Off Topic Politics Thread

[San Tejón]

Wasn’t Brexit meant to be good for British business?

You must log in or register to see images

 

[San Tejón]

Mike Hill, Labour MP for Hartlepool is quitting, generating a by election.
Based on the figures posted in 2019, there is every chance that Labour could lose another seat. Much will depend on whether those who voted for the Brexit Party were Labour voters just trying to get Brexit done and who will now switch back.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[......loading......]

Mike Hill, Labour MP for Hartlepool is quitting, generating a by election.
Based on the figures posted in 2019, there is every chance that Labour could lose another seat. Much will depend on whether those who voted for the Brexit Party were Labour voters just trying to get Brexit done and who will now switch back.

You must log in or register to see images

We desperately need a new party anyway. Labour are dead in the water.

 

[San Tejón]

We desperately need a new party anyway. Labour are dead in the water.

They certainly don’t seem to support socialism, under Starmer.
They have probably lost the young generation that joined the party in recent times.
Problem is that a new party will split the left and centre left vote giving power to the Tories for as long as they want.
What a depressing thought.

 

[Shandy_top_89]

Mike Hill, Labour MP for Hartlepool is quitting, generating a by election.
Based on the figures posted in 2019, there is every chance that Labour could lose another seat. Much will depend on whether those who voted for the Brexit Party were Labour voters just trying to get Brexit done and who will now switch back.

You must log in or register to see images

Certainly will be a good indicator over whether the former 'Red Wall' will return to Labour post Brexit. If it doesn't it is a blow for Starmer, as he has focused most of his strategy on bringing them back in.

Personally I think it will be a comfortable Conservative win, I reckon many of the former Lexiters are now full Tory converts, I have felt since the last election that the 'Red Wall' is a lost cause and Labour need to look at an entirely new approach.

This doesn't however mean that Corbyn's strategy was right either, we need a united opposition to bring down the Conservatives - At the very least Labour, the Lib Dems and the English & Welsh Greens need to be making arrangements, because Labour are no longer in a position to win alone and I can't imagine any new leader making a difference - our system is too rigged in the Conservatives favour at the moment.

 

[San Tejón]

Certainly will be a good indicator over whether the former 'Red Wall' will return to Labour post Brexit. If it doesn't it is a blow for Starmer, as he has focused most of his strategy on bringing them back in.

Personally I think it will be a comfortable Conservative win, I reckon many of the former Lexiters are now full Tory converts, I have felt since the last election that the 'Red Wall' is a lost cause and Labour need to look at an entirely new approach.

This doesn't however mean that Corbyn's strategy was right either, we need a united opposition to bring down the Conservatives - At the very least Labour, the Lib Dems and the English & Welsh Greens need to be making arrangements, because Labour are no longer in a position to win alone and I can't imagine any new leader making a difference - our system is too rigged in the Conservatives favour at the moment.

All party leaders, opposing the Fascists Tories need to make a pact to support each other at the next election.
If the seat is nailed on Lib Dem or Labour, then don’t put a candidate up against them and press your own voters to switch on the promise that if the Fascists Tories are voted out of power a vote will be put forward to change the voting system to Proportional Representation.
I don’t think Starmer will go for this, so maybe a coup is needed to oust him for someone who will.

 

[tiggermaster]

All party leaders, opposing the Fascists Tories need to make a pact to support each other at the next election.
If the seat is nailed on Lib Dem or Labour, then don’t put a candidate up against them and press your own voters to switch on the promise that if the Fascists Tories are voted out of power a vote will be put forward to change the voting system to Proportional Representation.
I don’t think Starmer will go for this, so maybe a coup is needed to oust him for someone who will.

The only coup would likely come from the left of the party, who are even less likely to enter a pact with other parties.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Genuine question, as I'd like educating on this.
What is the point of upping the nuclear warhead cap from 180 warheads to 260? In real terms, what advantage does that actually give us? Or is it pointless (and expensive) posturing?
I'm not looking for a dogpile on someone answering this, I'm just genuinely looking to try and understand.
Anyone?

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Genuine question, as I'd like educating on this.
What is the point of upping the nuclear warhead cap from 180 warheads to 260? In real terms, what advantage does that actually give us? Or is it pointless (and expensive) posturing?
I'm not looking for a dogpile on someone answering this, I'm just genuinely looking to try and understand.
Anyone?

No point whatsoever. The only countries who are ever likely to start a nuclear war nowadays would not be deterred by however many Britain has.

 

[Schad]

Genuine question, as I'd like educating on this.
What is the point of upping the nuclear warhead cap from 180 warheads to 260? In real terms, what advantage does that actually give us? Or is it pointless (and expensive) posturing?
I'm not looking for a dogpile on someone answering this, I'm just genuinely looking to try and understand.
Anyone?

It's pointless and expensive posturing. The theoretical point of a large stockpile is that, in the event of an all-out nuclear attack, enough of your arsenal will survive to be able to retaliate.

But here's the thing: the UK's nuclear capacity is basically just posturing anyway. It's totally submarine-based, which means it's limited to a very small number of launch sites as the UK doesn't have many nuclear-armed subs, and it isn't conceived to deter opponents via immediate retaliatory strike (it doesn't really have that ability). Rather, the mutually-assured destruction side of things comes entirely from America's nuclear triad, as it does for all of the NATO partners: there's a pretty safe assumption that the US would not sit back and let Birmingham get turned into a smoking crater or whatever.

So the UK's arsenal exists mostly to exist, to burnish its international image, and to pretend that the US isn't the sole source of quick-strike capacity. Whether it's 180 or 260 warheads is totally immaterial, most of them sit in storage anyway.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

It's pointless and expensive posturing. The theoretical point of a large stockpile is that, in the event of an all-out nuclear attack, enough of your arsenal will survive to be able to retaliate.

But here's the thing: the UK's nuclear capacity is basically just posturing anyway. It's totally submarine-based, which means it's limited to a very small number of launch sites as the UK doesn't have many nuclear-armed subs, and it isn't conceived to deter opponents via immediate retaliatory strike (it doesn't really have that ability). Rather, the mutually-assured destruction side of things comes entirely from America's nuclear triad, as it does for all of the NATO partners: there's a pretty safe assumption that the US would not sit back and let Birmingham get turned into a smoking crater or whatever.

So the UK's arsenal exists mostly to exist, to burnish its international image, and to pretend that the US isn't the sole source of quick-strike capacity. Whether it's 180 or 260 warheads is totally immaterial, most of them sit in storage anyway.

So, as feared, it's another waste of money. Great. I mean it's not like there's better things that could be spent on!

 

[Shandy_top_89]

It's pointless and expensive posturing. The theoretical point of a large stockpile is that, in the event of an all-out nuclear attack, enough of your arsenal will survive to be able to retaliate.

But here's the thing: the UK's nuclear capacity is basically just posturing anyway. It's totally submarine-based, which means it's limited to a very small number of launch sites as the UK doesn't have many nuclear-armed subs, and it isn't conceived to deter opponents via immediate retaliatory strike (it doesn't really have that ability). Rather, the mutually-assured destruction side of things comes entirely from America's nuclear triad, as it does for all of the NATO partners: there's a pretty safe assumption that the US would not sit back and let Birmingham get turned into a smoking crater or whatever.

So the UK's arsenal exists mostly to exist, to burnish its international image, and to pretend that the US isn't the sole source of quick-strike capacity. Whether it's 180 or 260 warheads is totally immaterial, most of them sit in storage anyway.

Would it be outrageous to suggest that some of our MPs may be likely to make some kind of profit out of such a venture?

Either that or a party doner.

 

[Schad]

So, as feared, it's another waste of money. Great. I mean it's not like there's better things that could be spent on!

Very much so. There's an understandable desire to not be totally reliant on the US for the nuclear umbrella, but to the extent that it's possible with the UK's sub fleet, that's already achieved. This is just nationalist puffery.

Would it be outrageous to suggest that some of our MPs may be likely to make some kind of profit out of such a venture?

Either that or a party doner.

While I'd never rule it out, I'd imagine it's mostly just Boris leaning into the idea of Big Strong Britain, because using militaristic strutting to paper over economic and social strife is as old a part of the playbook as exists.

 

[Shandy_top_89]

Very much so. There's an understandable desire to not be totally reliant on the US for the nuclear umbrella, but to the extent that it's possible with the UK's sub fleet, that's already achieved. This is just nationalist puffery.



While I'd never rule it out, I'd imagine it's mostly just Boris leaning into the idea of Big Strong Britain, because using militaristic strutting to paper over economic and social strife is as old a part of the playbook as exists.

I don’t even think it works for nationalists, imagine most of them will read it as a waste of money because it doesn’t improve our defence at all, this could actually prove a total loser for them PR wise.

 

[StJabbo1]

It's pointless and expensive posturing. The theoretical point of a large stockpile is that, in the event of an all-out nuclear attack, enough of your arsenal will survive to be able to retaliate.

But here's the thing: the UK's nuclear capacity is basically just posturing anyway. It's totally submarine-based, which means it's limited to a very small number of launch sites as the UK doesn't have many nuclear-armed subs, and it isn't conceived to deter opponents via immediate retaliatory strike (it doesn't really have that ability). Rather, the mutually-assured destruction side of things comes entirely from America's nuclear triad, as it does for all of the NATO partners: there's a pretty safe assumption that the US would not sit back and let Birmingham get turned into a smoking crater or whatever.

So the UK's arsenal exists mostly to exist, to burnish its international image, and to pretend that the US isn't the sole source of quick-strike capacity. Whether it's 180 or 260 warheads is totally immaterial, most of them sit in storage anyway.

Exactly, an utter waste of money and resources. I've yet to see in all the years since the ban the bomb marches and before any logical argument that justifies the cost or defends the morality of maintaining an 'independent' nuclear defence. What a bunch of willy wavers successive governments have been.

 

[Schad]

I don’t even think it works for nationalists, imagine most of them will read it as a waste of money because it doesn’t improve our defence at all, this could actually prove a total loser for them PR wise.

Definitely could. I mean, the idea of a large nuclear arsenal as a sign of strength is a pretty antiquated one.

 

[Archers Road]

We desperately need a new party anyway. Labour are dead in the water.

According to the most recent figures available, the Labour Party has approximately 460,000 members. The Tories have approximately 180,000. Who is “dead in the water” again?

The fact the Tories have several extremely wealthy donors, plus the almost exclusive support of the oligarchs who own our newspapers, does place a huge barrier in front of Labour though, of course.

 

[......loading......]

According to the most recent figures available, the Labour Party has approximately 460,000 members. The Tories have approximately 180,000. Who is “dead in the water” again?

The fact the Tories have several extremely wealthy donors, plus the almost exclusive support of the oligarchs who own our newspapers, does place a huge barrier in front of Labour though, of course.

I know a lot of members myself and I don't know one who is currently happy with the direction Labour is taking. In my opinion Starmer is dismantling Labour and destroying the trust of the membership.

 

[Archers Road]

I know a lot of members myself and I don't know one who is currently happy with the direction Labour is taking. In my opinion Starmer is dismantling Labour and destroying the trust of the membership.

Not in my experience, and I’m a Labour Party activist in North London. So I know a lot of members too, and I can assure you that there is no shortage of people willing to campaign in the upcoming local elections, albeit campaigning is restricted by Covid.

That’s not to say the mood in the party is especially upbeat. We recently suffered the political equivalent of getting beat 9-0 in the last election, that’s bound to leave a mark on morale.

The Labour Party is and always has been a grassroots movement. It’s never been all about the leader. Starmer may be under scrutiny, you’d expect that given the circumstances. But your assertion that Labour is anywhere near “dead in the water” is way off; wishful thinking on your part I reckon

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

It's pointless and expensive posturing. The theoretical point of a large stockpile is that, in the event of an all-out nuclear attack, enough of your arsenal will survive to be able to retaliate.

But here's the thing: the UK's nuclear capacity is basically just posturing anyway. It's totally submarine-based, which means it's limited to a very small number of launch sites as the UK doesn't have many nuclear-armed subs, and it isn't conceived to deter opponents via immediate retaliatory strike (it doesn't really have that ability). Rather, the mutually-assured destruction side of things comes entirely from America's nuclear triad, as it does for all of the NATO partners: there's a pretty safe assumption that the US would not sit back and let Birmingham get turned into a smoking crater or whatever.

So the UK's arsenal exists mostly to exist, to burnish its international image, and to pretend that the US isn't the sole source of quick-strike capacity. Whether it's 180 or 260 warheads is totally immaterial, most of them sit in storage anyway.

Okay, more investigation done - looks like you're nearly right, but figures slightly out (though you've edited your original post minus figures!), Schad.

It basically allows for two 'fully loaded' subs, as it's 16 missiles per boat, 8 warheads per missile. Two boats on patrol = 256 warheads.