WiganWarriorsFans.com

Wintergreen wrote:

DaveO wrote:

Whelley Warrior wrote:
And as much as people are not happy about the cost of Trident, they will welcome the decision to keep it as a deterrent, especially in view of the world situation today and the threat of the 'Islamic State' trying to take over the world.

What possible use is Trident with respect to the threat of the 'Islamic State'? You do realise it doesn't actually exist as a state and Trident is no use whatsoever in combating terrorists?

Should we have fired one at at that truck in Nice to aid our French allies?

As to the electorate's view of it as a deterrent we saw with Brexit around 17m will believe any old pack of lies so I am not sure what makes them qualified to judge something as complex as our defence policy.

I will leave that not to Corbyn and Labour but to a certain Mr Blunt. Tory MP.

He said Trident comes at the expense of the rest of our defensive capability and he is spot on in my view.

Jobs could be created in the very same shipyards building maritime patrol vessels we actually need! Or completing the order for Navy Destroyers that was pared down to the minimum instead.

Also remember it was the Tories leading the coalition who scrapped and had destroyed the Nimrod replacements which were actually sat on the production line leaving us with no similarly capable maritime patrol aircraft because we supposedly could not afford it. Yet we have £40bn of loose change available for a useless weapon.

We are not properly capable of protecting our own coastline against conventional threats (including illegal immigrants which should be of interest to you) and yet pump billions into a missile system that will never be fired.

That money could, IMO, be far better spent on conventional weapons and not making servicemen and servicewomen redundant.

If we must have a nuclear deterrent, look for cheaper alternatives such as aircraft delivered weapons. At least then you could potentially target one area whereas with Trident and its multiple warheads it's wipe out a country or don't bother to fire it.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Whether we invest more in our armed forces could easily be solved by cutting benefits, raising taxes, cutting funding to the NHS etc etc

cpwigan wrote:

150,000' register to vote in Labour leadership

More loony leftys or genuine? Tad worrying. I hope the Labour Party has not been hijacked. Why will they not FO and form Momrntum with Jeremy!

cpwigan wrote:

150,000' register to vote in Labour leadership

More loony leftys or genuine? Tad worrying. I hope the Labour Party has not been hijacked. Why will they not FO and form Momrntum with Jeremy!

Wintergreen wrote:

DaveO wrote:

Whelley Warrior wrote:
And as much as people are not happy about the cost of Trident, they will welcome the decision to keep it as a deterrent, especially in view of the world situation today and the threat of the 'Islamic State' trying to take over the world.

What possible use is Trident with respect to the threat of the 'Islamic State'? You do realise it doesn't actually exist as a state and Trident is no use whatsoever in combating terrorists?

Should we have fired one at at that truck in Nice to aid our French allies?

As to the electorate's view of it as a deterrent we saw with Brexit around 17m will believe any old pack of lies so I am not sure what makes them qualified to judge something as complex as our defence policy.

I will leave that not to Corbyn and Labour but to a certain Mr Blunt. Tory MP.

He said Trident comes at the expense of the rest of our defensive capability and he is spot on in my view.

Jobs could be created in the very same shipyards building maritime patrol vessels we actually need! Or completing the order for Navy Destroyers that was pared down to the minimum instead.

Also remember it was the Tories leading the coalition who scrapped and had destroyed the Nimrod replacements which were actually sat on the production line leaving us with no similarly capable maritime patrol aircraft because we supposedly could not afford it. Yet we have £40bn of loose change available for a useless weapon.

We are not properly capable of protecting our own coastline against conventional threats (including illegal immigrants which should be of interest to you) and yet pump billions into a missile system that will never be fired.

That money could, IMO, be far better spent on conventional weapons and not making servicemen and servicewomen redundant.

If we must have a nuclear deterrent, look for cheaper alternatives such as aircraft delivered weapons. At least then you could potentially target one area whereas with Trident and its multiple warheads it's wipe out a country or don't bother to fire it.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Whether we invest more in our armed forces could easily be solved by cutting benefits, raising taxes, cutting funding to the NHS etc etc

Wintergreen wrote:As a Conservative supporter it is both interesting and sad.

Interesting to see that we might be seeing the Labour party evolve from a Socialist party (which imo should be consigned to the past), to a Centre-Left Social Democratic party.

The interesting thing is that May is also bringing the Tory party to the Centre.

Maybe the penny has finally dropped that this is the way to retain power in the UK?

I feel sad as, imo, a government needs strong opposition and at the moment there is none.

fozzieskem wrote:Completely agree with Wintergreen there hasn't been any opposition in the commons since labour lost power,shallow and flapping is too kind they are simply inept,it's pathetic.

Left wing politics is dead and will never come back,not in my lifetime at least,the Torres continue to lurch further to the right I'm not sure about May yet she's an average career politician to me who did little of note but now captains the ship.

Corbyn is utterly ridiculous,his lust for power will split the party in two,in my view labour are not the opposition the SNP are that's how bad things are for labour.

So much for a new kind of politics.

cpwigan wrote:

Wintergreen wrote:As a Conservative supporter it is both interesting and sad.

Interesting to see that we might be seeing the Labour party evolve from a Socialist party (which imo should be consigned to the past), to a Centre-Left Social Democratic party.

The interesting thing is that May is also bringing the Tory party to the Centre.

Maybe the penny has finally dropped that this is the way to retain power in the UK?

I feel sad as, imo, a government needs strong opposition and at the moment there is none.

I agree with re the opposition BUt ignoring them, all things being equal; why are you a Conservative?

cpwigan wrote:

Wintergreen wrote:

DaveO wrote: What possible use is Trident with respect to the threat of the 'Islamic State'? You do realise it doesn't actually exist as a state and Trident is no use whatsoever in combating terrorists?

Should we have fired one at at that truck in Nice to aid our French allies?

As to the electorate's view of it as a deterrent we saw with Brexit around 17m will believe any old pack of lies so I am not sure what makes them qualified to judge something as complex as our defence policy.

I will leave that not to Corbyn and Labour but to a certain Mr Blunt. Tory MP.

He said Trident comes at the expense of the rest of our defensive capability and he is spot on in my view.

Jobs could be created in the very same shipyards building maritime patrol vessels we actually need! Or completing the order for Navy Destroyers that was pared down to the minimum instead.

Also remember it was the Tories leading the coalition who scrapped and had destroyed the Nimrod replacements which were actually sat on the production line leaving us with no similarly capable maritime patrol aircraft because we supposedly could not afford it. Yet we have £40bn of loose change available for a useless weapon.

We are not properly capable of protecting our own coastline against conventional threats (including illegal immigrants which should be of interest to you) and yet pump billions into a missile system that will never be fired.

That money could, IMO, be far better spent on conventional weapons and not making servicemen and servicewomen redundant.

If we must have a nuclear deterrent, look for cheaper alternatives such as aircraft delivered weapons. At least then you could potentially target one area whereas with Trident and its multiple warheads it's wipe out a country or don't bother to fire it.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Whether we invest more in our armed forces could easily be solved by cutting benefits, raising taxes, cutting funding to the NHS etc etc

Dang WG - cutting benefits? Few missiles for that, raising taxes, nothing against that BUT how? politicians use it as a vote grabber. I have yet to see ANYBODY do it effectively.
Privatise the NHS? Saves a big chunk of moey but is that the country you truly want? Personally, the NHS was one of the greatest political act in history.