[Closed] Election Campaign

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.

No it wouldn't. Fixed term parliament means you can't just bring down the government by voting against one thing.

And Labour getting its seats back? By saying "Look, you voted SNP to get them to push some policies at Westminster - they did, so vote for us now please?"

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.

So is that insider confirmation that labour has abandoned Scotland to it's fate? 🙂 This is the point I was trying to make a few pages back about labour not needing to do a deal with the SNP. I'm not so sure though that it's a shoe-in that labour will get it's seats back in the event of the SNP bringing down a labour govt. I agree though that the chances of the SNP ever doing that would be very small.

Northwind - Member

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.

Would go something like this.

Labour put legislation down, gets voted down several times by SNP, Labour can no longer control the commons so the PM resigns. Then there is a 2 week period where another government can be formed this would only be possible if either Lab or SNP supported the Tories, which is extremely unlikely. Then we have another general election.

So is that insider confirmation that labour has abandoned Scotland to it's fate? T

hahaha, No we are still fighting hard for a majority Lab government but it will be tough.

jambo's philosophy is held more more widely...

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 [s]country[/s] continent, instead of just one gilded, indulged area of concentrated wealth instead?

Which is why the EU doesn't work.

Why does the UK need nuclear weapons when other similarly-sized countries don't?

The answer is historical. We went to the trouble of developing them, so we became a nuclear power way back. The question of should we disarm is very different to the question of should we arm, don't you think?

As for other countries of similar size - the only other countries in a similar position, with sufficient resources to do this I think were prevented at the time (ie just after the war) by post-war treaties. France has them, Germany does not for example.

I agree though that the chances of the SNP ever doing that would be very small.

If we're getting to the point of Labour being as unpopular in Scotland as the Tories are (and some polls are saying that's not far off being the case) then it'll be a lot more likely. Certainly it'd be a mistake for Labour to progress on the basis that the SNP would always support them so as not to be seen to open a door for the Tories.

Then we have another general election.

At which point the SNP can say "Look, we tried to work with Labour, we offered again and again. Labour refused to compromise with what the voters of Scotland wanted, so the government collapsed."

A collapsing Labour government isn't exactly a great recruiting tool for Scottish Labour if the reason the Labour government collapsed is that it wouldn't work with the SNP.

hahaha, No we are still fighting hard for a majority Lab government but it will be tough.

If Labour was still a socialist party and had even half-decent leadership this election would be a walk in the park.

The answer is historical. We went to the trouble of developing them, so we became a nuclear power way back.

Well, firstly that's a sunk cost argument - we shouldn't waste more money now just because we spent a lot then. Secondly, it's not independent any more - the missiles, the really critical bit, are shared with the US. So it's not even that we've got proprietary technology that could be used for other applications, civilian launches for instance. That died with the Blue Streak.

[i]If the SNP fielded candidates in the north of England they'd probably win most of the seats from labour.[/i]

Tell me you're not being serious Dez?

If the SNP fielded candidates in the north of England they'd probably win most of the seats from labour.

Tell me you're not being serious Dez?

You think Labour are more popular in the North of England than they are in Scotland?

Tell me you're not being serious Dez?

Ok maybe not 'most' but quite a lot. Certainly enough to put the labour party out of the business of government. Christ, even the UKIP nut-jobs nearly took a seat off them in Middleton-Heywood, so what would the SNP do?

[i]Well, firstly that's a sunk cost argument - we shouldn't waste more money now just because we spent a lot then. Secondly, it's not independent any more - the missiles, the really critical bit, are shared with the US.[/i]

And therein is the answer to your question. We are a nucleur partner of the US and as such we get enormous support from them as a result.

Ok maybe not 'most' but quite a lot. Certainly enough to put the labour party out of the business of government. Christ, even the UKIP nut-jobs nearly took a seat off them in Middleton-Heywood, so what would the SNP do?

Problem is with the North East of England is that it's still in England - so the various bribes of free prescriptions/Greggs pasties/university education etc. etc. wouldn't be applied to us.

That said, I do agree that whilst Labour is the default voting choice I suspect it's more of an anti Tory vote, UKIP may hoover up a sizeable number of Labour numbers.

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.

Yes, we all know that, however it becomes far more complex since there's afairly strong argument that the existence of nuclear weapons and MAD prevented a conventional war between the superpowers since every attempt at gaming a successful outcome by either side resulted in escalation.

Without nuclear weapons and MAD, conventional warfare was a near inevitability - one side or the other [b]could[/b] win, it was only the near certainty that the losing side in a conventional war would have to escalate that held this at bay.

Remember 1982 when we were in the shit against the French exocets...well despite the fact that we were up against a South American country, they (the USA) gave us a newly a developed missile that allowed us to take out their French planes before they even came over the horizon.

THAT is a 'special relationship' that we keep our end up by committing to Trident.

so the various bribes of free prescriptions/Greggs pasties/university education etc. etc. wouldn't be applied to us.

Which is why there won't be any candidates in England. However if the SNP were to turn itself into a UK-wide party and abandon it's pretensions at scottish independence then maybe a different story? Of course that would probably mean losing much of it's support in scotland but it's an interesting, if crazy, idea.

there's afairly strong argument that the existence of nuclear weapons and MAD prevented a conventional war between the superpowers

Remember 1982 when we were in the shit against the French exocets...well despite the fact that we were up against a South American country, they (the USA) gave us a newly a developed missile that allowed us to take out their French planes before they even came over the horizon.

No they didn't. What they gave us was a better version of a short (visual) range missile that outperformed the earlier version of the same missile that the Argentinians used, particularly in head-on engagements.

Well, firstly that's a sunk cost argument - we shouldn't waste more money now just because we spent a lot then

It's nothing of the sort!

I told you why we had them. I'm not justifying it with that statement.

However I will throw some justification in the mix: I think that is rather useful that a selection of allies have them, just in case. Because the potential consequences if we get rid of them don't really bear thinking about.

The "Cold War as Long Peace" argument is terrible

But the cold war as lack of nuclear war isn't. Nuclear war being far far worse than the wars that did happen.

The conventional wars still happened and millions died, it's just that they didn't happen to be Europeans or Americans.

Global annihilation was avoided but, given this was only possible due to the nukes, its hard to argue the only implement capable of global annihilation prevented global annihilation.

Given the distances America and Russia could not really engage directly with each other as lots of countries are in the way nor could one expect to successfully invade the other.
Personally I dont think nukes created peace but it can be argued they did.

[i]
No they didn't. What they gave us was a better version of a short (visual) range missile that outperformed the earlier version of the same missile that the Argentinians used, particularly in head-on engagements.[/i]

The majority of Sidewinder variants utilize infrared homing for guidance; the AIM-9C variant used semi-active radar homing

(not wanting this to go OT but that seems to back up what I said)

lobal annihilation was avoided but, given this was only possible due to the nukes, its hard to argue the only implement capable of global annihilation prevented global annihilation.

Annihilation of HALF the world was possible by one side having nukes. So what else was there but to keep up with them and bet on MAD?

Given the distances America and Russia could not really engage directly with each other

You know the earth is actually round, don't you? And that Russia and America are neighbours?

You know the earth is actually round, don't you? And that Russia and America are neighbours? 😀

Damn you molgrips you just made a very reasonable point that defeated my argument.......flounces.

Fair point fella, fair point
Edit to your edit:
and then you stole defeat from the jaws of victory

You know the earth is actually round, don't you? And that Russia and America are neighbours?

Its unlikely they will choose to invade over land that way and yes Alaska and Siberia are neighbours but I doubt even you wish to argue that either side would try to launch a land offensive over that frozen route via the bering sea.
Its really not feasible to see either side launching a land operation against the other homeland is it ?

I think it rather sad that people view prescriptions and education as "bribes" rather than "rights"

@molgrips 😀

However you can't really invade via Alaska, the territory is pretty much impassable

I think it's interesting for quite some time we have been arguing about UKIP impacting the Tory vote and potentially Labour and actually it's the SNP who look like having the biggest imapact. They sort of crept up unnoticed.

Its unlikely they will choose to invade over land that way

Well you suggested that the number of countries in the way would.prevent a land invasion. However they could do it by sea, although it would be hard. You'd have to win sea and air superiority first which I suppose would indeed be difficult since without ICBMs you cannot do the usual attrition on airfields and factories and so on.

America managed to invade France across the Atlantic but I guess only because they had the UK to work with.

why do you do two posts when one would do ?

I bet there are electoral frauds but let's see who got the most this time. 😯

I am in the NE red army territory so am getting a bit paranoid and anxious now because my postal ballot papers have gone missing.

If it were me I'd conquer Mexico first via South America.. Go for the long run.. It could've started a much much longer global campaign of empire building.

The conventional wars still happened and millions died, it's just that they didn't happen to be Europeans or Americans.

So it worked then!

Even if you include US casualties in Vietnam and Korea, it's still a fraction of the likely losses that would have occurred in event of another conventional war in Europe.

If it were me I'd conquer Mexico first via South America

nah, fracturing of NATO, a communist coup in Mexico followed by Land and air invasion of Midwestern USA by Mexican and Nicaraguan forces backed by Cuban and Russian advisors - there may be a film about this 😀

If it were me I'd conquer Mexico first via South America

Take out Canada first as it has much better riding.

jambo's philosophy is held more more widely...

I bet there are electoral frauds but let's see who got the most this time.

Labour are off to an early start and we can expect a lot more of this given it's become a consistent problem across a number of cities over the last 2 local / national elections:

Warnings in 2012 - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-19397157

Reality in 2015 -

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/573964/Muslim-vote-Labour-Prophet-Mohammed-descendant-endorsement

and

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/12919255.Blackburn_Labour_council_election_candidate_arrested____on_suspicion_of_electoral_fraud_and_integrity_issues___/

why do you do two posts when one would do ?

The majority of Sidewinder variants utilize infrared homing for guidance; the AIM-9C variant used semi-active radar homing

(not wanting this to go OT but that seems to back up what I said)

It was AIM9-Ls that the US gave to Britain in the Flaklands, still IR homing, still visual range but designed as "all aspect" so able to be fired head on at oncoming fighters rather than needing to home in on the jet exhaust from behind.

Anyway, I don't buy the argument that nuclear weapons kept the peace. Its a kind of historical trope that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. What Cold War conflicts would have escalated to conventional all out warfare between NATO and the Warsaw Pact if there had been no nuclear weapons?

However you can't really invade via Alaska, the territory is pretty much impassable

why do you do two posts when one would do ?

Me? I only edit posts up to a few minutes on a busy thread, becuase if you add more content after a few more posts it doesn't get read.

What Cold War conflicts would have escalated to conventional all out warfare between NATO and the Warsaw Pact if there had been no nuclear weapons?

It's the conflicts that didn't happen at all. Without nukes, the whole thing might've played out completely differently with say, the Soviets conquering territory in South America with a view to invading the US eventually. Empire building if you like.

Different game entirely.

The conventional wars still happened and millions died, it's just that they didn't happen to be Europeans or Americans.

So it worked then!

a) you think millions of people dying is what success looks like

b) you think millions of people dying is what peace looks like

Much as I'm enjoying the armchair nuclear generals tangent, back to the topic in hand...

Is there any significance in the libdems leaking coalition policy discussion documents? Perhaps an indicator of their labour supporting intentions or just a knee-jerk tactic to get Clegg elected? Either the tories and libdems have an agreement to let bygones be bygones after the election, or the libdems have made their decision already to part ways. If not the former, then it's going to be quite difficult to form a new coalition after all this mud-slinging.

A government that couldn't [s]meddle[/s] pass legislation might be novel. No new initiative, just get on with executing what you have properly. I might vote for that 😉

I know you have to take much of what the SNO says with a bucket if salt, but given that Nics has promised to work together with Labour to keep the Tories out even if the Tories have 40 more seats, why would they then vote down a Queens speech or play silly beggars. Are they not good for their word after all?

Forget the SNP, the people who are really against Trident are the heads of the armed forces. That's just kept quiet though.

Me? I only edit posts up to a few minutes on a busy thread, becuase if you add more content after a few more posts it doesn't get read.

Naturally i demand a word count though 50% of mine will be someone elses words

Whose turn is it to reply to Just5 minutes latest punt and run Tory head office press release?

Is there any significance in the libdems leaking coalition policy discussion documents?

Politics IMHO trying to both harm the tories and boost themselves
One can only imagine what the Tories would have done had they been able to have a majority without support.

it's going to be quite difficult to form a new coalition after all this mud-slinging.