrier, that was acting in the role of heavy duty military supplies facilitator, including a number of helicopters, was another drawback that the British forces had to come to terms with. The matter of the effectiveness of Cruise missiles was demonstrated in this military conflict was not lost on the Americans, who sought to use such missiles in conflicts in the years that followed the re-taking of the Falkland Islands

 

[yorksrob]

Why does the UK need nukes when they could never use them without the go ahead from a US President?
A UK prime minister would never be allowed near the nuke button.
In fact, why should UK taxpayers pay for something that's controlled by America?

If they are controlled by America, then there's no point in having them. It boils down to whether Russia feels that a particular president of the time would be prepared to honour the NATO treaty. If Europe was being invaded, you can never really tell whether an American President of the day would put his own country on the line for the sake of Europe, so an enemy power might take a gamble (as one has done very successfully in the Ukraine). That's why Europe (at least theoretically) has its own deterrent.

That said, I can see the point when we were a self governing country. I 'm not so sure now, now that we've flogged all our assets off. I'd be receptive to a policy of multilateral nuclear disarmament if Putin ever gets back in his box.

 

[Aldaniti]

Not only do most countries not possess nuclear weapons, nearly all countries are not even *allowed* to have them, even if they wanted them. So how can they be essential for safety?

Well, if as I said above, you can accurately predict the world geopolitical situation for the next 40 years, you'll answer your own question.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As an aside, we have threatened to use our nuclear deterrent twice in more recent years. During the Gulf War, Iraq was told that any use of chemical weapons would result in a tactical (limited) nuclear response. The second occasion was perhaps a bluff, but it was used nonetheless to persuade Mitterand to supply us with the disabling codes for French-supplied Argentinian Exocet missiles. Thatcher presented him with a scenario whereby an Exocet took out HMS Hermes. Would we have accepted defeat and hobbled off back home? Who knows, but the threat might just have helped to persuade Mitterand of the stakes at play and ultimately he did supply the codes.

 

[kylemore]

Hardly. Russia invading the Ukraine is clearly rather different to a Argentina invading some rocks 8,000 miles away from the UK. If Argentina had annexed the Isle of White and then started a civil war in Devon and Cornwall the situations might be a bit more comparable don't you think?
.

Only if the Isle of Wight and Devon and Cornwall were populated by a majority of ethnic Argentinians whose language and way of life was being threatened by a Fascist regime in London recently installed by a USA organised and paid for coup

 

[St Rollox]

The Falkland Islanders must be the top of the league for handouts.
Slightly below Northern Ireland.
At least Scotland had 40 years of North Sea oil to be ripped off.
Do the Falklands still give us whale oil?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The Falkland Islanders must be the top of the league for handouts.
Slightly below Northern Ireland.
At least Scotland had 40 years of North Sea oil to be ripped off.
Do the Falklands still give us whale oil?

Hasen't a large oil field just been discovered close to the Falkland Islands? No doubt the Argientinans will be up in arms about stealing their oil.

Anyway closer to home I am glad I live in the Ashfield constunecy here in the East Midlands and not Broxtowe having just watched the candidates on the Sunday Politics East Midlands. In a Labour vs Tory contest it would be a choice between current Tory MP Anna Soubry who I carn't stand and the Labour challenger Nick Palmer (who as MP from 1997-2010) who said he'd did not support HS2 in its curren't form and would not vote for it, even though the HS2 station at Toton would be a huge investment in the constituency bringing bisunisses and jobs to the area, something I was frankly astounded by. The Lib Dem and Green candidates were equally unimpressive and the UKIP candidate wasn't even there. With choices like that I would I wouldn't waste my vote on any of them!

Thankfully the Labour MP here in Ashfield has actually been rather good so I am still supporting her.

 

[northwichcat]

Looking at the policies listed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide#tab=issue!issue=economy!party=!nation=uk

I personally think overall the Greens have the most favourable policies followed by the Lib Dems. However, neither party would be expected to have a majority at the next election so they can propose 50 policies which couldn't realistically all be implemented and if they can push to get a few of their main ones implemented in full or part as a minority they can consider their party to have been a success. For instance, the Greens propose a minimum wage of £10 an hour whereas Labour propose £8 an hour, so if Labour have a majority and Green MPs were able to push Labour to increase it to £8.50 or £9 then the Greens can claim they've been successful.

 

[St Rollox]

Thought at this point in the election things might have got better for Labour in Scotland.
If anything it's got worse.
Every seat lost in Scotland needs a replacement one to be found in England
Would Miliband take the hit and bump Jim Murphy.
Maybe put Douglas Alexander in control for the final three weeks.

 

[Butts]

Thought at this point in the election things might have got better for Labour in Scotland.
If anything it's got worse.
Every seat lost in Scotland needs a replacement one to be found in England
Would Miliband take the hit and bump Jim Murphy.
Maybe put Douglas Alexander in control for the final three weeks.

Why not bring back his sister Wendy Alexander ?

Scotland seems to be monopolising all the Election Talk....what is happening in Greenbacks "green and pleasant land" ?

Are the Tories hanging on, are Plaid on the march or will the "Labour Fiefdom" survive in Cymru unlike it's Scottish counterpart

 

[St Rollox]

Why not bring back his sister Wendy Alexander ?

Scotland seems to be monopolising all the Election Talk....what is happening in Greenbacks "green and pleasant land" ?

Are the Tories hanging on, are Plaid on the march or will the "Labour Fiefdom" survive in Cymru unlike it's Scottish counterpart

No mention of Ukip, interesting.
Take it their support is slipping away.
Need to contact the BBC and ask why Ukip are not on the beeb 4 times a day.

 

[Butts]

No mention of Ukip, interesting.
Take it their support is slipping away.
Need to contact the BBC and ask why Ukip are not on the beeb 4 times a day.

No mention of the Lib Dems either - wonder if Lembit Opik is being lined up for a return in Montgomery - he was a character

 

[St Rollox]

SNP going over 50% in the polls.
Miliband should bare in mind the last thing people will change is their football team.
Everything else is up for grabs.
Go on Ed, prove your a leader.
Bump Jim Murphy before this turns into a massacre.