[Closed] Election Campaign

Why are Labour so in love with Trident?

I think it's probably more accurate to say that they're more in love with being in power than they are with Trident. I suspect they'd love to get rid of it if they thought it wouldn't lose them the election. 1983 and the unilateral disarmament policy casts a long shadow.

Why are Labour so in love with Trident?

There are very clearly two ways of looking at Trident. Both are good points. It's nothing like as black and white as SNP make out.

Treating things as black and white is terribly detrimental to the political debate.

[i]I think you forgot to look at Scotland there where they have more Pandas than Tories.[/i]

Its all well and good talking up the SNP's power in the upcoming election, but correct me if I'm wrong, but they represent a number, roughly half the size of Birmingham? Add that to the fact that they don't want a Great Britain and you've got a situation whereby they have talked themselves out of having any credibility amongst the rest of the 95% of the population.

SNP's policy is on Trident is a mess anyway IMO. They are perfectly happy for the Yanks, French or whoever to park nuclear subs in Faslane but not our own!

Then when pressed NS indirectly admitted they want to double spend the money saved, as she said they would us it for schools and NHS, and then in next breath that the money should go to improving the conventional forces. So which is it?

jambalaya - Member
Binners we all know the Northern cities are strong Labour areas as is Central London (due to high levels of social housing and private houses being owned by foreigners not entitled to vote and commuters living outside the central areas) but support for the Conservatives is pretty much national, there are plenty in the North voting Tory. From 2010

Same data, different projection:

[img] [/img]

Ben - Trident would provide an awful lot of jobs in solid labour voting constituencies

If that's the argument, then it's a rubbish argument. You could give every worker £100,000 a year to stay home and do the gardening, and still only spend a fraction of what Trident will cost.

Then when pressed NS indirectly admitted they want to double spend the money saved, as she said they would us it for schools and NHS, and then in next breath that the money should go to improving the conventional forces. So which is it?

they have talked themselves out of having any credibility amongst the rest of the 95% of the population

Don't be silly. I'm certain that the animosity shown towards the SNP from the tories/south is not shared by the vast majority of labour supporting northerners who wish the labour party was a bit/lot more to the left than it currently is. If the SNP fielded candidates in the north of England they'd probably win most of the seats from labour.

bencooper - Member
One thing I honestly don't get: Why are Labour so in love with Trident? the Tories I can understand, but Labour?

A complex answer. In the end a lot of people now think that the MAD policy actually worked, also you don't want to be subject to nuclear blackmail. Having Trident we can use it as a bargaining chip to move towards multilateral disarmanment, much better to have skin in the game. It is also hard to predict future threats in the mid 00s were we really expecting the Arab spring to occur. Military capabilities have a very long lead time. If we scrapped the subs and infrastructure next year then the following year a threat arose and we decided we needed the capability again it would take about 20 years to build it.

The economic argument isn't as strong as people might think because we could still keep the submarines and covert them to SSGNs something that would serve us very well. However there would still be job losses in Faslane as we wouldn't need weapons handling and storage facilities there.

dazh - Member
Polls not looking too good for Miliband.

This is the worst prediction for labour the guardian's election model has given so far. Perhaps most worrying for us left-leaning folk is that according to this labour and the SNP will not hold a majority. Also the Mori poll has swung towards the tories.

Is it just me or has the labour campaign lost a bit of momentum? Seems like when I turn the news on all I see is Cameron in shirts-sleeves-rolled-up-ranting-like-he-gives-a-shit mode and a meek Miliband trying to look presidential behind his lecturn. It'd be a sad but entirely predictable turn of events if Labour lose it due to a lack of passion/fight.

On polling, firstly you can't look at any single poll you have to look at the trends in the polls

Isn't that what the guardian's election model does? It claims to use all published local and national polls. I understand your eagerness to look for positives, but you have to admit there's a definite trend towards the tories.

As for Cameron's desperation, I'm not sure the public view it like that. All they see is passion and enthusiasm, something that Miliband struggles to put across. At the end of the day people like a fighter.

You could give every worker £100,000 a year to stay home and do the gardening, and still only spend a fraction of what Trident will cost.

How much of this Trident money stays in the UK?

Ben on Trident - I agree with the jobs, ongoing plus a lot of that money is spent on construction and technology jobs. I would add that I think behind the scenes (eg with NATO) there are lots of commitments and possibly binding agreements signed that we will retain an "independent" deterrent.

CaptJohn appreciate that's a projection and also a seat based rather than land area based map

Binners I did get the point about economics and how the north was treated - I guess if you have a huge and at times violent strike plus rock solid labour consituencies you shouldn;t be totally surprised if the conservatives apprently don't give a f

Labour just don't want to work with them for many political reasons and policy differences such as bitterness over 1979, Scottish independence and Trident.

I'm not convinced the anti-SNP stance taken by Labour so far is based on anything other than them wanting to keep their chances open to win more seats in Scotland based on the old "it's us or the Tories" argument.

When push comes to shove then if Labour need to do a deal with the SNP to form a parliament then I'm sure they will. They can get around their previous arguments by trading off delaying a decision on Trident replacement against an agreement that the SNP won't push for another referendum with 5 years.

One thing I honestly don't get: Why are Labour so in love with Trident? the Tories I can understand, but Labour?

The SNP are have occupied the position left vacant when Labour turned into Tories. The two main political parties are like Walker's Crisps - the colours dont mean what they used to.

Jim Sillars being quoted as saying the first line of the 2016 SNP manifesto for Holyrood will be another independence referendum (which is basically what I posted a few pages back 😉 )

Also the Lib Dems (Danny Alexander) clearly think they are most likely to be in a coalition with Labour based on leaking a 2010-15 coalition working paper. Very naughty. Anyway IMO child benefit should be capped at two kids and be means tested. I always thought it a bit ridiculous my family received it being a higher rate tax payer and for 3 kids. My ex-wife was so bad with money/organization/forms she didn't receive it for 3 years and didn't notice (quite rightly they refused to back date it)

I guess if you have a huge and at times violent strike plus rock solid labour consituencies you shouldn;t be totally surprised if the conservatives apprently don't give a f

Couple of points:

1. The violence shown by miners in the 1984 was nothing compared to the paramilitary force meted out to them by the state.

2. It's the government's primary duty and responsibility to 'give a f'.

The two main political parties are like Walker's Crisps - the colours dont mean what the used to.

It's the government's primary duty and responsibility to 'give a f'.

dazh - Member

Isn't that what the guardian's election model does? It claims to use all published local and national polls. I understand your eagerness to look for positives, but you have to admit there's a definite trend towards the tories.

Still got 3 other points

As for Cameron's desperation, I'm not sure the public view it like that. All they see is passion and enthusiasm, something that Miliband struggles to put across. At the end of the day people like a fighter.

Well I have skin in the game so maybe I'm not quite objective enough also I'm far more engaged in the detail so I might perceive things differently.

How I see it is that here is a guy who has changed his campaign strategy almost every week. First it was lets talk about our economic record, then it was lets attack Eds leadership credentials, then it was lets attack Labour over a deal with the SNP, then this week we hear all of this talk about the economy again and DC has suddenly changed from the calm statesman behind the podium to sleeves rolled up, shouty guy it feels all a bit faux to me.

Labour are seeing Eds personal opinion rating increase, they are running a coherent issues based campaign and thrashing the opposition in the ground war which might be crucial in those key Tory/Lab marginals.

epicsteve - Member
I'm not convinced the anti-SNP stance taken by Labour so far is based on anything other than them wanting to keep their chances open to win more seats in Scotland based on the old "it's us or the Tories" argument.

When push comes to shove then if Labour need to do a deal with the SNP to form a parliament then I'm sure they will. They can get around their previous arguments by trading off delaying a decision on Trident replacement against an agreement that the SNP won't push for another referendum with 5 years.

I explained yesterday why this isn't the case.

All those saying SNP will have some influence over Labour are not looking at the big picture. Labour can just put their queens speech down and dare the SNP to vote it down. The worst that would happen is the SNP bring down another Labour Government just like they did in 79 but instead of ushering in Thatcher, it will allow Labour to regain its Scottish seats and go for a majority government.

I was just making a point, London and SE transfer £34bn on taxes to the rest of the country every year, that pays for a lot of stuff.

So us chippy northerners should all be really grateful, should we?

Heres an idea... instead of viewing this as some sort of charity, How about trying to create a balanced, functional economy that works for the entire country, instead of just one gilded, indulged area of concentrated wealth instead?

Just a thought. This whole situation is due to the Tory's under Fatcha allowing entire regional industries to disappear without giving a flying **** as to what was going to replace those jobs. The market will sort it out, being the mantra. Well... it didn't! And it hasn't! And thats why we now have such a dysfunctional, two tier national economy

Somewhat incredibly, the only politician that the penny seems to have dropped with on this issue, is George Osborne.

I may end up voting Tory 😉

All those saying SNP will have some influence over Labour are not looking at the big picture. Labour can just put their queens speech down and dare the SNP to vote it down. The worst that would happen is the SNP bring down another Labour Government just like they did in 79 but instead of ushering in Thatcher, it will allow Labour to regain its Scottish seats and go for a majority government.

You seem to be forgetting that when it comes to political nouse the SNP are miles ahead of anything Westminster currently has to offer.

wanmankylung - Member

You seem to be forgetting that when it comes to political nouse the SNP are miles ahead of anything Westminster currently has to offer.

Sorry that is just laughable....

Sorry that is just laughable....

Prove it.

dragon - Member

SNP's policy is on Trident is a mess anyway IMO. They are perfectly happy for the Yanks, French or whoever to park nuclear subs in Faslane but not our own!

Perfectly sensible tbh. Let other people waste fortunes on weapons of mass destruction that by design must never be used. It's not about whether there's a nuclear sub in Scottish territory, it's about who is responsible for it and who paid for it. We don't want it on our conscience or on our balance sheet.

bencooper - Member

One thing I honestly don't get: Why are Labour so in love with Trident? the Tories I can understand, but Labour?

Apparently 75% of Labour MP candidates are opposed to Trident renewal. As are most of the public. But it can be spun into boneheaded slogans about DEFENCE and PUTTING OUR COUNTRY AT RISK so it's always going to be a hot potato. Even people who're opposed to nuclear armageddon could be swayed by a concerted campaign telling them about how Ed is going to get us invaded by Greece. You can see this already happening.

I was just making a point, London and SE transfer £34bn on taxes to the rest of the country every year, that pays for a lot of stuff.

wanmankylung - Member

Prove it.

After 4 and half years working in national politics I know there are some very smart cookies in most of the parties.

After 4 and half years working in national politics I know there are some very smart cookies in most of the parties.

I feel that your definition of smart and mine are probably polar opposite. Spinning shite is not smart.

In the end a lot of people now think that the MAD policy actually worked

You mean it didn't? (Checks out of window to see scene of devastation)

wanmankylung - Member

I feel that your definition of smart and mine are probably polar opposite. Spinning shite is not smart

Maybe...

However the case remains if Labour get enough MPs where the numbers add up then the SNP are going to get bounced into a very difficult position. Labour's first shot will be to lay down a Queen's speech and if the SNP don't vote for it then it will be defeated and bring down the potential Lab government.

You seem to be forgetting that when it comes to political nouse the SNP are miles ahead of anything Westminster currently has to offer.

You seem to be forgetting that what we see on the news is NOTHING AT ALL to do with what actually happens in politics or government.

You lot are all arguing over nothing. You might as well discuss East Enders vs Corrie. It's worthless.

You lot are all arguing over nothing. You might as well discuss East Enders vs Corrie. It's worthless.

Are you new here? 😀

It's worthless.

Some have said the same about your Passat or your overtaking skills....

However the case remains if Labour get enough MPs where the numbers add up then the SNP are going to get bounced into a very difficult position. Labour's first shot will be to lay down a Queen's speech and if the SNP don't vote for it then it will be defeated and bring down the potential Lab government.

Hmmm - surely that's more of a problem for Labour, as they'd be the ones letting the Tories back into power.

Labour are seeing Eds personal opinion rating increase, they are running a coherent issues based campaign and thrashing the opposition in the ground war which might be crucial in those key Tory/Lab marginals.

No problem with any of that*. However, most people's only information about the campaign comes from picking up a newspaper or turning on the tv news. There's not much labour can do about the tory press, but Cameron seems to be getting much more exposure on the telly. Maybe tonight's QT will redress the balance somewhat?

*not had any labour people round my way in Calder Valley (no. 92 on the marginal list so quite low down I guess)

fr0sty125 - Member

Labour's first shot will be to lay down a Queen's speech and if the SNP don't vote for it then it will be defeated and bring down the potential Lab government.

People keep saying that- but the queen's speech is not the whole of a parliament. They could vote for a queen's speech then vote against every other thing the government ever wants to do. Or, more pragmatically, say "We can't vote in favour of X as it stands but here's the compromise that gets us on side"

ninfan - Member

You mean it didn't? (Checks out of window to see scene of devastation)

Well it is hard to prove that MAD worked, the idea behind it being that if those with WMDs knew that if they used them that they themselves would be completely wiped out would be enough of a deterrent that no one would use them.

In a perfect world the fact that these weapons are totally immoral would be enough to not use them but, we already did use them.

MAD plays on self preservation which is a very strong human instinct. By firing a nuke you would be in effect committing suicide for you and all you care about.

As an aside - would the SNP winning every seat in Scotland be the substantive change that would lead to the SNP pursuing another referendum?

Northwind - Member

People keep saying that- but the queen's speech is not the whole of a parliament. They could vote for a queen's speech then vote against every other thing the government ever wants to do. Or, more pragmatically, say "We can't vote in favour of X as it stands but here's the compromise that gets us on side"

Still wouldn't be a problem, SNP would have to continually support the Lab government or bring it down. As soon as they bring it down Lab can get its seats back.

In the end a lot of people now think that the MAD policy actually worked
You mean it didn't? (Checks out of window to see scene of devastation)

Depends on your definition of "worked" - we didn't have a global thermonuclear war, we did have lots of smaller wars which still resulted in millions of deaths.

The argument that we have to have nuclear weapons to be able to argue for disarmament is hilarious. "I'm going to buy a new gun, so I can persuade my neighbour to get rid of his guns. He won't listen to me unless I have a gun."

Why does the UK need nuclear weapons when other similarly-sized countries don't? Do we have more enemies? If so, maybe we should look at why that is.

People keep saying that- but the queen's speech is not the whole of a parliament.

As someone else said, there's still a lot of stuff a govt can do even if it can't pass legislation. The only requirement is to get a queen's speech and budget bill through. And in an informal support arrangement that's all that would be agreed upon.

As an aside - would the SNP winning every seat in Scotland be the substantive change that would lead to the SNP pursuing another referendum?

If it happened (which it won't) then I'd have said that could be viewed as a very comprehensive rejection of Westminster politics - so quite possibly yes. Especially if the following happens:
1) More than 50% of votes in Scotland go to the SNP
2) We end up with another Tory led government

Still wouldn't be a problem, SNP would have to continually support the Lab government or bring it down. As soon as they bring it down Lab can get its seats back.

Can you please explain the reasoning behind this.

As someone else said, there's still a lot of stuff a govt can do even if it can't pass legislation.

They can however be stopped from doing that sort of thing at any time however, by a vote of no confidence.

fr0sty125 - Member

Still wouldn't be a problem, SNP would have to continually support the Lab government or bring it down.

No, not at all- a government doesn't have to win every vote to stay in power as this current government has demonstrated, in fact there's relatively few critical ones.

And it would lead directly to Labour campaigning in Scotland on the basis "We refused to do what you voted for, so vote for us". Not even Jim Murphy can think that's a winning proposition