Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The Saturday open thread – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,010
edited February 4 in General
imageThe Saturday open thread – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,684
    Firsy and only.....
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,553
    Second, like Sunak.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,408
    Third.

    Again :-) .
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,408
    Have we done Minehunters speeding in reverse without looking, or maybe with a mechanical fault?

    Never was HMS Bangor a more appropriate name.

    Perhaps Ukraine could loan us a couple they can't use yet?

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-minehunters-collide-in-gulf-damage-to-be-assessed/

    Typical *&^%$ drivers !

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922
    Looks like something may have happened to the Mars helicopter, Ingenuity, whilst landing during its 72nd flight. :(

    That little project has been a massive achievement for NASA. The project would have been a success if it had just taken off; whilst the extended mission planned for five flights. Instead it has lasted years, and has been used for science and to reconnoitre the rover's route.

    I hope they regain contact.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,294
    edited January 20
    Very concerning. Chimes with what a couple of contacts have told me too:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/19/hostile-states-threat-to-britain-cold-war/

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-military-is-too-small-to-fight-key-allies-warn-f6lv9gtxw

    I hate to say it but we might have to do something major like increase the basic rate to 25%, higher rate to 45% and top rate to 50% to fund a massive boost to our defence capability.

    We've been living in a pacifist fantasy.

    We must do anything we can to deter a war.
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,684
    I have more than once heard Sunak referred to as that "little Indian chappie", but I have now heard him referred to as "that little Indian boy". Is this widespread?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922

    Very concerning. Chimes with what a couple of contacts have told me too:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/19/hostile-states-threat-to-britain-cold-war/

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-military-is-too-small-to-fight-key-allies-warn-f6lv9gtxw

    I hate to say it but we might have to do something major like increase the basic rate to 25%, higher rate to 45% and top rate to 50% to fund a massive boost to our defence capability.

    We've been living in a pacifist fantasy.

    We must do anything we can to deter a war.

    "West must prepare for all-out war with Russia within 20 years, Nato official says"

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russia-war-nato-military-exercise-admiral-rob-bauer-brussels-cold-war-b1133399.html

    I think this is correct, sadly - at least if Russia maintains its current course. The easiest, and cheapest, way of preventing it is to stop them now, not in decade.

    But of course, in the eyes of some, it will all be *our* fault, and we'll have 'poked' Russia into it...
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,294

    Very concerning. Chimes with what a couple of contacts have told me too:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/19/hostile-states-threat-to-britain-cold-war/

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-military-is-too-small-to-fight-key-allies-warn-f6lv9gtxw

    I hate to say it but we might have to do something major like increase the basic rate to 25%, higher rate to 45% and top rate to 50% to fund a massive boost to our defence capability.

    We've been living in a pacifist fantasy.

    We must do anything we can to deter a war.

    "West must prepare for all-out war with Russia within 20 years, Nato official says"

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russia-war-nato-military-exercise-admiral-rob-bauer-brussels-cold-war-b1133399.html

    I think this is correct, sadly - at least if Russia maintains its current course. The easiest, and cheapest, way of preventing it is to stop them now, not in decade.

    But of course, in the eyes of some, it will all be *our* fault, and we'll have 'poked' Russia into it...
    Yes, Jeremy Corbyn. Who far too many on here are deluded into thinking is a patriotic Englishman.

    We need to invest now to prevent that war.

    This is personal. I have a 15 month son. I don't want this to be his future or for him to be conscripted one day and for me to lose him.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,988
    ClippP said:

    I have more than once heard Sunak referred to as that "little Indian chappie", but I have now heard him referred to as "that little Indian boy". Is this widespread?

    No, it’s just you
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,971
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Royale, it won't happen. Defence spending isn't a vote-winner.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922
    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    No.

    We're talking about ten or twenty years. Between the end of WW1 in 1918 and 1938 - the same timescale mentioned - Germany went from a country that was militarily defeated to one that could stride across Europe - despite sanctions. Russia has massive potential; in terms of resources, industry and manpower - and could easily do the same.

    And that's leaving aside other threats.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,553

    The ability of the MOD to `spaff' money up against a wall is 2nd to none.... simply giving senior figures more cash goes into grandiose, big ticket items at the expense of sailors and soldiers whose pay has declined by about 20% since the Tories came to power. In place we have 2 large aircraft carriers whose use in supporting NATO is pretty vague, a huge retinue of senior officers living it up as Defence Attaches in Paris, Washington, Singapore etc whilst the Army uses vehicles dating from the 1960s... Too often extra money has poured into `projects that benefit the soon to be retiring senior officers - we need reform folks, lots of it.

    Our military is certainly in a poor state with too many commitments, too many white elephants, indecision to strategy, and a recruitment and retention crisis.

    So pretty much the same as other parts of the public estate after 15 years of Tories at the helm.

  • Options
    ClippP said:

    I have more than once heard Sunak referred to as that "little Indian chappie", but I have now heard him referred to as "that little Indian boy". Is this widespread?

    Not as far as I'm aware.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,855
    ClippP said:

    I have more than once heard Sunak referred to as that "little Indian chappie", but I have now heard him referred to as "that little Indian boy". Is this widespread?

    Let’s hope not.

    There’s enough to critique about the content of his character, without needing to go down the other road…
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,553
    ClippP said:

    I have more than once heard Sunak referred to as that "little Indian chappie", but I have now heard him referred to as "that little Indian boy". Is this widespread?

    It depends on who you talk to, but I haven't even heard the adjectives "little" or "Indian" used about him.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,930
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,988
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    I’m debating Mammoth vs Park City in February. Any thoughts?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,855
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,983

    a huge retinue of senior officers living it up as Defence Attaches in Paris, Washington, Singapore

    Attachés are good value for money in terms of co-operation, intelligence, etc. The UK probably needs more not less. They are also useful for getting you out when you've been locked up in foreign climes.

    The other aspect is that the forces can't do external recruitment so if you thin out the jobs for OF-4/5/6 ranks then the talent pool for picking the 1*/Flag Ranks promotions is minute. Attaché jobs are a very useful post for upper/mid officers to prove they can do more than fit a snooker ball in their mouths or ride a (stolen) horse backwards.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,294

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Royale, it won't happen. Defence spending isn't a vote-winner.

    I think that's changing.

    This is a subject of conversation now not only on here but in pubs and on my friends WhatsApp.

    People are starting to realise we need to step it up.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,006
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,938

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
    Good morning, one and all!
    Mrs C, and I both have smart phones; find then very useful indeed!
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
    Lots of people don't, for all sorts of reasons. I fear far too many people disregard the digital divide that's fast increasing. I wanted to park at Lammas Land car park in Cambridge to do a run this week, to find the machine was out of order and a sign asking me to use the app.

    F**k that, I thought. It takes longer than putting coins into a machine, and I don't want yet another company to have my details. I parked on a nearby street instead. Two quid lost to the council.

    It'd be better if there was one parking app to rule them all, but it seems there are hundreds of them. It's effing annoying.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,882
    edited January 20

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
    Lots of people don't, for all sorts of reasons. I fear far too many people disregard the digital divide that's fast increasing. I wanted to park at Lammas Land car park in Cambridge to do a run this week, to find the machine was out of order and a sign asking me to use the app.

    F**k that, I thought. It takes longer than putting coins into a machine, and I don't want yet another company to have my details. I parked on a nearby street instead. Two quid lost to the council.

    It'd be better if there was one parking app to rule them all, but it seems there are hundreds of them. It's effing annoying.
    I think there is a broad PB consensus that the plethora of parking apps is silly.

    Either it should be a big government imposition of one app (UK wide) or mandatory contactless/chip and pin.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,982
    Foxy said:

    ClippP said:

    I have more than once heard Sunak referred to as that "little Indian chappie", but I have now heard him referred to as "that little Indian boy". Is this widespread?

    It depends on who you talk to, but I haven't even heard the adjectives "little" or "Indian" used about him.
    Has serial bigotry-monger Lord Kilclooney passed comment on Rishi?

    Prime miniature is one I’ve seen on twitterX, which is of course DREADFULLY heightist.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,155
    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
    Lots of people don't, for all sorts of reasons. I fear far too many people disregard the digital divide that's fast increasing. I wanted to park at Lammas Land car park in Cambridge to do a run this week, to find the machine was out of order and a sign asking me to use the app.

    F**k that, I thought. It takes longer than putting coins into a machine, and I don't want yet another company to have my details. I parked on a nearby street instead. Two quid lost to the council.

    It'd be better if there was one parking app to rule them all, but it seems there are hundreds of them. It's effing annoying.
    I think there is a broad PB consensus that the plethora of parking apps is silly.

    Either it should be a big government imposition of one app (UK wide) or mandatory contactless/chip and pin.
    Preferably the former, I would suggest. Contactless chip and pin is cheap for us but rather less so for the councils.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,982

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
    Lots of people don't, for all sorts of reasons. I fear far too many people disregard the digital divide that's fast increasing. I wanted to park at Lammas Land car park in Cambridge to do a run this week, to find the machine was out of order and a sign asking me to use the app.

    F**k that, I thought. It takes longer than putting coins into a machine, and I don't want yet another company to have my details. I parked on a nearby street instead. Two quid lost to the council.

    It'd be better if there was one parking app to rule them all, but it seems there are hundreds of them. It's effing annoying.
    Waitrose car parks always handy, though obviously not a plethora of them about the place.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Good to see Tories start to wake up to the damage their cuts have done.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,380
    ydoethur said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
    Lots of people don't, for all sorts of reasons. I fear far too many people disregard the digital divide that's fast increasing. I wanted to park at Lammas Land car park in Cambridge to do a run this week, to find the machine was out of order and a sign asking me to use the app.

    F**k that, I thought. It takes longer than putting coins into a machine, and I don't want yet another company to have my details. I parked on a nearby street instead. Two quid lost to the council.

    It'd be better if there was one parking app to rule them all, but it seems there are hundreds of them. It's effing annoying.
    I think there is a broad PB consensus that the plethora of parking apps is silly.

    Either it should be a big government imposition of one app (UK wide) or mandatory contactless/chip and pin.
    Preferably the former, I would suggest. Contactless chip and pin is cheap for us but rather less so for the councils.
    Looping back to the underlying issue.

    Operational efficiency is all very well, but beyond a certain point it shades into dismal cheapness.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,155

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    I’m debating Mammoth vs Park City in February. Any thoughts?
    They're cheeky buggers. Keep a firm hand and don't take any shit when you open the debate to the floor.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,146
    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,868
    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,558

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
    Lots of people don't, for all sorts of reasons. I fear far too many people disregard the digital divide that's fast increasing. I wanted to park at Lammas Land car park in Cambridge to do a run this week, to find the machine was out of order and a sign asking me to use the app.

    F**k that, I thought. It takes longer than putting coins into a machine, and I don't want yet another company to have my details. I parked on a nearby street instead. Two quid lost to the council.

    It'd be better if there was one parking app to rule them all, but it seems there are hundreds of them. It's effing annoying.
    In what sense is the digital divide increasing? Smartphone uptake is increasing. With demographic changes, the proportion of the population without digital skills is decreasing.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
    Lots of people don't, for all sorts of reasons. I fear far too many people disregard the digital divide that's fast increasing. I wanted to park at Lammas Land car park in Cambridge to do a run this week, to find the machine was out of order and a sign asking me to use the app.

    F**k that, I thought. It takes longer than putting coins into a machine, and I don't want yet another company to have my details. I parked on a nearby street instead. Two quid lost to the council.

    It'd be better if there was one parking app to rule them all, but it seems there are hundreds of them. It's effing annoying.
    In what sense is the digital divide increasing? Smartphone uptake is increasing. With demographic changes, the proportion of the population without digital skills is decreasing.
    Because they are needed for increasing amount of vital things - e.g. car parking, as mentioned. In the past we've discussed the number of people without bank accounts; who don't have Internet access; who are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate. There are lots of adults for whom all the above apply. And it's all too easy to forget about them.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922
    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    I utterly disagree, when we talk about a decade of two. As I mentioned below, Germany rearmed in the two decades between 1918 and 1938 to the extent that they could conquer nearly all of Europe. And that was despite supposed hefty restrictions on what they could do (which led them to do stuff like train with the Russians...).

    I'd strongly argue that Russia is in a much better position than Germany was in the 1920s; both in terms of resources, industry and people.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    It’s a bit rubbish that mobile phones are now essential, because on top of tools like banking apps and parking apps they contain all sorts of distractions and addictive features that aren’t good for you. I concluded I needed a smart phone, but really hate the thing.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,380
    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    Furthermore, if we want to strut across the world stage, that's an expensive thing to do. We- literally- have to earn the right to do it. And we haven't really been doing that for quite some time.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,437
    edited January 20
    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I do not find it completely fantastical that they might cook up an arrangement where Sunak steps down as PM at the GE but a new Tory leader is allowed to fight it.

    It allows the new leader the ability to try and cynically present themselves as a change candidate. It also might let the party do that pivot to the right that it is so desperate to carry out now.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922
    Jonathan said:

    It’s a bit rubbish that mobile phones are now essential, because on top of tools like banking apps and parking apps they contain all sorts of distractions and addictive features that aren’t good for you. I concluded I needed a smart phone, but really hate the thing.

    I agree, and a large part of our income comes from people buying them. ;)

    (Though Mrs J is now working on high-power ICs (as in kilovolts). No, I didn't know they existed, either..)
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,983
    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Parkinson's disease sufferer, 73, is given £100 parking fine after tremors from his condition meant he could not download app and pay for a ticket in time"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12983165/Parkinsons-disease-parking-fine-tremors-download-app-pay-ticket.html

    The YouTuber "JayEmm on Cars" points out that the growth in EV vehicles will cause problems for the poor, disabled and the old who do not have the necessary infrastructure to handle it, including tech, and that this disqualification is concerning

    https://youtu.be/5U4jI6xb6jg?si=sSH2KrYXeNRuqElq&t=766
    While that's true, that's also a very short term problem.

    Last weekend I drove to and from Mammoth, plus lots of driving around the mountain itself. And the charging infrastructure in Southern California (and the speed of charging with 250/300 KW chargers) was fantastic. No need to queue for a charger. All worked.

    And it was significantly cheaper than petrol too. In total, for my 800 miles or so of driving, I paid about $60 in electricity.
    Would it be okay for my 76-year-old Mum, who doesn’t have a smartphone with a data connection? That’s the wider issue once the infrastructure problems are sorted.

    The infrastructure problems themselves are also going to be much more difficult, as right now only the middle classes (British, rather than American definition of that term) are buying them, and they mostly have driveways or garages on property they own and can install home chargers.
    My 83 year old mum has a smartphone, why doesn't yours?
    Lots of people don't, for all sorts of reasons. I fear far too many people disregard the digital divide that's fast increasing. I wanted to park at Lammas Land car park in Cambridge to do a run this week, to find the machine was out of order and a sign asking me to use the app.

    F**k that, I thought. It takes longer than putting coins into a machine, and I don't want yet another company to have my details. I parked on a nearby street instead. Two quid lost to the council.

    It'd be better if there was one parking app to rule them all, but it seems there are hundreds of them. It's effing annoying.
    In what sense is the digital divide increasing? Smartphone uptake is increasing. With demographic changes, the proportion of the population without digital skills is decreasing.
    Because they are needed for increasing amount of vital things - e.g. car parking, as mentioned. In the past we've discussed the number of people without bank accounts; who don't have Internet access; who are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate. There are lots of adults for whom all the above apply. And it's all too easy to forget about them.
    Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. I would say that the digital divide, the divide between people who are digitally literate and those who are not, is decreasing. However, the consequences of the digital divide are now more wide-ranging.
    I think that's right, yes.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,437
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,255

    Very concerning. Chimes with what a couple of contacts have told me too:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/19/hostile-states-threat-to-britain-cold-war/

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-military-is-too-small-to-fight-key-allies-warn-f6lv9gtxw

    I hate to say it but we might have to do something major like increase the basic rate to 25%, higher rate to 45% and top rate to 50% to fund a massive boost to our defence capability.

    We've been living in a pacifist fantasy.

    We must do anything we can to deter a war.

    "West must prepare for all-out war with Russia within 20 years, Nato official says"

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russia-war-nato-military-exercise-admiral-rob-bauer-brussels-cold-war-b1133399.html

    I think this is correct, sadly - at least if Russia maintains its current course. The easiest, and cheapest, way of preventing it is to stop them now, not in decade.

    But of course, in the eyes of some, it will all be *our* fault, and we'll have 'poked' Russia into it...
    Yes, Jeremy Corbyn. Who far too many on here are deluded into thinking is a patriotic Englishman.

    We need to invest now to prevent that war.

    This is personal. I have a 15 month son. I don't want this to be his future or for him to be conscripted one day and for me to lose him.
    Not Jeremy Corbyn. It was a right wing meme that Nato and especially EU expansion was poking the bear.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,868

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?

    The critical error was elevating BoZo
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,255
    Jonathan said:

    It’s a bit rubbish that mobile phones are now essential, because on top of tools like banking apps and parking apps they contain all sorts of distractions and addictive features that aren’t good for you. I concluded I needed a smart phone, but really hate the thing.

    At least you can afford a smartphone. There are plenty who can't, even with refurbished ones.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922

    Very concerning. Chimes with what a couple of contacts have told me too:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/19/hostile-states-threat-to-britain-cold-war/

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-military-is-too-small-to-fight-key-allies-warn-f6lv9gtxw

    I hate to say it but we might have to do something major like increase the basic rate to 25%, higher rate to 45% and top rate to 50% to fund a massive boost to our defence capability.

    We've been living in a pacifist fantasy.

    We must do anything we can to deter a war.

    "West must prepare for all-out war with Russia within 20 years, Nato official says"

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russia-war-nato-military-exercise-admiral-rob-bauer-brussels-cold-war-b1133399.html

    I think this is correct, sadly - at least if Russia maintains its current course. The easiest, and cheapest, way of preventing it is to stop them now, not in decade.

    But of course, in the eyes of some, it will all be *our* fault, and we'll have 'poked' Russia into it...
    Yes, Jeremy Corbyn. Who far too many on here are deluded into thinking is a patriotic Englishman.

    We need to invest now to prevent that war.

    This is personal. I have a 15 month son. I don't want this to be his future or for him to be conscripted one day and for me to lose him.
    Not Jeremy Corbyn. It was a right wing meme that Nato and especially EU expansion was poking the bear.
    I forgot that Nick Palmer was 'right wing'...

    Are you being serious? I've seen many left-wingers spread that rubbish (including on here...), but the only right-winger to mention it was Leon in one of his less lucid moments...
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,055

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    The underlying problem is that the Conservatives have become self-obsessed and inward looking.

    They don't seem to be aware of positive things they can claim credit for and even if they were might not even think they were good things.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,983

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    I may be mis-remembering but I recall tories on here being breezily upbeat about Sunak. Perhaps it was just irrational euphoria at the departure of Truss.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,255
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    The line "may also need a steer" sounds ominous. Will Nadine Dorries have to write a second book on unelected plotters against the Prime Minister? Are we in MI5 vs Harold Wilson territory?
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,522

    Very concerning. Chimes with what a couple of contacts have told me too:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/19/hostile-states-threat-to-britain-cold-war/

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-military-is-too-small-to-fight-key-allies-warn-f6lv9gtxw

    I hate to say it but we might have to do something major like increase the basic rate to 25%, higher rate to 45% and top rate to 50% to fund a massive boost to our defence capability.

    We've been living in a pacifist fantasy.

    We must do anything we can to deter a war.

    "West must prepare for all-out war with Russia within 20 years, Nato official says"

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russia-war-nato-military-exercise-admiral-rob-bauer-brussels-cold-war-b1133399.html

    I think this is correct, sadly - at least if Russia maintains its current course. The easiest, and cheapest, way of preventing it is to stop them now, not in decade.

    But of course, in the eyes of some, it will all be *our* fault, and we'll have 'poked' Russia into it...
    Yes, Jeremy Corbyn. Who far too many on here are deluded into thinking is a patriotic Englishman.

    We need to invest now to prevent that war.

    This is personal. I have a 15 month son. I don't want this to be his future or for him to be conscripted one day and for me to lose him.
    Not Jeremy Corbyn. It was a right wing meme that Nato and especially EU expansion was poking the bear.
    Love for Putin’s Russia is a bit of a horseshoe situation. Generally the US right and European left, with a bit of European far right in the mix.

    Whether you think we’re in danger from direct warfare with Russia in the next couple of decades depends on whether “we” includes the Baltic states and Poland, and whether warfare means something like Ukraine now or a little green men situation.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,255

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    I utterly disagree, when we talk about a decade of two. As I mentioned below, Germany rearmed in the two decades between 1918 and 1938 to the extent that they could conquer nearly all of Europe. And that was despite supposed hefty restrictions on what they could do (which led them to do stuff like train with the Russians...).

    I'd strongly argue that Russia is in a much better position than Germany was in the 1920s; both in terms of resources, industry and people.
    Yes, people forget the Russian arms industry is still intact, and Uncle Vlad has not just announced the closure of his last blast furnace.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,437
    edited January 20
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    I may be mis-remembering but I recall tories on here being breezily upbeat about Sunak. Perhaps it was just irrational euphoria at the departure of Truss.
    The problem they had is that Sunak was superficially Prime Ministerial but has been found out as being terrible at party and media management, and retail politics. It needed to be someone very good at all those things to actually drag things around for the Tories (if it was even possible after Truss), but instead they put Sunak in as a knee jerk, whose political rise was too fast and is lacking in the qualities they need.

    I’m not a current Tory voter, but I think most of us were relieved to see the back of Truss.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,055
    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    A major part of 1930s re-armament was building up the industrial base.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_shadow_factories
  • Options
    CiceroCicero Posts: 2,201
    edited January 20
    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    As Burns has it (in the week of Burns night);

    “O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as others see us!
    It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
    An' foolish notion.”

    The Tories are so wrapped up in themselves that they make a very small parcel.

    Instead of talking to the country, they are ignoring the voters altogether in a flurry of foolish gimmicks and political posturing. They know they have lost and are setting up points to score in the post defeat world.

    The problem with that is that the scale of defeat may be so comprehensive that any successful next leader may not yet have been elected to the House of Commons, and there is even a small risk of a Canadian style wipe out. If that happens, then this childish posturing over fake policies like Rwanda will be one of the largest reasons for their defeat,

    The Tories are offering no reason to vote for them and plenty of reasons to consign them to room 101. The hard right are pushing their party into a cul-de-sac of defeat which they cannot escape from until the party purges itself and recovers conservative qualities like pragmatism and moderation that are in very short supply in the Tories these days. The right will lose the election and then they will lose the defeat, but how long that second stage takes, is a very open question.

    Its not just the government that has collapsed. It is the party.


  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,522
    Hopefully the long overdue sidelining of Netanyahu starting to take place:

    https://x.com/lordrickettsp/status/1748616953432772680?s=46
  • Options

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,055

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    I utterly disagree, when we talk about a decade of two. As I mentioned below, Germany rearmed in the two decades between 1918 and 1938 to the extent that they could conquer nearly all of Europe. And that was despite supposed hefty restrictions on what they could do (which led them to do stuff like train with the Russians...).

    I'd strongly argue that Russia is in a much better position than Germany was in the 1920s; both in terms of resources, industry and people.
    Yes, people forget the Russian arms industry is still intact, and Uncle Vlad has not just announced the closure of his last blast furnace.
    Daniel Hannan will tell us that we don't need steel we can 'trade for it'.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,522

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    I utterly disagree, when we talk about a decade of two. As I mentioned below, Germany rearmed in the two decades between 1918 and 1938 to the extent that they could conquer nearly all of Europe. And that was despite supposed hefty restrictions on what they could do (which led them to do stuff like train with the Russians...).

    I'd strongly argue that Russia is in a much better position than Germany was in the 1920s; both in terms of resources, industry and people.
    Yes, people forget the Russian arms industry is still intact, and Uncle Vlad has not just announced the closure of his last blast furnace.
    But honestly, they don’t have the economy or expertise to be a strategic threat, beyond nukes. What they can be is a decided nuisance and major tactical threat in the region. Look at Iran: sanctioned for decades, poor and isolated, but still churning out weaponry and geopolitical havoc across the Middle East.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,380

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Doubtful that there is one, let alone one the party could agree on. The binning of "talent" (no sniggering at the back) started by BoJo makes it harder for the Conservatives to bring on an interesting substitute now. When Truss and Sunak are your heirs apparent, something has gone wrong with your succession planning.

    Still, heaven only knows what things would be like if Truss were still clinging on. Sunak stopped things getting even worse for a bit.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 3,893

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    Furthermore, if we want to strut across the world stage, that's an expensive thing to do. We- literally- have to earn the right to do it. And we haven't really been doing that for quite some time.
    There is absolutely no point in the UK having a military role on the world stage. There is so little practically we can do v China, India, Iran with the size of our military apart from being a mascot alongside the US if anything happens.

    The UK military should be purely geared for defending the UK and defending Europe if attacked. Sell the aircraft carriers and spend the money on kit that will work against relevant direct threats - anti missile tech and anti submarine tech. Build strong air defences and buy the correct off the shelf combat vehicles and drones (buy manufacturing rights and build in UK if possible). Keep a very good level of soldiers and marines (Schapps is a dick) who can integrate with other NATO and European forces in areas of potential threat.

    There is no need to be involved anywhere else anymore as we don’t carry even a medium stick and are not particularly keen to use the stick we have properly as we won’t accept military losses.

    There is no point people asking for a large army and navy if no kids want to join anymore because it’s hard, uncomfortable, badly laid and shit living conditions so just focus on what we actually need to do rather than dreams of adventures around the world.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,699

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    The alternative presumably is Kemi Badenoch. Is there any reason to believe she will do better than Sunak?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,588
    edited January 20
    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    Tories: waiting for their electoral prospect, to improve while every day that passes it gets worse.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,255

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    I utterly disagree, when we talk about a decade of two. As I mentioned below, Germany rearmed in the two decades between 1918 and 1938 to the extent that they could conquer nearly all of Europe. And that was despite supposed hefty restrictions on what they could do (which led them to do stuff like train with the Russians...).

    I'd strongly argue that Russia is in a much better position than Germany was in the 1920s; both in terms of resources, industry and people.
    Yes, people forget the Russian arms industry is still intact, and Uncle Vlad has not just announced the closure of his last blast furnace.
    Daniel Hannan will tell us that we don't need steel we can 'trade for it'.
    I'm sure China will sell us as much high quality steel as we need for infrastructure and defence purposes, although just in case, we should probably keep the receipt.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,588

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
    Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,140
    Off to vote shortly in the Finnish presidential election. Well, not me actually voting. However it highlights how unfair the denial of the vote for ex-patriot Brits has been. A very good thing that the 15-year rule is now being rescinded.
  • Options
    swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    I utterly disagree, when we talk about a decade of two. As I mentioned below, Germany rearmed in the two decades between 1918 and 1938 to the extent that they could conquer nearly all of Europe. And that was despite supposed hefty restrictions on what they could do (which led them to do stuff like train with the Russians...).

    I'd strongly argue that Russia is in a much better position than Germany was in the 1920s; both in terms of resources, industry and people.
    Yes, people forget the Russian arms industry is still intact, and Uncle Vlad has not just announced the closure of his last blast furnace.
    Daniel Hannan will tell us that we don't need steel we can 'trade for it'.
    I'm sure China will sell us as much high quality steel as we need for infrastructure and defence purposes, although just in case, we should probably keep the receipt.
    and even the US and other allies will make sure their supply is met long before our requirement.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,437
    FF43 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    The alternative presumably is Kemi Badenoch. Is there any reason to believe she will do better than Sunak?
    Nope. Terrible timing for her with the PO scandal.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,584
    geoffw said:

    Off to vote shortly in the Finnish presidential election. Well, not me actually voting. However it highlights how unfair the denial of the vote for ex-patriot Brits has been. A very good thing that the 15-year rule is now being rescinded.

    Why? I accept the time limit is arbitrary and I have no idea what it should be but 15 years absence does really feel like pretty permanent and therefore should result in the forfeit of a vote here. Presumably after 15 years you aren't contributing or benefiting or involved in society in the UK?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Consumer sentiment in the US has turned positive - increased 29% in the past two months. The biggest rise since Bill Clinton was elected.

    Significantly positive news for Joe Biden.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,588
    geoffw said:

    Off to vote shortly in the Finnish presidential election. Well, not me actually voting. However it highlights how unfair the denial of the vote for ex-patriot Brits has been. A very good thing that the 15-year rule is now being rescinded.

    Do you pay UK taxes Geoff - if not, why should you get a vote?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,155
    Dura_Ace said:

    boulay said:


    There is no point people asking for a large army and navy if no kids want to join anymore because it’s hard, uncomfortable, badly laid and shit living conditions so just focus on what we actually need to do rather than dreams of adventures around the world.

    That is fixable, though. The government needs to realise that the motivations for joining the forces are not the same as they were. Nobody will join to see the world. In the 60s most people couldn't afford to go to the end of their street, now chavs go to Orlando on holiday. A lot of the traditions and military ethos have now gone. On that recent documentary about HMS QE any resemblance to a warship was purely coincedentary.

    So increase pay for other ranks and increase it by A LOT. Fix all the shitty housing so service accomodation is somewhere that families aspire to live. Those are just simply hygeine issues that can be solved with "just' money so do that and recruitment/retention will improve.

    The procurement fiascos are much harder to fix due to embedded cultural and organisational issues.
    See also education, health, transport...
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,588

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    Tories: waiting for their electoral prospect, to improve while every day that passes it gets worse.
    Terrible comma placement - sorry.

    Tories: waiting for their electoral prospect to improve, while every day that passes it gets worse.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,155

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    Tories: waiting for their electoral prospect, to improve while every day that passes it gets worse.
    Terrible comma placement - sorry.

    Tories: waiting for their electoral prospect to improve, while every day that passes it gets worse.
    I dunno. I like the idea of them waiting for an electoral prospect. It sums up their current leadership vacuum.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,437
    edited January 20

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
    Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
    Not convinced with that. It is hard to see someone for instance like Barclay, Dowden or Gove winning a member vote against Badenoch or Braverman.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,146

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    I utterly disagree, when we talk about a decade of two. As I mentioned below, Germany rearmed in the two decades between 1918 and 1938 to the extent that they could conquer nearly all of Europe. And that was despite supposed hefty restrictions on what they could do (which led them to do stuff like train with the Russians...).

    I'd strongly argue that Russia is in a much better position than Germany was in the 1920s; both in terms of resources, industry and people.
    Russia, like us in fairness, struggles to have an industrial base worth a damn. Germany had the Ruhr, which even then was the most concentrated manufacturing base in Europe. The roles are not comparable. Poland is currently rearming to a significant extent. I cannot see a scenario where Russia will be strong enough to take them on in the coming decades, let alone the rest of us.

    I strongly agree with @another_richard's point. If we really want to have future defence capability we must seek to restore our industrial base. Losing Port Talbot is a much bigger issue than how many of our tanks can actually move.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,317
    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Thank God someone said it. I'm unsure whether the mooted war involves Putin triumpantly entering Paris in an open topped car, or whether it's us that's going to invade Russia.
  • Options

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
    Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
    I don't like the point. It is awful. Sunak has many many failings, none of which are his ethnicity or religion. But as the previous thread noted, the parochial bigotry which encapsulates so many people's views of other people has him labelled on those grounds.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,155
    edited January 20

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
    Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
    Can I just remind people Johnson is mixed race, insofar as that label is meaningful?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,146

    geoffw said:

    Off to vote shortly in the Finnish presidential election. Well, not me actually voting. However it highlights how unfair the denial of the vote for ex-patriot Brits has been. A very good thing that the 15-year rule is now being rescinded.

    Do you pay UK taxes Geoff - if not, why should you get a vote?
    No representation without taxation. Or something like that.

    Of course, if non taxpayers in this country were denied the vote....
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,155
    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Off to vote shortly in the Finnish presidential election. Well, not me actually voting. However it highlights how unfair the denial of the vote for ex-patriot Brits has been. A very good thing that the 15-year rule is now being rescinded.

    Do you pay UK taxes Geoff - if not, why should you get a vote?
    No representation without taxation. Or something like that.

    Of course, if non taxpayers in this country were denied the vote....
    Quite a lot of MPs and peers would be buggered.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Thank God someone said it. I'm unsure whether the mooted war involves Putin triumpantly entering Paris in an open topped car, or whether it's us that's going to invade Russia.
    Yes comrade. I'm unsure you should be opining on Russia, given your track record of 'accuracy' .... ;)
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,317

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    I utterly disagree, when we talk about a decade of two. As I mentioned below, Germany rearmed in the two decades between 1918 and 1938 to the extent that they could conquer nearly all of Europe. And that was despite supposed hefty restrictions on what they could do (which led them to do stuff like train with the Russians...).

    I'd strongly argue that Russia is in a much better position than Germany was in the 1920s; both in terms of resources, industry and people.
    Yes, people forget the Russian arms industry is still intact, and Uncle Vlad has not just announced the closure of his last blast furnace.
    Daniel Hannan will tell us that we don't need steel we can 'trade for it'.
    I'm sure China will sell us as much high quality steel as we need for infrastructure and defence purposes, although just in case, we should probably keep the receipt.
    and even the US and other allies will make sure their supply is met long before our requirement.
    I said yesterday that the forthcoming closure of our blast furnace (contributed to by Government Net Zero policies) was a simple case of treason. It's a bigger blow to our ability to fight any kind of prolonged war than a hundred Kim Philby's could have ever hoped to acheive. Obviously some knobend then got sniffy about it and accused me of behaving a US republican.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,155
    You know all those stories about falling inflation?

    Well...

    Supermarket favourites victims of shrinkflation, consumer group Which? says
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68040610

    Of course, if we all ate a bit less it might help with the national obesity crisis, but I'm not sure that's a popular strapline.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
    Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
    Can I just remind people Johnson is mixed race, insofar as that label is meaningful?
    He looks white. When you are a parochial bigot that is enough. He looks and sounds like us.
  • Options
    CiceroCicero Posts: 2,201
    boulay said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    Furthermore, if we want to strut across the world stage, that's an expensive thing to do. We- literally- have to earn the right to do it. And we haven't really been doing that for quite some time.
    There is absolutely no point in the UK having a military role on the world stage. There is so little practically we can do v China, India, Iran with the size of our military apart from being a mascot alongside the US if anything happens.

    The UK military should be purely geared for defending the UK and defending Europe if attacked. Sell the aircraft carriers and spend the money on kit that will work against relevant direct threats - anti missile tech and anti submarine tech. Build strong air defences and buy the correct off the shelf combat vehicles and drones (buy manufacturing rights and build in UK if possible). Keep a very good level of soldiers and marines (Schapps is a dick) who can integrate with other NATO and European forces in areas of potential threat.

    There is no need to be involved anywhere else anymore as we don’t carry even a medium stick and are not particularly keen to use the stick we have properly as we won’t accept military losses.

    There is no point people asking for a large army and navy if no kids want to join anymore because it’s hard, uncomfortable, badly laid and shit living conditions so just focus on what we actually need to do rather than dreams of adventures around the world.
    UK population is about 68 million; Estonia´s is 1.3 million

    The total UK armed forces, including reserves is 186,000. Estonia, including active reserves, has 78,000 troops, with a further 152,000 on the mobilsation register.

    The UK spends 2.3% of GDP on defence. Estonia spends 3,2% of GDP on defence, and is increasing that to more than 4%. It has also made donations to Ukraine of a further 1.4% of GDP.

    Ihe UK spends more than the entire Estonian GDP on Personal social services, and nearly three times that number on debt servicing. The largest single item of UK spending is pensions which represents nearly one third of total UK government spending.

    The UK has the means to defend itself. Does it have the will? The constant defence cuts under successive governments suggest they do not. At least while we were appeasing Hitler, we were preparing to defeat him.

    There is not much point in having better kit than Putin, if we do not have enough of it, and do not have sufficient human resources to use it anyway... cf the Royal Marines.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,155

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
    Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
    Can I just remind people Johnson is mixed race, insofar as that label is meaningful?
    He looks white. When you are a parochial bigot that is enough. He looks and sounds like us.
    Speak for yourself!
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,982
    geoffw said:

    Off to vote shortly in the Finnish presidential election. Well, not me actually voting. However it highlights how unfair the denial of the vote for ex-patriot Brits has been. A very good thing that the 15-year rule is now being rescinded.

    Heaven forfend that you should be an ex-patriot!
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,317
    ...
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,982
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
    Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
    Can I just remind people Johnson is mixed race, insofar as that label is meaningful?
    Is rsole a race?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,255

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
    Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
    I don't like the point. It is awful. Sunak has many many failings, none of which are his ethnicity or religion. But as the previous thread noted, the parochial bigotry which encapsulates so many people's views of other people has him labelled on those grounds.
    I'm not convinced. We have in recent years had BAME Chancellors, Home and Foreign Secretaries; our Prime Minister, Mayor of London and First Minister of Scotland too. I see no rioting in the streets or even racist graffiti on the walls. I've seen a lot more jibes about Rishi's height than his colour.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Have you fucking pussies been at Leon's hysteria inducing tonic?

    You regular reminder that RF forces can't take Kharkov which is a short bus ride from their border. They are zero conventional threat to the UK.

    Some of the autodidact military experten on here even think Ukraine can beat Russia so why does the UK need to gun up to defend against them?

    Absolutely right, as I said yesterday. The Defence establishment want some new toys and plenty of money. This is the most self interested nonsense since the junior doctors strike.

    Russia will take decades to recover from this war if they ever do. The huge legacy of kit they inherited from the Soviet Union has been depleted and is largely gone. They can't even make new gun barrels for themselves as they don't have the right steel thanks to sanctions. (If we genuinely want to boost our own defence capability then spending on keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot open might be a better idea). They are having to cannibalise their existing stock.

    The fundamental fact is that Europe is now a backwater of little interest to the world at large. We are less likely to become involved in a major war now than at almost any time in our history. If we still want to strut across the world stage we need to get our carriers working and staffed and some navy support vessels so they can operate far from base. That way we can play a small part where the action is should we want to.

    But we are not at risk from conventional warfare.
    I utterly disagree, when we talk about a decade of two. As I mentioned below, Germany rearmed in the two decades between 1918 and 1938 to the extent that they could conquer nearly all of Europe. And that was despite supposed hefty restrictions on what they could do (which led them to do stuff like train with the Russians...).

    I'd strongly argue that Russia is in a much better position than Germany was in the 1920s; both in terms of resources, industry and people.
    Russia, like us in fairness, struggles to have an industrial base worth a damn. Germany had the Ruhr, which even then was the most concentrated manufacturing base in Europe. The roles are not comparable. Poland is currently rearming to a significant extent. I cannot see a scenario where Russia will be strong enough to take them on in the coming decades, let alone the rest of us.

    I strongly agree with @another_richard's point. If we really want to have future defence capability we must seek to restore our industrial base. Losing Port Talbot is a much bigger issue than how many of our tanks can actually move.
    I agree with Richard on that as well. But I also disagree with your first paragraph. Russia is mobilising more of its economy - if not its men yet - to a war economy. More of the industrial base it does have is being put towards a conventional army and warfare.

    You also ignore the geopolitical aspects of this as well - Putin seems to believe he can split NATO, and he might well be correct. In fact it could be worse: remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? We might find ourselves in a situation where our direct interests are imperiled. And in a globalised world, and one where we do not have energy independence, that's very easy.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:

    “We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”

    The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this ­conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-tories-mps-rwanda-bill-vote-c73nv5c28

    I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
    It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.

    They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
    Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.

    If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.

    The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.

    Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
    Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
    Can I just remind people Johnson is mixed race, insofar as that label is meaningful?
    He looks white. When you are a parochial bigot that is enough. He looks and sounds like us.
    Speak for yourself!
    "Us" = shire Tory. That is who we are talking about remember.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,380
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    boulay said:


    There is no point people asking for a large army and navy if no kids want to join anymore because it’s hard, uncomfortable, badly laid and shit living conditions so just focus on what we actually need to do rather than dreams of adventures around the world.

    That is fixable, though. The government needs to realise that the motivations for joining the forces are not the same as they were. Nobody will join to see the world. In the 60s most people couldn't afford to go to the end of their street, now chavs go to Orlando on holiday. A lot of the traditions and military ethos have now gone. On that recent documentary about HMS QE any resemblance to a warship was purely coincedentary.

    So increase pay for other ranks and increase it by A LOT. Fix all the shitty housing so service accomodation is somewhere that families aspire to live. Those are just simply hygeine issues that can be solved with "just' money so do that and recruitment/retention will improve.

    The procurement fiascos are much harder to fix due to embedded cultural and organisational issues.
    See also education, health, transport...
    The problem for all these sectors- more money isn't a sufficient solution to their problems, but it's almost certainly a necessity part of the solution.

    Which is going to be challenging whoever wins in the next 53 weeks or so.
This discussion has been closed.