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.

Non sequitur that does not explain why the Tories should not give a **** or answers the charge that the govts job is to give a ****

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

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 country 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.

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?

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?

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.

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 could 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

The “Cold War as Long Peace” argument is terrible because it just ignores that the superpowers did fight wars against each other, albeit by proxy. The conventional wars still happened and millions died, it’s just that they didn’t happen to be Europeans or Americans.

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.