POLITICS!!!!who did you vote for?

TackerUK · 24 Aug 2011

No one. Ive never voted in 40 years

RailUK Forums

ralphchadkirk · 24 Aug 2011

TackerUK said:
No one. Ive never voted in 40 years

Why? Surely one should not complain about what happens if they make no attempt to change it!

TackerUK · 24 Aug 2011

I never complain. Its all crap who ever gets in.

LE Greys · 24 Aug 2011

gg1 said:
This has to be one of the most ridiculous, illogical defence decisions any British government has ever made.

If we need a fixed wing carrier capability, why are we scrapping the Harrier/Invincible class combo 9 years before a replacement will be available?
If we can cope for 9 years without the above why do we need them at all?

There are good arguments both for and against maintaining a carrier force but the governments solution offer the worst of both worlds. For the next 9 years our ability to respond to overseas threats is greatly limited but we are still committed to spending billions on new ships and planes.

It's partly because we are going to commit a lot of money to maintaining and then replacing the Vanguard-class submarines so that we can have an independent nuclear deterrent. What it is supposed to be deterring in the current world escapes me. Certainly not terrorists or people who might want to annexe one of our islands, it would be a completely disproportionate response. I don't know the exact costs, but I believe that abandoning the commitment to replace the Vanguards would give us enough money to put the Prince of Wales into service complete with aircraft and escort ships. Decommissioning the current boats immediately might just have given us enough to keep the Ark Royal in service.

Nuclear forces might prevent wars, but it's conventional forces that win them.

313103 · 24 Aug 2011

strange6 said:
so please go ahead and accuse me of being racist because quite frankly, I don't give a stuff. I respect your opinion so please respect mine.
That's all I have to say in this thread.

You say at the end of your statement that this is your last say on this thread but i hope you reply to this though.

No one not even me has accused you of being racist, so why the need for the paranoid comment 'so please go ahead and accuse me of being racist because quite frankly, i don't give a stuff' ?
It is quite obvious to me that you do give a stuff, because why would you mention it in the first place?

gg1 · 25 Aug 2011

LE Greys said:
It's partly because we are going to commit a lot of money to maintaining and then replacing the Vanguard-class submarines so that we can have an independent nuclear deterrent. What it is supposed to be deterring in the current world escapes me. Certainly not terrorists or people who might want to annexe one of our islands, it would be a completely disproportionate response. I don't know the exact costs, but I believe that abandoning the commitment to replace the Vanguards would give us enough money to put the Prince of Wales into service complete with aircraft and escort ships. Decommissioning the current boats immediately might just have given us enough to keep the Ark Royal in service.

Nuclear forces might prevent wars, but it's conventional forces that win them.

Agreed, the maintaining of a nuclear deterrent is a hangover from the days we were a world superpower, those days are long gone. It's pointless anyway, as members of NATO a nuclear attack on Britain would be considered an attack on all NATO states which would be sufficient deterrent against any nation state considering launching a nuclear strike against us. The real risk of nuclear attack is from a terrorist group somehow getting hold of, and transporting into Britain a nuke, or more likely a dirty bomb. No nuclear deterrent can protect against that.

I personally favour scrapping the deterrent and spending the money on improving conventional forces.

Greenback · 25 Aug 2011

I also agree. The idea of a nuclear deterrent might have made sense during the cold war, but I really can't see the point now.

RyanB · 25 Aug 2011

I voted Lib Dem (first time voter) at the last General election - not that it really mattered all that much as my MP is Alistair Darling and the seat has been a Labour safe seat for a while now - and I intend to vote for them at the next general election; but they need to see about getting someone else in as Leader.

In the Scottish elections I voted SNP and Independent (Margo MacDonald) on the second vote.

Not had any council elections yet, but I'd probably vote either SNP or Lib Dem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

gg1 said:
Agreed, the maintaining of a nuclear deterrent is a hangover from the days we were a world superpower, those days are long gone. It's pointless anyway, as members of NATO a nuclear attack on Britain would be considered an attack on all NATO states which would be sufficient deterrent against any nation state considering launching a nuclear strike against us. The real risk of nuclear attack is from a terrorist group somehow getting hold of, and transporting into Britain a nuke, or more likely a dirty bomb. No nuclear deterrent can protect against that.

I personally favour scrapping the deterrent and spending the money on improving conventional forces.

Surely you mean the days when we pretended that we were a superpower?

Flamingo · 25 Aug 2011

RyanB said:
Surely you mean the days when we pretended that we were a superpower?

You didn't take history as a GCSE then?

LE Greys · 25 Aug 2011

RyanB said:
Surely you mean the days when we pretended that we were a superpower?

I suppose that might apply in the 1960s, when we built the V-bombers. We were the superpower for many years before that - 1898 was probably the peak, Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee - but we faded progressively from then while other nations caught up and overtook.

Greenback · 25 Aug 2011

LE Greys said:
I suppose that might apply in the 1960s, when we built the V-bombers. We were the superpower for many years before that - 1898 was probably the peak, Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee - but we faded progressively from then while other nations caught up and overtook.

I think it does apply, at least to the period post Suez and pre the 1967 decision to withdraw from everywhere 'east of Aden'.

During those eyars, we no longer had the military strength or capability to be regarded as a superpower. Withdrawal from the far east (except Hong Kong) signaleld a realisation that we no longer had a truly global role.

Schnellzug · 25 Aug 2011

ralphchadkirk said:
Why? Surely one should not complain about what happens if they make no attempt to change it!

And what happens when one does vote? Mr. Tony Blair got in last time on something like 20% or less of the vote, and then handed over to his incompetent little friend Mr. Gordon Brown. Mr. Gordon Brown having made a mess of it, Mr. David Cameron comes along and- can't even get enough votes to get in legitimately without having to cobble together a fatuous "Coalition" with someone so desperate to get his hands on the controls that he's quite happy to ditch any principles he may ever have had.
Therefore, voting makes no difference at all in "changing" anything, and in fact I've come to conclude that the old joke "don't vote- it only encourages them" is actually true, and all it does is makes them continue to believe that the system as it is is working satisfactorily, when that is not the case.

Greenback · 25 Aug 2011

It's not compulsory to vote, and fewer people are voting, but you don;t really have nay right to complain if you don;t take part in the process, whatever its faults.

350232 · 25 Aug 2011

Greenback said:
It's not compulsory to vote, and fewer people are voting, but you don;t really have nay right to complain if you don;t take part in the process, whatever its faults.

so voting really does result in change does it? until there is bona fide proof that the voting really is more meaningful than a cross on a piece of paper, then I'm quite content to sit and complain about the current government although i don't vote.

Schnellzug · 25 Aug 2011

scotsman said:
Industry needed the carriers, Rosyth needed the carriers, Govan needed the carriers. We've plenty of time to order the planes by the time they'll be read anyway!

it takes years to re-acquire the skills for carrier ops if they've been neglected for even two or three years, how are they going to find the pilots with the requisite skills to allow the Queen Elizabeth and/or Prince of Wales (isn't calling a prestigious warship Prince of Wales rather like calling a new liner Titanic, incidentally, considering what happened to the last one) to set off on her glorious inaugural cruise? Look how long it's taking China to get a blue-water carrier force up and running.

Enormously more useful and better value for Money would have been a fleet of new generation Invincibles, or WWII Escort carriers, which could operate a mixture of helicopters and/or Harriers as appropriate according to the situation, and which could be in more than one place at once, because there'd be more than one of them operational at one time.

exile · 25 Aug 2011

350232 said:
so voting really does result in change does it? until there is bona fide proof that the voting really is more meaningful than a cross on a piece of paper, then I'm quite content to sit and complain about the current government although i don't vote.

In that case you deserve to be ruled by a Hitler or a Stalin.

Schnellzug · 25 Aug 2011

exile said:
In that case you deserve to be ruled by a Hitler or Stalin.

Of whom at least one (Adolf) was legimately elected.

exile · 25 Aug 2011

Schnellzug said:
Of whom at least one (Adolf) was legimately elected.

Indeed. But he was helped by people not voting in the fond belief that their vote would make no difference and that all politicians are the same. Well, they're not.

Trog · 25 Aug 2011

Schnellzug said:
(isn't calling a prestigious warship Prince of Wales rather like calling a new liner Titanic, incidentally, considering what happened to the last one) to set off on her glorious inaugural cruise?

The one where despite still being so new they still had shipyard workers on board trying to get the turrets to work properly. They scored a couple of hits on the Bismark that forced her to call off her mission against the Atlantic convoys, and head to towards France for repair?

Sounds quite an apt name for a ship that will probabley still be under construction when we need it.

SS4 · 25 Aug 2011

exile said:
Indeed. But he was helped by people not voting in the fond belief that their vote would make no difference and that all politicians are the same. Well, they're not.

If anything it showed that even then politicians would lie to get elected. Hitler promised work and bread to the masses affected by the depression. History will tell you what they actually got.

For what it's worth Hitler was roundly defeated in the presidential election and the Nazis, although getting the most seats in Bundestag got 230 seats from 608. The only reason they got into power was because communists would never deal with nazis and vice versa.

scotsman · 25 Aug 2011

Flamingo said:
But did the country? Obviously not. Therefore they were to create a certain type of employment in a specific area. Why not just increase the benefits in those areas instead?

I could see the headlines "Higher benefits in PM constituency"

Schnellzug · 26 Aug 2011

Trog said:
The one where despite still being so new they still had shipyard workers on board trying to get the turrets to work properly. They scored a couple of hits on the Bismark that forced her to call off her mission against the Atlantic convoys, and head to towards France for repair?

Sounds quite an apt name for a ship that will probabley still be under construction when we need it.

And was then sunk by the Japanese along with the Repulse, having been sent to the Indian Ocean on a half-!!!ed venture by the governmen..... actually, maybe it is quite a suitable name.

Greenback · 26 Aug 2011

350232 said:
so voting really does result in change does it? until there is bona fide proof that the voting really is more meaningful than a cross on a piece of paper, then I'm quite content to sit and complain about the current government although i don't vote.

It doesn't if none of the parties have any policies or idea that you agree with. This is why I would support an opiton of 'None of the above' on ballot papers. We would then be more able to see how much support political parties really have.

Schnellzug said:
Enormously more useful and better value for Money would have been a fleet of new generation Invincibles, or WWII Escort carriers, which could operate a mixture of helicopters and/or Harriers as appropriate according to the situation, and which could be in more than one place at once, because there'd be more than one of them operational at one time.

Agreed.

exile · 26 Aug 2011

Greenback said:
It doesn't if none of the parties have any policies or idea that you agree with. This is why I would support an opiton of 'None of the above' on ballot papers. We would then be more able to see how much support political parties really have.

Disagree. If there is no party on offer that you like you can
(a) don't vote - but don't complain either
(b) stand for election yourself.

POLITICS!!!!who did you vote for?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member