The Green Party has pledged to dismantle the UK’s nuclear weapon stockpile in its general election manifesto.
Co-leaders Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay launched the manifesto in Hove, stating their intention to “mend a broken Britain” with the slogan ‘Real Hope, Real Change’
The manifesto calls for the UK to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), enabling the immediate dismantling of the nation’s nuclear arsenal. This would include cancelling the Trident programme and removing all foreign nuclear weapons from Britain.
Mr Ramsay stated, “many with military history have claimed it’s not effective spend,” suggesting funds should be better allocated to personnel.
The manifesto acknowledges NATO’s importance in responding to threats while calling for reforms to focus on peacekeeping and diplomacy. It includes commitments to a ‘No First Use’ policy on nuclear weapons and ensuring NATO acts solely in defence of member states.
The Green Party also intends to support Ukraine in resisting the Russian invasion, aiming for the UK to lead in upholding self-determination and international law.
Love the idea of banning all nuclear weapons. Great idea. Pity the likes of Russia would disagree…
They are just living in a alternative universe me thinks. No chance of that happening.
Whilst the Greens have little chance of gaining power did not the vast majority of the labour candidates standing this time not stand behind Corbyn (and his CND views) last time?
We probably are the closest we have been for quite a while to war with a nuclear armed autocratic state and we might have a lot of politicians soon which don’t think we need a deterence. Is nobody concerned by this?
Apparently not! Certainly not the masses who also are probably pretty ignorant of defence matters about to vote for them.
Not me. Not on your nelly.
I hate nuclear weapons, I wish they had never been created, people like me helped develop them and continue to develop them to this day. However they cannot be uninvented and like it or not, the knowledge our potential adversary have that what they throw at this country will be returned with interest. Keeps they unused.
Labour policy has been for decades that nuclear weapons are needed and will continue to be needed. That stance was voted on and agreed by a large margin by the membership.
This Nuclear deterrent is 100% safe with Labour
The question I have is are they actually still useful. Everyone was terrified of Russian ballistic missiles that people were convinced couldn’t be shot down and yet they are not getting to their targets.
Hopefully we never find out with ICBM but it does raise some questions.
Yes. Big difference between a sub orbital Ballastic missile ATACMs and a ICBM.
I CBM carries many independent war heads. Decoys and designed to evade missile defences.
So yes still relevant
They are all suborbital or they wouldn’t hit their targets.
Poor choice of words. But my message is the same. Intercepting a short range Ballastic missile is a very different challenge to intercepting an icbm.
We can intercept short range Ballastic missile, official we have yet to intercept an icbm,
Sadly yes. Even though exoatmospheric interceptors such as SM-3 and Arrow. Along with endoatmospheric interceptors like THAAD, SM-6 and Patriot have proven effective. We simply do not have enough to intercept the numbers that Russia could launch. We can definitely thin out the onslaught. But we will still receive a large number that could effectively end our way of life in Europe and the US.
Still our best defence against this through mutually assured destruction (MAD). Provide by our continuous at sea deterrent (CASD) provided currently by the Vanguards and Trident.
ICBMs are essentially a completely different problem around intercept compared to short, medium or even intermediate range ballistic missiles, the apogee of an ICBM is so high you need a multi stage orbital booster to launch and exoatmospheric kill vehicle to get close to the warhead when it’s at risk and once you miss the at risk point ( before, close to or just after it’s apogee ) it will be plunging from its apogee at something like 20,000miles an hour…that cannot be intercept.
At present its means one ICBM can launch say 8-10 warheads and you need 1 multi stage boosters orbital booster to attempt to intercept one of the warhead ( and the U.S. system has about a 30% success rate)…so to intercept one fully loaded ICBM..your talking 30 booster…it’s why the U.S. are burning around 100 billion dollars..to ensure they have the capability to intercept one or two ICBMs….its essentially probably 30 times cheaper to just have the ability to throw the same thing back at the enemy..which means your never going to have the capability to stop ICBMs…
We have a deterrent currently which is currently keeping us safe. It is doing it’s job. If we have no Nuclear weapons or we look like we won’t use them they will not deter.
I am aware of the Labour Nuclear policy however that is there because the Labour party knows it would not get power without that policy. Once it has power that is no longer an issue and personally I believe that there is a good percentage of Labour party members who are nieve and complacent enough to want it removed.
The younger generations especially hve never had to fight a war especially a world war. The normandy beaches to them mean little indeed some regard the older generation as warmongers and wars could simply be stopped by ditching your armed forces unilaterally.
They are probably looking forward to Kier simply prosecuting Putin. Problem solved.
Sorry but I don’t share your cynical view. Nor your opinion of Labour voters or the younger generation.
If anything the country’s deterrent is more at risk from the Conservative Party after their systematic gutting of this country’s armed forces.
Based on what? Respectfully disagree. Conservatives least bad in my opinion on defence. Luckily the Tories voted for the new subs when labour were mulling at the very least reducing capability. Starmer backed Cobyn which he has admitted. Labour ‘hopes’ to increase defence spending where as the Tories have committed and in my opinion will. Greens are like turkeys voting for Xmas.
Based on
When Labour left office. The defence budget was 2.5% and the nuclear deterrent was funded separately.
Tory get in and they roll the deterrent budget into the conventional budget and slash it.
Under the Tory government.
Tank force slashed
Army slashed
Airforce slash
Sub fleet slashed
Surface feet slashed.
Currently support for Ukraine is counted as part the defence budget.
Cameron stands there supporting an increase in defence spending when he was the individual who took an axe to it.
Yes and our Forces are still feeling the effects to this day .1 Cut Navy manpower that even though we have few ships can’t be mane etc.2 Army took away heavy armour ,like Tanks give them light armoured vehicles with GPMG ect .3 RAF lost MPA 🙄 which left our Nuclear submarines unprotected ,then having to get other nations to do look out for us plus the loss of other SQNs etc honestly 🙄 Then our PM Sunak does a runner on D day remembrance ,and so called Lord Cameron stands in who did more damage to our forces than any Enemy 🙄
Based on
When Labour left office. The defence budget was 2.5% and the nuclear deterrent was funded separately.
Tory get in and they roll the deterrent budget into the conventional budget and slash it.
Under the Tory government.
Tank force slashed
Army slashed
Airforce slash
Sub fleet slashed
Surface feet slashed.
Currently support for Ukraine is counted as part the defence budget.
Cameron stands there supporting an increase in defence spending when he was the individual who took an axe to it. All for tax cuts for the rich.
Michael the Tories were simply continuing the policy of previous Governments of all colours by taking the peace dividend. Hindsight tells us that was the wrong thing to do. At least the Tories have actually committed to start reversing that rather than just a vague plan to maybe do something.
Did they? The Tories rolled the conventional and nuclear deterrent into one budget and then slashed it.
Until the manifesto the Tories also had a vague “ when circumstances permit” and raising defence spending by 2030 is not worth the paper it is not written on.
I know which one I am happier to see in charge of the nations defence and it isn’t the Tories.
Michael both Nuclear & conventional deterrents are defence spending. Indeed they are the only type of defence spending in peacetime. Having Nuclear is not something we should hide away it is one of the key reasons war in Europe has not really happened in the last 80 years and where it has happened it has been in non NATO countries.
You think it better to have the party that is still committed to 2% rather than 2.5% especially when you know that Labour will need to can several programmes because of existing overruns. That is your perogative. That is democracy. I know which is the better choice for my priorities.
I agree they are both defence spending but prior to the undynamic duo of Cameron and the boy blunder, Osbourne.
The nuclear deterrent was funded separately ( in an undisclosed budget) and was not counted in the 2.5 %gdp MoD spending that went on conventional warfare capability spending
The amount may well have been undisclosed however when we moved onto Trident that was funded in part by reduction in the defence budget especially as we moved beyond the end of the cold war. The peace dividend was a fact of life plus much of the kit we had in the seventies & eighties would not be very useful as technology moved on. Better to have better quality but lower quantities was the strategy. I am not a fan of that strategy however thats what the Governments decided – well before 2010.
I very much doubt you can provide any evidence to back up your claim. Further it is funny that the Labour government were responsible for such equipment dumbing down as the Carriers, typhoon, kicked of the Ajax armoured vehicle project. Purchase of the F35B, construction of numerous Daring class destroyers .
Astute class submarines, Preliminary design work on the Dreadnaught boats.
Supported an army considerably larger than it is now.
And significantly better funded defence.
You have your opinion, I have mine.
We can continue this p**sing contest of claim and counter claim if you wish!!
Or agree to disagree, IMHO the Tory government has been a total disaster for the British armed forces , Labour are making encouraging noises, I will wait to see if this turns into actual action.
Regardless of your thoughts on either party, one thing is certain. If/When Starmer gets the keys to the country and he needs to make a decision on pushing a button (nuclear or conventional) by time he can actually decide which tie to wear then get round to the pressing matter at hand it will be game over.
“ where do you get such utter nonsense?
Do you think he is any more or less likely to give the order than Sunak, or Truss or even the Blonde clown.
Either way , there is a letter in the hands of the Ballastic boat captain that lays out very specific circumstances which culminate in him loosing all contact with his chain of command and he can verify via other means that a Nuclear strike has been executed against the U.K. He has the authority to fire a retaliatory strike against the aggressor.
So it most certainly is game for everybody because this planet will up to its neck in a nuclear exchange.
Massive myth that pm likely to push button. The sun commander will decide what is best option after the UK has been flattened. In practice this means Putin or others know there are consequences for a first strike.
Sub
Michael my issue is not with Labour governments it is with politicians who have been happy to run on policies with a reduction in armed forces because they feel that will reduce armed conflict rather than sufficient armed forces to deter an opponent. This includes nuclear weapons.
The Thatcher government introduced trident which was born in the previous governments in the seventies. Governments of all flavours covered the development of the major pieces of kit and I really have little problem with reducing spending whilst other NATO countries were reducing their spending and the Russians were reducing their spending and being less aggressive.
I was quite happy with the Blair government. Quite realistic in my view and not unhappy joining a conflict.
Any candidate for MP or party leader would not get my support if they are nieve enough to believe we as a country We do not need a strong military capable of doing serious damage to any enemy.
Simply put
Defence budget as of 2010 ( last year of Labour) was 2.5% plus strategic defence support.
Cameron/ Osborne took an axe to the defence budget. This has continued under successive Conservative governments. Down to 2% and is starting to raise slowly ( mostly an accountancy trick)
The Tories made a pledge to raise defence, initial when funds permit then a pledge by 2030. Both irrelevant because they know they could promise what they want as they are not going to win the election. I also believe they didn’t consult Putin or give an iron clad promise how it will rise to 2.5%. Eg it stays stagnant until 2029 and then they rise it to 2.5%.
So far Labour has promised to hold a security review which they have promised to implement., when economic circumstances permit, they have also commited to trident.
Time will tell what happens .
I’ll take your word on the figures.
Looking at the issues at the time what do you see as the greatest threat to the UK, military or financial collapse.
Figures are freely available.
Austerity was unnecessary. It was an excuse by the stories to shrink the state to give tax cuts to the rich
So you are saying the financial crisis was imaginary. If a country has to rescue banks especially high street banks we are in trouble. The Government needs to act and austerity was the chosen solution. Other solutions were potentially possible but you can’t just sit in denial.
Mark
You come at me with counter argument after counter argument. I shot one down one and you shift the goal posts .
If the country was in such a mess why did Cameron/osborne push through tax cuts for the top rate tax payers . When according to you the country could least afford it.
I get it, you are a Tory, you will defend them to the end, you hate Labour with a passion and are probably a Brexit supporter. . I am neither a Tory or a Labour supporter.
This is my last word on the subject. You can reply if you wish but I will not answer as I am unsubscribing from this discussion.
Michael I am a floating voter and tend to vote for the least dangerous party / leader. On certain occasions I have been able to vote for the most inspiring leader. 🤷
Corbyns manifestor actually supported the deterrent. His personal views were not followed through to it as he knew they wouldn’t fly with the overall party.
I did not like him for many reasons but people do seem to misquote his position on things often.
Corbyn is a Marxist, what he says depends on what power he feels he has, not what he will do after he gets on power. Communists are very keen on unions and democracy, until they get power and both cease to exist.
Steve Labour’s position at the time officially supported the deterrent but Corbyn’s didn’t if he had been PM would he have demonstrated a weakness and indicated he might well not push the button if required. Possibly enough to increase the temptation for the Russians to take a risk. Are there other potential leaders inside Labour with such a view – maybe even Kier?
Nuclear deterrent is always the small risk factor. Even if you had Trump in power the odds of him actually hitting the button are close to zero, but not zero.
Corbyn was utterly unsuitable as Prime Minister, that doesn’t mean he is a bad person but it was preposterous that he was even in the running. It wasn’t long ago where he was attending anti NATO rallies so that makes his position very clear. You talk of his Manifesto at the time but I saw an interview where his position on the nuclear deterrent was very evasive, which was then followed up with a post fudge interview statement that the subs would be kept but have no nuclear weopons.
I’m not defending him at all, I think his views are extremely questionable at best and borderline in come cases. Luckily his gone from politics, well almost gone.
Hi Mark..the views of the individual are not the views of the party or government ..and the Corbin Labour manifesto was one of supporting the nuclear deterrent..because the Labour Party would not allow him to run on a nuclear disarmament manifesto. During the last vote on renewing trident around 75% of Labour MPs voted for trident..and this was at the hight of the far left takeover under Corbin.
Many of minority of Labour MPs who did vote against the renew in 2016 have later come out and said very clearly that they made a mistake and have changed their minds due to the actions of russia.
It’s worth noting even conservative MPs have voted against trident.
finally some MPs voted against trident renew not because they did not believe in a deterrent, but because they wanted a review on what was the best most cost effective deterrent for the county…
I totally accept your point that some conservatives voted against trident. It would be a matter of principal and it shows that democracy is working. It would be more worrying if everyone were towing the party line.
As for Corbyn I feel that the electorate did not feel comfortable with him for a variety of reasons hence why he lost the election. With Keir he is difficult to read, nobody really knows if he is strong or weak or indeed if he will last long as PM. Bouncing PMs out of office seems to be an almost daily occurrence.
The issue with me now is that the Tories offer stability on defence (even a slight financial increase) especially the deterrent. The Labour party can make many significant changes in five years so that for me is too much of a risk. I suspect other voters won’t have that sort of red line but I will perhaps feel more confortable making that personal decision.
In regards to Corbin, he should never have been a Labour Party candidate for leader..his views are a danger to the nation He is a communist, what happened in 2016 was essentially a communist party takeover plot against the Labour Party, but it showed the strength of the social democratic workers party rooted of the Labour Party that it was able to fight it off… and remember trident was never in danger..Corbin has a massive revolt around the 2016 vote of trident with 140 Labour members voting for trident…and only Corbins focused band voting against…when starmer gets into power he will have essentially removed all the communists ( apart from one lady) from the parliamentary party and will likely have 300-400 centrist social democratic MPs. None of which have any intention or interest in doing anything other than keeping the deterrent…I’m actively quite interested in the defence review and finding out exactly when the 2.5% defence will kick in…personally I think it will be quick as starmer wants to invest money in economic stimulus packages..and ordering kit like the next batch of T31s will tike the box very well.
I cannot agree more, The 2019 election the choice was between two people who should never have been their respective party leaders . Johnson was the marginally lesser of the two evils.
If Starmer continues to show the same ruthless determination he has shown to root out the far left and the anti Semetic elements and to make Labour electable again, he might make a half decent PM.
He is fighting hard to pick up a very poison chalice.
I wouldn’t have thought so as if it was down to the party’s MP’s, he would not have been leader. There was a free vote on renewing on Trident and 140 voted for and 47 against
The parliamentary party wanted rid of Corbyn. The people who put him on the ballot in the first place need to hang their heads in shame.
Unfortunately with the Labour membership having the final vote. Corbyn knew all he had to do was make it to the Final Cut and Jon Lansman and his momentum minions would do the rest.
On election night 2019 I still remember Alan Johnson going Ballastic to Lansman face and telling him he want Momentum gone, kicked out of Labour. I thought it would take at least a decade to get rid of them . Starmer did it in 5.
👍Exactly! They are totally deluded!
Do these people live in the real world?
Are they going to heavily invest in anti-ballistic missile systems then?
I doubt it.
Not having nuclear weapons won’t stop us from being targeted in the event of a nuclear exchange between the West and Russia (or China).
Putin has stated clearly that he aims to destroy ‘Anglo-Saxon’ influence and culture.
So if you have a big stick and I have a big stick…are you less likely to use it out of fear I might hit you back? Its just really simple…
Village simpletons.
Naive fools get people killed and have no place in any form of leadership. Thankfully they will not get anywhere near leadership. Shame really as I support their environmental stance.
To be fair, it’s the English and Welsh Greens, they can propose anything under the sun if they want, the voting system means they will never ever be remotely close to government…
The Scottish faux green have the same stance,
Wish they green arseholes would live in the real world ,these idiots haven’t learned anything from history, these pathetic people would sell this country out ,
And this is why the greens can never be voted in. They are blissfully ignorant and nieve to the dangers of psychopathic dictators like Putin.
Our nuclear weapons and continuous at sea deterrent are the ultimate guarantors of our freedom and democracy. Although having a stronger conventionally armed forces would increase the threshold for nuclear weapons being required.
Always the same with the far left.
“We’re commited fo disarming the world”
Then the voice of reason.
“But the western democracies first….correct?”
No reply.
Name that film quote.
Who Dares Wins
👌 Fab film.
The USSR developed nuclear weapons. Weren’t they “far left”? How about our deterrent which was begun under Attlee’s Labour? Red China? It really only seems to be middle class über liberals that want disarmament and they tend to be a phenomenon of western democracies.
Good point. I’ve no idea if such movements exist in those societies. Doubt it.
That’s not to say the poison doesn’t originate in enemy regimes to be injected into the west… confuse, demoralise and divide. Green movements in particular seem to have very internationalist structures and origins in leaky old Cold War west Germany. Their success in making Germany and others deeply reliant on Russian energy sources seem suspect.
No they don’t, CND was created as part of the international communist movement as an attack on our nationstate.
👍
Actually mate if you really go back and look the whole unilateral disarmament movement (CND) was essentially accelerated by a huge political warfare operation undertaken by the Soviet Union. It was riddled with and mainly lead by communisms who supported the Soviet Union and their driver was to remove the UK from NATO and support a soviet take over ( basically they were supporters of the world wide communist movement over our own nation state). The individuals who led CND were essentially international communists..who did not believe in nation states only the international communist movement as lead by Russia and so were essentially traitors. This does show the difference between the old leaders of CND and the Greens as the greens are essentially closer to the newer concept of national communism..which essentially takes the ideas of communism but places it in the national nationstate structure..which is essentially not communism or really socialist..which means that there is no such thing as a communist or socialist in mainstream parties…just social democrats…and that actual communists are a danger to our nation ( bugger me I’ve just realised McCarthyism did have a foundation).
There is no realistic way they would ever be in goverment under first past the post system, as such they can say what they like.
If they were fighting for forming a government, I would put money on a lot of their ideological policies would be quickly dropped, as realism hits.
Humphrey won this argument decades ago. It’s far cheaper to press a button.
I completely agree on wanting a world without nuclear weapons…essentially they can end human civilisation…modern crop modelling linked to black soot models of nuclear strikes makes it clear that using 100 nuclear warhead ( moderate yields up to the 100kt range) would destroy 10% of the worlds food production capacity for many years ( close on a decade)…so even India and Pakistan having a nuclear war limited to those two nations would see mass starvation in populations with food insecurity across the planet.
a 1000 warhead exchange ( two of the three major nuclear powers) wouls effectively destroying humanities ability to grow food for a decade..which would see almost all of the entire human population of 8billion people dead of starvation..before agriculture could come back.
The problem is this…humanity is idiotic and nations are amoral entities, which means if there is only one side with nuclear weapons they will use them and conquer or destroy their opponents..we know from history that if one side has nuclear weapons and the other does not and they end up in an existential struggle the side that has them will use them. We also know that a balance of nuclear weapons leading to mutual assurance destruction has prevented their use as well as world war 3 ( which we know would have happened without a MAD nuclear balance of power..as soviet records made it very clear they would have invaded the west and kicked off WW3 if they thought they would have survived it, ) which means a balance of nuclear deterrence and mutual assured destruction is a requirement for not having WW3 ( let’s be honest if Russia did not have a nuclear arsenal, NATO would have probably gone to war with Russia by now over its massive provocations and imperialist invasions…Russia Im sure is quite aware the major reason its not in a war it cannot win and getting way with what it has is because of its nuclear arsenal).
Finally the question of “well if our allies have nuclear weapons and we are part of NATO do we need them”…it’s a fair question..but comes back to nations being amoral entities..they don’t have human characteristics and morals, a nation will not throw itself in front of danger to save a friend..it will alway act in its best interest..this can be enlightened self interest but it’s still its own interests..so this comes to the question would one nation ever enter a nuclear war ( knowing it will lead to its complete destruction) to protect another nation…we all know the answer to that question if we are thinking rationally…the US would never actually trigger its own complete assured destruction on behalf of a European nation…neither would any other nation…the UK is not going to trigger its deterrent if Russia popped of a nuclear weapon in say Slovakia..
Basically what all this rambling means is that we would be bonkers to get rid of our deterrent while another nation can destroy our nation with nuclear weapons…But I would love to see the entire world sign up to complete nuclear disarmament..
Isn’t this all pointing to the UK needing to get a move on with ABM upgrades on the T45s and its GBAD as well? You can’t expect your opponents to play by your or any rules and why wait stupidly to be hit? Japan is building two 20000tn ABM Aegis destroyers, does the UK and or Europe need something like this too?
Yes we do..but it means squat against another nations strategic nuclear forces…it’s still impossible to stop a strategic response Unfortunately Quentin ABM defences and GBAD are only much good against short and medium range ballistic missiles, possibly a limited intermediate range response..
short and medium range ballistic ballistic missiles are all slower and easier to intercept with only a single warhead per booster..physics means the apogee is low ( so you can hit it close to the apogee with a missile with a single booster ) and the plunge speed of the warhead is only just in the hypersonic range ( around so it’s possible to intercept on the way down )..for this threat the T45 is fundamentally the solution. Not necessarily ground based ABM defences ( all of our short and medium range ABM threats come over the Ogin).
Intercontinental ballistic missiles ( strategic forces ) are a completely different threat and it’s essentially so hard and so expensive to intercept your better not bothering and just invest in Mutual assured destruction…
so why not bother trying to defend against intercontinental threats..the biggest three reasons are apogee and multiple independent warheads and success rate..these all mix to make it an impossible job.
1) apogee first…the apogee of a short or medium range ballistic missile is ia couple of hundred kilometres the apogee of a ICBM is a coupe of thousand Kilometres up.. and jogging along at 24,000kph. So to intercept a warhead from an ICBM you need to boost your kill vehicle into lower earth orbit…this means you essentially need a multi stage orbital booster for each warhead intercept.
2) multiple warheads per ICBM. Since ICBMs carry multiple independent warheads ( up to 8-10). That means for each ICBM launched you need to make 8-10 successful interceptions and each of these 8-01 successful interceptions need to made using essentially what is the same type of multi stage orbital booster as a single ICBM.
2) accuracy of ICBM warheads vs intercept rate..basically it’s so hard that even the US after investing around 100billion in a system only have around a 50% intercept rate..and that’s on planned single warheads in exercises with known parameters and with no penetration aids.. this means that to intercept one warhead you need 2 orbital boosters and kill vehicles..with each IBM having 8-10 warheads..that’s around 16-20 orbital boosters for each ICBM intercepted..
what this all essentially means is that for the cost of being able to intercept the payload of 1 ICBM you could build a strategic nuclear rocket force of 20 ICBMs.. if you think I’m joking just look at the U.S. system it’s ground based mid course correction defence system. They have around 60 missiles in the defence system..in two sites that ensure each part of the U.S. is covered by 30 interceptors…that’s enough to counter 1-2 ICBMs with multi re-entry vehicles…for that cover they are paying 60 billion dollars so far..with whole life estimates of the programme up to £100 billion dollars.. it costs a lot less to have and threaten to fire off a ballistic missile submarines “country killing” payload that it does to build a system to intercept just a couple of ICBMs.
The Green Party will also force us to live in caves to help stop global warming (as most the world watches us with amusement and ignores ‘the green agenda’).
… and rifles should be replaced with flower bouquets. afterall more people die from small arms fire than nukes.
some people are completely clueless and not in touch with reality. unfortunately that pandora’s box has been open since WW2 and there is no closing it, until someone invents something even deadlier.
it’s basic human history and nature, just like predators feed on smaller defenseless prey and avoid other large predators. you would have figured the greens would have grasped such a simple concept by now.
Putin, Xi etc all love this policy!
The weaker their enemies, the better for evil to expand.
The greens are a protest party for labour voters. That is all they are, that is all they will ever be. Don’t really care what they put in their manifesto, as I doubt more than 100 people have read it in full.
I cannot help but wonder, how any Green policy would benefit the armed forces. With regard to their stance on the nuclear deterrent, the best you could say, is that it’s a shockingly naïve view of the world with its threats, in which we live.
What nonsense! The Greens are why PR is such a bad idea. Reform is also a ‘one issue’ protest party – good at highlighting issues but incapable at proposing workable solutions: talentless at anything other than invective. Ditto the tories, libdems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, none of whom have the strength in depth to form a capable government. We need to get real. IMO right now only the labour party can draw on a talent pool big enough to field a coherent team with the skills and character necessary to govern the United Kingdom. A vote for any other party is just a ‘protest’ vote. There will be lots of squealing as institutional nimbyism is rooted out and vested interests are confronted but the UK is about to get its very capability sustainment program with major components decoked or replaced e,g, House of Lords, municipal mayors, Whitehall, infrastructure – railways, energy etc
I do agree with that, Proportional Representation would create a nightmare parliament with single issue parties having lots of power, I know that can sound undemocratic but the current system is really 600 plus elections in one night to represent that region in Parliament, the system flattens out undercurrents and chops down protest voting so it reduces complicated outcomes. It pressures people to vote a main party because it doesn’t reward extremes, yet it allows a regional issues through if a seat votes for something else. The problem is when both main parties offer !little hope of competence, I don’t know who to vote as both are bad, although to be fair Labour hasn’t been in power for so long you can’t compare.
FPTP is part and parcel of UK adversarial culture. It produces a winner and a main loser. It was interesting to see how the rules of parliament struggled recently to handle a situation when the SNP got to be ‘the opposition’ for a day. The downside is that the major parties can be infiltrated by extremist ‘entryism’. Historically the most dangerous risk has been thought to be Trotsky e.g. Corbyn, So its ironic that its the Tory party which has been rent asunder by the egotism of Johnson, the extreme right economic ideology of Truss and the distorted nationalism of the ‘European Research Group’. The Tories have abandoned the centre ground and Labour has moved to the right and occupied the vacancy, probably for the next 10 years.
Good points, agreed absolutely
Luckily we won’t have to worry about them getting into power. I wonder if they insure their houses, life or cars??
Green party ? Not just Nuclear weapons gone conventional forces two .NATO commitment can’t see it 👕 it’s a NO from me
Yes by all.means get rid of them when the rest of the nuclear club get rid of theirs,until then tough titty as the ole saying goes,get rid of these fxxxxxxg green arseholes,
I’m not exactly sure we should be listening to a political pary which doesn’t seem to be on our side. They’d sacrifice the kingdom rather than eat a burger.
Mind you the party larping as Conservatives seem to serve interests contrary to Defence of the Realm as well.
Only country (I think) to unilaterally disarm nuclear weapons was Ukraine. Let’s not follow that example.
Our deployed at sea nuclear ballistic missiles designed to survive a Russian first strike. Arguably more a deterrent to Armageddon, until the day when all nukes are given up by mankind.