Westministenders: Before the Fire Alarm of Rome goes off

[RedToothBrush]

I’m going to keep this one very simple.

THE DEADLINE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IS 22ND MAY.
www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

Postal votes start to go out on 23rd May.

Your challenge is to persuade someone to register to vote or to get someone who is considering not to, to get their arse to the polling station.

Go forth and harass. Especially women and the young.

That’s it. No frills OP.

Nukes are intended to deter nuclear and large-scale conventional attacks, which they do brilliantly.

I have some tiger repellent I'll sell you. It works really well, I've not even seen a tiger round here.

I do have to wonder how all these other countries without nukes are surviving then. Or have they all been bombed and I just hadn't noticed...you would have thought someone would mention it.

Brexit realities seem to be sinking in with some. Hashi

But just because a seatbelt can't protect you from the flu doesn't mean it won't save your life in a car crash.

Equally you are more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a terrorist attack in the US so why did Trump want the Muslim ban.

Risk management and assessment comes in various ways and methods.

I'm not anti-trident by any means. I'm probably more pro than anti, but the argument you use is not necessarily sound.

I think there is certainly something here: we've got caught up in ideas about what is an attack on our society coming in a particular form and from a particular source and haven't been smart enough to see it evolve and come from a different direction.

Our reactions to these threats are often very behind the thinking of those carrying out those threats rather than being truly preventative. And even as we get better at being preventative, our enemies find newer ways to attack us anyway.

There is a lot to be said for the fact that we look at trident as a safety blanket that will protect us from threats. The reality is that others realise that using them isn't the best way to wage war anyway and they'd be much better using other methods.

I've seen it suggested that Russia's involvement in Syria, isn't about ISIS nor Assad at all. Its about creating refugees that destabilise the world allowing it to take advantage of the cracks that this produces throughout the world to expand its influence.

I'm yet to be able to effectively think of an answer that totally dispels that as an objective.

I agree red. Russia isn't going to nuke anyone. They are achieving their aims very well through a concerted campaign of disinformation, destabilisation and cyber warfare. North Korea is run by a maniac and even if he gets an effective nuclear weapon I doubt whether we have them or not will make much difference to whether he uses them. People who believe they are god's, do not trouble themselves with such trivialities.

There is a lot to be said for the fact that we look at trident as a safety blanket that will protect us from threats. The reality is that others realise that using them isn't the best way to wage war anyway and they'd be much better using other methods.

Of course relying on Trident to the exception of all other forms of defence would be crazy, but that's not the argument. The crux is that as long as other unfriendly countries have nukes, we must have them too, and advertise our willingness to respond if attacked.

I agree red. Russia isn't going to nuke anyone. They are achieving their aims very well through a concerted campaign of disinformation, destabilisation and cyber warfare.

OK, imagine a world in which every country except Russia unilaterally disarms. Would that make us more or less safe than today?

Its about creating refugees that destabilise the world allowing it to take advantage of the cracks that this produces throughout the world to expand its influence.

Russia has already attacked.

Well, I guess in than situation there is a possibility that Russia may decide to drop a bomb on everyone rather than rigging elections so that a mentally unstable psychopath becomes president of the united states and starts a nuclear war with North Korea in a desperate attempt to avoid being impeached...oh wait...

Motheroffourdragons

But we can do what the rest of the world does and rely on the other nations to supply the security blanket if that is what we think it is needed.

So then we freeload on the US and France. But what if they become unwilling to shelter everyone else under their nuclear umbrella?

I personally don't. I don't think Russia wants world obliteration any more than the rest of us, tbh.

If Russia (or any single country) were the only nuclear power, they wouldn't need to attack anyone - they could simply blackmail the holy hell out of every other country on the planet. Do you really think they (or any other country in a similarly commanding position) wouldn't?

Enter your post code to find key tories to campaign against.
www.open-britain.co.uk
I have struck gold in the specimen I've been allocated.

"Extort" rather than "blackmail".

Putin is many things. Crazy isn't one of them. If he drops a nuke anywhere he has to deal the literal fall out.

Putin is many things. Crazy isn't one of them. If he drops a nuke anywhere he has to deal the literal fall out.

Come on, whether Putin is crazy or not isn't the question. The question is, what kind of power would he have over us if the West disarms and he doesn't? Answer: he doesn't have to drop anything because the threat alone will get him whatever he wants. Therefore, we maintain the nuclear standoff.

Russia is skint. Economy less than Italy's size. Russia wants wealth and power, not nuclear fallout. Their war is already going nicely and Brexit is one of its victories.

bigly

"As I said, the Conservatives are WORRIED about London. In a big way."

Another pp mentioned the Cons possibly considering increases in inheritance tax (FT article?). If they are concerned about London I'd say that probably won't be a manifesto commitment - not so much because it would encourage con voters to switch to lab (unlikely!) but in terms of the effect on getting the con vote out on the day. The iht cuts are very popular with many property owning Londoners - though it's true that the new additional allowance does not have the advantage of simplicity!

Actually iht may even sway floating voters - viz Alastair Darling's reaction to GO's promise in ?when? a long time ago now, it seems!

I think there is certainly something here: we've got caught up in ideas about what is an attack on our society coming in a particular form and from a particular source and haven't been smart enough to see it evolve and come from a different direction.

Anyone reading Frankopan's 'The Silk Roads' may have been struck, as I was, how often societies were taken by surprise when a threat came from a different direction to the one they were expecting.

Re Corbyn and use of Nuclear weapons - isn't it academic anyway? They can only be operated with the consent of the Americans. Admittedly, Trump may be stupid enough to use them.

Russia is skint , Ah well that's the problem with privatisation

It's vital that we have nuclear weapons. How else can we prove that we're a Very Important World Power and completely deserve to stay bring important even though our historical justifications are slightly passé.

Of the issues I've discussed with my abnormal 2 adults 2 children all working family and friends the concerns are (in order)

The NHS, Brexit, education, care and pensions, tax, housing, farming and the environment including food supply, transport, immigration, foreign trade, foreign aid, terrorism... defence. Clearly we are extraordinary voters.

Barnier visits NI
(Channel 4 journalist, Alex Thomson, asked him if he was being an agent provocateur, cheeky get)

Earlier, Barnier met executives from Swift Fine Foods, supplier of ready meals to supermarkets across Ireland and the UK.

A €15m to €20m a year business, it sources food from both sides of the border and had planned on a 40% expansion of its exports to the UK.

“Places like this, you could almost turn the lights out if there is a hard border,” said director Rod Wood
.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/12/brexit-eus-chief-negotiator-vows-always-a-way-to-avoid-hard-irish-border

Trident does perform 2 important functions:

• It guards the UK seat at the UN Security Council
  It's the only reason they let us hang around

• It keeps the Uk under the thumb of the USA (so the Arlantic Bridge gang are happy)
  Without US cooperation, we wouldn't have a nuclear deterrent, just some very expensive junk.

“Places like this, you could almost turn the lights out if there is a hard border,” said director Rod Wood

That makes me so angry, May are you listening to anyone who is not white, middle class, your age or older, has never been involved in global business and trade and lives in the fucking Home Counties?

Who are these ordinary voters? I'm a Londoner, grew up in Ealing, spent 15 years as a young (and not so young) adult in various bits of North London, still have lots of friend and colleagues who live there.

Of the Londoners I know, I don't think a single one would vote against Corbyn on the grounds of his views on the nuclear deterrent - a lot of my contemporaries (40 and 50 somethings in academia, education, NHS management and the city) are ex CND types and even those who aren't ex-lefties aren't the warmongering type either. Lots of them are seriously miffed with Labour, because of brexit, but then again some London MPs have been brexit rebels and have retained the support of voters who would otherwise have jumped ship to the lib dems.

Outside London I have no idea, but I don't get the sense that the big red button is a hot topic for many people. Maybe I just know the wrong sort of ordinary people, who knows?

I'm not against having nukes.

Trident is so horrendously expensive though, that it's only justification would be if it's vital to UK defense, not merely "nice to have"

A much cheaper way of remaining a nuclear armed power would be just to retain or even increase the UK's tactical nuclear arsenal: missiles, artillery shells, depth charges etc
Keep these to the lowest yield range, to limit the radius of damage & destruction, so that they are true battlefield nukes, i.e. can be used in fairly close proximity to friendly forces and countries.
They would actually be useable, in a desperate situation.

Like all other public spending, we need to consider needs / wants / benefits / costs
Then balance with all the other things that the UK population wants / needs / can afford.

Misti I also don't see Trident as a core voting issue - except maybe in Scotland where I gather its hosts are seriously miffed and unwilling