I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
They seemed to have fled to Iran. Or was that 1991?
If Nuclear weapons are essential to our security -
How do Germany, Norway, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Japan all cope ?
Tbh I reckon the countries with Nuclear programs should at least get some subs back from the Non-Nuclear NATO members.
In practise if push came to shove we're completely tied down to the USA if WW3 happens anyway.
Most of those nations host US nuclear weapons, and other forces. There's your answer.
Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria and Finland are neutral; i.e., they do not belong to NATO.
Sweden and Switzerland rely on large conventional forces and conscription. They assume that no-one would come to their aid if they were attacked; they would fight alone.
Then there are Australia and New Zealand. Neither comes under 'the NATO umbrella'.
So, quite a lot of countries seem to consider themselves secure without having nuclear weapons or belonging to NATO.
Also while Australia uses the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for US warships carrying nuclear armaments, New Zealand has a "Tell or don't get to dock" policy to maintain their Nuclear Free Zone status.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
All the Iraqi Air Force defected to Iran during the first Gulf War.
@NickBolesMP: Ed Miliband can't have it both ways. He brags about standing up to Obama over Syria. Well he also stood alongside Putin in protecting Assad.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.
Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.
No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.
I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.
And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.
At the general election, it is likely that UKIP will get at least one seat. Consequently they will then meet the conditions for gifts to the party to be exempt from IHT.
Currently UKIP do not qualify, as at the last general election they did not get 2 MPs nor 1 MP and at least 150k votes. So currently, gifts to UKIP are within the scope of IHT, probably as a chargeable lifetime transfer if made not on death - although most people will not have used up their nil rate band.
Fallon is a disgrace - and we wonder why so many young people especially minorities ( as shown on C4) see politics as completely unrelated to their lives. Yet those at the bottom end of society will remain disadvantaged , powerless and marginalised by both this Negativism and the retreat over many years of One Nation Conservatism.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
Heck, the RN are so fierce they even sunk a submarine using a helicopter.
Fallon is a disgrace - and we wonder why so many young people especially minorities ( as shown on C4) see politics as completely unrelated to their lives. Yet those at the bottom end of society will remain disadvantaged , powerless and marginalised by both this Negativism and the retreat over many years of One Nation Conservatism.
Where were you when Ed was insulting Dave in the HOC..
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
You might realise from my screen name, I'm fan of Airborne and Air Assault Troops.
If we expanded say, The Paras, 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade, into 3 full Divisions, I reckon that would make give us more military clout than nuclear weapons.
3 full divisions with the tail back up and maintenance, would consist of about 130,000 troops. We have at present 80,000 troops of which 30,000 maybe of first rank calibre, about enough for 3 brigades; perhaps. All because the Tories, Labour and L/Dems can't tell their belly button from their toes.
Fallon is a disgrace - and we wonder why so many young people especially minorities ( as shown on C4) see politics as completely unrelated to their lives. Yet those at the bottom end of society will remain disadvantaged , powerless and marginalised by both this Negativism and the retreat over many years of One Nation Conservatism.
Let it be known to any loony Islamic that if any western city was attacked with a dirty nuclear bomb then Mecca would be a radioactive crater within minutes..and then you begin to pick off the communications hotspots....If you play dirty then expect to get hurt.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.
Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.
No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.
I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.
And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.
The new generation of supersonic sea-skimming missiles are a much more serious threat to our ships. Which is why holographic radar is so damn sexy.
Santa Fe accomplished the resupply mission and landed the marine troops on 25 April. Members of the Argentine garrison had salvaged a crippled BAS launch, which was used to download the cargo.[5]
Some hours later, after leaving Grytviken, Santa Fe was detected on radar by Lieutenant Chris Parry, the observer of the Westland Wessex HAS.3 anti-submarine helicopter from HMS Antrim, and attacked with depth charges. This attack caused extensive internal damage, including the splitting of a ballast tank, the dismounting of electrical components and shocks to the machinery
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
Heck, the RN are so fierce they even sunk a submarine using a helicopter.
More importantly, the BBC has a factual error. Susie Wolff was not 'overlooked' to replace Bottas in Australia. Nobody replaced him, because it's not within the rules to for a driver who does not qualify to race.
I'm not saying this is robust because - amongst other things - YouGov are not weighting to be accurate within age groups. But it's intriguing enough to keep an eye on.
Thanks a lot - good stuff.
I am conscious that it may be that YouGov would say the age weighting doesn't need to be right because it's covered off by past vote weighting (or now Jan/Feb polling vote weighting).
However, surely better if age weighting and past vote weighting both made sense.
Fallon is a disgrace - and we wonder why so many young people especially minorities ( as shown on C4) see politics as completely unrelated to their lives. Yet those at the bottom end of society will remain disadvantaged , powerless and marginalised by both this Negativism and the retreat over many years of One Nation Conservatism.
Not sure what is funnier, the formulated outrage from LHQ, or the stench of hypocrisy.
Let it be known to any loony Islamic that if any western city was attacked with a dirty nuclear bomb then Mecca would be a radioactive crater within minutes..and then you begin to pick off the communications hotspots....If you play dirty then expect to get hurt.
You might want to think that through a little more.
Trident doesn't have to be mentioned specifically in the Queens Speech.
Really?
£100bn pounds of spending, we forgot to mention?
Seems unlikely...
Queens Speech is mainly just a list of Bills (not relevant to Trident - replacing Trident doesn't need a new law) and very, very waffly statements, eg:
"My Government is committed to a strong defence".
What it boils down to is that the SNP has nowhere to go. They won't support Con. So they have to support Lab on vote by vote basis.
When it comes to the vote on Trident, SNP vote against - never mind - Con vote with Lab - majority 400.
The next day the Lab Minority Government moves on to whatever they are dealing with next and SNP again supports them.
Bottom line - if 500 MPs want Trident to be replaced it will be replaced.
SO When the population of the West see a destroyed city with tens of thousands dead then it will focus even the most woolly of minds..in the meantime stay safe in your pink little Englander world... Everybody out there loves us..
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.
Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.
No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.
I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.
And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.
The new generation of supersonic sea-skimming missiles are a much more serious threat to our ships. Which is why holographic radar is so damn sexy.
I read something a few years back about holographic radar, but wasn't sure it had been implemented - Is it now 'fully operational' as the Emperor Palpatine may have once said
Labour are on a core vote strategy. Dropping Trident 2 would have absolutely no effect on their core vote. Might even get them a LOT of Greens onside and a big chunk of the former Liberals.
Labour need to stop trying to appeal to the right - it's not working. They need to appeal to their core and those who have drifted out to parties to the left of it.
Fallon is a disgrace - and we wonder why so many young people especially minorities ( as shown on C4) see politics as completely unrelated to their lives. Yet those at the bottom end of society will remain disadvantaged , powerless and marginalised by both this Negativism and the retreat over many years of One Nation Conservatism.
That reads like it was copied from the back of a cornflakes packet, or possibly a Labour Party pamphlet, sometimes its hard to tell the difference.
I'm not saying this is robust because - amongst other things - YouGov are not weighting to be accurate within age groups. But it's intriguing enough to keep an eye on.
Thanks a lot - good stuff.
I am conscious that it may be that YouGov would say the age weighting doesn't need to be right because it's covered off by past vote weighting (or now Jan/Feb polling vote weighting).
However, surely better if age weighting and past vote weighting both made sense.
I just don't like the yougov 'methodology' it seems (unsurprising really, given the owners) to be selecting a cohort with inbuilt Labour Bias and then trying to use the Labour leads to encourage people to vote for the winning team.
Just remember - they know who was polled and what each person returned - so it doesn't take much to select your new population predisposed to a specific way of voting. (And remember that yougov people are more likely to be of firm political opinion rather than 'don't knows')(
@NickBolesMP: Ed Miliband can't have it both ways. He brags about standing up to Obama over Syria. Well he also stood alongside Putin in protecting Assad.
Are we really still doing this? I rather thought people had noticed that, evil as he may be, Assad is not the biggest problem in Syria, and disabling his army might have cost easily as many lives as it saved.
If Ed Miliband stood alongside Putin, then Cameron stood alongside Abu Ali al-Anbari.
SO When the population of the west see a destroyed city with tens of thousands dead then it will focus even the most woolLy of minds..in the meantime stay safe in your pink little Englander world... Everybody out there loves us..
And what will the Moslem world do when it sees us blowing up Mecca?
Labour are on a core vote strategy. Dropping Trident 2 would have absolutely no effect on their core vote. Might even get them a LOT of Greens onside and a big chunk of the former Liberals.
Imo, a lot of "working-class" core Labour voters wouldn't take well to any impression of Labour being soft on defence. It was one of the main reasons Thatcher made inroads with those voters.
@MrHarryCole: Y'day Ed called DC "the political wing of the offshore tax industry". Today he's sobbing into his bacon sarnie about negative campaigning.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
The Navy have very few fixed-wing pilots left since the demise of the Harrier (and even then Joint Force Harrier meant some of the ship-borne jobs were undertaken by RAF pilots). I believe the handful that remain are currently flying Super Entendards with the French in order to keep carrier skills alive until 2020.
When the F-35 comes on stream again I believe its going to be a joint force with complete interoperability between land and ship based aircraft and pilots, so ship-borne crews will be a mix of RN and RAF pilots (and vice versa).
Labour are on a core vote strategy. Dropping Trident 2 would have absolutely no effect on their core vote. Might even get them a LOT of Greens onside and a big chunk of the former Liberals.
Imo, a lot of "working-class" core Labour voters wouldn't take well to any impression of Labour being soft on defence. It was one of the main reasons Thatcher made inroads with those voters.
SO The Muslim world should take steps now to make sure it never happens and call off the loonies..I think it may have been Winston Churchill who opined that the appeased have an enormous appetite for appeasement but the appeaser soon runs out of other cheeks.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.
Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.
No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.
I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.
And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.
The new generation of supersonic sea-skimming missiles are a much more serious threat to our ships. Which is why holographic radar is so damn sexy.
I read something a few years back about holographic radar, but wasn't sure it had been implemented - Is it now 'fully operational' as the Emperor Palpatine may have once said
The first anti-shell tests with the USN were four years ago. It's one of the annoying cases where they've known it's possible in theory for decades, but computer power is only just allowing it to be done (thanks to brainy boffinery in the maths dept. as well).
I'm not saying this is robust because - amongst other things - YouGov are not weighting to be accurate within age groups. But it's intriguing enough to keep an eye on.
Thanks a lot - good stuff.
I am conscious that it may be that YouGov would say the age weighting doesn't need to be right because it's covered off by past vote weighting (or now Jan/Feb polling vote weighting).
However, surely better if age weighting and past vote weighting both made sense.
I just don't like the yougov 'methodology' it seems (unsurprising really, given the owners) to be selecting a cohort with inbuilt Labour Bias and then trying to use the Labour leads to encourage people to vote for the winning team.
Just remember - they know who was polled and what each person returned - so it doesn't take much to select your new population predisposed to a specific way of voting. (And remember that yougov people are more likely to be of firm political opinion rather than 'don't knows')(
Labour are on a core vote strategy. Dropping Trident 2 would have absolutely no effect on their core vote. Might even get them a LOT of Greens onside and a big chunk of the former Liberals.
Imo, a lot of "working-class" core Labour voters wouldn't take well to any impression of Labour being soft on defence. It was one of the main reasons Thatcher made inroads with those voters.
If they committed to fitting out HMS Prince Charles and arming it along with thousands of jobs that would bring, they don't need to look soft, they can sell it as "far more suited to the modern threats like ISIS" there little risk of that.
Not persuaded they would lose anything even without the Prince Charles commitment.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.
Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.
No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.
I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.
And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.
The war nerd had good article explaining why the navy, but especially carriers, are just sitting ducks.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
The Navy have very few fixed-wing pilots left since the demise of the Harrier (and even then Joint Force Harrier meant some of the ship-borne jobs were undertaken by RAF pilots). I believe the handful that remain are currently flying Super Entendards with the French in order to keep carrier skills alive until 2020.
When the F-35 comes on stream again I believe its going to be a joint force with complete interoperability between land and ship based aircraft and pilots, so ship-borne crews will be a mix of RN and RAF pilots (and vice versa).
I was genuinely surprised to see another sensible PBer claim this week was terrible for the Tories. Yesterday was a huge cock-up from Labour and it's only Day 3 of a 4 Day Week.
The wedge on Defence is proving nicely visceral for Kippers and the Tories vs Everyone Else - and EdM is trapped in between them both
@NickBolesMP: Ed Miliband can't have it both ways. He brags about standing up to Obama over Syria. Well he also stood alongside Putin in protecting Assad.
If the Conservative campaign is to be Nick Boles going on about Syria we need to know. Sub 30 result beckons.
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, has been campaigning in Aberdeenshire. She accused the SNP of being “all over the place” on whether to have a second independence referendum.
The SNP seem to by trying to ride two horses, saying to people, ‘It’s okay, we’re a safe vote, we’re not going to push for another referendum’, and then saying to their tens of thousands of new members ‘don’t worry another referendum is just around the corner and we can push for it in one more heave’.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
I am aware that it's something the Navy is tribally keen on, but I have some sympathy with the view that the RAF should be disbanded and merged back into the Navy and Army.
It was split off in 1918 because those two services were using aircraft purely in local support of ships and armies, and it was thought a strategic purpose for air power was needed. The RAF came into being so somebody would start thinking about how to bomb German cities the way the Germans were bombing ours.
In fact the RAF's strategic role is now better undertaken by missiles fired from ships and submarines, ditto any nuclear role. It has repeatedly been shown, from Kuantan in 1941 to San Carlos Water in 1982, that the RAF cannot protect the navy's ships at sea - for which you need embarked fleet defence fighters.
So we are back to the Navy and Army having their own integral air capability. OK, there is a potential procurement inefficiency here, but there is in either case; in the 1930s the RAF marginalised the Fleet Air Arm so it ended up with generally poor equipment, and in the 1970s we developed the Tornado and left ourselves with no naval fighter (the Harrier was not intended to be a fighter, but happens to be versatile enough to be quite a good one).
We long ago got shot of the Air Ministry and I do wonder why the Air Force still exists. Presumably nobody wants to disband the force that won the Battle of Britain?
Labour are on a core vote strategy. Dropping Trident 2 would have absolutely no effect on their core vote. Might even get them a LOT of Greens onside and a big chunk of the former Liberals.
Imo, a lot of "working-class" core Labour voters wouldn't take well to any impression of Labour being soft on defence. It was one of the main reasons Thatcher made inroads with those voters.
If they committed to fitting out HMS Prince Charles and arming it along with thousands of jobs that would bring, they don't need to look soft, they can sell it as "far more suited to the modern threats like ISIS" there little risk of that.
Not persuaded they would lose anything even without the Prince Charles commitment.
Cameron and the Conservatives have already committed to fitting out the PoW and putting it (*) into service.
@NickBolesMP: Ed Miliband can't have it both ways. He brags about standing up to Obama over Syria. Well he also stood alongside Putin in protecting Assad.
If the Conservative campaign is to be Nick Boles going on about Syria we need to know. Sub 30 result beckons.
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, has been campaigning in Aberdeenshire. She accused the SNP of being “all over the place” on whether to have a second independence referendum.
The SNP seem to by trying to ride two horses, saying to people, ‘It’s okay, we’re a safe vote, we’re not going to push for another referendum’, and then saying to their tens of thousands of new members ‘don’t worry another referendum is just around the corner and we can push for it in one more heave’.
A vote for SNP at this election has nothing to do with independence (Well the Yes/SNP figures are highly correlated but the issue is not at stake), 2016 Holyrood is when it will feature in their manifesto.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
The Navy have very few fixed-wing pilots left since the demise of the Harrier (and even then Joint Force Harrier meant some of the ship-borne jobs were undertaken by RAF pilots). I believe the handful that remain are currently flying Super Entendards with the French in order to keep carrier skills alive until 2020.
When the F-35 comes on stream again I believe its going to be a joint force with complete interoperability between land and ship based aircraft and pilots, so ship-borne crews will be a mix of RN and RAF pilots (and vice versa).
Optimistic that you think the F35 will come into service. Awful plane, designed to be all things to all services and so does nothing well. Anyway everything will be drones and remote controlled in the future.
"I just don't like the yougov 'methodology' it seems (unsurprising really, given the owners) to be selecting a cohort with inbuilt Labour Bias and then trying to use the Labour leads to encourage people to vote for the winning team".
I think the owners are all Tories but I'm sure that like most businessmen in public companies their business comes first which involves being accurate
OT. Remind me when we last had a thread criticising ED M for his personal attacks on Cameron's background over which he has no control as opposed to today's attack by Fallon on Miliband's actions over which he has total control.
It seems like the hypocricy within the Labour party has spread.
OT. Remind me when we last had a thread criticising ED M for his personal attacks on Cameron's background over which he has no control as opposed to today's attack by Fallon on Miliband's actions over which he has total control.
It seems like the hypocricy within the Labour party has spread.
@MrHarryCole: Ed really showing the world he is tough ennuss today.
@MrHarryCole: Y'day Ed called DC "the political wing of the offshore tax industry". Today he's sobbing into his bacon sarnie about negative campaigning.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
The Navy have very few fixed-wing pilots left since the demise of the Harrier (and even then Joint Force Harrier meant some of the ship-borne jobs were undertaken by RAF pilots). I believe the handful that remain are currently flying Super Entendards with the French in order to keep carrier skills alive until 2020.
When the F-35 comes on stream again I believe its going to be a joint force with complete interoperability between land and ship based aircraft and pilots, so ship-borne crews will be a mix of RN and RAF pilots (and vice versa).
Optimistic that you think the F35 will come into service. Awful plane, designed to be all things to all services and so does nothing well. Anyway everything will be drones and remote controlled in the future.
Not a view that I necessarily disagree with. I would have much preferred the Cat and Trap version if we have to have it.
We could have bought F18s or Super Etendards off the shelf.
Interesting factoid from UKIP: "Decriminalise non-payment of TV License which disproportionately discriminates against women: some 69% 100,000 were fined for non-payment last year, and so women also most likely to be jailed"
Labour are on a core vote strategy. Dropping Trident 2 would have absolutely no effect on their core vote. Might even get them a LOT of Greens onside and a big chunk of the former Liberals.
Imo, a lot of "working-class" core Labour voters wouldn't take well to any impression of Labour being soft on defence. It was one of the main reasons Thatcher made inroads with those voters.
If they committed to fitting out HMS Prince Charles and arming it along with thousands of jobs that would bring, they don't need to look soft, they can sell it as "far more suited to the modern threats like ISIS" there little risk of that.
Not persuaded they would lose anything even without the Prince Charles commitment.
Cameron and the Conservatives have already committed to fitting out the PoW and putting it (*) into service.
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, has been campaigning in Aberdeenshire. She accused the SNP of being “all over the place” on whether to have a second independence referendum.
The SNP seem to by trying to ride two horses, saying to people, ‘It’s okay, we’re a safe vote, we’re not going to push for another referendum’, and then saying to their tens of thousands of new members ‘don’t worry another referendum is just around the corner and we can push for it in one more heave’.
A vote for SNP at this election has nothing to do with independence (Well the Yes/SNP figures are highly correlated but the issue is not at stake), 2016 Holyrood is when it will feature in their manifesto.
Remember, the Westminster Parties still operate under the idea that voters are thick and un-engaged, that voters can't discriminate between elections and votes.
Working well for the SNP so far and doesn't appear to be changing.
The thing about the core vote strategies the Tories and Labour are currently pursuing is that they also end up galvanising the other side. If you want to drive anti-Tories to Labour, the kind of attack that Fallon engaged in today is almost custom made to do it. as it plays perfectly into that Nasty Party image. Of course, Labour has done similar stuff to Cameron so it can hardly complain, but that's not really the point: it's all about general perceptions and rightly or wrongly Labour can get away with this kind of stuff more than the Tories can.
This type of direct attack is brutal. I assume that it has been focus grouped within an inch of its life. I don't care for it one little bit, but it isn't aimed at me.
Such attacks can work, viz Michael Foot in 1983. Ed Miliband complaining about the personal nature of the attacks will not assist Labour. People will agree with him, but they might still agree with the substance of the attack on him.
That said, the Conservatives urgently need some policy substance. So far we've just had pap and Long Term Economic Plan. It isn't enough to get David Cameron back into Number 10.
If Ed M "stabbed his own brother in the back" - it's always nice to see a senior government minister capable of avoiding cliché - then so did David M, right?
How unrelated do you have to be to someone for it no longer to be dishonourable to compete against them? Would cousins be okay?
If Ed M "stabbed his own brother in the back" - it's always nice to see a senior government minister capable of avoiding cliché - then so did David M, right?
How unrelated do you have to be to someone for it no longer to be dishonourable to compete against them? Would cousins be okay?
Standing against him is not the act of betrayal. Persuading him not to stand against Gordo when he could have won is the treacherous bit
The thing about the core vote strategies the Tories and Labour are currently pursuing is that they also end up galvanising the other side. If you want to drive anti-Tories to Labour, the kind of attack that Fallon engaged in today is almost custom made to do it. as it plays perfectly into that Nasty Party image. Of course, Labour has done similar stuff to Cameron so it can hardly complain, but that's not really the point: it's all about general perceptions and rightly or wrongly Labour can get away with this kind of stuff more than the Tories can.
Even more reason for Labour to drop Trident renewal.
There isn't enough time to wait for Tories to switch to Liberals and then get converted to Labour. They need votes from the Greens and old school CND/Lefty Liberals.
Scotland isn't more anti-Trident than England because Scots are somehow more appalled by morally bankrupt WMD. They are more anti-Trident because they've been SOLD the policy by the SNP.
I know it's an old fashioned concept - a party selling a policy as opposed to constant obfuscating and trying to reflect the current electoral opinion but hey, there you go, it let them become a 45% VI party.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.
Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.
No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.
I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.
And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.
The war nerd had good article explaining why the navy, but especially carriers, are just sitting ducks.
The central theme of that article seems bogus to me: Harpoon missiles are in no way 'ballistic' missiles, and the pop-up manoeuvre does not make it one.
All those referencing Cain and Abel should recall that Cain was the older brother. And it was Cain that ended up in the land of Nod, while when Ed Miliband speaks, it's the audience that is sent there.
I shall be concentrating on The Masters for the next 4 days. Oh to be among the azaleas now that April's here.
I will be following the campaign too, from time to time.
Any bets on ?
I'm on Speith and Dustin J...
I'm on Speith £50 EW @ 15/1 and Ernie Els for old times @125/1 £20 EW.
If Bubba shoots a couple of early bogies I might back if his price goes out.
Patric Reed stands a good chance and the there's always Rory...............but my vibes are not vibrating for him this time.
Rory's price is miles too short too. Reed a good shout. Not starting on Sky until 8pm - bah.
I'm following it on PGA.com and the Golf Channel (USA), but it's not like the old days when the BBC would show the entire 4 days from first ball to last. I'll also miss that old whisperer, Peter Allis.
If Ed M "stabbed his own brother in the back" - it's always nice to see a senior government minister capable of avoiding cliché - then so did David M, right?
How unrelated do you have to be to someone for it no longer to be dishonourable to compete against them? Would cousins be okay?
Exactly, how did David stab Ed in the back any less than David did Ed? If anything, I would've thought an older brother was meant to look out for the younger one and not stand in the way of something they wanted.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.
Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.
No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.
I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.
And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.
The war nerd had good article explaining why the navy, but especially carriers, are just sitting ducks.
The central theme of that article seems bogus to me: Harpoon missiles are in no way 'ballistic' missiles, and the pop-up manoeuvre does not make it one.
When asked by Congress the USN admitted that a carrier's life expectancy was a few days, maybe a week if they stayed in port in real war scenario.
I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.
I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.
Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.
I'm also very strong on defence.
I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.
It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.
The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.
The Navy have very few fixed-wing pilots left since the demise of the Harrier (and even then Joint Force Harrier meant some of the ship-borne jobs were undertaken by RAF pilots). I believe the handful that remain are currently flying Super Entendards with the French in order to keep carrier skills alive until 2020.
When the F-35 comes on stream again I believe its going to be a joint force with complete interoperability between land and ship based aircraft and pilots, so ship-borne crews will be a mix of RN and RAF pilots (and vice versa).
Optimistic that you think the F35 will come into service. Awful plane, designed to be all things to all services and so does nothing well. Anyway everything will be drones and remote controlled in the future.
Have you ever heard of Duncan Sandys, and the damage similar thinking did to Britain's defence?
I shall be concentrating on The Masters for the next 4 days. Oh to be among the azaleas now that April's here.
I will be following the campaign too, from time to time.
Any bets on ?
I'm on Speith and Dustin J...
I'm on Speith £50 EW @ 15/1 and Ernie Els for old times @125/1 £20 EW.
If Bubba shoots a couple of early bogies I might back if his price goes out.
Patric Reed stands a good chance and the there's always Rory...............but my vibes are not vibrating for him this time.
Rory's price is miles too short too. Reed a good shout. Not starting on Sky until 8pm - bah.
I'm following it on PGA.com and the Golf Channel (USA), but it's not like the old days when the BBC would show the entire 4 days from first ball to last. I'll also miss that old whisperer, Peter Allis.
Afternoon Mr.K, may I ask if a visit to Augusta is on your bucket list, or have you been?
Comments
The Queen's speech comes before the "Trident vote"
The Tories will vote against a Labour Queen's speech, which includes Trident renewal
If the SNP vote against it, Ed is not PM
I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.
And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/IHTM11197.htm
Currently UKIP do not qualify, as at the last general election they did not get 2 MPs nor 1 MP and at least 150k votes. So currently, gifts to UKIP are within the scope of IHT, probably as a chargeable lifetime transfer if made not on death - although most people will not have used up their nil rate band.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Santa_Fe_(S-21)
Labour (and especially Hoon) should be ashamed of the way they emasculated the FAA.
We're being enervated by luxury just as they were.
You'll need to try a great deal harder than that around here to be taken seriously.
£100bn pounds of spending, we forgot to mention?
Seems unlikely...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32236556
More importantly, the BBC has a factual error. Susie Wolff was not 'overlooked' to replace Bottas in Australia. Nobody replaced him, because it's not within the rules to for a driver who does not qualify to race.
I am conscious that it may be that YouGov would say the age weighting doesn't need to be right because it's covered off by past vote weighting (or now Jan/Feb polling vote weighting).
However, surely better if age weighting and past vote weighting both made sense.
Tory logic.
How dare the tories adopt our style of politics.
I do know Betfair are paying 7 places though.
phreee moneeeey
"My Government is committed to a strong defence".
What it boils down to is that the SNP has nowhere to go. They won't support Con. So they have to support Lab on vote by vote basis.
When it comes to the vote on Trident, SNP vote against - never mind - Con vote with Lab - majority 400.
The next day the Lab Minority Government moves on to whatever they are dealing with next and SNP again supports them.
Bottom line - if 500 MPs want Trident to be replaced it will be replaced.
Difficult as it rings true..
Labour need to stop trying to appeal to the right - it's not working. They need to appeal to their core and those who have drifted out to parties to the left of it.
Just remember - they know who was polled and what each person returned - so it doesn't take much to select your new population predisposed to a specific way of voting. (And remember that yougov people are more likely to be of firm political opinion rather than 'don't knows')(
If Ed Miliband stood alongside Putin, then Cameron stood alongside Abu Ali al-Anbari.
Hint: neither of those things happened.
When the F-35 comes on stream again I believe its going to be a joint force with complete interoperability between land and ship based aircraft and pilots, so ship-borne crews will be a mix of RN and RAF pilots (and vice versa).
Yesterday Lab had a shot on comfortable home turf, yet we ended talking about how they had bungled the delivery.
Today, the Tories get a home game, and seem to be driving the wedge in where it's required.
Polls will be interesting from next week when half term is over and people get back to normal.
http://goo.gl/cwYyUz
Financial year Costs (£ million)
2012-13..........431
2013-14..........486
2014-15..........595
2015-16..........695
2016-17..........608
http://www.cambridgeconsultants.com/missile-scoring-systems/surface-target-scoring
and the civil version:
http://www.aveillant.com/
The first anti-shell tests with the USN were four years ago. It's one of the annoying cases where they've known it's possible in theory for decades, but computer power is only just allowing it to be done (thanks to brainy boffinery in the maths dept. as well).
Not persuaded they would lose anything even without the Prince Charles commitment.
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/2/
The wedge on Defence is proving nicely visceral for Kippers and the Tories vs Everyone Else - and EdM is trapped in between them both
It was split off in 1918 because those two services were using aircraft purely in local support of ships and armies, and it was thought a strategic purpose for air power was needed. The RAF came into being so somebody would start thinking about how to bomb German cities the way the Germans were bombing ours.
In fact the RAF's strategic role is now better undertaken by missiles fired from ships and submarines, ditto any nuclear role. It has repeatedly been shown, from Kuantan in 1941 to San Carlos Water in 1982, that the RAF cannot protect the navy's ships at sea - for which you need embarked fleet defence fighters.
So we are back to the Navy and Army having their own integral air capability. OK, there is a potential procurement inefficiency here, but there is in either case; in the 1930s the RAF marginalised the Fleet Air Arm so it ended up with generally poor equipment, and in the 1970s we developed the Tornado and left ourselves with no naval fighter (the Harrier was not intended to be a fighter, but happens to be versatile enough to be quite a good one).
We long ago got shot of the Air Ministry and I do wonder why the Air Force still exists. Presumably nobody wants to disband the force that won the Battle of Britain?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29075307
(*) I think ships are meant to be referred to as 'her'., but that seems wrong with one called the Prince of Wales?
A vote for SNP at this election has nothing to do with independence (Well the Yes/SNP figures are highly correlated but the issue is not at stake), 2016 Holyrood is when it will feature in their manifesto.
........Why are the Tories getting so personal?"
Which just goes to show some of these stories do get through though I still don't know what the story is.
Headlines and leading every bulletin
Yesterday: "Ed Miliband and Ed Balls disagree over tax"
Today "Ed Miliband soft on Trident"
That looks a lot like the campaign the Tories are reported to be wanting to run. If that's a bad week, imagine what a good week will look like,,,
@benrileysmith: The Lib Dem battle bus has just killed a pigeon.
"I just don't like the yougov 'methodology' it seems (unsurprising really, given the owners) to be selecting a cohort with inbuilt Labour Bias and then trying to use the Labour leads to encourage people to vote for the winning team".
I think the owners are all Tories but I'm sure that like most businessmen in public companies their business comes first which involves being accurate
It seems like the hypocricy within the Labour party has spread.
We could have bought F18s or Super Etendards off the shelf.
"Decriminalise non-payment of TV License which disproportionately discriminates against women: some 69% 100,000 were fined for non-payment last year, and so women also most likely to be jailed"
http://www.ukip.org/believing_in_britain_believing_in_britain_s_women
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2920950/Victims-TV-licence-bully-boys-Women-far-likely-men-prosecuted-TV-licence-dodging-reasons-deeply-worrying.html
Perhaps Guido could doorstep some of the BBC big-wigs and get their view? :-)
And oh, those Tories, spending from the Magic Money Tree again. When will they learn.
Remember, the Westminster Parties still operate under the idea that voters are thick and un-engaged, that voters can't discriminate between elections and votes.
Working well for the SNP so far and doesn't appear to be changing.
...and still some people claim today's events are the Tories off message...
Such attacks can work, viz Michael Foot in 1983. Ed Miliband complaining about the personal nature of the attacks will not assist Labour. People will agree with him, but they might still agree with the substance of the attack on him.
That said, the Conservatives urgently need some policy substance. So far we've just had pap and Long Term Economic Plan. It isn't enough to get David Cameron back into Number 10.
How unrelated do you have to be to someone for it no longer to be dishonourable to compete against them? Would cousins be okay?
Connect it to your TV and off you go. I bought a wireless mini keyboard to make accessing the right URL easier.
A friend dropped Sky Sports as he could find what he wanted this way instead from other sources.
I bought this one. And the *bought together* keyboard. amazon.co.uk/dp/B00MSPQCZ2/ref=sr_ph?ie=UTF8&qid=1428588942&sr=1&keywords=mx
A lot like the Syria vote
There isn't enough time to wait for Tories to switch to Liberals and then get converted to Labour. They need votes from the Greens and old school CND/Lefty Liberals.
Scotland isn't more anti-Trident than England because Scots are somehow more appalled by morally bankrupt WMD. They are more anti-Trident because they've been SOLD the policy by the SNP.
I know it's an old fashioned concept - a party selling a policy as opposed to constant obfuscating and trying to reflect the current electoral opinion but hey, there you go, it let them become a 45% VI party.
It's in use all day, every day. That's the whole point.