UK - Election 2015

[The Don]

Major's bucolic imagery evokes Northern Ireland?

Dunno, never been but rural parts of Northern Ireland look pleasant on the telly.

IMO describes some parts of Wales well enough.

IMO describes some parts of Scotland well enough.

IMO is about as far away from Tower Hamlets or Wilton as it's possible to get.

 

[The Don]

Currently listening to Peter Whittle the UKIP's culture spokesman (if that's not an oxymoron) being turned inside-out attempting to defend Nigel Farage's cavalier attitude with facts and trying not to answer the question of what should go if the BBC's funding is cut by 2/3rds.

UKIP are just making stuff up on the hoof, trouble is that they're so brazen about it and they are so unabashed that some people still seem to like then because they're not like the Westminster insiders.


edited to add...

Really enjoyed Ballot Monkeys on channel 4, their portrayal of Labour, LibDems, Conservatives and especially UKIP was very funny.

 

[MikeG]

Yes, I heard the same interview. They were made to look pretty silly.

I heard some politicos on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon give quite a good account of Ukip's popularity. A good part of it, in their view, was that Ukip don't talk in code. None of the "hard-working families" (= working class), or Sturgeon's stupid "progressive" (= left-wing), or any of the other countless examples of politician-speak that so annoy people. We've had enough of practised non-speak through the over-use of jargon. Ukip use normal words in a normal way, and people seem to appreciate that, despite the nonsense of the message they contain.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The same leverage that Germany or Japan would have, economic leverage which is something that can actually be used as opposed to nuclear weapons which are (expensive) weapons of last resort,

Japan isn't going to have much of that economic leverage anymore, while Germany has been putting everything into a grand scheme that might come crashing down. Either way, bigger nations like Russia or China can ignore those nations due to the fact that their influence and clout is significantly truncated compared to Britain or France (largely due to ties with various former colonies).

And aside from The City and a Housing bubble, what economic leverage does Britain have?

 

[The Don]

And aside from The City and a Housing bubble, what economic leverage does Britain have?

It's the world's 5th (or 6th depending on source) largest economy and a major export market for both China and Russia. Economic sanctions imposed by the UK would have a significant impact on Russian or Chinese exports, moreso if the UK can retain membership and a place of influence in Europe and can persuade the EU to impose sanctions. Economically Russia is small compared to the UK and tiny compared to the EU - China is a different matter.

This is actual leverage which has been employed in the past and is being employed right now. You can argue that it's not 100% effective, after all Putin is still meddling in Ukraine but then again it's having more effect in this case than our nuclear deterrent.

How bad does a unilateral diplomatic spat have to get before the UK has to threaten to use Trident ? Are there circumstances when that could be considered and NATO treaty obligations would not be invoked ?

 

[Craig B]

And aside from The City and a Housing bubble, what economic leverage does Britain have?

So we need: a city and a housing bubble and nukes. That's why we're Great Power. Hurrah!

 

[anglolawyer]

It's the world's 5th (or 6th depending on source) largest economy and a major export market for both China and Russia. Economic sanctions imposed by the UK would have a significant impact on Russian or Chinese exports, moreso if the UK can retain membership and a place of influence in Europe and can persuade the EU to impose sanctions. Economically Russia is small compared to the UK and tiny compared to the EU - China is a different matter.

This is actual leverage which has been employed in the past and is being employed right now. You can argue that it's not 100% effective, after all Putin is still meddling in Ukraine but then again it's having more effect in this case than our nuclear deterrent.

How bad does a unilateral diplomatic spat have to get before the UK has to threaten to use Trident ? Are there circumstances when that could be considered and NATO treaty obligations would not be invoked ?

I suppose two scenarios in which having an independent deterrent might be useful would be:

1 if a rogue state got them and threatened the UK specifically, or
2 if the US threatened the UK specifically

Oh, sorry, that's just one scenario, isn't it?

 

[The Don]

I suppose two scenarios in which having an independent deterrent might be useful would be:

1 if a rogue state got them and threatened the UK specifically, or
2 if the US threatened the UK specifically

Oh, sorry, that's just one scenario, isn't it?

Even if the UK specifically is threatened then NATO would be obliged to intervene so I suppose you're right, in effect it is only an issue if the US was the country to threaten the UK.

 

[malicus]

Yes, I heard the same interview. They were made to look pretty silly.

I heard some politicos on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon give quite a good account of Ukip's popularity. A good part of it, in their view, was that Ukip don't talk in code. None of the "hard-working families" (= working class), or Sturgeon's stupid "progressive" (= left-wing), or any of the other countless examples of politician-speak that so annoy people. We've had enough of practised non-speak through the over-use of jargon. Ukip use normal words in a normal way, and people seem to appreciate that, despite the nonsense of the message they contain.

I find this a very fair comment, and very close to why I find Farage very listenable on the radio. Cannae thole the guy on the telly.

 

[anglolawyer]

Even if the UK specifically is threatened then NATO would be obliged to intervene so I suppose you're right, in effect it is only an issue if the US was the country to threaten the UK.

Still, I suppose if the UK were to announce its intention henceforth to rely on the US umbrella there might be repercussions in Washington. The Americans can't be expected to shoulder the entire burden of defending the west. I wonder what we would lose, tangibly and intangibly, if we took that course? Germany and Italy have an excuse for not doing their bit. What's ours?

 

[CapelDodger]

IMO is about as far away from Tower Hamlets or Wilton as it's possible to get.

It's exactly like the Wilton cricket ground I spent a very pleasant evening watching the office team play at. Church, pub, spreading native trees. Chaps in casual ties. Secretaries in sun-dresses. Quite idyllic. Of course that was Wilton in Wiltshire; may not be the same place.

 

[Damien Evans]

I would say they are, in the context of Britain. At all events, they're not "Scottish" stereotypes. I must stress that they are perfectly fine, but odd as images suggesting life in the UK.

Half of them would apply equally well to Australia, if you replace county grounds with state stadiums.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

It's the world's 5th (or 6th depending on source) largest economy and a major export market for both China and Russia. Economic sanctions imposed by the UK would have a significant impact on Russian or Chinese exports, moreso if the UK can retain membership and a place of influence in Europe and can persuade the EU to impose sanctions. Economically Russia is small compared to the UK and tiny compared to the EU - China is a different matter.

This is actual leverage which has been employed in the past and is being employed right now. You can argue that it's not 100% effective, after all Putin is still meddling in Ukraine but then again it's having more effect in this case than our nuclear deterrent.

How bad does a unilateral diplomatic spat have to get before the UK has to threaten to use Trident ? Are there circumstances when that could be considered and NATO treaty obligations would not be invoked ?

A lot of Britain's overseas prestige would go down the toilet if it has to rely on the US nuclear umbrella instead of using its own nuclear deterrent. When it comes to things like Ukraine or the South China Seas, that would reduce Britain's clout, because it would no longer be seen as an independent actor, and reliant on either America or France to back up its claims.

 

[Information Analyst]

Examples are not obvious. Hong Kong? Not really.

You think the UK should have refused to hand back the New Territories when the lease ran out?

The Falklands certainly not.

Argentina thought that the UK was no longer interested in defending the Falklands, or retaking them. Wrong on both counts, but nuclear weapons weren't part of the equation.

Suez terminally not.

That's more than a little simplistic.

 

[The Don]

It's exactly like the Wilton cricket ground I spent a very pleasant evening watching the office team play at. Church, pub, spreading native trees. Chaps in casual ties. Secretaries in sun-dresses. Quite idyllic. Of course that was Wilton in Wiltshire; may not be the same place.

Yes, different place Wilton, Teeside

 

[The Don]

A lot of Britain's overseas prestige would go down the toilet if it has to rely on the US nuclear umbrella instead of using its own nuclear deterrent.

That's your claim, do you have any evidence to support it ? Is Germany taken less seriously internationally than France because Germany lacks an independent nuclear deterrent ? Seems to me that the opposite is true, Germany is effective at flexing its economic muscles on the international stage.

When it comes to things like Ukraine or the South China Seas, that would reduce Britain's clout, because it would no longer be seen as an independent actor, and reliant on either America or France to back up its claims.

Britain is hardly an independent actor in most cases, especially when it involves interaction with a nuclear power.

 

[The Don]

Still, I suppose if the UK were to announce its intention henceforth to rely on the US umbrella there might be repercussions in Washington. The Americans can't be expected to shoulder the entire burden of defending the west. I wonder what we would lose, tangibly and intangibly, if we took that course? Germany and Italy have an excuse for not doing their bit. What's ours?

Not wanting to waste £100bn on a boondoggle.

If even a fraction of that amount was instead invested in conventional forces then the U.S. could receive more support from the U.K rather than less in "defending the West". In the event that nuclear weapons are required, the UK's 4 subs are neither here nor there.

 

[JoeB]

Still, I suppose if the UK were to announce its intention henceforth to rely on the US umbrella there might be repercussions in Washington. The Americans can't be expected to shoulder the entire burden of defending the west. I wonder what we would lose, tangibly and intangibly, if we took that course? Germany and Italy have an excuse for not doing their bit. What's ours?

Would it be a big deal to the US? 4 SSBNs is nothing to sneeze at but the US has 14 and maintains nuclear bomber and land based nuclear ICBMs as well. The US even converted 4 SSBNs to SSGNs carrying a ton of conventional tomahawk missiles rather than trident nuclear missiles.

 

[Information Analyst]

Not wanting to waste £100bn on a boondoggle.

If even a fraction of that amount was instead invested in conventional forces then the U.S. could receive more support from the U.K rather than less in "defending the West". In the event that nuclear weapons are required, the UK's 4 subs are neither here nor there.

Well, whatever replaces Trident is going to be paid for out of the defence budget. This undermines all the "x nurse/hospitals" arguments being put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby. Money not spent on ballistic submarines will be spent on convential submarines, other warships, aircraft, AFVs, etc.

 

[CapelDodger]

You think the UK should have refused to hand back the New Territories when the lease ran out?

Do you really think I might think that?

Argentina thought that the UK was no longer interested in defending the Falklands, or retaking them. Wrong on both counts, but nuclear weapons weren't part of the equation.

Indeed. That was my point.

That's more than a little simplistic.

That's quite a lot vacuous.

These were all issues in which the putative influence of an independent nuclear deterrent would be expected to manifest, but there's no evidence of it.