Politics The General Election 2015

[Wij]

Assuming land plus build is £200,000 per house then that's £100 billion they need to raise.

That or they just need to make it clear that they will be nicking land off people and the builders will be forced labour for the glory of the state.

Whatever.

 

[Scouse]

Assuming land plus build is £200,000 per house

That's quite a lot. My 3 bed semi in Nottingham, garage, two gardens can prolly be purchased for ~120-130k - so the build price would be lower.

And I doubt social housing would be all houses either - they're the greens, so there'd be derilict building conversions aplenty, yadda yadda yadda. Though prolly with expensive eco materials...

Either way, even if half that - 50 billion is still a lot.

But then, once they scrap trident they save £100 billion+ so that'll pay for social housing for what they need plus extra for the 15,000 people they'll put out of work.

 

[Hawkwind]

For the first time ever the UK Government has put adverts in newpapers requesting ex-pats to register and vote in the next general election. They estimate that of nearly 6 million eligible ex-pats less then 50k actually register to vote. Given that these are predominantly middle class and well educated and a lot less worried about immigration issues looks like the cons are worried they might need the votes.

 

[Bodhi]

lol

they may manage to get rid of trident with plaid n the snp if there's a hung parliament...

They would actually need to have an mp for that, and with the mess they are making of Brighton I don't fancy their chances.

But getting rid of Trident is a fantastic idea. Some bloke called Vladimir told me anyway. We can always ask the French for their help if it all goes tits up, they're always useful in a scrap.

 

[Scouse]

They would actually need to have an mp for that, and with the mess they are making of Brighton I don't fancy their chances.

I dunno. Their exclusion from the debates has done a lot for their popularity so they may pick up a few. Maybe more than the Lib Dems. But then as @ECA showed - they really do keep shooting themselves in the foot.

If they get a few, SNP gets a load, Plaid get a few and there's a hung parliament with a slight labour lead then it's conceivable that they'd form a coalition with Trident as a sacrificial lamb...

 

[Wij]

I dunno. Their exclusion from the debates has done a lot for their popularity so they may pick up a few. Maybe more than the Lib Dems. But then as @ECA showed - they really do keep shooting themselves in the foot.

If they get a few, SNP gets a load, Plaid get a few and there's a hung parliament with a slight labour lead then it's conceivable that they'd form a coalition with Trident as a sacrificial lamb...

This explains why she's so keen on ensuring that Putin can walk away from Ukraine thinking he's got something (obviously Crimea isn't enough.) if he didn't feel like he'd got a good deal we'd only have stern words to fall back on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...th-something-from-ukraine-talks-10066374.html

 

[Scouse]

This explains why she's so keen on ensuring that Putin can walk away from Ukraine thinking he's got something (obviously Crimea isn't enough.)

I honestly thing that's a little naivety from here there more than anything - but I don't think it's anything to do with trident tbh.

Question - do you think if we didn't have Trident we'd be at risk of invasion?

 

[Tom]

Assuming land plus build is £200,000 per house then that's £100 billion they need to raise.

That or they just need to make it clear that they will be nicking land off people and the builders will be forced labour for the glory of the state.

Whatever.

Though those estimations are based on current land values. If you're in government and legislate to stop companies sitting on land ready for development, you can reduce them. You can also legislate to make it easier to build new towns.

You can also make changes to what's already there. For instance:

http://goo.gl/maps/mGmBW

I see no reason why the government couldn't purchase outdated estates like that, bordering busy, polluted arterial routes into London, and replace them with high-quality flats. Done right and in large enough numbers you could easily add tens of thousands of homes to the national stock, with no loss of green belt.

 

[Wij]

I honestly thing that's a little naivety from here there more than anything - but I don't think it's anything to do with trident tbh.

Question - do you think if we didn't have Trident we'd be at risk of invasion?

It's not us I'm worried about, at the moment. Putin's neighbours are the ones at immediate risk.

 

[DaGaffer]

For the first time ever the UK Government has put adverts in newpapers requesting ex-pats to register and vote in the next general election. They estimate that of nearly 6 million eligible ex-pats less then 50k actually register to vote. Given that these are predominantly middle class and well educated and a lot less worried about immigration issues looks like the cons are worried they might need the votes.

What's a newspaper?

 

[Scouse]

It's not us I'm worried about, at the moment. Putin's neighbours are the ones at immediate risk.

Trident doesn't really have a bearing on that tho eh? We'd not nuke the Ruski's if they invaded properly - and if we did then we'd lose anyway 'cause we'd get nuked.

If you lob nukes, you lose. Period. Tbfh.

 

[Wij]

If you have nukes and the other side doesn't you win. Period.

 

[Tom]

If you lob nukes, you lose. Period. Tbfh.

That's one reason why we have them on submarines, because you can significantly reduce the amount of time the "other side" has to launch theirs before their silos and other military sites are destroyed.

I've read somewhere that programmes like Threads are unrealistic in that cities and other densely-populated areas would, in the event of a nuclear war, be held to ransom. It's the military sites that go first.

 

[mooSe_]

period

 

[Scouse]

That's one reason why we have them on submarines, because you can significantly reduce the amount of time the "other side" has to launch theirs before their silos and other military sites are destroyed

They still get enough of 'em off in any scenario though. And then you've got worldwide fallout, political collapse etc. etc. yadda yadda yadda.

There is no victor in nuclear war.

 

[Wij]

They still get enough of 'em off in any scenario though. And then you've got worldwide fallout, political collapse etc. etc. yadda yadda yadda.

There is no victor in nuclear war.

VJ day.

Unequal nuclear war = win.

 

[Scouse]

Unequal nuclear war = win.

2014 figures:

Renders trident a pointless waste of cash.

For a start - it'd take a *long* time for missiles to hit their targets - Russia's huge. There's is no victory possible in nuclear confrontation any more. Only multiple country losers...

 

[Wij]

2014 figures:

Renders trident a pointless waste of cash.

For a start - it'd take a *long* time for missiles to hit their targets - Russia's huge. There's is no victory possible in nuclear confrontation any more. Only multiple country losers...

Missing the point. We have enough nuclear capability to make Russia notice. 8,000 weapons with multiple warheads is just pointless numbers. We could wipe Moscow off the face of the Earth. That makes us worth worrying about.

 

[Scouse]

Missing the point. We have enough nuclear capability to make Russia notice.

Of course we do. With or without Trident.

Then again, if either side launches nukes millions of people who would otherwise be alive will die. On either side (although, in actuality, both).

People like us. That's losing in my book.

 

[Gwadien]

Of course we do. With or without Trident.

Then again, if either side launches nukes millions of people who would otherwise be alive will die. On either side (although, in actuality, both).

People like us. That's losing in my book.

No-one wants nukes.

But in ze land of ze reality, we need them.

Trident is the best form to have them is as the underdog too.

 

[throdgrain]

VJ day.

Unequal nuclear war = win.

Obvious answer, ignored by people who's argument it don't suit.

 

[Wij]

Of course we do. With or without Trident.

Then again, if either side launches nukes millions of people who would otherwise be alive will die. On either side (although, in actuality, both).

People like us. That's losing in my book.

No. Trident gives us the ability to destroy Moscow no matter what happens beforehand. There's a difference.

 

[Scouse]

Obvious answer, ignored by people who's argument it don't suit.

They didn't have nukes. The Russians do. I didn't ignore that answer - I pointed that out quite clearly with a graph?

No. Trident gives us the ability to destroy Moscow no matter what happens beforehand. There's a difference.

It would take a Trident missile about 3 minutes to reach Moscow from the Baltic. There's 12 million people in Moscow, lest we forget. Missiles would get launched from that side either way.

Do you honestly think that Russia would launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the United Kingdom?

And if it did - would it even matter if we fired back? What would we achieve? And for whom?

 

[Gwadien]

They didn't have nukes. The Russians do. I didn't ignore that answer - I pointed that out quite clearly with a graph?




It would take a Trident missile about 3 minutes to reach Moscow from the Baltic. There's 12 million people in Moscow, lest we forget. Missiles would get launched from that side either way.

Do you honestly think that Russia would launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the United Kingdom?

And if it did - would it even matter if we fired back? What would we achieve? And for who?

The principle of total annihilation;

There will be no winners.

Revenge, the simplest of human reactions.

 

[Scouse]

Thanks for making my point

 

[Wij]

The principle of total annihilation;

There will be no winners.

Revenge, the simplest of human reactions.

No. Deterrent.

 

[Scouse]

No. Deterrent.

We've 250 nuclear missiles in a variety of silos. We've got allies armed through their wangs with enough firepower to turn all of russia into an irradiated wasteland with no living things.

We've got "deterrent" coming out of our asses. In volumes that would stretch even your ringpiece*.













*Maybe

 

[Wij]

We've 250 nuclear missiles in a variety of silos. We've got allies armed through their wangs with enough firepower to turn all of russia into an irradiated wasteland with no living things.

We've got "deterrent" coming out of our asses. In volumes that would stretch even your ringpiece*.













*Maybe

Allies are changeable things when times are tough. You need your own guarantees.

 

[Scouse]

Allies are changeable things when times are tough. You need your own guarantees.

Does the rest of that post not cover your needed guarantee? Did you only read the one word Wijlet?

How many nukes do you need for this mythical guarantee? And how does trident help?

 

[DaGaffer]

That's one reason why we have them on submarines, because you can significantly reduce the amount of time the "other side" has to launch theirs before their silos and other military sites are destroyed.

I've read somewhere that programmes like Threads are unrealistic in that cities and other densely-populated areas would, in the event of a nuclear war, be held to ransom. It's the military sites that go first.

Might be true for the US and Russia where there's room to spare; doesn't really work so well in Europe where hitting a "military target" like, say Faslane, renders Glasgow uninhabitable. (Well, more uninhabitable).