Off Topic Great Britain General Election May 7th 2015.

Inheritance tax should be abolished.

 

Another word for death duties. To make it sound good they now call it "Inheritance tax"

 

I find a lot of irony and false logic in this argument. NATO and Nukes are not intertwined, most NATO nations have no nukes, so that is a completely false argument, one that suits the pro nukes camp.

1 Nukes are not a defensive weapon, but they are talked about like they are, 0 defensive capability. Launching first will consign your population to death, while the government hide in bunkers that is
2. The US arsenal is the only NATO arsenal that matters. It spans the globe and can destroy any country in minutes.
3. "Future threats". Who? North Korea? The only reason they have mainly developed Nuclear Artillery is because otherwise NATO invasion would be inevitable. Nuclear artillery is a defensive weapon. They have the ability to strike the south and little more. Iran? bollocks, the US intelligence proved in 2003 that Iran had no nuke weapons project (admitted by George Bush in his book, he was gutted by the report because it meant no going from Iraq into Iran afterwards)
4 The treaty on non proliferation is a joke. Nukes have proliferated the globe but are under NATO control, or more accurately US control. The US allowed and assisted creating a new Nuclear State, Israel, twice giving them nukes and assisting with their program. Israel also sold much Nuke material over a decade ago on international markets, but thankfully most of the material had decayed to the point of not being useful.

I guess you need to understand the configuration and deployment of the US nuke arsenal to understand why British nukes are pointless. Any nation that thinks of threatening a NATO member with nukes, do you think they think of the UK when thinking of a response? No not at all, the first and foremost consideration is and always be, US nukes because in all likelyhood they are sitting at the border of said nation. Russia is surrounded by nukes and useless missile defence systems. Iran is, even though they have 0 nukes. North Korea is surrounded by US nukes too.

So, lets drag out the old fearmongering, future imaginary threats.

The bottom line is nukes create the need for nukes. The US started this **** off, have used them on civilians and almost used them a second time over Cuba.
Now had Russia and the US kicked off a nuke war over Cuba, what part in such a scenario would the UK nukes play?
In a US Russia nuke war, Russia would look to nuke any US ally with nukes as well as US targets.

So, in the event of such a catastrohpe having nukes makes you a primary target and it will be 0 deterrence and inviting destruction. Does it make you feel better that you can strike back? even though it means total annihilation, one feels better at taking the other population down with you. A weapon of spite. A weapon of insantiy. We are going backwards, we are meant to be evolving and yet with each generation that passes we create more advanced means of killing ourselves.

I remember the words of Dick Cheney when he was in Bush's administration. We'll turn the desert to glass, hardly a deterrence stance is it, threatening a non nuke nation with nuclear destruction.. which is the real value of nukes to the US. Not deterrence.

UK nukes just means that the UK can play a small part in the game called "the destruction of humanity", that's all.

It goes to show though, the propaganda has done it's job when you have seemingly reasonable people wanting nuke arsenals within their borders like, the very same people also think no one else should have nukes other than those that already do. They don't see the irony in that though.

 

Labour

So...

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/councillors/name

 

Here here, it's theft. Pure theft.

 

please log in to view this image

Is he Wayne Rooney's brother?

 

So why single Liverpool out?, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and many other city's have a large Labour electorate, just because of few pubs and chippy's in the Lancashire swampland closed doesn't mean the Labour party were to blame.

 

That's the batard child of Rooney and van Rapey

 

Nothing but jealousy.. I cannot see another reason except that he's conservative supporter.

 

There are more working class people in Manchester than Eton boys, as there is everywhere else
Labour do as much to give Tories the votes as Tories, because that's how it works, they take turns at the trough.

 

Of course. That's why we need an army that's modern + capable to defend us from any 'threat' without being used throughout the world in ill-advised wars, interventions etc.

Think we're probably agreeing haha

 

I think you missed my point. Is it morally right to get rid of our own nuclear weapons but remain part of an alliance that still has nuclear weapons? It's a cop out to say that other NATO nations don't have nuclear weapons as that's not the point. If you are so against the use of nuclear weapons then surely you can see the hypocrasy of remaining in an alliance that still has them as a weapon of choice.

Regarding your 1st point, I consider nuclear arms as a deterent rather than a defensive weapon.

You mention that the U.S. is the only one that matters with regards nuclear weapons in NATO in your second point, but why should we let them pay for our defence.

With regard your third point, I'm not sure whether you actually watched the video, but there were quite a few countries given as examples who are actively developing their nuclear arsenal and so it seems unwise to disarm at this point in time. You mention North Korea being attached by NATO which is absolute nonsense. That might be what the Kim Jong Un might be selling to his people, but the reality is that NATO would never risk the wrath of China.

Your last point about the non-proliferation treaty is true which makes it more important to retain our own capability.

 

This evil man.

please log in to view this image

executed his evil deeds when both Conservative and Labour were in power..so neither can lecture us about 'rule of law'.

Labour pledges £800m to protect police officer numbers
Party’s crime and justice manifesto also promises a new victims’ law and a commissioner to address sexual and domestic violence

please log in to view this image

Yvette Cooper will promise a ‘local policing commitment’ in Labour’s crime and justice manifesto. Photograph: Nils Jorgensen/Rex
Alan Travis Home affairs editor
Friday 10 April 2015 00.01 BST Last modified on Friday 10 April 2015 03.10


An £800m plan to protect neighbourhood policing and safeguard the jobs of 10,000 police officers over the next three years is to be outlined by the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, on Friday.
The “efficiency savings” are to be funded by scrapping elected police and crime commissioners, ending the subsidy of the gun licensing system and by making police forces share back-office and procurement services.
Labour government would legislate to introduce a new “local policing commitment” which would guarantee neighbourhood policing in every area.
The Association of Chief Police Officers warned last November that a further 20% cut in Home Office funding over the next parliament could see more than 34,000 police jobs, including 22,000 officers, disappear out of a total workforce of 205,000.
The Home Office is one of the most vulnerable unprotected departments in the new round of spending cuts that is expected after the next election, whatever its outcome.
The number of police officers in England and Wales has already fallen by 16,000 as a result of the first round of austerity cuts from a peak of 141,600 at the time of the last election to 125,400 a year ago.
The Conservatives have not said where they will find the next round of cuts in the Home Office budget beyond the home secretary, Theresa May, talking about the need to integrate police, fire and ambulance services and to equip officers with body-worn video cameras and smartphone apps to save time.
Advertisement
[iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/59666047/theguardian.com/uk-news/article/ng_1" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/59666047/theguardian.com/uk-news/article/ng_1" src="javascript:"[/iframe]
Cooper said that her package to safeguard 10,000 police officer jobs over the next three years would mean scrapping the expensive police and crime commissioners, halving the cost of police governance and ending the police subsidy of gun licences.
Labour said the cancellation of next year’s police and crime commissioner elections would save £50m, with a further £25m a year saved by replacing them with a “leaner local government alternative”.
The document is not expected to spell out what that alternative is, but the Stephens commission on policing set up by Labour ruled out a return to unelected police authorities. Instead it proposed policing boards made up of local council leaders within each force area, who would have the power to hire and fire chief constables and set budgets.
The remaining cost of funding 10,000 police officers would come from a sum of £38m a year achieved from full cost recovery for gun licences, implementing the late night levy on clubs and pubs and increases in fees for driver education courses. The party claims that £172m in the first year, rising to £443m in year three, can be saved by compulsory joint procurement among police forces, and that £64m in year one, rising to £313m in year three, can be saved by mandating shared services between forces.
Commenting on the crime and justice manifesto, the party leader, Ed Miliband, said: “Neighbourhood policing – the foundation of good policing – is at risk of disappearing, while increasing numbers of serious criminals are being left off the hook.
“Labour has a better plan. We will make different choices, finding savings to safeguard 10,000 officers in the next three years. We will ensure victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system with the country’s first ever victims’ law. And we will ensure the police have the powers they need to keep us safe, including proper controls for dangerous terror suspects.”
The manifesto will outline plans to set up a new Whitehall child protection unit and new powers to prevent an adult contacting or communicating with a child if there is evidence of abuse. It wants to ban the use of “community resolutions” in domestic violence cases and ensure all young people are taught about healthy relationships by introducing age-appropriate sex and relationship education in all state-funded schools.
Labour proposes to overhaul the Prevent anti-radicalisation programme, toughen controls on terror suspects and strengthen the law on tackling hate crime

 

Stop linking NATO membership to nukes they are totally separate it's a completely bollocks argument and the only possible way of reasoning to keep nuke arsenals. It's a false argument, a straw man and irrelevant.

You dismiss the fact that NATO nations have no nukes because it doesn't fit in your argument so you dismiss it without any legitimate reason offered for doing so. I offer that example of the nations gaining "deterrence" by being in NATO because of US nukes. The UK would be no different from say Latvia or Poland if the UK had no nukes.

In the event of nuclear war, the UK would contribute as much almost as non nuke nations in terms of overall destructiveness. How can you totally destroy the world a bit more than it has already been totally destroyed.

The very fact you have nukes makes other nations need them.. get it? The fact nuke nations go about useing the threat of nukes to scare nations from trying to get them themselves is ****ing hilarious

As of 2009

please log in to view this image

Even a complete idiot can see that in the event of any nuclear conflict, UK nukes are irrelevant.

The deterrent excuse is laughable, it is saying "Nukes prevent nuclear war" If one cannot see the utter stupidity in such a claim then go back to burying your head in the sand. Tell that to the japanese infants and unborn incinerated by the US airforce just to show their mind to Russia. (The only reason Japan got nuked was because they held out in negotiations because they wanted to retain their emperor after surrender, the allies said no and nuked Japan, had they agreed Japan would have surrendered immediat

please log in to view this image

This image above is not nearly complete and why would it be given deployments are miltary secrets. Also, this only shows land loctions not ships and subs, which are more numberous. But look still, one can use all the workaround logic they want to try make their argument but the harsh reality is your nuke arsenal is pointless it is just a drop in the bucket of an ocean of destructive power. The UK needs NATO nukes or no nukes because believe it or not, you are not a military super power.


The US put nukes in South Korea in the 50s. Then the propaganda world goes batshit when North Korea seeks to get nukes, and that proves my ****ing point. You only create nuclear states by having nukes yourself. It's totally laughable that nuke states go about wagging the finger at other states that try get them. How much BBC propaganda was aimed at Iran over nukes. Iran never had any and the UK has nearly 200, am I the only one that sees the irony in that?


EDIT : I forgot to mention, after the US\NATO regime change in Ukraine, it is patently obvious Ukraine will now become a nuclear state as a member of NATO. The Ukrainian Nazis have intimated as much publicly. If there was ever a regime you didn't want to have Nukes, it's the Ukrainian Nazis.

 

Again you don't answer the question. I shall ask again, is it morally acceptable to be a member of an alliance that has nuclear weapons as a capability, even though you don't want to hold them yourself? Your reply doesn't have to be excessive, a simple yes or no would suffice.

 

Is it morally acceptable for richer countries like Japan and Germany not to both be paying the US the equivalent of £40bn each in protection money for a 'defence' system that they couldn't use independently either, or are we just the only mugs in the schoolyard who are paying money that we haven't' got to the cock of the school who took over from us?

 

Election 2015: Labour manifesto pledge of no 'additional borrowing

• From the section Election 2015

please log in to view this image

Labour is to "guarantee" that each of its policies will be fully funded and require no "additional borrowing", as it launches its manifesto on Monday.
Leader Ed Miliband will rule out a "shopping list of spending policies" and promise a Labour government would cut the deficit every year.
The Conservatives would go on a "reckless spending spree", he will say.
Tory Treasury Minister David Gauke said Mr Miliband had "no plan to clear the deficit" and would have to borrow more.
"Even Ed Miliband's own campaign chief admits Labour will borrow more to pay for their unfunded spending promises," he argued.
'Party of responsibility'
The first page of Labour's manifesto, Mr Miliband will say, "sets out a vow to protect our nation's finances; a clear commitment that every policy... is paid for without a single penny of extra borrowing".
Mr Miliband will add: "In recent days you have seen the Conservatives throwing spending promises around with no idea of where the money is coming from, promises which are unfunded, unfair and unbelievable."
In other election news:

• The Liberal Democrats are launching a "five point plan", aimed at consumers and commuters, with proposals such as to end above-inflation rail fare rises and force energy firms to allow customers to change supplier within 24 hours
• One hundred small business owners who used to support Labour have written a letter to the Sun saying they are intend to vote Tory
• Labour has opened up a three-point lead over the Conservatives, according to the latest YouGov poll which puts Ed Miliband's party on 36%

With political parties are under increasing pressure to explain how they will fund their pledges, the Institute for Fiscal Studies complained on Sunday that they were making "lots of promises" without producing much detail on how to deliver them.
But Labour is hoping to position itself as "the party of responsibility" for the public finances. It is aiming for a budget surplus "as soon as possible in the next parliament".
Policy guide: Economy
This issue includes the wider economy and deficit reduction but also employment and the role of business.
Compare parties' policies

please log in to view this image

Policy guide: Where the parties stand
Its manifesto - being unveiled in Manchester - commits a Labour government to what it calls a "budget responsibility lock".
This would "guarantee" that every policy is paid for without additional borrowing and would, in future, require all the major parties to have their tax and spending plans audited by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility before a general election.
The manifesto sets out Labour's pre-announced policy pledges, including:

• A £2.5bn fund for the NHS paid for largely by a mansion tax on properties valued at over £2m
• Twenty-five hours of childcare for working parents of three and four-year olds, paid for by increasing the banking levy by £800m
• Freezing gas and electricity bills until 2017, so they can only fall not rise
• Banning zero-hour contracts and raising the minimum wage to £8
• Scrapping winter fuel payments for the richest pensioners, capping child benefit rises and cutting ministers' pay by five per cent
• A 50p tax rate on incomes over £150,000 a year and abolishing non-dom status

Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have pledged to eliminate the fiscal deficit by 2017/18. However, while Labour promises to reduce the deficit during every year of the coming parliament, the party offers no deadline, saying it would commit to achieving a budget surplus "as soon as possible "in the next Parliament.
And Treasury Minister Mr Gauke pointed to polls suggesting Labour could have to rely on a deal with the Scottish National Party - which is campaigning to end austerity - in order to form a government.
He said: "Everybody knows the SNP will call the tune and force even more borrowing, even more debt and even more taxes on a weak Ed Miliband government. Britain's hard-working taxpayers will pay the price for the economic chaos."

please log in to view this image

Analysis, by Iain Watson, BBC political correspondent
It looks like a political role reversal. While the Conservatives are promising more cash for the NHS - without detailed costings - Labour is putting fiscal responsibility on the very first page of its manifesto.
Labour says it is like no other election document it has ever produced. Out goes a list of spending commitments and aspirations, in comes what it calls a "budget responsibility" lock.
So Prudence - last seen when Gordon Brown was in number 11 Downing Street but banished when he moved to No 10 and as the economy crashed - is apparently making a comeback.
Labour strategists say that before they can accentuate the positive, they first have to eliminate a negative and prove the party can be trusted to control public spending again.
But they are likely to face increased questioning over what cuts they are contemplating to government departments as a consequence.
They also recognise they need to mobilise their core supporters in a tight contest. So Ed Miliband will argue that while there won't be big spending under a Labour government, there will be "big reforms" to benefit working people - including stronger employment rights.

please log in to view this image

 

To answer your question, no.

I see you didn't answer my question, or am I to infer that you are comfortable with getting rid of trident, but remaining in an alliance that could use similar weapons in our name? The SNP abandoned their principles on this issue when they changed their stance on NATO membership because they saw that it was a vote loser.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Here's another way you are being robbed, by friends of Tory and Labour, makes no difference I keep telling you.

Each UK citizen has amassed a debt of £3,400 ($4,976) without even knowing about it. This is due to a UK government scheme that signed controversial deals with private companies to borrow money on behalf of the public and pledging to pay it back later.

The deals, which are known as Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs), were used by London to pay for public infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals. Signed with private enterprises, they would allow the government to “buy now, pay later,” the Independent on Sunday reports.

A problem is emerging though. Despite not having paid a penny, every UK national is now in debt to the tune of £3,400 ($4,976) because the cost of paying back the PFIs is growing every year. 2014 saw an increase of £5bn ($7.3bn) and this figure could rise even higher with inflation.

The system has proved to be fantastic for private companies, who are managing to reap large profits from investing in public infrastructure. However, financial experts have labelled the government’s policy a “financial disaster,” due to the high amounts of interest accumulated.

The data has been verified by the National Audit Office (NAO) and is based on more than 720 PFIs using data from the Treasury.

John Major’s Conservative government came up with the idea in 1992 to introduce PFIs, with Tony Blair and now David Cameron continuing to use them to fund public spending

Though PFIs have paid for assets worth £56.5bn ($82.70bn), the UK will have to pay more than five times that under the PFI’s leasing agreements. By 2049 the total bill for PFIs will be £310bn ($453bn). Since 2012, London has managed to pay just one percent of the total cost owed to paying off the PFIs.