UK Leaders debate - April 2nd 2015

MakeEmLaugh

As someone who has lived in the UK, and knows many people from there, I take an interest in their upcoming general election (the fact that there is so much trade between our two countries is another reason).

Did anyone watch the leaders debate on UTV this week?

One thing I do love about the British, they are reserved. I counted maybe three spontaneous rounds of applause throughout a debate which lasted over two hours.

If this had taken place in America, the cameraman's teeth would have vibrated loose from all the clapping.

MOD: Moved from Politics Cafe to Politics. Please note that posts are under the Politics charter, not Cafe.

Black Swan

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

One thing I do love about the British, they are reserved. I counted maybe three spontaneous rounds of applause throughout a debate which lasted over two hours.

If this had taken place in America, the cameraman's teeth would have vibrated loose from all the clapping.

In addition to clapping for a position they favour, they may also stand while clapping to add emphasis. During the last State of the Union address before Congress by (Democrat) President Obama, the Democrats got a real workout clapping and standing repeatedly, while the Republicans not so much so. What a craic! :pac:

El_Duderino 09

What was your take on the debate OP?

I can't get over how bland the campaigns are. It's mostly negative stuff about how the other guy will make a balls of the NHS or give away too much in benefits. Very little on what they would do differently if they themselves would do differently if they win.

MakeEmLaugh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What was your take on the debate OP?

I can't get over how bland the campaigns are. It's mostly negative stuff about how the other guy will make a balls of the NHS or give away too much in benefits. Very little on what they would do differently if they themselves would do differently if they win.

I thought Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood and Natalie Bennett all came across better than the others did.

I still think Miliband is a weak-seeming leader, though my politics generally are probably closest to Labour.

I found it odd that Clegg kept distancing himself from Cameron, considering he'd been in business with him for the past five years. I'll be surprised if, just like every junior coalition partner in Ireland, the Lib Dems aren't torn to shreds in the next election.

Farage came across rather negatively. I think he's been quite skilled at explaining UKIP's position without seeming too xenophobic (at least compared to some of the nutters in his party). However, tonight, he lost it a bit.

I think the British public's opinion with immigration - strong though it may be - will not make or break this election. But I could be wrong on that.

El_Duderino 09

I have it recorded so I'll watch it later. I'm always confused by Ed Miliband. He looks like a weak person but that's just his face. There's not much he can do about that. His brother is more handsome and looks more like a leader but Ed shafted David in the battle for leadership of the labour party so I don't worry about his ability to fight.

It's a strange quirk of human nature to put so much stock in appearance. We all know phrenology is nonsense and still we use physical characteristics to judge how well he could run the country.

My constituency is hard labour so it doesn't matter how I vote but I'm still undecided on who I'd like to see win overall.

It's fair enough for Clegg to distance himself from Cameron. The people who are likely to consider voting lib dem are unlikely to be impressed by anything Cameron has to say. Clegg needs to appear to be left of labour rather close to Cameron

I'm delighted you think farage came across poorly. I'm always sickened by how personable he appears in full interviews.

man98

I caught about 40 minutes of it, in which the smaller parties came across well. Cameron talked the talk, but it was all very exaggerated it seemed, negatively over all. Milliband came across relatively well and Clegg didn't get much in IMO (the presenter had to shush everyone so he could talk at one stage), so I didn't get much of s grasp on him. I think Playd Cymru came off the best as far as I saw, even if they're lacking in policies.

El_Duderino 09

man98 wrote: »

I caught about 40 minutes of it, in which the smaller parties came across well. Cameron talked the talk, but it was all very exaggerated it seemed, negatively over all. Milliband came across relatively well and Clegg didn't get much in IMO (the presenter had to shush everyone so he could talk at one stage), so I didn't get much of s grasp on him. I think Playd Cymru came off the best as far as I saw, even if they're lacking in policies.

It's too easy to look good if you have no policies and no record in government to defend. You're free from the constrains of reality and can say whatever your potential Base are thinking. UKIP have that advantage similar to sinn fein

Sacksian

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

One thing I do love about the British, they are reserved. I counted maybe three spontaneous rounds of applause throughout a debate which lasted over two hours.

If this had taken place in America, the cameraman's teeth would have vibrated loose from all the clapping.

According to the Guardian preview of the debate yesterday, they had seen a briefing document that stipulated applause was only allowed at the beginning and end, which makes sense given the audience's passiveness!

I'm pretty sure the first time the audience clapped was a spontaneous reaction to Leanne Wood's response to Farage's "health tourism/aids" comment. After that, there were a few more small outbreaks of scattered applause.

I would be closest to Labour in terms of politics and I've actually been pleasantly surprised by Ed Milliband both this week and last. Apart from the weird staring down the camera 30 seconds into every response, which was overdone, he performed well.

Politically, it was probably a bit weird for a Labour leader to be on a national platform getting criticism from the left (SNP and Plaid Cymru) but I thought he handled it ok and was better than Cameron.

I was very impressed with Nicola Sturgeon, and the worry for Labour should be having to accommodate the SNP in a coalition because SNP only have to worry about Scottish priorities and they could have enough seats to have some real leverage over any coalition partners and that will obviously play very badly in England.

The Green Party will benefit from just being there with the other leaders. I suspect that Bennett will have to be replaced for them to make the most of the opportunities they have at the moment, a good leader could see them hoover a lot of passive Labour support and those that might have defected to Libdems in the past. There's an opportunity for them now, and they might already have enough momentum/goodwill to survive a bad election, with a new leader to step in.

The Clegg/Cameron interactions were very weird, especially when Clegg was criticising tory policy and David Cameron more or less called him out on being at the cabinet table when those policy decisions were made!

Honestly, I don't think Farage has harmed himself at all despite airing some really extreme views - the polls conducted after the debate showed that many thought he had performed well and, as mad as it seems, it could turn out that UKIP'll get more votes by moving further right of the Tories than trying to eke out another slice of the centre for themselves. Imagine a Con/UKIP coalition!

With all the different factors at play, it is shaping up to be the most interesting UK election I can remember.

JacquesDeLad

Foreign aid budget and EU contributions seem to be UKIPs only funding source, but no one calls them on it.

Spin doctors are probably telling candidates not to give them credibility by engaging but they're gaining real ground regardless.

As a significant opposition block they could make even more gains and be even better equipped to fend off criticism as alarmism from the establishment.

Black Swan

MOD: Moved from Politics Cafe to Politics. Please note that posts from now on are under the Politics charter, not Cafe.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sturgeon was very good and the dirty tricks campaign will be in full swing to discredit the SNP (look at the Telegraph story which is being repeated by all and sundry as fact and Question Time over the last month).

Wood was good, Bennett was OKish

Clegg was his turncoat self and Farage was cringeworthy in his effort to appear all blokey

Cameron done well and the format suited him. Milliband (& Labour) have a big decision to make - continue to go after the soft Tory vote or side with the majority

Just had Labour at the door asking me to vote for them, told them to Get to Falkirk

El_Duderino 09

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Sturgeon was very good and the dirty tricks campaign will be in full swing to discredit the SNP (look at the Telegraph story which is being repeated by all and sundry as fact and Question Time over the last month).

Wood was good, Bennett was OKish

Clegg was his turncoat self and Farage was cringeworthy in his effort to appear all blokey

Cameron done well and the format suited him. Milliband (& Labour) have a big decision to make - continue to go after the soft Tory vote or side with the majority

Just had Labour at the door asking me to vote for them, told them to Get to Falkirk

I see ed Milliband on TV this morning talking about a deal between SNP and the Torys. Vote SNP, get Cameron.

It's funny but I'm really most worried about who form's the next government as long as UKIP don't do well. Worst case scenario would be UKIP doing better than expected and being alienated. That could leave them in a great position to rally the disgruntled voter for the EU referendum.

Labour, Tory, lib dem, SNP, it's all shuffling the deck chairs on a fairly sturdy ship which is heading in, more or less, the right direction.

porsche959

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Sturgeon was very good and the dirty tricks campaign will be in full swing to discredit the SNP (look at the Telegraph story which is being repeated by all and sundry as fact and Question Time over the last month).

This former ambassador claims security services are behind the Telegraph story:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/04/uk-intelligence-services-attack-snp/

A Dub in Glasgo

Looks like it, what a load of nonsense this story is

johnnyskeleton

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Clegg was his turncoat self

As someone who doesn't follow UK politics all that much, can you tell me what Clegg has been doing to sink so low in the polls?

My gut instinct is that it is the same thing that Labour face in Ireland - a vaguely left wing middle class party goes into power with a larger vaguely right wing middle class party and so get all the blame for every unpopular decision (whether left leaning or right) and none of the credit for popular decisions (likewise).

So is it the case that when the Tory/Lib Dem government cuts benefits, the Lib Dems are to blame for not standing up and the Tories don't get blamed because, well, that's what you expect them to do? But when the UK economy recovers, that is because of the Tories at the helm and has nothing to do with the Lib Dems? Etc etc

A Dub in Glasgo

For me, it was this

El_Duderino 09

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

For me, it was this

Funny enough I was listening to the 'week in Westminster' thus week and they commended the current government for introducing fees and reforming the university system. They gave Clegg huge credit for not standing in the way of necessary reforms.

I wouldn't be inclined to agree with making education more expensive but if it'd necessary to ensure the long team future of the education system, then you have to consider it. There is am established system of student loans in the UK.

I don't like it but that's how it is. They pay a lot more for it and get a lot more choice. Met loads of Irish in uni here. The occupational therapy and physiotherapy courses were full of Irish because we don't have the courses at home.

El_Duderino 09

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As someone who doesn't follow UK politics all that much, can you tell me what Clegg has been doing to sink so low in the polls?

My gut instinct is that it is the same thing that Labour face in Ireland - a vaguely left wing middle class party goes into power with a larger vaguely right wing middle class party and so get all the blame for every unpopular decision (whether left leaning or right) and none of the credit for popular decisions (likewise).

So is it the case that when the Tory/Lib Dem government cuts benefits, the Lib Dems are to blame for not standing up and the Tories don't get blamed because, well, that's what you expect them to do? But when the UK economy recovers, that is because of the Tories at the helm and has nothing to do with the Lib Dems? Etc etc

That's almost exactly what happens. The greens, PDs, labour, all got the same treatment. It's not just what happens in Ireland or the UK. It's a phenomenon of going into coalition as a small partner. Does anyone really think end Kenny would volunteer to have a gay marriage referendum without the influence of labour?

So the major party is always sharing credit for labour initiatives and letting labour take the blame for unpopular decisions.

It's the price you pay for getting a chance to be in power. You will get 10%of your manifesto through and in exchange you have to sign off on whatever the main party wants. It's that or spend another term in opposition getting nothing through but not getting blamed for anything either.

I voted green last time because I hate the culture of whinging about the establishment parties and then wiping out any other party that actually has the guts to go into government

gallag

Iv never understood the problem with student loans/uni fee's, seems a good fair system and you only pay the fee back when you start earning a good wage and if you don't earn a wage above the threshold it gets scrapped. Why should the tesco shelf stacker pay for a potential barristers education? The only think I would hope is that student loans are available to all at a low intrest rate.

El_Duderino 09

gallag wrote: »

Iv never understood the problem with student loans/uni fee's, seems a good fair system and you only pay the fee back when you start earning a good wage and if you don't earn a wage above the threshold it gets scrapped. Why should the tesco shelf stacker pay for a potential barristers education? The only think I would hope is that student loans are available to all at a low intrest rate.

There is a fair argument for student loans alright and you're rightly pointing to it. You need to make sure that you don't limit poorer people's ability to go to uni + ensure the long term future of the university system.

It's in the shelf stackers interest to have university educated people around them in life in general so I don't mind him having to pay some tax towards universities. It's fair if those who benefit personally by attending university, to pay more.

Jaysus I think I'm changing my mind as I write this post. Fees and loans are probably the best way to achieve all the goals

A Dub in Glasgo

My beef is that Clegg & the Lib Dems wooed the young vote quite blatantly at the last election and then turned their back on them once they got a sniff of power

The argument above about the Tesco shelf stacker paying for free tuition fees does not make sense as the shelf stacker is most likely on minimum wage and pays very little tax due to the way the tax system works

El_Duderino 09

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

My beef is that Clegg & the Lib Dems wooed the young vote quite blatantly at the last election and then turned their back on them once they got a sniff of power

The argument above about the Tesco shelf stacker paying for free tuition fees does not make sense as the shelf stacker is most likely on minimum wage and pays very little tax due to the way the tax system works

You're not wrong about the Lib Dems but I wonder if they got as many of their policies through as they could have. Given that they are the junior partner. Does anyone remember Cameron campaigning on a green agenda before the last election. I had completely forgotten about that until I was reminded of it this week.

I think this is the first coalition government to last the full term. Both sides comprised and one of the results was stable government. That's not bad

Kiwi_knock

The issue with Clegg is that he is denying he had any role in some of the more difficult decisions made over the past 5 years. He says he was side-lined by Cameron, and that he wouldn't have made the same decisions. You could see at the debate, he was trying his hardest to distance himself from Cameron. His first attack was on Cameron, and tried to downplay his role in making decisions. It is a weird tactic, saying you have no influence over government decisions. I would have more respect if he said that difficult decisions had to be made in the best interests of the country and that is why he and the Lib Dems took the path they did. Trying to sweep away your past 5 years doesn't work against a smart electorate.

OBaoghil.7

gallag wrote: »

Iv never understood the problem with student loans/uni fee's, seems a good fair system and you only pay the fee back when you start earning a good wage and if you don't earn a wage above the threshold it gets scrapped. Why should the tesco shelf stacker pay for a potential barristers education? The only think I would hope is that student loans are available to all at a low intrest rate.

I am not aware it gets scrapped! My son pays for his student loan and he started paying once he started earning sufficiently as you correctly state but I am unaware that it would be written off. Being suspended is not written off. I appreciate that if someone never earns sufficiently to pay it, they wont pay it.
What is more annoying for the English voters is how Scotland has managed through devolution and its own Parliament, free University tuition. If an English person chooses to study in Scotland they have to pay but the "Scots" person doesn't.

PopePalpatine

To Clegg's credit IMO, at least he managed to block Cameron's "snooper's charter".

RDM_83 again

PopePalpatine wrote: »

To Clegg's credit IMO, at least he managed to block Cameron's "snooper's charter".

They have had a few successes but to my mind the thing about the Lib Dems is that they are a party with a wing very much to the economic right (which makes sense considering their history and ethos), they marketed themselves as "not labour" to the left in the last election though.

The general point about minor coalition partners ending up being punished glosses over the fact that some parties achieve a lot more with less representatives, compare the influence of the greens and the pd's both were decimated by their spells in government but the pd's wielded far more power. The Lib Dems should have had a lot more power in government than they did, they had a high-ish number of seats and could have done much more.
My view is that it suited the right wing of the party to let the conservatives take the lead though

BoJack Horseman

Knives continue to be out for Nicola Sturgeon.

Today the combined mass of the UK media is hammering her over the trident replacement.

Its a little unfair..... She is a pragmatist.
If the SNP was in a coalition with Labour & they were given enough pork, I doubt she would care little about holding up the development of new submarines.

Lemming

TBH, I don't know Bojack; the removal of Trident has been one of the SNP's long-standing manifesto goals. And the very fact that she's stood up and said Trident is a "red line" recently very much says to me that she would try if she found the SNP in a position to kybosh the deterrent.

BoJack Horseman

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, I don't know Bojack; the removal of Trident has been one of the SNP's long-standing manifesto goals. And the very fact that she's stood up and said Trident is a "red line" recently very much says to me that she would try if she found the SNP in a position to kybosh the deterrent.

Perhaps.

Perhaps its wishful thinking on my part.
Surely no one is so parochial as to scupper the UK's best line of defence for no other reason than being a contrarian to 'them in london'.

That's why I think, seeing as everyone has their price, throw enough pork at Nicola & she'll see sense.

Lemming

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Perhaps.

Perhaps its wishful thinking on my part.
Surely no one is so parochial as to scupper the UK's best line of defence for no other reason than being a contrarian to 'them in london'.

That's why I think, seeing as everyone has their price, throw enough pork at Nicola & she'll see sense.

I'd like to think she'll see sense when push comes to shove, but two things spring to mind: 1) the SNP will be punished heavily by its grass-roots if she backed down over Trident and agreed to its renewal, and 2) Salmond is never far behind. The two of them (Salmond & Sturgeon) have been thick as thieves for a long time, and I would not bat an eyelid to see the SNP engage in such insane parochial politics. I have zero faith in Salmond NOT to do some sort of "whatever the rest of the UK's position; ours is the opposite. Just because.", and I have little faith in Sturgeon as she has not shown herself to be anything other than Salmond mk.II thus far.

A Dub in Glasgo

Damn right Trident should be scrapped, the UK government cannot even fund their armed forces and yet they want to waste all that money just to look big in the world.

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Damn right Trident should be scrapped, the UK government cannot even fund their armed forces and yet they want to waste all that money just to look big in the world.

What would be the savings in scrapping the 4 Vanguard submarines vs continued usage?

"Scrapping" is a pricey thing to do.

The UK & Norwegian government shared the cost of decommissioning a "November class" submarine for the Russians after the fall of the Soviet Union..... This cost was £stg 3.2 billion.

The US has to set aside $1billion+ to cover costs for decommissioning their vessels when they age out.

A single Vanguard costs about £300m per year to run.

Its seems foolish to scrap forever the UK's best form of national defence to essentially save very little really just to placate the cotrarian-for-the-sake-of-it (and irrational) whimsy of the SNP.

If you say the UK can't fund its armed forces, that's true, but its because it chooses not to & because of its procurement attachment with BAE.

A Dub in Glasgo

WoMD are from the medieval times, it is also a luxury the UK clearly cannot afford. The Tories are cutting most people to the bone and have these fanciful WoMD to try and demonstrate that they are important in the world. If this was in Africa, people would be condemning the regime for concentrating on their fancy toys over providing for their people.

The Tories are choosing to cut their armed forces and spend the tons of cash on toys that cannot be used. If that was a business, it would be bankrupt

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Tories are choosing to cut their armed forces and spend the tons of cash on toys that cannot be used.

MAD prevents their use & that's the whole point!

As for the other toys, what do you think won't be used?

Type-26, Asutet class, F35, QE2 carriers, all will be used...

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

MAD prevents their use & that's the whole point!

So you support every other country having this MAD?

As for the other toys, what do you think won't be used?

Type-26, Asutet class, F35, QE2 carriers, all will be used...

I did not include any of these but please outline when & how these will be used

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So you support every other country having this MAD?

Until no one has any, I'd have no issue with the UK having a nuclear deterrent (where I British).

A submarine is the best way to do the job.

I did not include any of these but please outline when & how these will be used

If you need examples of when how a fighter plane, an aircraft carrier, a heavy frigate & a cruise missile submarine could be used, then you either lack all imagination or have just woken up & havent heard yet about every armed conflict for the past 6 decades!

But for the hard of memory below is the order of battle for a combined arms engagement by her majesty's forces.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Telic_order_of_battle

spend the tons of cash on toys that cannot be used.

Which recent MOD purchases can't be used btw?

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Until no one has any, I'd have no issue with the UK having a nuclear deterrent (where I British).

That is not what was asked

If you need examples of when how a fighter plane, an aircraft carrier, a heavy frigate & a cruise missile submarine could be used, then you either lack all imagination or have just woken up & havent heard yet about every armed conflict for the past 6 decades!

You are the one that listed all those, now you are saying I lack the imagination to see how they can be used?? Would that be invading other countries for those who lack the sophistication of your knowledge?

Which recent MOD purchases can't be used btw?

WoMD (unless you think that it means something else?)

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is not what was asked

Well.... Not sure what it has to to with the UK GE, but I'm not particularly bothered personally who has nukes.... It doesn't keep me awake.

WoMD

Indeed.
So what other expensive toys can the MOD not use?

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well.... Not sure what it has to to with the UK GE,

You want the UK taxpayers to fund WoMD as you believe they can never be used due to MAD. You want to do that whilst cutting everything to the bone. It has a lot to do with the GE as evidenced by the panic in the Tories today. It is about priorities and WoMD should not take priority

Lemming

And what do you propose the replacement for Trident be exactly? And how much money will be saved from the scrapping of Trident after everything has been decommissioned, scrapped (literally) and facilities shut down/removed and staff moved elsewhere or made redundant.

To say that Trident should be scrapped and not replaced is batsh*t lunacy of the highest order, doubly so given the rise of Putin's novorussia pet project and his threats of using nuclear weapons over any push-back on the annexation of Crimea.

gallag

If we scrap trident we may as well scrap the entire army, say for example Russia started testing the polish border, the UK as Polands strongest European allay can back them up and between France, the UK and Poland we could easily deal with the situation, if the hippies had there way and France and the UK got rid of their nukes all Russia would have to do is use very small but deviating nuclear strategic warheads to decimate the allied forces and even the most ardent anti nuke person must realise that having no path to defeat Russia in all out war would embolden Putin.

Is it also a coincidence that the usual Brit haters or republicans are also the ones that seem so passionate about this subject, I realise a weakened UK would make these people happy but if they thought about it realistically a strong European defence is critical to their own survival, if it came to the crunch I would not count on the Americans having the stomach to risk nuclear war to protect us and nor do I blame them, we need to assure our own security and that means maintaining a nuclear deterrent.

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You want the UK taxpayers to fund WoMD as you believe they can never be used due to MAD.

Yes, though what I think matters little in Downing Street or Whitehall (probably).

You want to do that whilst cutting everything to the bone.

"Cut to the bone"?
Says who?
Probably just those whose snout is in the trough & feel threatened.
The truth isn't reflected by the false narrative.

Uk government spending is going in one direction, and that isn't downward.


So, what's the vibe in Glasgow as what's a more effective deterrent than the Vanguard subs?

ancapailldorcha

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, what's the vibe in Glasgow as what's a more effective deterrent than the Vanguard subs?

Surely NATO membership and the oft-referenced special relationship in themselves would serve as a deterrent. One can be against the renewal of trident without adopting the Green position of turning military bases into nature reserves.

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surely NATO membership and the oft-referenced special relationship in themselves would serve as a deterrent.

No, the "article 5" common defence thing doesn't cover nukes.

The US or France are under no obligation to provide a nuclear retaliatory response on behalf of the UK..... (I think I read somewhere the US nuclear doctrine prohibits it anyway)

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yes, though what I think matters little in Downing Street or Whitehall (probably).


"Cut to the bone"?
Says who?
Probably just those whose snout is in the trough & feel threatened.
The truth isn't reflected by the false narrative.

Says me, you want to spend billions of ££££ on this vanity project whilst the worst cuts to pay for it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31126283

Uk government spending is going in one direction, and that isn't downward.

Neatly demonstrating the failure of Osborne and the lunacy of spending billions on this vanity project

So, what's the vibe in Glasgow as what's a more effective deterrent than the Vanguard subs?

Ahh, just little things like no invasions of other countries, saves money and lives as well.. bonus. Amazing the extent to which military fanboys will justify slaughter

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Says me, you want to spend billions of ££££ on this vanity project whilst the worst cuts to pay for it

What cuts?
UK government expenditure is on the up & up & aside from a blip in 2012 has been for many years..

lunacy of spending billions on this vanity project

But no monies have yet been spent on Trident replacement?
So what are you on about?

Back to unanswered questions though.....

You say the Vanguard sub's should be scrapped.... How much money will this save her majesties exchequer?

And once scrapped, what alternative do you want in instead?

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What cuts?

Maybe you should come over and visit to see

But no monies have yet been spent on Trident replacement?
So what are you on about?

Money is spent on maintaining the existing Trident solution and money is spent on preparing for the renewal and money will be spent on actually renewing, what are you on about?

Back to unanswered questions though.....

You say the Vanguard sub's should be scrapped.... How much money will this save her majesties exchequer?

They are life expired and should be decommissioned, the decommissioning cost is the same if they are renewed or do you expect the life expired assets to magically become unexpired once new assets are available?

And once scrapped, what alternative do you want in instead?

This was answered earlier, do keep up

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This was answered earlier, do keep up

Actually no, it wasn't. At least not by you when it was put to you as far back as I can see. Care to link us to the exact post?