Election 2010 - Con/Lib Government

[danny]

What's wrong with Dubai

 

No, but those litter pickers could still be employed if the footballers made £100k a year. Litter will never pick itself up, nor will a team ever manage itself, even if they are on lower pay.

 

Obviously footballers pay their tax (hopefully) and that is enough at 50%, I just think it's sad that we as a society have decided that kicking pigskin in a particular fashion is worth £150k per week.

 

Actually we haven't. The marketplace has. We, as consumers, have obliged reluctantly.

 

We havent been that reluctant though really. I mean i know loads of people who dont even question paying the cost to see a game etc.

I think this has come to and end really were not going anywhere, might as well stop debating the footballer point neither of us are going to change our opinions.

[McPhee]

I think that idea is flawed. Im not certain we need nukes. In my eyes they are something i want us to keep. But if the money isnt there the money isnt there. I think having a part time nuclear deterant is a flawed idea, if we are going to have nuke whats the point in having them if we cant realitate at a moments notice hence the deterant.

And this sort of wishy washy idea just enforces why i would rather vote labour than lib dems there ideas always seem half baked.

 

I dunno, it fits the times really. We can't go with no nukes because that sends a strong message to our allies that if cold war round 2 ever happens we'll be relying on them for protection. However, having a round the clock, ready-to-fire nuclear deterrent is a gross waste of money. It's not needed until we have some enemies capable of fielding nuclear missles.

 

Personally I'm not even sure we need two armed subs. If we've got one along with the capability to quickly produce more then we have everything we need. A nuclear attack isn't likely to happen out of the blue unless it's (for example) a Pakistani missile stolen by extremists (in which case I'm not sure we could retaliate with a nuke anyway). We'll have months, if not years, of escalation before anyone would even consider firing a missile.

Edited April 14, 2010 by McPhee

[ipaul]

We havent been that reluctant though really. I mean i know loads of people who dont even question paying the cost to see a game etc.

I think this has come to and end really were not going anywhere, might as well stop debating the footballer point neither of us are going to change our opinions.

 

Lol, everyone I've talked to about seems disgusted with the amount footballers are paid and how the prices of seeing a game has gone up in our modern time.

 

But yeah, let's stop.

 

The Lib Dems manifesto has pretty much cemented my vote for them, I was thinking of Greens before, but now I know I will definitely be voting Liberal

[danny]

I dunno, it fits the times really. We can't go with no nukes because that sends a strong message to our allies that if cold war round 2 ever happens we'll be relying on them for protection. However, having a round the clock, ready-to-fire nuclear deterrent is a gross waste of money. It's not needed until we have some enemies capable of fielding nuclear missles.

 

I just dont see the point in having a half arsed effort. I would say that is a gosss waste of money as it does nothing to protect us.

Funny enough if there was someone wanted to attack us with nukes why would they bother letting us know that they were going to do it. And thus let us get boats to deep water to realitate before they attacked us.

Also the tomahawk idea is laughable really for reasons i cant talk about on here.

And japan has no nuclear weapons after further reading. They have the ability to create them in less than a year if they felt the need. But only because they have a huge civil nuclar industry and weapon systems that cpould be converted if needed.

But they see no need as they are well in the USAs pocket when it comes to these sort of things and japan is very important to the US navy strategically. Still having thousends of troops posted there from the navy and marine corps.

[McPhee]

I wasn't trying to say that anyone would tell us that they plan to nuke us, but we're not going to be in peace-time one day and then looking at a nuclear wasteland the next day. Can you name a single nation that has the capability and the stupidity to do such a thing? And would anyone who actually is that stupid be put off by Trident? I doubt it. So what use is Trident? We don't need it, we just need the capability to field and manufacture nuclear weapons at short notice. A smaller nuclear deterrent would fulfil this need.

Edited April 15, 2010 by McPhee

[danny]

What your saying isnt wrong. But if were going to do it i believe we should do it properly rather than having this half arsed effort. Either have a proper nuclear deterant. Or dont have anythng as i dont think were achieving anything in having this idea that the libs dems have come up with.

I dont know the figures for what trident costs a year to run. But lets say for arguments sake its £4bn. By cutting it from 4 to 2 submarines does not mean we will have £2bn. It has been proven over and over again that cutting millitary hardware does not reduce costs equaly as you still have many of the overheds no matter iff you have say 2 or 8 submarines.

Now i think say £4bn for a proper deterant is good value for money when compared with say £3bn for a token effort.

Basically we should either be in or out. Preferably in. But i would rather save £4bn a year than £1bn if thats whats important.

 

I wasn't trying to say that anyone would tell us that they plan to nuke us, but we're not going to be in peace-time one day and then looking at a nuclear wasteland the next day. Can you name a single nation that has the capability and the stupidity to do such a thing? And would anyone who actually is that stupid be put off by Trident? I doubt it. So what use is Trident? We don't need it, we just need the capability to field and manufacture nuclear weapons at short notice. A smaller nuclear deterrent would fulfil this need.

 

A smaller deterant wouldnt do anything. As the most likely nuclear attack on the UK would be a dirty bomb from an islamic group. A deterant does not work for these kinds of bombs.

But trident does protect us from states like russia and iran if they ever get them. The fact is nuclear deterants have been worth every penny. There have only ever been two nuclear attacks in history and thats down to the deterants that have been emplyed by other states.

[McPhee]

Trident costs us between £9.7bn and £10.97bn a year to run (figures from a Guardian article, gonna assume they checked em). Gonna leave it there though. I can see your point, and I don't see us agreeing.

[The Bard]

Tax? What about the rising WoW tax eh? Nobody cares about me when I gotta pay £9.99 a fucking month, just to be allowed to LIVE in Azeroth.

 

I think ya'll should quit yer whining.

[Dyson]

Tax? What about the rising WoW tax eh? Nobody cares about me when I gotta pay £9.99 a fucking month, just to be allowed to LIVE in Azeroth.

 

I think ya'll should quit yer whining.

 

I love you Bard

[Nicktendo]

Danny do you own a Nintendo console?

 

Have a look here son ---> http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/

Edited April 15, 2010 by Nicktendo

[danny]

Danny do you own a Nintendo console?

 

Have a look here son ---> http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/

 

Yeah 2 thanks. Infact no 3.

I dont see what your problem is its a topic about the election. And trident is going to be a big issue for the country. And my home town even more so as the current vanguard class sbmarines and any future submarines will be built here. I mean here all the two partys talk about is the shipyard.

Edited April 15, 2010 by danny

[Dan_Dare]

Trident is a crock of shit. End of.

 

In other news: Tories remain cunts on Big Things

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/14/conservatives-duping-voters-gay-policy

[The fish]

It's the first of the big debate tonight, folks!

 

One thing I'm especially curious about is what this'll do to the odds tomorrow morning. I'm predicting a worsening for Labour, and a better out look for the Lib Dems and, more realistically, a hung parliament.

[dwarf]

Good TV on tonight actually, gonna flick between the debate, HIGNFY, Newsnight and You Have Been Watching which returns at 10.00 with Brooker Conveniently after the debate.

[Guy]

Can't wait for the debate tonight.

 

Brooker is on again tonight too? Today looks like it can top yesterday's Lost/Gleefest.

[Pancake]

Is it just me or are the BNP reasonable?? Granted i'm basing this on limited knowledge about them, but saw a clip on the news the other day where the leader was in the streets campaigning and a muslim guy came up to him and called them racist, they leader said "no of course we're not racist, it's just that the country is full that's all" and put his hand out to shake the guy's hand.

 

Then they were talking about lack of housing and how immigrants were getting council houses when local people who'd lived there for years were being refused.

Well i happen to agree. If you can't even meet the most basic needs (and how much more basic can you get than housing) of the people already in the country, it's completely insane to have more people come in. How the feck does that make someone a racist?

 

Race isn't the issue surely. There are people in my area who have been on the emergency homeless housing register for over a year and still can't get a council house.

 

Mop up the puddle before you start on the sea and all that... (ok so i made that saying up).

[D_prOdigy]

To be honest, I think the regulations of the debates have castrated any possibility of them having a massive effect on the position of any party.

 

I especially don't like the fact the audience are not allowed to cheer or clap during the entire debate. Part of me really hopes there will still be claps after some answers - anarchy in a pathetically British sort of way...

[danny]

Is it just me or are the BNP reasonable?? Granted i'm basing this on limited knowledge about them, but saw a clip on the news the other day where the leader was in the streets campaigning and a muslim guy came up to him and called them racist, they leader said "no of course we're not racist, it's just that the country is full that's all" and put his hand out to shake the guy's hand.

 

Then they were talking about lack of housing and how immigrants were getting council houses when local people who'd lived there for years were being refused.

Well i happen to agree. If you can't even meet the most basic needs (and how much more basic can you get than housing) of the people already in the country, it's completely insane to have more people come in. How the feck does that make someone a racist?

 

Race isn't the issue surely. There are people in my area who have been on the emergency homeless housing register for over a year and still can't get a council house.

 

Mop up the puddle before you start on the sea and all that... (ok so i made that saying up).

 

Because they have right wing ideas an thus must be racist and facist!! (yeah i agree with you more or less.)

There are some racists in the party, but there ideals arnt all racist in principle.

[Will]

Pancake, the trouble is the sensible front covers up a massively racist organization. I saw that clip too and from just that you would say they had a decent idea, look into it a bit more though and you'll see they're pretty nasty people.

[Hamishmash]

Lib Dems or Labour at the moment. A gay voting Tory is like an atheist running for Pope.

[chairdriver]

The BNP want to reintroduce corporal punishment in schools.

 

 

Enough said.

[Mr_Odwin]

No one should be allowed to hit my kids.

[Daft]

They should reintroduce the death penalty for under 15-year-olds.

 

Teach them to act up.

[Nicktendo]

Is it just me or are the BNP reasonable??

No

 

Granted i'm basing this on limited knowledge about them

...this is exactly what the want.,

 

saw a clip on the news the other day where the leader was in the streets campaigning and a muslim guy came up to him and called them racist, they leader said "no of course we're not racist.

Lies. I can link you a whole manner of videos demonstrating their actual, racist views, why would they ever openly admit they were racist?

 

it's just that the country is full that's all" and put his hand out to shake the guy's hand.

The country is not 'full' - there are simply not currently enough jobs to support the population of the country and the housing situation is in a mess. With private rent prices being far too expensive for a lot of low earners and a poorly managed LHA system which has been distorted and systematically destroyed since the Thatcher days, with little attempt by the Labour party to address the issues created during this time which led to the sever lack of available housing.

 

Then they were talking about lack of housing and how immigrants were getting council houses.

Not true, local authorities legally cannot make judgements based on skin colour or race, all LHA's are struggling to cope with demand and have done since the system was dismantled in the Eighties. Anyone who say's 'immigrants are getting all the houses' is simply mis-informed. I have about to go on the waiting list as I can't afford to privately rent and the system is favoured towards people (either couples or singles) with children.

 

when local people who'd lived there for years were being refused.

It is a system which supports need, not where you live

 

Well i happen to agree. If you can't even meet the most basic needs (and how much more basic can you get than housing) of the people already in the country.

does that include people who are already here, pay taxes but happen to have different coloured skin?,

 

it's completely insane to have more people come in.

Britian has some of the strictist immigration laws in the world, but due to lies in the media we all believe it's a walk in the park to get in here, and it simply isn't..

 

How the feck does that make someone a racist?

because judging people on the basis of the colour of their skin is racism

 

Race isn't the issue surely. There are people in my area who have been on the emergency homeless housing register for over a year and still can't get a council house.

of course there are many people in this situation, of all colours.

 

Mop up the puddle before you start on the sea and all that... (ok so i made that saying up).

What about people who are running from wars or problems in countries directly caused by us either now or during the colonial period - there's another saying called "what goes around, comes around" and the fact that Britain made much of it's wealth from exploiting the Caribbean, the West Indies and Africa, I think it's fair enough that many people would want to come to the country that destroyed their livelihood in order to try and re-build it.

 

Because they have right wing ideas an thus must be racist and facist!!

 

Actually most of the BNP's policies are very left wing / socialist. They are almost and exact modern-day replica of the NSDP (Hitler's political party in 1939)

Edited April 15, 2010 by Nicktendo
Automerged Doublepost

[dwarf]

Bring back the

for primary school

 

(minus the

part)