Elections in the UK

[Zac Naloen]

It was all very even this week, everyone got up to cleggs level in terms of preparedness. I disagree with Cameron in the areas he differs from the other parties, and I don't believe labour will actually carry out what they claim they will (like the last 13 years).

Still favouring the libs for my vote.

[Crazedwraith]

"You can't deport them! You don't know where they live!" Nick Clegg on immigration pretty much hitting the nail on the head. The other two parties were all about border controls and never addressed the people already here.

Really the only thing that really made me worry about Clegg was the energy issue. It's no good scrapping Nuclear power to save money no when the lights are going to go off. I was leaning more towards Labour on that issue.

Lastly, did the Chairman seem slightly baised towards conservative to anyone else? He seemed to give Cameron the last word on many occasions and let him talk where he would cut the other off. I believe sky is owned by a Conservative supporter?

[Zac Naloen]

Murdoch owns the channel we're watching, of course there is a bias. They made their allegiance clear in the papers today.




* case in point


"The three leaders have now left, here's david cameron's personal message to you"

[Teebs]

I thought Clegg edged it, but I'm a paid up party member so I'm obviously going to prefer the policies he puts forward.

On nuclear power I was slightly pleased in that his argument against it was based on cost rather than "omg Chernobyl." I think that makes it much more likely he'd be willing to back it in future (Lib Dem policy is meant to be made by the membership at the party conference, but obviously the leader has a lot of influence over that).

I'm still slightly shocked at the rightwing newspapers' attacks on him and the party. Every single front page either attacks on policies or out and out smears.

Edit: I'm not sure the Times did actually, but it's debatable whether you can lump that in as a rightwing paper unlike the Mail, Telegraph, Sun etc

[Teleros]

On nuclear power I was slightly pleased in that his argument against it was based on cost rather than "omg Chernobyl."

I assume this means he can come out in support of nuclear power if he wins the election and if it's then shown to be not too costly. Much easier to change positions this way after all.

I'm still slightly shocked at the rightwing newspapers' attacks on him and the party. Every single front page either attacks on policies or out and out smears.

It's going to be a close election, and given the Lib Dems aren't going to win (sorry but... well how many hundreds of years ago did they last form a government ?), they're the best target for scraping together the votes needed to kick out Labour.

[Darth Tanner]

I assume this means he can come out in support of nuclear power if he wins the election and if it's then shown to be not too costly.

Not really, the Lib Dems are pretty much against nuclear power regardless. Clegg might change his mind after the election and realise the lights are going out (not that we can build a new generation of reactors in time to change that) but his party is not going to support him doing so.

I thought Clegg edged it

His good point of actually telling people what he is going to do might work against him though, he openly came out saying the air force will take the brunt of the Defence review under a lib dem government with the cancelation of the Euro fighter Tranche 3. The other parties are simply refusing to say who is going to get the cut, saving them potential lost votes!

Also he seriously wobbled over Trident, he said he'd keep a nuclear deterrent without replacing the existing system and refused to say what he actually meant, not that he was given much of a chance to.

everyone got up to cleggs level in terms of preparedness

There were quite a few times I thought the other two were copying what Clegg said verbatim from the last debate, both were trying to copy his 'look at those two argue' routine several times in fact. Clegg is the much better speaker, just seeing Brown try to act human is painful with his little smiles at random times regardless of what is actually going on around him.

[Zac Naloen]

Also he seriously wobbled over Trident, he said he'd keep a nuclear deterrent without replacing the existing system and refused to say what he actually meant, not that he was given much of a chance to.

His problem with Trident is that last week it was being painted that he wants to get rid of Trident completely, when what is actually wanted is a review of our options before committing to replacing Trident like for like and more likely actually replacing our Submariner launch capability with a Cruise missile system. I thought he tried to get this across last night, but the others kept cutting him off.

Not sure why Milliband thought we needed to increase our arsenal to do that, there's no reason why we need anymore than 160 warheads.... or 1 war head in my opinion. I see no reason why Britain in a united Europe needs to be a Nuclear power when we have Unilateral defense agreements with our Allies who are and who can afford it.

[Darth Tanner]

Not sure why Milliband thought we needed to increase our arsenal to do that

I assume that if your using ship or land based missile you have to have considerably more redundancy in launch capacity because a first strike could cripple your missiles altogether. Submarines are more or less immune to that so you can get away with only having the one sub out at any.

I see no reason why Britain in a united Europe needs to be a Nuclear power when we have Unilateral defense agreements with our Allies who are and who can afford it.

Most likely they simply don't trust France / USA to put their cities at risk of retaliation strikes if London gets nuked by someone. Also without nukes we have little claim to be on the security council anymore so being rolled into a EU security seat would be more likely.

or 1 war head in my opinion

Anti missile systems?

[Zac Naloen]

I've just looked up the actual suggestion by menzies-campbell (which is just the a suggestion) he suggests nuclear tipped cruise missiles on astute class submarines. So the general idea of the libs is that there are alternatives to Trident to be looked into. And unless they are lying, some of Britains top military brass agree with them.

[Darth Tanner]

he suggests nuclear tipped cruise missiles on astute class submarines.

If that will work that sounds excellent as it gives us all the advantages of having submarine based nuclear weapons while providing more purpose for our attack submarines, they might even increase their orders from the seven currently being built!

Just a quick potentially silly question, how does a submarine fire off a cruise missile from its torpedo tubes? Do they fire off horizontally and vector up (presumably above water yes?) or does the submarine itself have to tilt itself.

[Zac Naloen]

I didn't know so I looked it up, but yes it appears that the astute class submarines launch cruise missiles horizontally out of the tubes, and then the missiles engage their solid fuel rocket.

Although your comment has left me with the amusing image of the submarine hanging on for dear life as the boat prepares to launch it's missiles

[TimothyC]

he suggests nuclear tipped cruise missiles on astute class submarines.

If that will work that sounds excellent as it gives us all the advantages of having submarine based nuclear weapons while providing more purpose for our attack submarines, they might even increase their orders from the seven currently being built!

Just a quick potentially silly question, how does a submarine fire off a cruise missile from its torpedo tubes? Do they fire off horizontally and vector up (presumably above water yes?) or does the submarine itself have to tilt itself.

Congratulations, you've just mixed tactical missions (killing ships, inserting Special Forces, ect) with a strategic mission that requires a whole new set of systems (weapons control, authentication, communications). I don't know if the systems are already in place on the Astute Class, but if they are not, then I imagine that cost on a hypothetical Flight 2 Astute (IE one with the strategic systems) would go up.

As for missile launch, those subs without VLS tubes, such as Astute the missiles are fired out of the torpedo tube, rise to the surface, and then launch. The downsides to this approach are that 1. You can only fire the missiles one at a time, and can't shoot anything with torpedoes while you do, and 2. Every SLCM (Submarine Launched Cruise Missile) you carry is one less torpedo or other weapon you can carry. This is why the Los Angeles Class from Providence on have a set of 12 VLS tubes in the bow that can fire Tomahawks. For some reason (different mission requirements I guess) the Seawolf Class doesn't have these tubes, but the newer Virginia Class does.

[Zac Naloen]

Congratulations, you've just mixed tactical missions (killing ships, inserting Special Forces, ect) with a strategic mission that requires a whole new set of systems (weapons control, authentication, communications). I don't know if the systems are already in place on the Astute Class, but if they are not, then I imagine that cost on a hypothetical Flight 2 Astute (IE one with the strategic systems) would go up.

Tomahawk Block IV launch capability is already part of the Astute operational capacity. No change would need to be made to the Boat apart from the type of warhead carried.

[TimothyC]

Tomahawk Block IV launch capability is already part of the Astute operational capacity. No change would need to be made to the Boat apart from the type of warhead carried.

I'm not doubting the physical capacity to fire a UGM-109, what I wonder is the rest of the system. Do the Astutes have the robust, redundant C3 systems that are reliable enough to be tasked with a strategic mission. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying I don't know, and if it doesn't it could be expensive to add.

[Zac Naloen]

Tomahawk Block IV launch capability is already part of the Astute operational capacity. No change would need to be made to the Boat apart from the type of warhead carried.

I'm not doubting the physical capacity to fire a UGM-109, what I wonder is the rest of the system. Do the Astutes have the robust, redundant C3 systems that are reliable enough to be tasked with a strategic mission. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying I don't know, and if it doesn't it could be expensive to add.

I don't know either, but is the cost going to be anything like 100 billion pounds?

[Teebs]

Not really, the Lib Dems are pretty much against nuclear power regardless. Clegg might change his mind after the election and realise the lights are going out (not that we can build a new generation of reactors in time to change that) but his party is not going to support him doing so.

I'm dubious about this. I was at a Liberal Youth conference when the (normally more lefty environmental than the main party) youth wing voted in favour of nuclear power. Speaking as a party member for the last 5 years I think it would be relatively easy for the leadership to swing the party behind it if they wanted to. Hell, with the amount of dislike activists have for the Green Party, just painting being anti-nuclear as their 'thing' might be enough to do it!

[General Mung Beans]

Eh....since when is Britain a cultural motherland? The US has influences of it, but to call it the cultural motherland is a bit of an exaggeration. I mean, it would be like calling Germany the cultural motherland of Switzerland.

Switzerland is rather diverse with German, French, and Italian influenced areas but in the USA the lingua franca is English, the original colonies that were formed the nucleus of America were British, and so on. It is not the sole influence on the USA but the largest single contributor.

Valid reason for an American. Why for the British?

The EU due to an aging population is going to face economic problems in the future, the US on the other hand retains a growing population (although declines in birth-rates may prove this to be wrong soon in the future) and in the long-term future has better prospects for economic health. Plus the EU unlike America tends to meddle in internal affairs in Britain such as requiring them never to restore the death penalty and encouraging decentralization movements such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru.

And you base this on what?

Well my general personality would be unchanged but still the outside features influenced by living in Britain rather than America.

Okay, so what would you cut? You must have some idea about the feasibility of such an idea.

Such as for instance advocating limiting welfare payments and encouraging the unemployed who are able to work rather than live on payments.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, so what would you cut? You must have some idea about the feasibility of such an idea.

Such as for instance advocating limiting welfare payments and encouraging the unemployed who are able to work rather than live on payments.

Why do you think this would actually help?

[bobalot]

Okay, so what would you cut? You must have some idea about the feasibility of such an idea.

Such as for instance advocating limiting welfare payments and encouraging the unemployed who are able to work rather than live on payments.

Why do you think this would actually help?

Better still, what makes him think this has not been already implemented?

[Dartzap]

Better still, what makes him think this has not been already implemented?

Indeed: This what has been occurring for the last oooh, five years or so? A4e being the main company to have benefited from those particular ideas and the various off-shoots.

My dad works in the welfare rights sector (DLA/AA mainly, appeals stupid decisions up to the Judge level) and he basically has given up any hope of any party ever realistically reforming the welfare system within his working lifetime - the sheer amount of moronic regulations involved is staggering and the incentives used pointless. Mind you, he only works with the physically disabled people, normally, where the evidence is usally quite clear-cut. Mental health, which I work in...less so

To rip off the old tune... "Those who want to work, cant, those who don't, tea-uh, get the majority of the support"

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Better still, what makes him think this has not been already implemented?

It has been implemented. I can say this as somebody who is on JSA. There's a real drive to get people who are out of work a job of some sort. The problem is, 'unskilled' jobs are basically not available, at least in my area, because everybody's already filled them. What is available is skilled labour or something you need licenses for. For example, the list of jobs in my local Jobcentre is packed with requests for security staff. The problem? You need an SIA license, which is £250 minimum. I don't have that sort of money, and I can't get any help from the Jobcentre until I've been on the dole for six months, which I haven't. Same for plumbing, electrical work, construction and the like; everything explicitly requires a license or training and/or experiance.

The result is that everybody jumps on the handful of applicable jobs that do come up (I've regularly phoned up the night after something's gone up, and been told that they've had so much interest that they're no longer accepting new applicants), and reams of jobs that nobody is qualified for go unfilled, because nobody has the money to get the right training. It's not that there's no work available, and it's not that people don't want to work, it's the fact that nobody has the right skills to fill these jobs, and the employers aren't hiring people without those skills or qualifications.

Reducing benefits as an 'incentive' would have precisely zero effect; whether I get £50 a week or £30 a week would have absolutely no effect on my ability to successfully apply for a job as a plumber or security guard. It would, however, have a severe and detrimental effect on my ability to pay my bills and buy food. As in, it wouldn't cover the costs.

That said, there is a lot more support for 'long term' unemployed (ie, six months or more), something that really annoys me. The same jobs keep popping up week after week, so it's fairly probable that I could get one if I had the right qualification, but I can't apply to get one of those qualifications until I've been unemployed for another four months... which will cost the government significantly more than simply paying £250 now so I can do the training. I've asked, by the way; after six months, they'll almost certainly pay the money.

If he wants people off the dole, fixing stuff like that should be a higher priority than making life far more uncomfortable than necessary. Most people drawing benefits don't live a luxurious lifestyle; I can just about afford an internet connection, and that's about it in terms of luxuries. I don't even have a telly, because I can't afford the license fee. The handful of people that live lives of ease and luxury are anomalies, not the norm, at least around here. Then again, most of the jobless here are 'previously employed' rather than actual long term jobless.

[Teebs]

I suspect the real benefits problem actually comes in the area of disability benefits. If I remember my statistics correctly the drop in unemployment post Thatcher was matched by a similar rise in the number of people on disability benefit. The impression I have is that there's much less effort put into getting people off disability than there is from unemployment.

Anecdotal evidence I know, but I've known at least four people in the last 5 years who have been claiming disability benefits while being able to work (these have been people I've known reasonably well, not just vague acquaintances).

[Crazedwraith]

Psychic_Sandwich. Where in the country do you live? The Jobcentre around here doesn't really have that much drive, its just come in, sign on, get out again. At least until I hit the six month mark and started New Deal. Which is when things started happening. Of course, very soon the next year's graduate are going to be hitting the streets, which means more competition and a big swathe of non-work on my CV is going to continue to bugger up my chances.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Kent. It might just be because I fall into the government's target 'young person' demographic, though. Still, every time I go in, they're very big on running job searches and all the rest of it, although the answer is almost always 'no, you don't have X qualification,' and they do all sorts of workshops and group sessions, all of which are mandatory. Of course, all the CV writing sessions in the world don't help when you've not got anything to put on that CV.

[Crazedwraith]

Could just be a north/south thing. 'Cos you know the South is where all the people that actually matter are.

I hear you about the CV. Degree doesn't look so good with a better part of one year gap on it, asides from a Day of temp work.