General election 2010 - who will (or would) you vote for?

[Senethro]

Voting Lib Dem with the aim of producing a hung parliament. I hope for the introduction of a PR system as I think party politics is the parasite thats taken over our legislature. The parties oppose each other because they're on different teams, not because its a useful thing to do. Its my hope that a hung parliament will force cooperating between parties and build the relationships between MPs along new lines. I'd also hope that somehow magically the whip system gets broken and backbenchers break from the party line more often, but I can't see how that would come about.

[Haunted]

The Lib Dems policy on Trident (and anything with the word 'nuclear' in it in general) is a big let down for me also. Assuming the Lib Dems win more influence in this election then their policies will be scrutinised a bit more and hopefully this anti nuclear attitude will be brought out into the light and shown for what it really is and what it could cost us.

[RedCelt69]

Unfortunately dropping one sub out of four decreases deterrance to an unacceptable level. Four subs is the bare minimum.

Why? What is an unacceptable level of deterrence? A country that has nukes... even if it's 1... on the back of a milk float... is more of a deterrence than none at all.

The references to a Cold War world are relevant. The nearest (threatening) country would be Iran. You think they'd have the wherewithall to track when and where a submarine is able to shoot back?

Which all brings into reference the whole concept of nuclear weapons. If the UK was hit by one, what do you think the immediate reaction would be? Do you think the UK would just fire them at the suspected country in question? Or do you think the EU, the UN and whichever is the world's superpower at the time would be involved in what happens next? Considering the current system is an American one (as well as the likely replacement), I wouldn't be remotely surprised if the go-ahead for firing them required a phone-call to the White House along the lines of "Please sir, can we hit the big red button?".

How many of those countries in the EU have nuclear weapons? IIRC it's the UK and France. Do you think the citizens in every other UE country feel *less* secure than the Brits and the French? If so, why? If not, why?

[Haunted]

Why? What is an unacceptable level of deterrence? A country that has nukes... even if it's 1... on the back of a milk float... is more of a deterrence than none at all.

An acceptable level of deterrance is one that can be deployed at any time from any where at any target. Four subs ensures one is always at sea with one in reserve so that if the one at sea happens to be incapcitated (e.g. like what happened when it collided with a french sub last year) then it can be deployed immediately without the loss of the deterrant. Three subs will cost almost as much to maintain as four but without the redundancy and with addtional strains on already stressed crew and service personnel.

The references to a Cold War world are relevant. The nearest (threatening) country would be Iran. You think they'd have the wherewithall to track when and where a submarine is able to shoot back?

I'm not sure you understand how this works. With our submarines, the enemy cannot (in theory) remove our capability to fire back and so they would have to face a devastating retaliation. If we go to land based system then our assets are considerably more difficult to hide and they are even harder to move once identified i.e. it could feasbily be taken out in a first strike.
In case you haven't noticed we are also dealing with a nuclear armed Pakistan who are barely keeping themselves from decending into a civil war. China's nukes haven't gone anywhere either.

Which all brings into reference the whole concept of nuclear weapons. If the UK was hit by one, what do you think the immediate reaction would be? Do you think the UK would just fire them at the suspected country in question?

The answer to this question must always be yes otherwise there is no deterrant.

Or do you think the EU, the UN and whichever is the world's superpower at the time would be involved in what happens next?

A nucealr exchange would take only minutes. I have no doubt that other strategic leaders would be involved in decisions in an emergency conference, but the decision would be swift.

Considering the current system is an American one (as well as the likely replacement)

The nuke is American, everything else is British

How many of those countries in the EU have nuclear weapons?

How many of those countries in the EU have permanent seats on the security council?

[RedCelt69]

Four subs ensures one is always at sea with one in reserve

One at sea + one at base = 2. Even with one in reserve, that's up to 3.

Cold War: the Soviets had an Atlantic-based navy, which included submarines which could track (and potentially eliminate) a UK submarine that left the Clyde. Which is why the existing system was set up - and persists. Against a nation with less sophisticated means (and no navy presence off the west coast of Scotland) the at-sea sub could be safely parked somewhere (outside of the blast-range of a nuke aimed at Gare Loch) along the coast of Argyll.

That's the relevance.

If we go to land based system then our assets are considerably more difficult to hide and they are even harder to move once identified i.e. it could feasbily be taken out in a first strike.

Yeah, like the Scud launchers in Iraq, that America (with all available satellite information) couldn't track down? Meh.

In case you haven't noticed we are also dealing with a nuclear armed Pakistan who are barely keeping themselves from decending into a civil war. China's nukes haven't gone anywhere either.

In what possible series of events would either country want or need to nuke the UK? You might conceive of a situation where that might be possible, however the UK's ownership of nukes wouldn't be much of a deterrent. If rebels in Pakistan nuked a country (other than India... or Israel) they'd welcome elimination as they'd have a fast-seat to Allah's side. If China nuked the UK, every possible nuke fired back would achieve what, exactly, in a country that big - with that many living (and angry) Chinese people who wouldn't be greatly affected by the UK's entire nuclear arsenal?

Nukes are a strange MAD which cost an obscene amount of money to maintain. If Britain was the head of a global empire with concerns around the world, they might be more excusable. We're a small nation (with a big history) which can't afford the limited nuclear weaponry we already have... and want to replace.

How many of those countries in the EU have permanent seats on the security council?

Again... small nation with a big history. That permanent seat is less tenable now than it originally was... and if it makes the UK less secure, all the more reason to rescind it.

[jequirity]

Aye, four subs ensures that one can be off duty being refitted or overhauled, repaired etc, one can be deployed in training exercises, one can be on duty and one can be in reserve. The withdrawl of MIRVs means that as many missiles as possible need to be available to saturate the target. In the case of China that you raised, the damage that one of these subs can deal out would certaintly be enough to deter them from launching in the first place.There are some countries that could withstand one or two nuclear strikes, deterrence is better guaranteed by the ability to deliver more than one or two nuclear strikes. You don't start a nuclear war with only a few missiles, that would be illogical (So an extremely astute Soviet Lieutenant Colonel thought). Four subs ensures a solid deterrence.

I'm extremely skeptical when you say Russia could track any subs having left the clyde . They could probably track them leaving the base but once they reached deep water they were gone. Russia had problems tracking submarines in the Cold War, their ASW wasn't too great compared to Nato. The ability of Nato to monitor choke points allowed them to monitor Soviet attack subs more effectivly, reducing the risk of any russian sub destroying one of our subs.

With regard to Scuds, a similar system for the UK would not work, not enough room for mobility purposes and not enough range. Besides, they are tactical missiles, not strategic missiles.

Anyway, the same countries that have the ability to launch nukes back then still exist, plus a few more. Cold War technology is still extremely relevent and can be applied to most military scenarios today. Indeed, look at Challenger 2, Warrior, MLRS, Bulldog, Type 42s, Chinooks, Scimitars, Tornados, Type 23s, Invincible and ocean Classes to name but a few systems that have been deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sierra Leonne since the end of the Cold War. If anything, Cold War systems have been more utilised and more useful since 1989 then before. Just because the trident is Cold War era does not make it any less effective today.

Indeed, many of the conflicts and adversities in the past 50 years were not predicted. Just because Iran is in the news does not make it enemy no.1 and who knows who tomorrow's opponent might be and the nature of that conflict. Cold War tech has proved applicable to a number of different conflicts and the procedure and doctrine established for these systems can applied today still.

As for whether we need a deterrent or not, I honestly don't pretend to know. There are poltical factors to consider that I'm not well read up on.

[Duggeh]

I'm a conservative with regard to most things. However given how safe this seat is for Sir Ming, I may vote UKIP as a protest because of our being fucked in the arse over a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

[Haunted]

One at sea + one at base = 2. Even with one in reserve, that's up to 3.

Actually it's 1 at sea, 1 on standy, 1 in repair/refit and 1 on training/drills. That adds upto 4.
Remove 1 and the redundancy of the system begins to fall apart.

Cold War: the Soviets had an Atlantic-based navy, which included submarines which could track (and potentially eliminate) a UK submarine that left the Clyde. Which is why the existing system was set up - and persists.

So your saying that because the soviets could possibly detect subs in the atlantic we therefore decided to put all our nukes on subs in the altantic..? That doesn't sound right. The real reason is because no matter anything else, a nuke on a sub is infinitely easier to hide and deploy than a nuke on land.

Against a nation with less sophisticated means (and no navy presence off the west coast of Scotland) the at-sea sub could be safely parked somewhere (outside of the blast-range of a nuke aimed at Gare Loch) along the coast of Argyll.

It needs to be constantly moving to be an effective deterrant. There are other ways of ascertaining the location of a sub without having your own assets in the water. Communications for instance. Park a sub somewhere, ANYWHERE, for any length of time and it's location will not remain secret for very long. Even if you decide to disregard all of that, parking it in water still requires the sub i.e. the trident system is perfectly suitable.

Yeah, like the Scud launchers in Iraq, that America (with all available satellite information) couldn't track down? Meh.

Terrible analogy. SCUDS are small and utterly useless. The maximum range of a nuclear capable SCUD is 150km. An ICBM is a huge deal, it cannot be launched from the back of a truck; it needs a massive underground silo.

In what possible series of events would either country want or need to nuke the UK?

Doesn't matter. You can't predict the future and neither can I. A hundred years ago people might've asked the same about the US and Japan. A nuclear deterrant prepares us for an uncertain future.

You might conceive of a situation where that might be possible, however the UK's ownership of nukes wouldn't be much of a deterrent.

It appears you are capable of predicting the future! You have predicted that our nukes won't be a deterrant based on fuckall available information. I strongly suggest you send a CV to the MOD immediately; this country could use your abilities.

If rebels in Pakistan nuked a country (other than India... or Israel) they'd welcome elimination

Only because those nations have nuclear weapons! I.e. an effective deterrant! You are defeating your own argument.

If China nuked the UK, every possible nuke fired back would achieve what, exactly, in a country that big - with that many living (and angry) Chinese people who wouldn't be greatly affected by the UK's entire nuclear arsenal?

Well if you really want to get into a tactical discussion you will note that China's population and industrial complex is incredibly compact. Denser than our own even. China may have a huge landmass, but it's mostly countryside and it's large assets are all right next to each in a few tightly packed areas. Take them out and all you are left with is an angry chinese population with fuckall ability to do anything about it. You might even say that such a situation deters them from even considering a nuclear attack.

If Britain was the head of a global empire with concerns around the world, they might be more excusable. We're a small nation (with a big history) which can't afford the limited nuclear weaponry we already have... and want to replace.

Lets keep track of your arguments:
1. No soviets in the atlantic - Irrelevant
2. Subs don't need to move - Irrelevant
3. ICBM's can be hidden - No they can't, not effectively
4. No country will ever nuke us - You have no basis for certainty here
5. Nukes aren't a deterrant - See your next point
6. Pakistan won't nuke Isreal because Isreal's nukes deter Pakistan...
7. China is 'unnukable' - Irrelevant, and wrong
And now were onto No. 8, cost!

Yes this argument may have merit (finally!). It is a large cost but let's put it into perpective. The operating budget of the UK is about £520,000 Billion a year. The cost of replacing Trident has been estimated between £20 and £100* Bn over 20 years. i.e. only about £1-£5 Bn a year, out of a yearly budget of £520,000 Bn. Our total military budget is ~£39,000 Bn. So to replace the Trident system would only cost a MAXIMUM of 0.0125% of our total military budget and 0.00096% of our total budget. Considering that the system is designed to protect us from utter annihilation I'd argue the cost is insignificant.

Again... small nation with a big history. That permanent seat is less tenable now than it originally was.

So you'd give that up as well?

.. and if it makes the UK less secure, all the more reason to rescind it.

You completely failed to make the argument that it makes us less secure. In fact I don't think you even tried, you've just pulled it out of nowhere for this last sentance.

*Lib Dem figure, haven't seen it justified anywhere.

[RedCelt69]

Wow. Haunted got all angry at my arse. I'm all upset, 'n' stuff.

I'm not particularly anti-nukes or pro-nukes. I see the deterrent argument and I see the argument that nukes are a complete and utter waste of time. If it ever came to having to use them in retaliation, they have failed in their one and only purpose. The consequence of using them is MAD... a pyrrhic victory of all pyrrhic victories.

Based on the idea that every EU country has the same level of safety as the UK (and France) your only rebuttal was that the UK has a permanent position in the UN's security council. So you'd gone from Cold War policies to WW2 policies (and consequences). There shouldn't be a security council with permanent members. It's a hangover from WW2 which serves no purpose in modernity. So, if the UK isn't in an un-needed council why, then, is it any more (or less) at risk than every other EU country that doesn't have nukes?

I didn't say that we put nukes on subs because the Soviets could track them. L2 read.

Having them on subs meant that we had a means of manouverable retaliation which didn't involve ICBM launchers trundling through the country. The scud analogy isn't flawed. They require a huge underground missile silo? Have you seen the space available on a submarine? Have you seen the ICBM vehicles that the Soviets manouvered around their western borders? They kinda do the job and they're kinda manouverable.

My argument, then, was that only a nation with the powers and facilities of Cold War Soviets had the means of doing anything about the 1-at-sea policy. So the degree of Cold War paranoia (and the subsequent expense) of the current system is antiquated, largely (if remotely) unnecessary and fucking expensive.

Arguing that the expenditure on Trident is a small fraction of the cost of the MoD is a great argument... if we needed the current expenditure of the MoD. If you believe that other, valuable services in the country must suffer severe cutbacks rather than a military expenditure which buys us first-slot in the which-country-is-America's-biggest-suck-up when a war is looming... then you are living in a different fucking era; an era when Britain headed an empire and (somewhat) deserved respect around the world as a military bully-boy. Rather then the military bully-boy's primary lackey.

Small country, big history. Small countries don't need nukes to pretend that they aren't small any more.

As for knowing the future, which country would want to nuke the UK these days? Seriously? Who and why? Provide a motivation for present-day UK having an enemy that big and that bad. One that, for instance, Sweden would also need to fear... or Denmark, or Belgium, or... any fucking country as militarily and empirically insignificant as the UK currently is.

If the future has a British Empire mkII anywhere in it, they can get all nuked to the teeth.

They'll be able to afford it.

We can't.

[Haunted]

Wow. Haunted got all angry at my arse. I'm all upset, 'n' stuff.

I can only assure you that I am not angry. Ruthless maybe.

I'm not particularly anti-nukes or pro-nukes. I see the deterrent argument and I see the argument that nukes are a complete and utter waste of time.

Well it's an either or situation, nukes cannot both be useless and a useful. You can see arguments for why they might be useless but that doesn't mean those arguments hold any weight upon further scrutiny.

If it ever came to having to use them in retaliation, they have failed in their one and only purpose. The consequence of using them is MAD... a pyrrhic victory of all pyrrhic victories.

Yes you are gambling on the fact that enemy is human and in capable of understanding the consequences. The whole point in having a nuclear deterrant is to make sure that there is no possible way for an enemy to gain or come out on top after approving their use. There should be no reason for anyone to use one, that is the idea.

Based on the idea that every EU country has the same level of safety as the UK (and France)

A faulty premise. We've seen numerous times how well the rest of Europe does under threat from foriegn invasion. The UK is in a far better position than any other European country.

your only rebuttal was that the UK has a permanent position in the UN's security council.

I also wasn't rebutting your point. The UK is a fairly secure nation, even without nuclear weapons. But that would only be because we would be relying on our nuclear armed allies to deter our would be enemies. Not an ideal situation and it's one that could change in the future.

So you'd gone from Cold War policies to WW2 policies (and consequences).

It was you who brought up the cold war.

There shouldn't be a security council with permanent members. It's a hangover from WW2 which serves no purpose in modernity. So, if the UK isn't in an un-needed council...

That's another argument altogether and there's no point in proceeding on the basis that the security council is uneeded (again you haven't made any argument merely deemed it so)

...why then, is it any more (or less) at risk than every other EU country that doesn't have nukes?

If there is ever a need for nuclear weaponry, Europe will look to us. We protect our European allies by covering them with our deterrant. It gives us securty, control and as a bonus, a lot of political clout (more so than we would have were we to return to our lowly small nation origins).

Having them on subs meant that we had a means of manouverable retaliation which didn't involve ICBM launchers trundling through the country.

Which is why we still have them

The scud analogy isn't flawed. They require a huge underground missile silo? Have you seen the space available on a submarine?

Yes and submarines are still much bigger than trucks.

Have you seen the ICBM vehicles that the Soviets manouvered around their western borders?

What a great argument for concealable nukes you are making. Be specific though, what is the range, is a MIRV?

They kinda do the job and they're kinda manouverable.

For the sake of argument, if I grant you this, you are then making the argument that instead of renewing our current system, you would be favour of designing an entirely new one. And I thought the point was to save money? No, you'd have us start from scratch on a system that will be less effective.

My argument, then, was that only a nation with the powers and facilities of Cold War Soviets had the means of doing anything about the 1-at-sea policy.

Your giving soviet capability more credit than they deserve. You might also be forgetting about the other sub on permanent stand by in case of just such a situation.

So the degree of Cold War paranoia (and the subsequent expense) of the current system is antiquated, largely (if remotely) unnecessary and fucking expensive.

And you are pulling this from where exactly? None of your faulty premises presented here can add up to these conclusions

Arguing that the expenditure on Trident is a small fraction of the cost of the MoD is a great argument... if we needed the current expenditure of the MoD.

Another argument altogether. Curious you avoid the statistic about the budget as a whole.

If you believe that other, valuable services in the country must suffer severe cutbacks rather than a military expenditure

This assumes that absolutely everything except Trident is a valuable service. A point of course you yourself will no doubt disagree with.

...which buys us first-slot in the which-country-is-America's-biggest-suck-up when a war is looming...

Assuming your talking about the nukes then we have strategic control of our nuclear weapons. We bought them from the US but that doesn't make them theirs. If your talking about something else entirely then it's lost on me and not relevant in any case.

then you are living in a different fucking era;

Don't tell me. The Cold War?

an era when Britain headed an empire and (somewhat) deserved respect around the world as a military bully-boy. Rather then the military bully-boy's primary lackey.

Whatever your trying to say here is lost on me and no doubt irrelevant to our nuclear deterrant.

Small country, big history. Small countries don't need nukes to pretend that they aren't small any more.

Who's pretending about what now? You're moving further and further away into some strange opinions and beliefs about the UK as a whole. This is becoming more than just about nukes to you.

As for knowing the future, which country would want to nuke the UK these days?

THESE DAYS. How easy it is you refute yourself.

[DACrowe]

I'm a conservative with regard to most things. However given how safe this seat is for Sir Ming, I may vote UKIP as a protest because of our being fucked in the arse over a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Fair enough. Our policy at the time of the treaty, and which is demonstrated in the current manifesto, is that you can't have a referendum on every single treaty passed. The Lisbon Treaty is a reworking of The Constitution of Europe - it includes some controversial parts but it also includes some parts which are necessary if the EU is going to work effectively. The Constitution failed to pass, if the Lisbon Treaty had as well then it would be years before /another/ settlement could be renegotiated. Referenda are useful in some cases but they don't work effectively (so the LibDems feel) on a treaty-per-treaty basis or a policy-per-policy basis. At the time Clegg said we couldn't support a referendum on the treaty but rather one on 'in-or-out' of the EU. If we win a majority, or hold the balance of power, you will get that referendum and will be able to vote to take us out of the EU.

I've been impressed by the Lib Dems lately but their pledge to find a low cost replacement for Trident and dropping tranche 3 of the Eurofighter is a deal breaker for me. There's bugger all effective low cost replacement for Trident and getting out of tranche 3 won't be worth it in the long run . I'm not a big fan of their views on nuclear energy either.

1) The Eurofighter is straight sunk-cost fallacy in action. It's a waste of money for something we don't need; we're already years ahead in technology compared to any adversary we might forseeably be facing in the future and there's no reason we can't just buy or renting cutting edge technology from the Americans (as we've been doing with the predator drones). To say we've already spent so much money on it so pulling out now would be a waste is to miss the fact that it's always been a waste and we shouldn't throw good money after bad especially now we can't afford unnecessary expenditure.

2) I can definitely accept our position has not been very clearly broadcast in the campaign. There's a 20+ page document which explains it in detail on the LibDem website written by (I assume) your MP but essentially it's this; we (1) want the Trident replacement to be included in the defence review process and (2) are opposed to like-for-like replacement. Labour and the Conservatives oppose (1) and thus (2) - they don't want the renewal included in the discussion -, the SNP promise outright abolition of Trident (with no explanation of how they'd hope to achieve this without a majority, like so much else in their manifesto) and UKIP wishes to increase the number of nuclear submarines. Now if we include it in the review one of four things could forseeably happen; a) the politicians and military experts involved overwhelmingly support like-for-like replacement, b) they support replacement but with diminished amounts of subs or warheads or both (which will, one assumes, cost less), c) they conclude we need some form of nuclear option but suggest some cheaper alternative (land based nukes or leased capability from the Americans or tactical missiles deployable from conventional bombers; I don't know) or d) they conclude we currently (either due to NATO or whatever) have no strategic need for a nuclear option. Now all we've said is that we think it should be included in the review and have expressed a preference in the outcome (at least (b), possibly (c) or (d)). Now what you might think is we've been a bit cheeky by including the £100billion the like-for-like replacement will cost in our savings calculations as that seems to assume (d) whereas (b) and (c) are both possible outcomes and outcomes with no known savings value but what seems clear is that the insistence we should spend £100billion without consultation with experts as to whether we need to (which is, seemingly, the Labour and Conservative view) seems a bit mad.

3) Nuclear energy - We're not luddites. To quote Nick Clegg the objection isn't 'theological'; the claim is that when resource costs, construction costs (financial and energy*), insurance costs, security costs (a major issue) and decommissioning costs are taken into account it costs much more than alternatives, not to mention that any major nuclear plant building programme would take a long time to complete so wouldn't produce energy or offer carbon emission reductions in the short term. It makes more sense to pursue renewable energy technologies and work on improving energy efficiency (a major top-down effort to 'weatherise' would both reduce energy consumption (waste, really; you're not using the heat you radiate out your windows) and create low-skill jobs which are exportable (the skills, not the jobs). If you don't believe me (and you shouldn't; I'm just repeating what I've had explained to me by people I trust) you should email David Howarth, the outgoing MP for Cambridge. He's a fellow in Land Economy and had some sort of policy-setting position prior to becoming elected; I think the energy policy is partly his creation. In either event he can point you to the facts, figures, articles etc to support the charge of nuclear being financially non-viable. More efficient, cheaper nuclear power plants might become available (perhaps with large scale carbon fuel cell production capabilities) and we wouldn't be opposed to using them, but for the moment we just don't think the sums add up. (*Apparently small scale hydroelectric is non-viable because of energy costs; they use so much carbon it takes decades before they produce enough energy to make up for the cost of producing them).

Edit - Actually I'm totally wrong. Reading Haunted's post I went to check whether we were estimating the savings as £20billion or not to be conservative about the figures; the anticipated gain from scrapping trident isn't included. Apparently the sums work without it.

[DACrowe]

...£100billion*....

*Lib Dem figure, haven't seen it justified anywhere.

According to Ming's paper it's a 30-year estimate of total running costs (£20billion is the procurement cost) which comes from page 11 of 'In the Firing Line' by Greenpeace.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/res ... ch2010.pdf

Now, you may have as 'mixed' an opinion of Greenpeace as I do, but the figure doesn't seem obviously foolish; over 30 years assuming the figure is inclusive of procurement that comes to £2.6billion a year to run. As of 2007/8 (according to wikipedia) the cost was £2.2billion per annum. I figure it's probably based upon that plus projected inflation (which means it's £100billion partly in 2040 money but hey).

Over the next parliament a conservative estimate would be £2.2billion * 5 + £20billion (procurement) = £31billion, which is a lot.

Edit: P.S. - This paper from Friends of the Earth gives the cost argument http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings ... _power.pdf David's a long term member of FoE so I suspect he'd probably direct to this document if asked.

[Delts]

My feelings on Trident are fairly simple and can be summed up quite easily. We give up Trident, how long until Argentina decide to invade again? With recent talk about oil drilling in/near the Falklands, a good deterrent is still needed. The threat of nuclear retaliation isn't just useful against other nuclear enabled countries.

[RedCelt69]

My feelings on Trident are fairly simple and can be summed up quite easily. We give up Trident, how long until Argentina decide to invade again? With recent talk about oil drilling in/near the Falklands, a good deterrent is still needed. The threat of nuclear retaliation isn't just useful against other nuclear enabled countries.

Uhm... we had nukes when Argentina last invaded. It wasn't a deterrent then and it would be no more a deterrent now.

If any nuclear country actually nuked another (non-nuclear) country, what do you think the reaction from the rest of the world would be like? After 9/11, the USA did not (and could not) nuke Afghanistan (or Iraq). They had to do things the old-fashioned way.

[donpablo]

Lib Dems for me (barring some spectacular calamity). I struggled with whether to switch from SNP but like delts touched on, Salmond is starting to get a bit crazy. I dont buy that complete waste of time legal bid thing.

Surprised anyone has the nerve to vote for labour to be honest ever, let alone after cuntface's performance today (yesterday). Are there any labour voters that actualy vote for any of their policies and believe they wont do the complete opposite and about a billion other dodgy things inbetween?

Your average labour supporter can be summed up with "duhhhhr i just vote for them cos my family has always voted them"

[RedCelt69]

Your average labour supporter can be summed up with "duhhhhr i just vote for them cos my family has always voted them"

The same can be said of any party. Ask conservative Duggeh who his parents vote for.

[DACrowe]

Elections give me insomnia. On the grounds David started this thread, so I can't be blamed, here is an alternative to looking at more polling data:

My feelings on Trident are fairly simple and can be summed up quite easily. We give up Trident, how long until Argentina decide to invade again? With recent talk about oil drilling in/near the Falklands, a good deterrent is still needed. The threat of nuclear retaliation isn't just useful against other nuclear enabled countries.

Not to be cheeky but Argentina invaded the Falklands just after we'd first set up Polaris; it didn't deter them the first time. And we didn't actually use the missiles on them. Which is a damn good thing of course, but you've got to ask yourself if they aren't used in low level invasions how would they deter such invasions. British nukes aren't supposed to deter conventional attacks, they're supposed to deter nuclear attacks. British nuclear strategy is based around the assumption that if there is a nuclear war Britain will be on the losing side; we don't have a first strike capability by any means, the programme is there to deter anyone from making any attack in the first place because once Britain is hit/fired upon a submarines which are out in the deep ocean somewhere will retaliate. One of the reasons it ought to be put up for review is that it appears our rational 'adversaries' pose much less of a threat than in the past and those who do forseeably pose a nuclear threat are either non-state actors (terrorists) or unlikely to be subject to rational deterrence (North Korea, Pakistan if it were to fall to radical elements within the ISI).

Lib Dems for me (barring some spectacular calamity). I struggled with whether to switch from SNP but like delts touched on, Salmond is starting to get a bit crazy. I dont buy that complete waste of time legal bid thing.

There's a good discussion of it on the Scotsman's Politics podcast from the other day. Apparently there is precedent (set by the LibDems) for a successful appeal however it has always been launched far in advance of the event in question. The commentator they had on said that any competent lawyer would have told them there was almost no chance of success and in light of this it's sensible to assume they choose to make the appeal when they did not for the hope that it would succeed but in order for maximum PR impact. If it has had the opposite effect (which seemed to be the noise at the hustings I was at today and what you're saying here) I guess I'm glad but I'd rather people were as cheesed off as I am by the screw up they've made at Holyrood. As a centre-left Scot with nationalist sympathies I should, theoretically, be quite fond of the SNP but they've a record of lying (no other word for it) in manifestos and that's two Glasgow by-elections in a row where their candidates have been social conservatives. I'm not saying that you can expect a party which doesn't win a majority to deliver everything it promised but you may have noticed your student debt hasn't been written off and a bit of googling of 'Scotland's Future Trust' may clue you into why anyone with a vested interest in seeing schools, hospitals and other municipal buildings being built in Scotland is a bit concerned at present. I recommend reading their manifesto this time around asking yourself how likely it is a party which can't win a majority and refuses to enter a coalition will be able to deliver on any of it. Preventing cuts to services in Scotland and (somehow) getting the cost of the London Olympics as a Barnett's consequential might be nice enough ideas, albeit slightly Scotland.vs.theWorld but there's no way they'd get anyone other than Plaid to go along with them. They've posed scrapping Trident outright in debates as them being more 'radical' than the LibDems (true enough, I suppose) but who do they imagine they'd get to go along with them if not us. And if they did work with us it seems more sensible to go down the 'put it to the review' line than scrapping it arbitrarily.

Surprised anyone has the nerve to vote for labour to be honest ever, let alone after cuntface's performance today (yesterday).

I seem to be defending Gordon Brown a lot lately but (a) I don't think we know what she said to him. If (as you might imagine) she said something like "I used to vote Labour but you've let immigrants/asylum seekers take over this country" then to be honest I wouldn't think it 'outrageous' for him to privately refer to her as bigoted. Brown's a lot of things but he's not a bad person. As for the other point I imagine, aside from the 'institutional' thing they have in their favour a lot will be voting back in incumbents that they like or else are swayed by the positive achievements they've managed over the past 13 years (minimum wage probably a good thing, a fair amount of progress made on gay rights, spending on services up*, a lot of municipal building**). If you were through and through a social democrat, had foreign policy views roughly equivalent to the Euston manifesto, and flat out didn't care about civil liberties it would be a sensible enough decision to vote for them.

*Though this is obviously overshadowed by (a) the fact much of it was used inefficiently on bureaucracy, consultants and plausibly unnecessary admin and (b) the fact a lot of it was achieved through deficit spending during the 'boom-period-which-wasn't'. That Brown can't be blamed because he didn't forsee the financial collapse is, presumably, not something many people would be sympathetic to.

**Though again, a lot of this was done via PFIs. I'm still not sure how I feel about these (or what the difference if any is between PFIs and PPPs); they obviously cost more in the long run but there's a fair argument to be made (it seems) that traditional procurement doesn't work anymore (again 'Scotland's Future Trust'). However the fact there's a fair number of hospital buildings which lease periods will end and will revert to the private financiers in a decade or so just seems a bit mad. Labour was making a big deal of it earlier in the campaign ( http://www.changewesee.com/ ) while neglecting to mention (1) that most of these buildings were constructed using procurement practices they criticised the Tories for when they were in opposition; they just entered into even more of them when they came into government and (2) a fair number seem to be in LibDem council controlled cities.

But anyway; credit where it's due, their record isn't all-bad.

[Duggeh]

Your average labour supporter can be summed up with "duhhhhr i just vote for them cos my family has always voted them"

The same can be said of any party. Ask conservative Duggeh who his parents vote for.

My father votes conservative, my mother votes liberal. I'm fairly certain my paternal grandparents were labour voteres and my maternal grandmother once stood for the conservatives. My brother seems to be favouring labour (this is his first election, persoanlly I think he's mad) and my sister is self confessed about her total political apathy.

Screw your idle generational associations. I'm a conservative because I find conservativism preferable to other ideological choices, not because my daddy tells me to be one.

[Haunted]

Now all we've said is that we think it should be included in the review and have expressed a preference in the outcome (at least (b), possibly (c) or (d)).

Between the lines the Lib Dems have specifically said they do not want to renew Trident. If they wanted a replacement then why would they keep quoting the total cost of £100 Bn without any mention of new costs?

we should spend £100billion without consultation with experts

You would not consider the MOD experts?
Tell me then, why are we not having consultations on every other multi billion pound project they are managing?

Nuclear energy - We're not luddites. To quote Nick Clegg the objection isn't 'theological'; the claim is that when resource costs, construction costs (financial and energy*), insurance costs, security costs (a major issue) and decommissioning costs are taken into account it costs much more than alternatives

This is an outright lie. More than that, it's almost impossible to be true. Tha actual physics is dirt cheap and we have decades of reactor experience to draw on when designing the new fleet. The only possibly way for nuclear to cost more than coal, gas, oil or wind is if the security, source and waste management costs are being deliberately inflated.

Currently, the cost per kWh in the UK for nuclear is ~4.6 US cents (In France it's 3.7 US cents). Compare that to the cost of wind (7.4-11 US cents), coal (5.2) and Oil/Gas (5.9)*.

The cost for four brand new nuclear reactors in the UK (including effective waste management and security) has been estimated at 6-7 US cents/kWh**. Still the cheapest renewable option and with all the benefits that come with nuclear power. But don't take my word for it, ask France or how about Finland. The Finnish Olkiluto reactor is a great example of everything going wrong in the construction of nuclear reactor, 3 years overdue and 50% over budget, and it's still cheaper than other renewables. They are also the only nation on Earth who have decided to actively bury their waste rather than keep it on site like everyone else.

And since yuor posting greenpeace data have a read of this
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Lets also not forget that it is the safest form of power generation in terms of people killed per terawatt hour. Much more so than wind and certainly more so than oil and gas.***

Saving lives, saving money and saving the climate.

not to mention that any major nuclear plant building programme would take a long time to complete so wouldn't produce energy or offer carbon emission reductions in the short term.

Of course, because climate change is only a short term problem we must therefore only consider short term options. Screw the long term benefits that the future can enjoy.

It makes more sense to pursue renewable energy technologies and work on improving energy efficiency

No, but it makes sense to pursue them in parallel. This shouldn't be an either or situation.

*EC Energy policy papers January 2007.
**Economic Research Council 2008, New Nuclear Build in the UK - the criteria for delivery.
*** Economic Analysis of Various Options of Electricity Generation - Taking into Account Health and Environmental Effects, Nils Starfelt and Carl-Erik Wikdahl

[RedCelt69]

Screw your idle generational associations. I'm a conservative because I find conservativism preferable to other ideological choices, not because my daddy tells me to be one.

Oh, it wasn't an idle generational association. It was based on previous things you've said. Kids who adore Thatcher but weren't around to witness Thatcherism generally get their love-affair from their parents.

That, and you bought a pair of headphones that cost £1000. Unless you're a professional musician (who has been paid in excess of £1000 for your work) or had a spectacularly productive paper-round... you have absolutely no fucking idea about the value of money - and aren't likely to give a toss about people who do have to worry about money. Which makes you an ideal Tory Boy.