• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

UK general election May 2015

Who will you (or are likely to) vote for in the coming UK general election this May?


  • Total voters
    18

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
What do you think about renewing Trident? Would be leaving ourselves at serious risk if we got rid of it? And at risk of what exactly?
 

philbo

High Priest of Cynicism
What do you think about renewing Trident? Would be leaving ourselves at serious risk if we got rid of it? And at risk of what exactly?
I really can't see the sense in renewing Trident: if we really need to have a nuclear deterrent, we could keep the same amount of bang for a tiny fraction of the cost. It's a massive vanity project, nationalistic dick-waving on a multi-billion-pound scale.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
I love Scotland (apart from when it comes to football, have you ever watched an England game in Scotland, the hatred is frightening) and spend much time up there but the referendum has left a bad taste in the mouth. I'm almost embarrassed to admit I'm English when up there, yet I was very much pro-Independence as many northern English were.
Labour got it badly wrong and it is costing them badly; they should have 'sat on the fence' saying something like, "We do not want you to leave but respect your right to vote to do so"

It's a shame that you feel this way, it really is. The anger of (most of) the Yes Alliance is aimed at Westminster for saying 'more powers without conditions' then sticking on the condition of EVEL to appease the English. That's not your fault; that's just politicians being politicians - by playing up the Scotland-England divide to keep us from seeing who the real problem is. Most Yessers (in my experience at least) realise England is hurt by Westminster as much as we are. The problem is some (maybe even 'many') people up here (like our neighbours in England) have grown up in a 'Scotland vs. England' mentality inculcated from birth by the powers that be. Therefore they only really know how to express dissatisfaction with Westminster by referring to 'the auld enemy'.

It's worth looking at where most of the money in the UK goes; London.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
It'll be like William Wallace invading England again. :p

Hahaha. That's actually a much better metaphor than you realise.

  • The English political elite invade Scotland for their own gain. Scotland then retaliates by invading England.
  • The English political elite interfere in Scotland for 300+ years. Scotland retaliates by 'interfering' in English politics

People who complain about the Scottish vote influencing the result of Westminster government's seem to have a very selective memory; namely over the fact the English vote has influenced just about every single British government for the last 300 years. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
What do you think about renewing Trident? Would be leaving ourselves at serious risk if we got rid of it? And at risk of what exactly?

If I may answer this:

I'm against renewing it. I'm not a NIMBY though. I don't want it scrapped because the Scottish shouldn't have it in their backyard; I want it scrapped because I don't want anyone to have it in their backyard. Trident just isn't necessary any more. The nature of threats to national security has changed beyond what they were in the Cold War. Now we're threatened not by recognisable nation-states with clearly defined borders and seats of governance, but by terrorist groups who are too geographically scattered and too interspersed with civilian populations to justify a nuclear strike.

That aside, possessing Trident did not stop the 7/7 attacks, the attempted car-bombing of Glasgow airport or any number of attacks that were thwarted since then. Indeed, France's possession of nuclear weapons didn't stop the Charlie Hebdo murders, nor did the United States' arsenal stop the Boston Marathon bombing. In truth our risk of attack from religious zealots will not change one bit if the UK scraps Trident.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
What do you think about renewing Trident? Would be leaving ourselves at serious risk if we got rid of it? And at risk of what exactly?
We are a small country (with or without Scotland) and a nuclear deterrent is nothing of the sort. If we were ever to use it our country would vanish from the map within 10-minutes of us hitting the 'Fire' buttons.
Nuclear is no good against terrorist which most of the scuffles we seem to get in are these days. If one of the mad mullahs gets a nuclear weapon then we can kiss are a***s goodbye anyway.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
If one of the mad mullahs gets a nuclear weapon then we can kiss are a***s goodbye anyway.

Yes, that's probably true. I was trying to imagine a scenario where not having Trident would leave us more vulnerable, or where we would actually use it, and I'm struggling on both counts. My guess is that there is a lot of pressure from the US to retain it.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
It's a shame that you feel this way, it really is. The anger of (most of) the Yes Alliance is aimed at Westminster for saying 'more powers without conditions' then sticking on the condition of EVEL to appease the English. That's not your fault; that's just politicians being politicians - by playing up the Scotland-England divide to keep us from seeing who the real problem is. Most Yessers (in my experience at least) realise England is hurt by Westminster as much as we are. The problem is some (maybe even 'many') people up here (like our neighbours in England) have grown up in a 'Scotland vs. England' mentality inculcated from birth by the powers that be. Therefore they only really know how to express dissatisfaction with Westminster by referring to 'the auld enemy'.

It's worth looking at where most of the money in the UK goes; London.
But it doesn't come across as that?!
It comes across as blaming England for all your woes. We KNOW most of the money goes to London, but it does generate a fairly large proportion too. I live in the Manchester area, we have been promised regional government, which could be good. But Manchester has done its own thing anyway. (btw We like trams and can build them on time and to budget).
Many in the north would rather pair up with Scotland than London but Sturgeon needs to be careful, the taunting she is doing of Ed about joining forces is only winning the Tories votes.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
So I'm predicting a Labour win, with the SNP gaining enough seats to enjoy the swing vote in parliament.

UKIP, well, nobody cares about UKIP. They'll probably lose seats come election time.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
I'm still expecting a moderate swing towards the Conservatives and another ConDem coalition. In the event that the Labour-SNP alliance materialises, though, there are probably going to be some constitutional squabbles and bad blood. This is going to be an interesting few months.
 

Ultimatum

Classical Liberal
No, not on armed forces, spend more on intelligence.

I think that there needs to be a balance between both of these areas. Intelligence services can help prevent terrorism on our streets and, indeed, may assist in preventing terrorism abroad. But, if these acts of terror are conducted despite the efforts of intelligence services to stop them, we will need our armed forces to de-escalate and attempt to utterly prevent more of such atrocities.
Also, in terms of international commitments, intelligence services will not contribute as much as armed forces are able to--the Falklands could be used as a prime example of such a commitment. And should we not meet our defence spending commitments of 2% of GDP spending, as set forth by NATO?
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Armed forces are useless against terrorism.
Look at Northern Ireland, Thatcher and Major were throwing soldiers at it to no avail, it was only when negotiations started with the new labour government that things started to turn round.

Afghanistan and the Middle east have hardly been great success stories for our armies, have they?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I can't see the UK government ever getting rid of Trident or the equivalent.
If only we would scrap Trident, we could afford to spend some of the savings on much better Army, Air-force and Naval home forces.
And we need to convert our Navy from the present show-boat force into a really brilliant multi-purpose Coastguard force.

Our Red, Blue and Orange politicians are still playing at International situations, and we need somebody to bring us back down to earth.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It is almost impossible for labour to form a full blown partnership with another party. Their own party constitution and rules make it near impossible to achieve by discussion, without convening a party special general meeting. The time needed precludes this a reasonable option.
if they become the largest party the will more likely attempt to govern as a minority, issue by issue.
 

Ultimatum

Classical Liberal
Armed forces are useless against terrorism.

You're very wrong. The Nazis were defeated by the use of force, for example.
One could use the argument that, due to nuclear weaponry, armed forces are not needed anymore, but to simply rely on nuclear weaponry to combat the enemy is a reckless idea. And is not better to provided hundreds of thousands of people with jobs over a few hundred to operate a nuclear mechanism?
And if armed humanitarian aid is needed abroad, do you really think that a nuclear weapon is going to help?

Look at Northern Ireland, Thatcher and Major were throwing soldiers at it to no avail, it was only when negotiations started with the new labour government that things started to turn round

Northern Ireland was and still is a very unique case. We have this god-awful United Kingdom that is supported only by the "we're stronger together" soundbite. If it was up to me, I would rid us of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales all together.
This issue called, not for military intervention, but political vision.

Afghanistan and the Middle east have hardly been great success stories for our armies, have they?

I completely agree: we need to stop getting ourselves involved in these foreign wars--we're poking our noses in places that we don't need to be poking them at.
Let the USA deal with these problems, I say.
This doesn't mean, however, that we should cut down our armed forces to the bone.

I don't think we'd have the military capability to take back the Falklands now if Argentina invaded again.

This is what I meant by international commitments.
 

Ultimatum

Classical Liberal
What do you think about the Labour economic policy plan? How does anyone actually believe anything that Ed Miliband says concerning the economy? Apparently he is going to cut down on the deficit every year, but is against austerity--what is he going to cut that the "working people" don't know of, then? And, lastly, why have Labour got any vote percentage at all when the only legacy that they will leave when they are kicked out of Government in 2020 will be an exponential debt increase higher than the Tory's last power hold?
 
Top