Boat Drinks Virtual Election

[Grandad]

Bloody hell MB has done a good job canvassing the forum

I think I will be voting for the apathy party

[Grandad]

Originally Posted by Mark

IMO, if they're going to increase the lower limit, or bring back 10%, then adjusting the 40% limit to compensate would be a good idea - even though that is shooting myself in the foot.

but don't you think middle earners have been battered into submission over last few years ?

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by Grandad

but don't you think middle earners have been battered into submission over last few years ?

Have to say I agree, let the £100k+/pa feel some pain

MB

[Pumpkinstew]

Originally Posted by AcidHell2

On Trident:

It's used every day.
1) it is a detterent and as such works even with out launching.
2) are Un security seat is dependent on a nuclear arsenal.
3) it is only 2 billion a year which is little compared to a lot of government programs, of which most is ploughed back into the economy. (who was it who said milliatry spending was the least wasteful, as nearly all goes back into economy through contracts)

Who is it deterring exactly? N Korea? Iran? Pakistan? China?
All of the above would put Britain (and Western Europe in general) quite a long way down their list of potential targets.
And what if the worst were to happen? Can you conceive of a scenario where Britain would launch in isolation without unilateral agreement (or the US minimum) from other nuclear powers? In which case their arsenal can destroy the world several tiems over anyway.

We would remain a nuclear power without Trident and we won't ever lose our SC seat as long as we agree with everything the US says.

I would still spend the majority of the cash on defence. The MoD spends about 10% of what Intel does on R&D. It would ensure that the Future Carrier could be properly funded and also Future Surface Combatant (fast corvette size ships for drug and piracy operations), boost UAV development, deliver more mine protected vehicles and helicopters to the Afghan theatre and also increase our readiness to respond to a cyber attack - which is orders of magnitude more likely than a nuclear attack.

Originally Posted by Mark

True. They want to scrap the delivery system, not the capability. Unfortunately the alternative - strapping a nuclear warhead atop a Cruise missile - isn't a particularly good alternative. Cruise has a range of less than 1/6th that of Trident, and can be overtaken by a jumbo jet - making it an easy target for a Patriot-type defence system, or a slightly less easy target for a fighter jet.

So it's still not a good choice then.

I really love that figure. It gives the impression that all the money will be spent on 7th May. Of course, it won't. Trident has been in service for 15 years, and will undoubtedly be in service for several more. So that's £5bn per year then - the Tories planned deficit reduction this year alone swallows that.

Still a heck of a lot of money that could be spent on health/education/whatever, granted.

I'm not sure why you think they'd be easier to shoot down than anything launched from a submarine.
Delivery vehicle might be difficult as the Future Carriers currently aren't designed to securely carry nuclear warheads. A new T45 variant would still be cheaper than new subs though.
The £100B cost is an estimate and like all defence projects will escalate rapidly as the life cycle progresses. No-one would be too surprised if it had doubled or even trebled by the time of decommissioning.The Americans have recently taken a long hard look at whether they can afford the mooted full Trident 2 system. If they scale back it puts our costs up as it's a joint programme of development.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/0...marine_042210/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36572.html

Originally Posted by Matblack

So we keep a sledgehammer nuclear solution which is only good for MAD over a solution which can be tactically delivered to destroy a target without causing the mass destruction of Trident.

As for Patriot, which of the following countries do we pervive as a threat; Taiwan, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Spain. They are the ones with Patriot systems.

You might as well bring all the Trident warheads back to the UK and store them under the Houses of Parliament and threaten to blow ourselves up if anyone attacks us, the effect would be exactly the same as using the multi billion pound delivery system and would save us a bob or too. Trident is white elephant of massive proportions in my book.

Agreed.
I'm no CND badge toting crusty by the way. I work in the defence industry and five years ago would have been opposed to not renewing Trident.
I'd welcome unilateral disarmament as well of course but just can't see it happening in my lifetime.

An interesting article contributed by a Gulf War Veteran
http://politics.caledonianmercury.co...from-the-past/

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Grandad

but don't you think middle earners have been battered into submission over last few years ?

Damn straight, but the budget deficit risks battering the whole country into submission. Reducing 40% to compensate might only amount to a billion or three, but if it contributes to saving us from going cap in hand to the IMF then it's a price I'd pay. We've had a previous run-in with the IMF and it wasn't pretty. Greece has also found this out the hard way.

PS - Yes, I know this is utterly in conflict with my previous comments on Trident (and I'll admit my knowledge here is based on discussion elsewhere so may be entirely wrong - as Pumpkinstew seems to have discovered). C'est la vie.

[Grandad]

Originally Posted by Matblack

Have to say I agree, let the £100k+/pa feel some pain

MB

Sure, I have no problem with the 50% tax over that but the extra NI being uncapped along with other stuff such as means testing EMA, student grants/loans and loads of other stuff has really been hitting folks in the £25-40k bracket

This isn't a selfish thing as other than the NI thing none of it affects me ( and I would live with it if the 50% tax band ever did ) but I am sick of seeing handouts given left right and centre while it is the same folks paying over and over again

[Mark]

Here's the last UK run-in with the IMF. Knew it happened, but couldn't remember when. Turns out it was 1976...

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...imf-crisis.htm

PS - The proposed bail-out plan for Greece suggests they'll get €30bn this year - which just happens to be roughly £3.9bn in 1976 terms. Coincidence? Probably.

[LeperousDust]

Originally Posted by Rich_L

Tory/Lib Dem coalition in a hung Parliament and voting reform.

Indeed

[Garp]

According to http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...tives-312.html , a US Statistician with a flair for politics, polling and prediction models (gets used by a number of sports organisations for their models)

Based on recent polls and data we should be looking at a hung government, presumably with LibDems going for a coalition with the Tories.

[Will]

Originally Posted by Grandad

Bloody hell MB has done a good job canvassing the forum

I think I will be voting for the apathy party

Yeah cos we're all vacuous sheep that just follow everyone else and don't have minds or opinions of our own