Best Of

We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.

Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.

This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.

No, you say this because you want us weak and unable to face our enemies - who you support.

An absurd post even from you

Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.

He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.

My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.

The truth of the rules based system has always been that the rules haven't applied to the US. In return the US, up to Trump, did support the rules for everyone else!

Chris Murphy Senator for Connecticut

I was in a 2 hour briefing today on the Iran War. All the briefings are closed, because Trump can't defend this war in public.

I obviously can't disclose classified info, but you deserve to know how incoherent and incomplete these war plans are.

Here's what I can share. Maybe the lead is that the war goals DO NOT involve destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. This is, uh...surprising...since Trump says over and over this is a key goal.

But then of course we already know air strikes can't wipe out their nuclear material.

Second, they confirmed "regime change" is also NOT on the list. So, they are going to spend hundreds of billions of your taxpayer dollars, get a whole bunch of Americans killed, and a hardline regime - probably a MORE anti-American hardline regime - will still be in charge.

Ok, so what ARE the goals? It seems, primarily, destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories.

But the question that stumped them: what happens when you stop bombing and they restart production?

They hinted at more bombing. Which is, of course, endless war.

And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN. I can't go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it say, right now, they don't know how to get it safely back open.

Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable

We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.

Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.

This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.

I agree with everything you say, except I am inclear why ships should be built in Spain and what's wrong with Belfast.

A shipbuilding city that uses the Titanic as a selling point.

Nothing particularly amiss with the build of the Titanic afaicr. An iceberg ripping through the hull wasn't covered by the warranty.

More in Common better for Labour
➡️ REF UK 30% (+1)
🌹 LAB 22% (+4)
🌳 CON 19% (nc)
🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
🌍 GREEN 11% (-3)
🟡 SNP 2% (-1)

N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03

Sounds like the pollsters have less in common?

It has Starmers ratings up a bit to -41 but also Badenochs up to -6 and she leads the pack for the first time.

Labour were at 21 2 weeks ago and 22 3 weeks ago so this is a reversion to long term mean with MiC plus a smidgen with a small Starmer boost

Starmer will be replaced next year so wouldn't think his ratings matter too much. It's too far from a GE for the party numbers to be a good predictor as well, especially when the polls aren't trying to capture anti Labour and anti Reform which are probably both bigger than 20% themselves.

Do the powers that be genuinely not see where this ends?


"White males will have ‘fewer board seats’ in future, says UK diversity chair"

Financial Times

https://x.com/FT/status/2031160714484674567?s=20

Let me tell them. The end result of all this is the creation of an aggressive "white" identity in the UK. If you are white, you will vote for the "White People's Party", so you are not crushed, nor your kids, by official "anti-white-racism". Thus Britain will become a new South Africa

I am genuinely confused as to why so many erstwhile intelligent people fail to see that playing identity politics drives, err, identity politics.

So moves to reduce the over-representation of white males on company boards (where they're doing an epic job judging from UK productivity) will result in a revolt of white males to maintain their current privileged position?

Ex-lads mag journos with brains rotted by coke don't half lose the plot when they're over the hill and devoid of #metoo opportunities....

It is inevitable that the proportion of white male company directors and executives will fall as more women and ethnic minorities pursue successful careers. Indeed it would be astonishing if we didn't make the best use of the talents in the workforce.

This should be an unremarkeable phenomenon and has happened already across many other sectors including medicine, politics, law, academia etc.

It isn't some sort of culture war, but simply the removal of barriers that have kept people down.

What’s important with boards is diversity of thought and perspectives - unfortunately activists always like a box checking approach because that’s easy. But boards are better when they are not packed with dull middle aged old Harrovians.

But someone posted a worry article on here about a year ago (Atlantic?) about the creative industries in the US. What’s happened is that 10 years ago the white men at the top decided to achieve balance. But none of them or their friends could go. So they massively and disproportionately hired juniors from alternative backgrounds to the exclusion of (potentially better) white straight males. That counter-distortion is now working through the system but it has led to a generation of talented people who were unable to pursue the career they wanted

This is an interesting dynamic.

The GOP media posting clips of Talarico as attacks on him. And he keeps replying, yes, I approve this message.

JAMES TALARICO: “Christ is the immigrant deported without due process. Christ is the senior deprived of their Social Security benefits. Christ is the protestor kidnapped in an unmarked vehicle by plain clothes officers.”..
https://x.com/NRSC/status/2031442594983498169

It will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

Can Texas handle a genuine Christian?

Would they recognise one?

Well.
Several megachurch pastors have denounced him as "Satanic".
His crime? Using scripture to raise difficulty questions.
And "campaigning on the Bible".
Irony gone to heaven.