Stutopia Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 I'd rather spend money on Trident than the NHS and education. I mean, not one at the expense of the other completely because that's daft, we're just unfortunate that the Trident needs replacing now rather than a few years in the future. Tax breaks are only useful if they bring in more money than actual taxes. I have no idea on the exact figures right now, but I do know that raising CT would be a death blow to SMEs right now, so I'm against that in principle. I'm with you on the two things not being mutually exclusive, but I don't see how maintaining the current CT rate at 20% isn't feasible. The only military people I know think that money would be better spent if we spent half of this upcoming bill on troops and equipment. That will get used. Let's face it the nuclear deterant has no effect, if a sane person has got their finger on the trigger they won't start a nuclear war and if an insane person does, then it makes no difference threatening them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 I'm afraid it's true - there really isn't a magic money tree But that's exactly where the billion pounds came from that they paid the DUP. We didn't have it, but the we did. That's magic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share Posted June 27, 2017 Let's face it the nuclear deterant has no effect, if a sane person has got their finger on the trigger they won't start a nuclear war and if an insane person does, then it makes no difference threatening them! Perhaps, but I'd rather have it and not use it etc. The world changes so quickly, we couldn't imagine having not had the nuclear deterrent thirty years ago, and we may well be very grateful to have it in thirty years time. Or it may turn out to be a waste of money completely as the New World Order under The Almighty Corbyn has us all living in communes in a field, sharing our cattle with the state. If it is a waste then I'm sure we can just flog it to the Saudis as usual 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 I must admit Stu I find it particularly ironic that a staunch Labour supporter would be prepared to voice any opinion on defense when Labour led us into an illegal war and the associated costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Let's face it the nuclear deterant has no effect, if a sane person has got their finger on the trigger they won't start a nuclear war and if an insane person does, then it makes no difference threatening them! The nuclear deterrent is why the world is stable (and why the big 8 run it). For the time being. It is 'everything' when it comes to defense, it is the bottom line and the balance that keeps us safe. Saying it doesn't work is to invalidate the only 'good politics' going on behind closed doors, where no sensationalism exists, only level headed strategy to maintain a balance where nobody feels powerless or usurped. It's the single most important mechanism in the world right now, without it, we would see the end of civilisation in short order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Stu, I'm not suggesting that my ideal government wouldn't spend any money at all. I don't like what's happened with regards to the DUP deal, but it was the best that could be done with the situation and is onle a one-off payment. Aashenfox, I tried to explain that before to no avail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 I'm afraid it's true - there really isn't a magic money tree But that's exactly where the billion pounds came from that they paid the DUP. We didn't have it, but the we did. That's magic. What do you mean, it's from the Magic Money Tree! Oh, wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Just because Stu is labour, doesn't mean he agrees 100% on everything they stand for. He may have been one of the millions that despaired when we went to the middle east. Like all of us, he'll have parts of the policies he loves, and parts he's not sure of. Like Dan with Tory, he doesn't think everything the party is doing is right. None of us want war, and none us, really, want to live in a world where nuclear deterrent is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 I agree, but you cant claim a moral high ground for Labour on the subject of defense budgets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Yeah but policies change through the years. How any people wont vote Tory barbecue the mines shut, or will because they were able to purchase their council house? Or just despised Maggy Thatcher. My in laws will never vote Tory because the 80s were hard for them I had many a debate with a red friend on FB and his entire argument was: Yeah but that was old labour . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Not the point i am making, you cant get on a moral high ground about defence budgets unless of course you changed your vote because of Iraq, i will take a guess Stu hasnt voted anything but Labour all his voting life, if he did, i humbly apologise, if he didnt, he obviously didnt feel that strongly about the defense spending so cant make issue of it now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share Posted June 27, 2017 412/659 MPs voted for the invasion, on all sides (LD and SNP excluded). It was the right thing to do based on the info we had, and even know we know that the WMD 45min claim was baloney it was still the right thing to do to remove Saddam from power. Ultimately it was the lack of planning to leave a stable government that made the whole war a mess, not the belief of doing the right thing. Even if Stu has only voted Labour, it doesn't mean he was for the war. You can happily believe either way that the war was right or wrong, and still have an opinion on the continued use of Trident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Even if Stu has only voted Labour, it doesn't mean he was for the war. You can happily believe either way that the war was right or wrong, and still have an opinion on the continued use of Trident. As i say i agree, opinion on its merits are one thing, the cost to the state is a separate issue imho 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share Posted June 27, 2017 Ah, with you now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Imagine thinking that if your current party of choice has historically made a policy decision you don't agree with, you can never agree with any of their future policies. There'd be no one left to vote for, whichever way you swing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Meanwhile, it appears £3.5 bil spent on HMSQE wasn’t enough to get a more modern OS https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/27/hms-queen-elizabeth-royal-navy-vulnerable-cyber-attack Wonder if Trident is still on Windows 95... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share Posted June 27, 2017 Win95? Don't be silly. Probably 3.1 still... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Meanwhile, it appears £3.5 bil spent on HMSQE wasn’t enough to get a more modern OS https://www.theguard...le-cyber-attack Wonder if Trident is still on Windows 95... Googled it and Trident runs on Windows XP, same as The NHS . Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Meanwhile, it appears £3.5 bil spent on HMSQE wasn’t enough to get a more modern OS https://www.theguard...le-cyber-attack Wonder if Trident is still on Windows 95... Googled it and Trident runs on Windows XP, same as The NHS . Pete Prone to hacking then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 They could at least use a pirate copy of Windows 10 if they can't afford the license... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share Posted June 27, 2017 Get it from the Somalians, I hear they're good at piracy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 I can't understand why we don't our own OS at government infrastructure level. The savings in licence fees alone would pay for the nerds to do the coding, it would be much harder to hack and we'd actually be creating some work in the UK instead of Redmond. Having said that, during my last contract in government they were going mad for open source, so expect Linux on Raspberry Pis to be running everything by 2040! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Its the same at RR, they hire outside companies to come and write programmes, it costs mega bucks, doesn't work and get problem solved by employees who can write code. Why they don't cut out the middle man and pay the people internally I'll never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveBoy Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 They all do it, the US Airforce want to start making the F22 again, however as it runs on "mid to late1990's" software and even hardware, they're struggling to even repair the ones they have. Scarily backwards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 I must admit Stu I find it particularly ironic that a staunch Labour supporter would be prepared to voice any opinion on defense when Labour led us into an illegal war and the associated costs. I think Stu has already replied but this is one of my biggest issues in politics today, calling up history from 10, 20, even 50 years ago to try and justify a point today. The fact is that even 10 years ago the world was a different place with different people in it (the second Iraq war was now 15 years ago) so its no more valid than comparing a 2003 BMW with a current one and people were referencing Churchill in the Brexit argument No one party or person can ever be held 100% accountable for anything thats happened in the past, this is why we have a parliament (and a second house) in the first place. While the Tory "investment" in NI can be seen as a bung, Id take 100 of those over Labours continual pandering to the unions in the 80's just to maintain support, its hardly a new concept. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.