General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%
  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%
  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%
  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%
  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%
  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%

  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .


Get your gifs out.



5kfz7kn.gif
D1v1cLi.gif
 
Assuming the Tories go for a Minority government, no, definitely not.

For a coalition? No, but maybe they could manipulate the situation to get control. Even then, they wouldn't necessarily be able to launch anything.
The precise details of how a British Prime Minister would authorise a nuclear strike remain secret, although the principles of the Trident missile control system is believed to be based on the plan set up for Polaris in 1968, which has now been declassified. A closed-circuit television system was set up between 10 Downing Street and the SSBN Control Officer at the Northwood Headquarters of the Royal Navy. Both the Prime Minister and the SSBN Control Officer would be able to see each other on their monitors when the command was given. If the link failed – for instance during a nuclear attack or when the PM was away from Downing Street – the Prime Minister would send an authentication code which could be verified at Northwood. The PM would then broadcast a firing order to the SSBN submarines via the Very Low Frequency radio station at Rugby. The UK has not deployed control equipment requiring codes to be sent before weapons can be used, such as the U.S. Permissive Action Link, which if installed would preclude the possibility that military officers could launch British nuclear weapons without authorisation.

Until 1998, when it was withdrawn from service, the WE.177 bomb was armed with a standard tubular pin tumbler lock (as used on bicycle locks) and a standard allen key was used to set yield and burst height. Currently, British Trident missile commanders are able to launch their missiles without authorisation, whereas their American colleagues cannot. At the end of the Cold War the U.S. Fail Safe Commission recommended installing devices to prevent rogue commanders persuading their crews to launch unauthorised nuclear attacks. This was endorsed by the Nuclear Posture Review and Trident missile Coded Control Devices were fitted to all U.S. SSBNs by 1997. These devices prevented an attack until a launch code had been sent by the Chiefs of Staff on behalf of the President. The UK took a decision not to install Trident CCDs or their equivalent on the grounds that an aggressor might be able to wipe out the British chain of command before a launch order had been sent.[96][97][98]

In December 2008 BBC Radio 4 made a programme titled The Human Button, providing new information on the manner in which the United Kingdom could launch its nuclear weapons, particularly relating to safeguards against a rogue launch. Former Chief of the Defence Staff (most senior officer of all British armed forces) and Chief of the General Staff (most senior officer in the British Army), General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, explained that the highest level of safeguard was against a prime minister ordering a launch without due cause: Lord Guthrie stated that the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom provided some protection against such an occurrence, as while the Prime Minister is the chief executive and so practically commands the armed services, the formal commander-in-chief is the Monarch (to whom they swear allegiance to and indeed, is called the "Royal" Navy/Air Force), to whom the chief of the defence staff could appeal: "the chief of the defence staff, if he really did think the prime minister had gone mad, would make quite sure that that order was not obeyed... You have to remember that actually prime ministers give direction, they tell the chief of the defence staff what they want, but it's not prime ministers who actually tell a sailor to press a button in the middle of the Atlantic. The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."[99]
Weapons Engineer Officers Tactical Trigger used to launch a Trident Missile. Taken in 2012 aboard HMS Vigilant during a test launch of an unarmed Trident ballistic missile at sea.
The same interview pointed out that while the Prime Minister would have the constitutional authority to fire the Chief of the Defence Staff, he could not appoint a replacement as the position is appointed by the monarch. During the Cold War the Prime Minister was also required to name a senior member of the cabinet as his/her designated survivor, who would have the authority to order a nuclear response in the event of an attack incapacitating the Prime Minister, and this system was re-adopted after the September 11 attacks.

The programme also addressed the workings of the system; detailing that two persons are required to authenticate each stage of the process before launching, with the submarine captain only able to access the firing trigger after two safes have been opened with keys held by the ship's executive and weapons engineering officers. It was explained that all Prime Ministers issue hand-written orders, termed the letters of last resort,[100] seen by their eyes only, sealed and stored within the safes of each of the four Royal Navy Vanguard class submarines. These notes instruct the submarine commander of what action to take in the event of the United Kingdom being attacked with nuclear weapons that destroy Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and/or the chain of command.

Although the final orders of the Prime Minister are at his or her discretion, and no fixed options exist, according to the December 2008 BBC Radio 4 documentary The Human Button there were four known options: retaliating with nuclear weapons, not retaliating with nuclear weapons, the submarine commander uses his own judgement, or the submarine commander places himself under United States or Australian command if possible. This system of issuing notes containing orders in the event of the head of government's death is said to be unique to the United Kingdom (although the concept of written last orders, particularly of a ship's captain, is a naval tradition), with other nuclear powers using different procedures. The letters are destroyed unopened whenever a Prime Minister leaves office.

All relevant former prime ministers have supported an "independent nuclear deterrent", including David Cameron[101] and the incumbent Prime Minister Theresa May.[102] Only one former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, has given any insight on his orders: Callaghan stated that, although in a situation where nuclear weapon use was required – and thus the whole purpose and value of the weapon as a deterrent had failed – he would have ordered use of nuclear weapons, if needed: ...if we had got to that point, where it was, I felt it was necessary to do it, then I would have done it (used the weapon)...but if I had lived after pressing that button, I could have never forgiven myself.[103] Lord Healey, Secretary of State for Defence and "alternate decision-taker" under Prime Minister Harold Wilson, said that in the event of Soviet nuclear weapons attacking the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister had been killed or incapacitated, he would not have ordered a retaliation.[103]

The process by which a Trident missile-armed submarine would determine if the British government continued to function included, among other checks, establishing whether BBC Radio 4 continued broadcasting.[104]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom#Nuclear_weapons_control


So even if they managed to make someone Prime Minister whilst in their coalition, they probably couldn't launch anything
The bogside and South Armagh to be nuked within a week.
 
She was given the job to be a safe, boring pair of hands. And she fecked that up.

Exactly. She's a train-wreck. Done a piss poor job as prime minister after a string of stupid decisions and a woeful campaign that was dead in the water as soon as she refused the debate. Cowardly, insipid and incompetent.

Yet still perceived as no worse of a PM than Corbyn? Fecking hell. What's she got to do to poll behind him?!
 
Exactly. She's a train-wreck. Done a piss poor job as prime minister after a string of stupid decisions and a woeful campaign that was dead in the water as soon as she refused the debate. Cowardly, insipid and incompetent.

Yet still perceived as no worse of a PM than Corbyn? Fecking hell. What's she got to do to poll behind him?!

Remove the pledge to drop Leveson 2?
 
Just needs a tune behind it. Something upbeat, catchy and full of hope for the future.



I know I'm being cynical here but I think people are getting far too giddy and giving far too much credit to Corbyn. The nation (especially the young) were reeling from Brexit and years of austerity. They were desperate to make a point and May's dreadful campaign (and complete lack of nous or charisma as a PM) created an open goal, if a credible opposition was up against them.

Labour used to win elections. By large majorities. Getting beaten by Theresa fecking May just doesn't seem all that impressive, in that context. For all that Corbyn gets called unelectable, it's been evident for ages that she's even less impressive as a leader. Yet she still won more seats than he did.

I still think David Milliband would have won 2 years ago.
 
Can anyone think of a worse PM than May in living memory?
I'm 26 and can only remember since Blair so no. I think only reason she isn't polling behind Corbyn is due to the work the media have done to present her as one thing and Corbyn as another, coupled with the Labour party infighting a while back.

May has also made out that it is the PM who would be negotiating Brexit and not the actual negotiating team so her going on about no deal is better than a bad deal and her bitchiness about Corbyn being "alone and naked" in Brexit talks probably sticks in the mind of some as well.
 
Can a loss be as good as a win?

If Labour had won you'd have seen glee way beyond what we have now. I don't understand the obsession a handful have with making sure no one enjoys the two fingers up to the Tories.

Almost as bad as the guy on QT moaning Labour ruined everything by getting too many votes.

We've had such bad results over and over and a sense of going the wrong way, feck it im taking this as a small victory
 
It reminds me of that time Spurs went 4-0 down with 10 men to Inter Milan and pulled it back to 4-3 with a Bale hat trick. That was almost treated like a win for Spurs, when they actually lost. However the morale boost Spurs took from that game was real enough. They hammered Inter in the reverse fixture. Its possible Labour will finally get the wind in their sails after a long time on the back foot & build on it.



I assume Corbyn will overtake her in the coming weeks, indeed I'm amazed he isn't ahead now. I mean, May must be the most discredited sitting PM that's ever tried to struggle on, and the 1922 committee knife in the back will come any day now. Corbyn really should be sailing past her.
Read something tonight that said he's going to try to put a government together himself and is going to go for May at the Queen's speech.
 
If Labour had won you'd have seen glee way beyond what we have now. I don't understand the obsession a handful have with making sure no one enjoys the two fingers up to the Tories.

Almost as bad as the guy on QT moaning Labour ruined everything by getting too many votes.

It's because people like me find it hard to see anything joyful about what just happened in the UK. Had the Tories actually been ousted I'd have found it brilliant/hilarious. The way it all panned out is just grim, though. They still won but they've made a deal with the devil to do so and massively distracted themselves from some momentous impending responsibilities.

I'm actually kind of horrified about what happens from here. The fecking DUP acting as king-makers as you career, rudderlessly, into Brexit negotiations. Christ. Britain is in deep, deep shit and I'm worried you'll take Ireland/the EU down with you.
 
The idea that this is anything other than a great result for Labour and a shit one for the Tories is false.

Corbyn was 20 points behind in the polls. Had the right wing establishment and half his own party against him, it's a stunning result to gain any seats. Were it not for the SNP collapse there would be a progressive alliance
 
The idea that this is anything other than a great result for Labour and a shit one for the Tories is false.

Corbyn was 20 points behind in the polls. Had the right wing establishment and half his own party against him, it's a stunning result to gain any seats. Were it not for the SNP collapse there would be a progressive alliance

A "great result" for Labour has to involve winning an election outright, surely? Or at the very least getting a majority in coalition? We're not talking about a tiny, fringe party here.
 
Austerity was only on the agenda because of Corbyn. Rewind to 2015 and remember how Miliband completely dodged the issue.
I guess you are right.

Not that people didn't talk about Austerity. I think it was talked about *a lot* more then than it is now. People don't care so much about cuts to local government now, just the NHS.
 
A "great result" for Labour has to involve winning an election outright, surely? Or at the very least getting a majority in coalition? We're not talking about a tiny, fringe party here.

Corbyn's results almost mirror Brown's in 2010, one was seen as a disaster but the other a triumph. It is about expectations. But in real terms, the only terms that really matter, you are right.
 
Corbyn's results almost mirror Brown's in 2010, one was seen as a disaster but the other a triumph. It is about expectations. But in real terms, the only terms that really matter, you are right.

In vote share it surpasses Labour in 2005 (and thus 2015 and 2010), with the handicap of Scotland included.
 
Not that people didn't talk about Austerity. I think it was talked about *a lot* more then than it is now. People don't care so much about cuts to local government now, just the NHS.
It was one of Labour's failures at the last election to properly oppose austerity. Balls and co just copied the Tory template and made minor changes to education and other sectors. It was austerity-lite for a campaign many viewed as Tory-lite.
 
In vote share it surpasses Labour in 2005 (and thus 2015 and 2010), with the handicap of Scotland included.
the problem with that is by that way of thinking May is one of the most popular leaders of all time with her share of the vote! She got a higher percentage then cameron & Blair.......
 
the problem with that is by that way of thinking May is one of the most popular leaders of all time with her share of the vote! She got a higher percentage then cameron & Blair.......

UKIP had over 3 million votes in the last election IIRC and their vote collapsed completely. Dems had 57 seats in 2010 for example but their coalition with the Tories destroyed them. This was very much a two party election.
 
the problem with that is by that way of thinking May is one of the most popular leaders of all time with her share of the vote! She got a higher percentage then cameron & Blair.......
And Thatcher. Attlee's vote share was better in '52 than it was in '45, etc.

That said, there was a lot of very important movement all around, not in terms of seats won but in terms of majorities that Tories will be defending at the next election. The movement of young voters and Tory remainers, reclamation of some of the vote lost to UKIP and retention of Lib Dems won in 2015 not only resulted in the crazy swings in Canterbury and Kensington, it also brought a hell of a lot of large towns and cities within reach. Labour MPs that had been defending very slight majorities now have them in the multiple thousands. Scottish seats are back in contention. At the same time, a lot of old Blair seats that were lost in 2010 are even more firmly embedded in Tory hands and if the Tories saw a decent swing against Labour whenever the next election is, it could be a bloodbath again. But overall, you're going to be a lot happier with the movement if you're Labour.
 
Interesting...



That's nonsense. May barely visited anywhere where it wasn't carefully choreographed, stage managed and was kept hidden from the public view.

In fact i'd say a lot of people wont have even known the PM paid a visit to their area, unless they were keeping up to date with the news.
 
And Thatcher. Attlee's vote share was better in '52 than it was in '45, etc.

That said, there was a lot of very important movement all around, not in terms of seats won but in terms of majorities that Tories will be defending at the next election. The movement of young voters and Tory remainers, reclamation of some of the vote lost to UKIP and retention of Lib Dems won in 2015 not only resulted in the crazy swings in Canterbury and Kensington, it also brought a hell of a lot of large towns and cities within reach. Labour MPs that had been defending very slight majorities now have them in the multiple thousands. Scottish seats are back in contention. At the same time, a lot of old Blair seats that were lost in 2010 are even more firmly embedded in Tory hands and if the Tories saw a decent swing against Labour whenever the next election is, it could be a bloodbath again. But overall, you're going to be a lot happier with the movement if you're Labour.
exactly and thier votes where historic, and not comparable, but if yo say wow didn't corbyn do well look at his the percentage of the vote he got, then you have to do the same for may.

right now, i think i'd be happyer if i was a tory supporter(which im not), granted they lost a few seats are in a weaker position, but they are still in power, thier going to be in power through the most important period in britain in at least 40 years.
yes i'd be sad they didnt do better, but when the dust settles i think the tory party will feel like they did in 2010, slightly anoid they didn't get a majority but just happy they are in power.
As a labour supporter and a corbyn supporter i'm fairly deflated, for me all this talk that we won the election is just daft, the best you can say is we didnt do as bad as was predicted, weakened Mays power, and have a better chance at the next election now, if this movement carries on (which isn't in anyway a certainty) carries on.....

in football terms the best you can say is this was a sprited defeat when we where expected to get hammered.