“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.”
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?
“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.”
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 only remotely viable "dump Sunak" candidate is Hunt. It is going to have to be a coronation. But changing dull "safe pair of hands" Sunak for dull "safe pair of hands" Hunt - what does that do? How many seats is that going to save?
Cameron from the Lords is not a runner without a change in the party constitution. Even then....really?
The only remotely viable "dump Sunak" candidate is Hunt. It is going to have to be a coronation. But changing dull "safe pair of hands" Sunak for dull "safe pair of hands" Hunt - what does that do? How many seats is that going to save?
🚨 The HuffPost UK weekend political read on how Rishi Sunak's fight with the Lords has sparked a fresh Tory civil war.
🔥"He’s got no political memory beyond the time he’s been in parliament. It just looks like he doesn’t really believe in anything."
The argument for Hunt is that he is not nearly as incompetent as Richi, and has a better grasp of how politics works. Plus he probably knows how to fill a car with petrol, use a debit card, and doesn't look like an inbetweener interning in Downing Street
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.
I approve of taking a careful and conservative approach, but having a good Navy is an important part of ohr national defence - we are very blessed to be an island (or group of islands). I am also reminded of the song 'Rule Britannia', which was a subversive song, following Britain's exhausting participation in the Wars of the Spanish Succession, which was an enjoinder to invest in Naval power and stop being drawn into continental land engagements. That song then became policy, and it was very successful. Every time we participate in a land war, all of which (Iraq) seem at best tangential to British interests, we get screwed. We need a strong Navy, and not to have the army take on anyone who isn't armed with a spear. Then everything will be perfectly fine.
“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.”
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.
Yes, people on here think it’s fine to Mickey take over his height, which is not much different from that of St Keir (who doesn’t get dug out over his height) but I’ve not heard any racial or religious attacks at him
“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.”
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?
“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.”
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 only remotely viable "dump Sunak" candidate is Hunt. It is going to have to be a coronation. But changing dull "safe pair of hands" Sunak for dull "safe pair of hands" Hunt - what does that do? How many seats is that going to save?
Cameron from the Lords is not a runner without a change in the party constitution. Even then....really?
And Jeremy Hunt has already flopped in two leadership contests. It is hard to see anyone nailing his colours to their mast.
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.
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"
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...
I stand by it. Expanding NATO right up to the Russian border and incorporating the Baltics -actually once a part of the USSR - was needlessly provocative. We shoulda done it much more subtle
How would America react if Mexico joined a Chinese led military/nuclear alliance?
They would immediately topple the Mexican government and get that shit changed
The only remotely viable "dump Sunak" candidate is Hunt. It is going to have to be a coronation. But changing dull "safe pair of hands" Sunak for dull "safe pair of hands" Hunt - what does that do? How many seats is that going to save?
🚨 The HuffPost UK weekend political read on how Rishi Sunak's fight with the Lords has sparked a fresh Tory civil war.
🔥"He’s got no political memory beyond the time he’s been in parliament. It just looks like he doesn’t really believe in anything."
The argument for Hunt is that he is not nearly as incompetent as Richi, and has a better grasp of how politics works. Plus he probably knows how to fill a car with petrol, use a debit card, and doesn't look like an inbetweener interning in Downing Street
Hunt, the "not nearly as incompetent as Richi" that left us scrabbling around for PPE at the start of the Covid epidemic? That Hunt?
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.
As I understand it, the blast furnaces are to be replaced with an electric arc furnace, so won't we still have steelmaking capacity, just cleaner and requiring fewer workers?
“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.”
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?
“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.”
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 only remotely viable "dump Sunak" candidate is Hunt. It is going to have to be a coronation. But changing dull "safe pair of hands" Sunak for dull "safe pair of hands" Hunt - what does that do? How many seats is that going to save?
Cameron from the Lords is not a runner without a change in the party constitution. Even then....really?
You correctly identify why that idea is a complete non-starter.
I think they should elect Jake Berry. Most likely to squeeze RefUK. Would have to make concessions to the Wet tendency. Maybe Cameron as Deputy *shudders*. Implement as much of Truss's platform as possible given the time constraints.
“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.”
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.
You think they will let it anywhere near the members? After what went before? No chance.
The general explanation is obvious enough I think, and which splinter is behind it doesn't matter much. There is 90%+ chance that the Tories lose the next election even if Labour governs with a NOM.
This is true whatever the Tories do between now and the GE.
The easy course to take in the coming battle for the Tory soul as of now therefore is: Change Policy. Put in X as Leader etc, Then We Will Win" knowing this won't happen.
Then afterwards you have a free hit at "I told you what to do and you ignored it, we would have won with X", a claim which while false and delusional (IMHO) cannot be falsified. From that position you claim the future of the party, with the loud support of the remaining members.
“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.”
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?
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.
As I understand it, the blast furnaces are to be replaced with an electric arc furnace, so won't we still have steelmaking capacity, just cleaner and requiring fewer workers?
Electric arc furnaces can't make new steel (needed for armaments), they recycle scrap steel.
“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.”
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.
You think they will let it anywhere near the members? After what went before? No chance.
Yes. They will want to have a debate in opposition, and that will include a members vote as per their constitution.
If there were to be a vacancy before the election, well that’s less clear.
In April 1995, yes, that early, my father Amos Oz published this hyper-prophetic diagnosis in the @nytimes:
“These Hamas words [its vow to annihilate Israel] are a gift from heaven to Israel's extremist hawks, because they inflict despair on the Israeli public -- a loss of any hope of reaching a compromise.
These statements are also a gift because, while much harsher than all the mysticism spouted by the zealous right in Israel, they are not far removed from the Israeli hard line in engendering an atmosphere of religious, chauvinist egoism.
Hamas therefore should be seen as the most effective collaborator of the extreme right in Israel.”
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.
Except that the Houthi crisis shows that our interests can absolutely be threatened by hostile actors doing hostile shit, a long way away
If the Houthis manage to close the Red Sea, that means a global recession, especially in energy and import dependant Europe. So we need to be able handle stuff like that
What is your alternative? Rely on the Americans? I have two answers for you:
1. President Donald Trump
2. America is energy self sufficient: it actually has less need for safe Red Sea shiplanes than us
So, yeah, we actually do need armed forces. We need a big enough army that can make a difference if dropped into a war, we definitely need a navy and airforce and drones. And we need AI to make it all harder and better
@Casino_Royale is right. The era of the peace dividend is over
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"
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...
I stand by it. Expanding NATO right up to the Russian border and incorporating the Baltics -actually once a part of the USSR - was needlessly provocative. We shoulda done it much more subtle
(Snip)
And what about self-determination? Do those countries bordering Russia have the choice to join NATO (*) if they want, or should we just have let them be Moscow's satellites for *reasons*? Because that the end-results of your 'logic'.
Besides, Putin didn't need much of a provocation. He'd have done this whatever. The NATO expansion bullshit is just excusing fascism.
Its a little depressing how little focus people give to news like the Port Talbot closure. Having long since sold off heavy industry for a fat commission and a quick profit, we are here with the latest foreign owner not needing to invest in British capabilities because it isn't strategically important to them.
It is to us. We really need to take back control of these things and invest in them. Being able to produce steel is a Good Investment. Cheaper than the alternative in the long run. And a lot more secure.
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.
As I understand it, the blast furnaces are to be replaced with an electric arc furnace, so won't we still have steelmaking capacity, just cleaner and requiring fewer workers?
Electric arc furnaces can't make new steel (needed for armaments), they recycle scrap steel.
Why can't recycled steel be used to make armaments? It's surely the same stuff, unlike, say, recycled paper.
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"
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...
I stand by it. Expanding NATO right up to the Russian border and incorporating the Baltics -actually once a part of the USSR - was needlessly provocative. We shoulda done it much more subtle
How would America react if Mexico joined a Chinese led military/nuclear alliance?
They would immediately topple the Mexican government and get that shit changed
No. No comparison. The Warsaw pact went right up to the NATO/free world border. The important thing is that it was defended. Ukraine - not in NATO or EU - is attacked. Estonia (NATO and EU) hasn't been. Finland and Sweden have late on read the runes.
“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.”
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.
You think they will let it anywhere near the members? After what went before? No chance.
Yes. They will want to have a debate in opposition, and that will include a members vote as per their constitution.
If there were to be a vacancy before the election, well that’s less clear.
In opposition, fair enough. But I detect the view in the party hierarchy (not without some wider support, judging from ConHome) is that members shouldn’t be picking a serving Prime Minister. It looks bad to non-members, and it’s just practical politics that the PM must command the support of his or her parliamentary party above all else. Plus, the MPs choosing is quicker and less divisive.
Further, if they do make a change this year, time is of the essence.
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"
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...
I stand by it. Expanding NATO right up to the Russian border and incorporating the Baltics -actually once a part of the USSR - was needlessly provocative. We shoulda done it much more subtle
(Snip)
And what about self-determination? Do those countries bordering Russia have the choice to join NATO (*) if they want, or should we just have let them be Moscow's satellites for *reasons*? Because that the end-results of your 'logic'.
Besides, Putin didn't need much of a provocation. He'd have done this whatever. The NATO expansion bullshit is just excusing fascism.
Appeared to ?? I’m pretty sure if Biden had said something similar, the diagnosis would be rather less hesitant.
Trump confuses Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi when talking about Jan. 6 https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1748577852092490036 Former President Donald Trump appeared to mistakenly refer to GOP rival Nikki Haley instead of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., when discussing the Jan. 6 riot at a campaign rally in New Hampshire on Friday night.
The mixup came during Trump's remarks to a crowd of supporters in Concord, N.H., where he spoke for more than 90 minutes and repeatedly bashed Haley, who served in his administration as an ambassador to the United Nations and has never been a member of Congress.
“Nikki Haley, you know they, do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it because of lots of things like Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guard, whatever they want. They turned it down. They don’t want to talk about that. These are very dishonest people,” Trump said.
NBC News has reached out to Trump’s campaign for comment on his remarks...
The only remotely viable "dump Sunak" candidate is Hunt. It is going to have to be a coronation. But changing dull "safe pair of hands" Sunak for dull "safe pair of hands" Hunt - what does that do? How many seats is that going to save?
🚨 The HuffPost UK weekend political read on how Rishi Sunak's fight with the Lords has sparked a fresh Tory civil war.
🔥"He’s got no political memory beyond the time he’s been in parliament. It just looks like he doesn’t really believe in anything."
The argument for Hunt is that he is not nearly as incompetent as Richi, and has a better grasp of how politics works. Plus he probably knows how to fill a car with petrol, use a debit card, and doesn't look like an inbetweener interning in Downing Street
Hunt, the "not nearly as incompetent as Richi" that left us scrabbling around for PPE at the start of the Covid epidemic? That Hunt?
The guy who put the new NHS pandemic preparedness plan in the small cylindrical filing cabinet under his desk.
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"
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...
I stand by it. Expanding NATO right up to the Russian border and incorporating the Baltics -actually once a part of the USSR - was needlessly provocative. We shoulda done it much more subtle
How would America react if Mexico joined a Chinese led military/nuclear alliance?
They would immediately topple the Mexican government and get that shit changed
From the people who brought you the Cuban Missile Crisis.
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.
I like Rishi Sunak, particularly after what came before, and what might in the form of Jenrick/Braverman/Patrol/Badenoch, come after.
Back onto Tata. Who is the President of the Board of Trade? No one seems to know so it was left to Rishi to explain why Port Talbot, in essence, has to close in 2024 prior to reopening in circa 2027/8. Now Rishi's response from a football stadium, far, far away from Swansea Bay was remarkable in it's tin earedness. My paraphrase "if it wasn't for me the Port Talbot plant would close in it's entirely. Because of investment in electric blast furnaces by the Conservative Government in Westminster without a penny from the Labour administration in Cardiff bay I have saved half the jobs". It is a big deal!
Now Rishi, the headline figure of 2,800 is very misleading. Most of the service jobs on site have been farmed out to the likes of Harsco, Darlow Lloyd, Mii and Runtech. (I have named four out of a couple of dozen). These contractors manage the kress carriers, plant such as fork trucks, the landfill, cleaning, waste management including recycling of slag, transport, safety management, environmental compliance, asbestos management, catering, training, the list goes on and on. I would suggest we could probably double that 2,800.
When the plant was threatened a decade ago there were all hands on deck from local politicians like Steve Kinnock and First Minister Carwyn Jones, but unlike this week the alarm also sounded in Downing Street. Javid, I believe was caught on a jolly with his daughter to Aussie, so Soubry AND Cameron came West. Cameron worked with Jones and Kinnock and met with the workforce. He asked the workforce what they required of him and he went back and was as good as his word. There are soon to be former steel workers in Port Talbot who are "Labour 'til they die" but they won't hear a bad word spoken of Cameron. @ydoethur suggested the other day that he had his doubts that the arc furnace would see the light of day. I was sceptical, but thinking about the delay after immediate closure of the blast furnaces he has a point. Rishi could have leveraged the retention of one blast furnace (as requested by the unions) against his comittment of cash to Tata. Despite his proclamations of saving the site, Rishi was too preoccupied with stopping the boats.
Whilst we are on the subject of campaigning Rishi, he was soundly defended on here after the full VT of his interaction with the retired nurse was revealed, and it was slightly less damaging than the Sky edit. However, is giving a member of the public the same sound thrashing he gives Starmer every Wednesday with ignoring the question, obfuscation, lies and misuse of statistics a winning strategy? Perhaps if he had just listened to her he might not have looked so ridiculous.
Its a little depressing how little focus people give to news like the Port Talbot closure. Having long since sold off heavy industry for a fat commission and a quick profit, we are here with the latest foreign owner not needing to invest in British capabilities because it isn't strategically important to them.
It is to us. We really need to take back control of these things and invest in them. Being able to produce steel is a Good Investment. Cheaper than the alternative in the long run. And a lot more secure.
It's a little depressing that, back in New Labour times, people did not focus on the closure of a specialtity steel manufacturer such as Butterley. But it went unmentioned.
It's not just about steelmaking at the raw end; it's about end-products as well.
The closest to a reasonable political debate show on American TV at the moment - Bill Maher’s Real Time is back on again at the start of election year. https://youtube.com/watch?v=6obNJKeFRh8
Also featuring a very soft-soap opening interview with Gov. Newsom, who is definitely not even thinking about possibly running for any other office this year.
Under the Inquiries Act, it is a criminal offence if someone “intentionally alters or destroys any [relevant] document”
Definition of a relevant document is one that “it is likely that the inquiry panel would ... wish to be provided with it”
They were real wrong un's , no official minutes recorded , or they used whatsapp and burners , their day will come. They are as bad as the Tories.
Sturgeon is no better or worse than Boris, of course (he's a lying chancer, so is she). Except... in one way she IS worse
See this video here.
‘Can you guarantee to the bereaved families that you will disclose emails, WhatsApps, private emails if you’ve been using them. Whatever. That nothing will be off limits in this inquiry?’
@NicolaSturgeon : ‘If you understand statutory public inquiries you would know that even if I wasn’t prepared to give that assurance, which for the avoidance of doubt I am, then I wouldn’t have the ability. This will be a judge-led statutory inquiry.’
What's more she delivers her "promise" in that particular sanctimonious, chummy yet condescending style, as if the very idea she would do this is an affront; and, by the way, she IS the nice sensible mother of the nation, reliable and honest, unlike the hated English Tories
Now it turns out that was all utter bollocks and she has deleted every message, and the "bereaved families" can go fuck themselves
She is an absolute snake. Pure lies with an extra dash of hypocrisy
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"
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...
I stand by it. Expanding NATO right up to the Russian border and incorporating the Baltics -actually once a part of the USSR - was needlessly provocative. We shoulda done it much more subtle
(Snip)
And what about self-determination? Do those countries bordering Russia have the choice to join NATO (*) if they want, or should we just have let them be Moscow's satellites for *reasons*? Because that the end-results of your 'logic'.
Besides, Putin didn't need much of a provocation. He'd have done this whatever. The NATO expansion bullshit is just excusing fascism.
(*) Understandably, given Russia's behaviour.
We disagree, clearly
What do you disagree with?
That self-determination is an important principle? That the countries adjoining Russia had the right to choose to join NATO? That the countries adjoining Russia had good reasons to join NATO? That Putin did not need much of a provocation to invade and bully smaller neighbours?
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"
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...
I stand by it. Expanding NATO right up to the Russian border and incorporating the Baltics -actually once a part of the USSR - was needlessly provocative. We shoulda done it much more subtle
(Snip)
And what about self-determination? Do those countries bordering Russia have the choice to join NATO (*) if they want, or should we just have let them be Moscow's satellites for *reasons*? Because that the end-results of your 'logic'.
Besides, Putin didn't need much of a provocation. He'd have done this whatever. The NATO expansion bullshit is just excusing fascism.
(*) Understandably, given Russia's behaviour.
We disagree, clearly
What do you disagree with?
That self-determination is an important principle? That the countries adjoining Russia had the right to choose to join NATO? That the countries adjoining Russia had good reasons to join NATO? That Putin did not need much of a provocation to invade and bully smaller neighbours?
I refer the tedious interlocutor to my Mexico comparison
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"
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...
I stand by it. Expanding NATO right up to the Russian border and incorporating the Baltics -actually once a part of the USSR - was needlessly provocative. We shoulda done it much more subtle
(Snip)
And what about self-determination? Do those countries bordering Russia have the choice to join NATO (*) if they want, or should we just have let them be Moscow's satellites for *reasons*? Because that the end-results of your 'logic'.
Besides, Putin didn't need much of a provocation. He'd have done this whatever. The NATO expansion bullshit is just excusing fascism.
(*) Understandably, given Russia's behaviour.
We disagree, clearly
What do you disagree with?
That self-determination is an important principle? That the countries adjoining Russia had the right to choose to join NATO? That the countries adjoining Russia had good reasons to join NATO? That Putin did not need much of a provocation to invade and bully smaller neighbours?
I refer the tedious interlocutor to my Mexico comparison
It's quite simple: the USA offers Mexico a better deal than Russia. If that was to change, Mexico might make a different decision. Russia *could* have chosen to give its neighbours better offers; to be friendly. But over the last two decades it chose otherwise, and decided to interfere, bully, belittle and even invade its neighbours.
Now, answer my questions. And BTW, if you hadn't noticed, the USA is rather different to Russia. Even under Trump...
President Biden’s top aides told lawmakers in a private meeting that if Congress fails to authorize additional military aid for Ukraine in the coming days, Russia could win the war in a matter of weeks — months at best, according to two sources. https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1748555976754516149
The only remotely viable "dump Sunak" candidate is Hunt. It is going to have to be a coronation. But changing dull "safe pair of hands" Sunak for dull "safe pair of hands" Hunt - what does that do? How many seats is that going to save?
🚨 The HuffPost UK weekend political read on how Rishi Sunak's fight with the Lords has sparked a fresh Tory civil war.
🔥"He’s got no political memory beyond the time he’s been in parliament. It just looks like he doesn’t really believe in anything."
The argument for Hunt is that he is not nearly as incompetent as Richi, and has a better grasp of how politics works. Plus he probably knows how to fill a car with petrol, use a debit card, and doesn't look like an inbetweener interning in Downing Street
He's one of us. He flew back from Tokyo whilst Foreign Secretary in cattle class with me.
I am not sure that is enough. What about Mordaunt? No, that's not enough either.
What you need Mark (post before Scott's) is the dream ticket of Braverman and Jenrick declaring martial law, cancelling the election and going full-frontal Putin. That way, you retain power.
“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.”
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.
The whole discussion about whether the Tories would do better with or without a new leader is for the birds.
The party is toxic and riven between the ascendant GB News faction that feels the party isn’t toxic enough and the neutered One Nation faction that seems resigned to declaring the water to be wet as the ship goes down.
In the absence of a dynamic, charismatic figure that could unite the party, drag it back to its senses and persuade the public to give it a second look, the leadership is practically irrelevant.
Seriously, which of these prospects would make any difference at all (in the absence of a serious failure on the part of Labour)?
Anderson: too provocative Badenoch: too wild Barclay: too bland Braverman: too fired Cameron: too previous Cleverly: too gaffe-prone Dowden: too forgettable Farage: too outside Frost: too unelected Gove: too weird Hunt: too unpopular Johnson: too Johnson Mordaunt: too woke Shapps: too schizophrenic Truss: to the pub
Even though Ms. Obama has repeatedly ruled out any presidential interest, OddsChecker, an online bookmaker, on Friday gave her nearly even odds of winning the presidential election with Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who placed third in Iowa on Monday. Both were behind Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden. The site put Mr. Newsom in fifth place, well ahead of Mr. DeSantis.
Deadline is Monday; the salary is £40K pa and, as the Chair has said, you don't need to read anything. Plus you get the chance to determine Nick Read's pay.
Oh, did I forget to mention: it's for the independent director on the Post Office Board.
I know, I know: we're into losing a soul but profiting to gain territory - but for the Post Office!!!!
“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.”
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.
The whole discussion about whether the Tories would do better with or without a new leader is for the birds.
The party is toxic and riven between the ascendant GB News faction that feels the party isn’t toxic enough and the neutered One Nation faction that seems resigned to declaring the water to be wet as the ship goes down.
In the absence of a dynamic, charismatic figure that could unite the party, drag it back to its senses and persuade the public to give it a second look, the leadership is practically irrelevant.
Seriously, which of these prospects would make any difference at all (in the absence of a serious failure on the part of Labour)?
Anderson: too provocative Badenoch: too wild Barclay: too bland Braverman: too fired Cameron: too previous Cleverly: too gaffe-prone Dowden: too forgettable Farage: too outside Frost: too unelected Gove: too weird Hunt: too unpopular Johnson: too Johnson Mordaunt: too woke Shapps: too schizophrenic Truss: to the pub
“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.”
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.
How many non-white-make leaders* has Labour had
(* permanent before anyone starts wittering on about Harriet Harman)
Deadline is Monday; the salary is £40K pa and, as the Chair has said, you don't need to read anything. Plus you get the chance to determine Nick Read's pay.
Oh, did I forget to mention: it's for the independent director on the Post Office Board.
I know, I know: we're into losing a soul but profiting to gain territory - but for the Post Office!!!!
I hope your application doesn't get lost in the post.
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.
As I understand it, the blast furnaces are to be replaced with an electric arc furnace, so won't we still have steelmaking capacity, just cleaner and requiring fewer workers?
Electric arc furnaces can't make new steel (needed for armaments), they recycle scrap steel.
Why can't recycled steel be used to make armaments? It's surely the same stuff, unlike, say, recycled paper.
Contamination, presumably. Difficult to get the precision alloys one needs for hi-tech if you are beginning with mucky stuff? But it would be good to know.
Also - you suddenly need a lot of steel, where is it coming from once the old motor car heaps are cleared? In the 1930s scrap steel prices went right up thanks to rearmament (which is why they started salving and cutting up the German warships at the bottom of, and around, Scapa Flow).
she delivers her "promise" in that particular sanctimonious, chummy yet condescending style, as if the very idea she would do this is an affront; and, by the way, she IS the nice sensible mother of the nation, reliable and honest, unlike the hated English Tories
There will not be a single person in the country remotely shocked at Nicola Sturgeon deleting all of her Covid WhatsApps. As predictable as night following day. At least she deleted them in a Scottish way, however, unlike Boris Johnson and co.
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
The critical error was Brexit. Everything flows from Cameron’s acquiesce to the nutters. Party before country.
Also - you suddenly need a lot of steel, where is it coming from once the old motor car heaps are cleared? In the 1930s scrap steel prices went right up thanks to rearmament (which is why they started salving and cutting up the German warships at the bottom of, and around, Scapa Flow).
The steel from Scapa Flow is extra valuable now because it doesn't contain any nuclear contamination.
The only remotely viable "dump Sunak" candidate is Hunt. It is going to have to be a coronation. But changing dull "safe pair of hands" Sunak for dull "safe pair of hands" Hunt - what does that do? How many seats is that going to save?
🚨 The HuffPost UK weekend political read on how Rishi Sunak's fight with the Lords has sparked a fresh Tory civil war.
🔥"He’s got no political memory beyond the time he’s been in parliament. It just looks like he doesn’t really believe in anything."
The argument for Hunt is that he is not nearly as incompetent as Richi, and has a better grasp of how politics works. Plus he probably knows how to fill a car with petrol, use a debit card, and doesn't look like an inbetweener interning in Downing Street
He's one of us. He flew back from Tokyo whilst Foreign Secretary in cattle class with me.
I am not sure that is enough. What about Mordaunt? No, that's not enough either.
What you need Mark (post before Scott's) is the dream ticket of Braverman and Jenrick declaring martial law, cancelling the election and going full-frontal Putin. That way, you retain power.
They can't cancel the election. HoL retains absolute control over the extension of life of a parliament beyond five years.
“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.”
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.
I’m not a Tory, but I do remember observing on here, during the early days of Sunak, how refreshing it was to have a PM who was merely not very good.
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.
Except that the Houthi crisis shows that our interests can absolutely be threatened by hostile actors doing hostile shit, a long way away
If the Houthis manage to close the Red Sea, that means a global recession, especially in energy and import dependant Europe. So we need to be able handle stuff like that
What is your alternative? Rely on the Americans? I have two answers for you:
1. President Donald Trump
2. America is energy self sufficient: it actually has less need for safe Red Sea shiplanes than us
So, yeah, we actually do need armed forces. We need a big enough army that can make a difference if dropped into a war, we definitely need a navy and airforce and drones. And we need AI to make it all harder and better
@Casino_Royale is right. The era of the peace dividend is over
I used to believe in a global British military presence/capability but find it completely undeliverable now.
You are right that the Houthi situation needs dealing with but why is it the US and us doing it? Why is the UK firing a number of nurse’s salaries (and the US firing a number of hospital new builds) to keep trade flowing whilst the likes of Italy do fuck all and say “cheers guys, we can keep selling Gucci loafers to China”. Why isn’t China being called out to help - they need to be shamed for being more interested in political games than keeping trade, which they rely on, smooth.
So if we are going to be Robin to the US Batman then we need to get other countries who benefit from our risk and cost to pony up towards it. I can understand why Trump has issues with NATO because there are free riders. If Europe shows it’s making a serious effort then the Us even under Trump are more likely to step up in a real emergency rather than say “you did fuck all and relaxed on our dime so tough.”
What we can do best is ensure Europe is so well defended that if it’s in Europe’s interests (as a continent not the EU) to help out or intervene outside Europe then we can do so better with better integrated forces and kit to share the burden.
As it stands being able to send an aircraft carrier to the pacific without a Royal naval escort fleet is just pointless.
So I agree entirely we need a big and skilled and well equipped army, navy and airforce ready to be dropped into a war and be very effective but that should be focussed on Europe and should be matched by all those countries who benefit from that security such as Ireland.
Its a little depressing how little focus people give to news like the Port Talbot closure. Having long since sold off heavy industry for a fat commission and a quick profit, we are here with the latest foreign owner not needing to invest in British capabilities because it isn't strategically important to them.
It is to us. We really need to take back control of these things and invest in them. Being able to produce steel is a Good Investment. Cheaper than the alternative in the long run. And a lot more secure.
It's a little depressing that, back in New Labour times, people did not focus on the closure of a specialtity steel manufacturer such as Butterley. But it went unmentioned.
It's not just about steelmaking at the raw end; it's about end-products as well.
This is not specialist steel, this is virgin steel. Top quality steel for the automotive, military hardware and consumer electronics. This is our final plant for such a crucial product, it is a big deal. This is why Cameron intervened when the plant was threatened a decade ago.
If you want to apportion blame on previous Governments, Mrs Thatcher shouldn't have allowed key UK industry to be sold off to foreign asset strippers at fire-sale prices.
she delivers her "promise" in that particular sanctimonious, chummy yet condescending style, as if the very idea she would do this is an affront; and, by the way, she IS the nice sensible mother of the nation, reliable and honest, unlike the hated English Tories
There will not be a single person in the country remotely shocked at Nicola Sturgeon deleting all of her Covid WhatsApps. As predictable as night following day. At least she deleted them in a Scottish way, however, unlike Boris Johnson and co.
Has anyone fallen so hard from grace, so quickly, as La Sturgeon? About 18 months ago she was untouchable; now she plunges ever further downwards, and might end up in chokey. It is incredible
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
The critical error was Brexit. Everything flows from Cameron’s acquiesce to the nutters. Party before country.
Interesting thread elsewhere this morning on the legacy of "slogan = governing"
Begat by Brexit, it's the only form of government Richi has ever known, which is perhaps why he is so fixated on "stop the boats" instead of properly devising and implementing policies that would, you know, actually stops some boats...
Also - you suddenly need a lot of steel, where is it coming from once the old motor car heaps are cleared? In the 1930s scrap steel prices went right up thanks to rearmament (which is why they started salving and cutting up the German warships at the bottom of, and around, Scapa Flow).
The steel from Scapa Flow is extra valuable now because it doesn't contain any nuclear contamination.
Indeed. For making high=precision instruments. But that came later, post 1940s.
Modern steel is too contaminated even if made de novo. Remarkable thought.
“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.”
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.
The whole discussion about whether the Tories would do better with or without a new leader is for the birds.
The party is toxic and riven between the ascendant GB News faction that feels the party isn’t toxic enough and the neutered One Nation faction that seems resigned to declaring the water to be wet as the ship goes down.
In the absence of a dynamic, charismatic figure that could unite the party, drag it back to its senses and persuade the public to give it a second look, the leadership is practically irrelevant.
Seriously, which of these prospects would make any difference at all (in the absence of a serious failure on the part of Labour)?
Anderson: too provocative Badenoch: too wild Barclay: too bland Braverman: too fired Cameron: too previous Cleverly: too gaffe-prone Dowden: too forgettable Farage: too outside Frost: too unelected Gove: too weird Hunt: too unpopular Johnson: too Johnson Mordaunt: too woke Shapps: too schizophrenic Truss: to the pub
Deadline is Monday; the salary is £40K pa and, as the Chair has said, you don't need to read anything. Plus you get the chance to determine Nick Read's pay.
Oh, did I forget to mention: it's for the independent director on the Post Office Board.
I know, I know: we're into losing a soul but profiting to gain territory - but for the Post Office!!!!
I hope your application doesn't get lost in the post.
I used to describe my team to people at work as the firm's "shit magnet".
But there is some shit even I don't want to go near. Not with the current lot in charge.
President Biden’s top aides told lawmakers in a private meeting that if Congress fails to authorize additional military aid for Ukraine in the coming days, Russia could win the war in a matter of weeks — months at best, according to two sources. https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1748555976754516149
Deadline is Monday; the salary is £40K pa and, as the Chair has said, you don't need to read anything. Plus you get the chance to determine Nick Read's pay.
Oh, did I forget to mention: it's for the independent director on the Post Office Board.
I know, I know: we're into losing a soul but profiting to gain territory - but for the Post Office!!!!
Whilst we are on the subject of campaigning Rishi, he was soundly defended on here after the full VT of his interaction with the retired nurse was revealed, and it was slightly less damaging than the Sky edit. However, is giving a member of the public the same sound thrashing he gives Starmer every Wednesday with ignoring the question, obfuscation, lies and misuse of statistics a winning strategy? Perhaps if he had just listened to her he might not have looked so ridiculous.
Long snip to focus on this last bit. "slightly less damaging". Yes, very slightly. He turned his back on her as she was talking to him and walked away. She then follows and keeps talking, and he responds with an absurdity (I have stopped all the strikes well apart from that one here they won't stop). The handshake is proffered by her, not him.
Yet we were solemnly told on here the edit was egregious, he continued the conversation and shook her hand. Passively. Because she could have stood there open-mouthed with the cameras watching him walk away as she was mid-sentance.
This is the thing with Rishi. He shrieks on about Starmer having no plan. But Sunak believes in nothing. He can't engage with normals because he doesn't know what to say other than a strapline. Even his big policy - STOP THE BOATS - he was opposed to.
Compare and contrast with John Major on his soapbox. He passionately believed in the party and what he was doing and could talk from personal experience. Hecklers? He engaged them.
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
The critical error was Brexit. Everything flows from Cameron’s acquiesce to the nutters. Party before country.
Absolutely, added to which was his abandonment of the country when the vote went the wrong way. His irresponsibility was breathtaking, and so despite the catastrophic Jonson and Truss, Cameron was the worst of the lot.
she delivers her "promise" in that particular sanctimonious, chummy yet condescending style, as if the very idea she would do this is an affront; and, by the way, she IS the nice sensible mother of the nation, reliable and honest, unlike the hated English Tories
There will not be a single person in the country remotely shocked at Nicola Sturgeon deleting all of her Covid WhatsApps. As predictable as night following day. At least she deleted them in a Scottish way, however, unlike Boris Johnson and co.
Has anyone fallen so hard from grace, so quickly, as La Sturgeon? About 18 months ago she was untouchable; now she plunges ever further downwards, and might end up in chokey. It is incredible
Deadline is Monday; the salary is £40K pa and, as the Chair has said, you don't need to read anything. Plus you get the chance to determine Nick Read's pay.
Oh, did I forget to mention: it's for the independent director on the Post Office Board.
I know, I know: we're into losing a soul but profiting to gain territory - but for the Post Office!!!!
Nick Read's remuneration?
To paraphrase a former Yorkshire MD of mine "if it were up to me, I wouldn't even pay (you b*******) Nick Read with washers"
President Biden’s top aides told lawmakers in a private meeting that if Congress fails to authorize additional military aid for Ukraine in the coming days, Russia could win the war in a matter of weeks — months at best, according to two sources. https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1748555976754516149
Just what the Trump GOP wants.
It does rather emphasise the importance if having our own capable defences. If the US were to retreat into isolationism, whether or not Europe is a 'backwater' is beside the point.
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.
Except that the Houthi crisis shows that our interests can absolutely be threatened by hostile actors doing hostile shit, a long way away
If the Houthis manage to close the Red Sea, that means a global recession, especially in energy and import dependant Europe. So we need to be able handle stuff like that
What is your alternative? Rely on the Americans? I have two answers for you:
1. President Donald Trump
2. America is energy self sufficient: it actually has less need for safe Red Sea shiplanes than us
So, yeah, we actually do need armed forces. We need a big enough army that can make a difference if dropped into a war, we definitely need a navy and airforce and drones. And we need AI to make it all harder and better
@Casino_Royale is right. The era of the peace dividend is over
I used to believe in a global British military presence/capability but find it completely undeliverable now.
You are right that the Houthi situation needs dealing with but why is it the US and us doing it? Why is the UK firing a number of nurse’s salaries (and the US firing a number of hospital new builds) to keep trade flowing whilst the likes of Italy do fuck all and say “cheers guys, we can keep selling Gucci loafers to China”. Why isn’t China being called out to help - they need to be shamed for being more interested in political games than keeping trade, which they rely on, smooth.
So if we are going to be Robin to the US Batman then we need to get other countries who benefit from our risk and cost to pony up towards it. I can understand why Trump has issues with NATO because there are free riders. If Europe shows it’s making a serious effort then the Us even under Trump are more likely to step up in a real emergency rather than say “you did fuck all and relaxed on our dime so tough.”
What we can do best is ensure Europe is so well defended that if it’s in Europe’s interests (as a continent not the EU) to help out or intervene outside Europe then we can do so better with better integrated forces and kit to share the burden.
As it stands being able to send an aircraft carrier to the pacific without a Royal naval escort fleet is just pointless.
So I agree entirely we need a big and skilled and well equipped army, navy and airforce ready to be dropped into a war and be very effective but that should be focussed on Europe and should be matched by all those countries who benefit from that security such as Ireland.
I completely agree, but you seem to have done a total volte face in half an hour, which is impressive even for a bipolar ex alcoholic like me
You've gone from saying we only need three guys with a shotgun to agreeing we need a capable military, in all forms, able to project power, as well - as we depend on global trade for our prosperity (that has always been the justification for British power, never land wars and invasions)
I wholly concur we need to put much more pressure on European partners to step up. Let's start with the fucking free riding Irish, get them to actually pay for their own defence out of all those taxes they skimmed off everyone else
I mean, look at it. Look at what they spend. Wankers
Whilst we are on the subject of campaigning Rishi, he was soundly defended on here after the full VT of his interaction with the retired nurse was revealed, and it was slightly less damaging than the Sky edit. However, is giving a member of the public the same sound thrashing he gives Starmer every Wednesday with ignoring the question, obfuscation, lies and misuse of statistics a winning strategy? Perhaps if he had just listened to her he might not have looked so ridiculous.
Long snip to focus on this last bit. "slightly less damaging". Yes, very slightly. He turned his back on her as she was talking to him and walked away. She then follows and keeps talking, and he responds with an absurdity (I have stopped all the strikes well apart from that one here they won't stop). The handshake is proffered by her, not him.
Yet we were solemnly told on here the edit was egregious, he continued the conversation and shook her hand. Passively. Because she could have stood there open-mouthed with the cameras watching him walk away as she was mid-sentance.
This is the thing with Rishi. He shrieks on about Starmer having no plan. But Sunak believes in nothing. He can't engage with normals because he doesn't know what to say other than a strapline. Even his big policy - STOP THE BOATS - he was opposed to.
Compare and contrast with John Major on his soapbox. He passionately believed in the party and what he was doing and could talk from personal experience. Hecklers? He engaged them.
CCHQ has sent Rishi down the Major's soapbox route. The trouble is that Rishi, like most modern politicians of all parties, has no experience of speaking to crowds.
(And as you say, he does not seem to believe in anything but again, that is also true of most politicians.)
The only remotely viable "dump Sunak" candidate is Hunt. It is going to have to be a coronation. But changing dull "safe pair of hands" Sunak for dull "safe pair of hands" Hunt - what does that do? How many seats is that going to save?
🚨 The HuffPost UK weekend political read on how Rishi Sunak's fight with the Lords has sparked a fresh Tory civil war.
🔥"He’s got no political memory beyond the time he’s been in parliament. It just looks like he doesn’t really believe in anything."
The argument for Hunt is that he is not nearly as incompetent as Richi, and has a better grasp of how politics works. Plus he probably knows how to fill a car with petrol, use a debit card, and doesn't look like an inbetweener interning in Downing Street
He's one of us. He flew back from Tokyo whilst Foreign Secretary in cattle class with me.
I am not sure that is enough. What about Mordaunt? No, that's not enough either.
What you need Mark (post before Scott's) is the dream ticket of Braverman and Jenrick declaring martial law, cancelling the election and going full-frontal Putin. That way, you retain power.
Took a private jet to Davos last week, one of us right enough.
12 May 2021: PM announces Covid public inquiry “with full powers under the Inquiries Act .. including the ability to compel the production of all relevant materials”
13 May 2021: Scot Gov national clinical director Jason Leitch boasts of wiping his messages daily
Its a little depressing how little focus people give to news like the Port Talbot closure. Having long since sold off heavy industry for a fat commission and a quick profit, we are here with the latest foreign owner not needing to invest in British capabilities because it isn't strategically important to them.
It is to us. We really need to take back control of these things and invest in them. Being able to produce steel is a Good Investment. Cheaper than the alternative in the long run. And a lot more secure.
It's a little depressing that, back in New Labour times, people did not focus on the closure of a specialtity steel manufacturer such as Butterley. But it went unmentioned.
It's not just about steelmaking at the raw end; it's about end-products as well.
This is not specialist steel, this is virgin steel. Top quality steel for the automotive, military hardware and consumer electronics. This is our final plant for such a crucial product, it is a big deal. This is why Cameron intervened when the plant was threatened a decade ago.
If you want to apportion blame on previous Governments, Mrs Thatcher shouldn't have allowed key UK industry to be sold off to foreign asset strippers at fire-sale prices.
Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between them, which is why I mentioned it on my last line.
But as I said: there was zero noise from Labour when a speciality steelworks, more than two centuries old, which had built iconic structures such as St Pancras trainshed, the Spinaker Tower, and the Falkirk Wheel, closed. And one that was firmly in a Labour area as well. We need a steel industry that does something with the steel, as well as producing it at the source end.
President Biden’s top aides told lawmakers in a private meeting that if Congress fails to authorize additional military aid for Ukraine in the coming days, Russia could win the war in a matter of weeks — months at best, according to two sources. https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1748555976754516149
Just what the Trump GOP wants.
It does rather emphasise the importance if having our own capable defences. If the US were to retreat into isolationism, whether or not Europe is a 'backwater' is beside the point.
Yes, quite so
Also, Europe is absolutely not a "backwater". It is probably still the biggest trading bloc on earth (if you add EU to non EU Europe), it is 500 million rich people in highly advanced economies and with colonies and dependencies in strategic spots all over the globe, it is a huge centre of science, education, and the rest
Australia is a backwater. Much of south America and central Africa is a backwater. Europe, no
This is not a political point, nor a Brexity point, it is just a fact
CCHQ has sent Rishi down the Major's soapbox route. The trouble is that Rishi, like most modern politicians of all parties, has no experience of speaking to crowds.
(And as you say, he does not seem to believe in anything but again, that is also true of most politicians.)
I cannot comment on Port Talbot as I do not know the details but I assume this is an example of insufficient time to transition to net zero, much like the banning of oil and gas licences in the North Sea
However on the subject of immigration I note the report this morning that 16,000 asylum seekers have been given jobs whilst their applications are considered
What an utterly sensible idea but predictably the right in the guise of Isabel Oakeshott and Reform have had a fit of the vapours
Reform and the right of the conservative party are a group of people who need to lose, and at least that seems inevitable sometime this year and for me, the sooner the better
she delivers her "promise" in that particular sanctimonious, chummy yet condescending style, as if the very idea she would do this is an affront; and, by the way, she IS the nice sensible mother of the nation, reliable and honest, unlike the hated English Tories
There will not be a single person in the country remotely shocked at Nicola Sturgeon deleting all of her Covid WhatsApps. As predictable as night following day. At least she deleted them in a Scottish way, however, unlike Boris Johnson and co.
Has anyone fallen so hard from grace, so quickly, as La Sturgeon? About 18 months ago she was untouchable; now she plunges ever further downwards, and might end up in chokey. It is incredible
Remember when the solemnly told us that Sturgeon's resignation was, once more, a demonstration of her greater probity, her natural sense of morality and grace, a willingness to know when your time is up, without the need to cling on to power.... and, errrr, nothing to do with the police about to dig up her garden in a fortnight as they cart her off to be arrested
12 May 2021: PM announces Covid public inquiry “with full powers under the Inquiries Act .. including the ability to compel the production of all relevant materials”
13 May 2021: Scot Gov national clinical director Jason Leitch boasts of wiping his messages daily
There’s plenty of good reasons for a “data retention policy” in any large organisation - including saving embarrassing informal conversations from becoming public - but it needs to cover the whole organisation and be enforced technically, otherwise there’s always copies of the messages left on someone’s computer.
Sturgeon and Leitch may have deleted their messages, but those they were speaking with may not have done so. Hell, from what we now know of the SNP implosion, I imagine plenty of people have gone looking for old backups!
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.
Except that the Houthi crisis shows that our interests can absolutely be threatened by hostile actors doing hostile shit, a long way away
If the Houthis manage to close the Red Sea, that means a global recession, especially in energy and import dependant Europe. So we need to be able handle stuff like that
What is your alternative? Rely on the Americans? I have two answers for you:
1. President Donald Trump
2. America is energy self sufficient: it actually has less need for safe Red Sea shiplanes than us
So, yeah, we actually do need armed forces. We need a big enough army that can make a difference if dropped into a war, we definitely need a navy and airforce and drones. And we need AI to make it all harder and better
@Casino_Royale is right. The era of the peace dividend is over
I used to believe in a global British military presence/capability but find it completely undeliverable now.
You are right that the Houthi situation needs dealing with but why is it the US and us doing it? Why is the UK firing a number of nurse’s salaries (and the US firing a number of hospital new builds) to keep trade flowing whilst the likes of Italy do fuck all and say “cheers guys, we can keep selling Gucci loafers to China”. Why isn’t China being called out to help - they need to be shamed for being more interested in political games than keeping trade, which they rely on, smooth.
So if we are going to be Robin to the US Batman then we need to get other countries who benefit from our risk and cost to pony up towards it. I can understand why Trump has issues with NATO because there are free riders. If Europe shows it’s making a serious effort then the Us even under Trump are more likely to step up in a real emergency rather than say “you did fuck all and relaxed on our dime so tough.”
What we can do best is ensure Europe is so well defended that if it’s in Europe’s interests (as a continent not the EU) to help out or intervene outside Europe then we can do so better with better integrated forces and kit to share the burden.
As it stands being able to send an aircraft carrier to the pacific without a Royal naval escort fleet is just pointless.
So I agree entirely we need a big and skilled and well equipped army, navy and airforce ready to be dropped into a war and be very effective but that should be focussed on Europe and should be matched by all those countries who benefit from that security such as Ireland.
I completely agree, but you seem to have done a total volte face in half an hour, which is impressive even for a bipolar ex alcoholic like me
You've gone from saying we only need three guys with a shotgun to agreeing we need a capable military, in all forms, able to project power, as well - as we depend on global trade for our prosperity (that has always been the justification for British power, never land wars and invasions)
I wholly concur we need to put much more pressure on European partners to step up. Let's start with the fucking free riding Irish, get them to actually pay for their own defence out of all those taxes they skimmed off everyone else
I mean, look at it. Look at what they spend. Wankers
Likewise Austria, Belgium,Germany, all of them. Time to cough up, chaps
Where did I say we need three guys with a shotgun? I was arguing that we need a strong military with money spent where it actually is useful on good kit, relevant kit and strong defensive capabilities as well as quality troops.
“ 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.”
I don’t however think we have a role in projecting power into the pacific for example until we can actually sort out defending our own back yard and if there comes a time we do start projecting globally it needs to be done in a coordinated and fair burden of countries who benefit from that projection.
Here is a list of wars that Russia has instigated since 1990:
Georgian Civil War South Ossetian War War in Abkhazia Transnistria War Tajikistan Civil War First Chechen War Second Chechan War Georgia 2008 Ukraine (2014) Ukraine (2022)
The Tory Party is so far to the right that Penny Mordaunt is apparently "woke". As I've said many times, this word has lost all definition. It now means anything I don't like.
12 May 2021: PM announces Covid public inquiry “with full powers under the Inquiries Act .. including the ability to compel the production of all relevant materials”
13 May 2021: Scot Gov national clinical director Jason Leitch boasts of wiping his messages daily
There’s plenty of good reasons for a “data retention policy” in any large organisation - including saving embarrassing informal conversations from becoming public - but it needs to cover the whole organisation and be enforced technically, otherwise there’s always copies of the messages left on someone’s computer.
Sturgeon and Leitch may have deleted their messages, but those they were speaking with may not have done so. Hell, from what we now know of the SNP implosion, I imagine plenty of people have gone looking for old backups!
Apparently Katie Forbes has a few messages on her phone...
“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.”
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.
So the party that has had 3 female prime ministers, the first Jewish-heritage prime minister and the first Hindu prime minister as well as multiple black and Asian-heritage cabinet ministers is full of parochial bigots.
While the party you suppose, with a long history of being led by white males - and for many years London based white males - is not?
'McGrath said that she has been repeatedly asked to prove her existence since 2020 and faces losing her income each time. [...]
She had fallen victim to a vetting procedure that regularly checks pension beneficiaries against the death register to prevent ineligible payments. According to the Department for Education (DfE), which oversees Teachers’ Pensions, death register entries may be matched to scheme members even if personal details differ.
The DfE told the Guardian that once a possible match has been identified, the beneficiary may be asked to confirm that they are not the same deceased stranger every 12 months since the system, administered by Capita, does not log a disproved link.'
Its a little depressing how little focus people give to news like the Port Talbot closure. Having long since sold off heavy industry for a fat commission and a quick profit, we are here with the latest foreign owner not needing to invest in British capabilities because it isn't strategically important to them.
It is to us. We really need to take back control of these things and invest in them. Being able to produce steel is a Good Investment. Cheaper than the alternative in the long run. And a lot more secure.
It's a little depressing that, back in New Labour times, people did not focus on the closure of a specialtity steel manufacturer such as Butterley. But it went unmentioned.
It's not just about steelmaking at the raw end; it's about end-products as well.
This is not specialist steel, this is virgin steel. Top quality steel for the automotive, military hardware and consumer electronics. This is our final plant for such a crucial product, it is a big deal. This is why Cameron intervened when the plant was threatened a decade ago.
If you want to apportion blame on previous Governments, Mrs Thatcher shouldn't have allowed key UK industry to be sold off to foreign asset strippers at fire-sale prices.
Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between them, which is why I mentioned it on my last line.
But as I said: there was zero noise from Labour when a speciality steelworks, more than two centuries old, which had built iconic structures such as St Pancras trainshed, the Spinaker Tower, and the Falkirk Wheel, closed. And one that was firmly in a Labour area as well. We need a steel industry that does something with the steel, as well as producing it at the source end.
British Steel was privatised by your lot. You should be arguing that Corus and now Tata had every right to make commercial decisions. I cleared out Ebbw Vale on Major's watch and Llanwern on New Labour's watch. That's what happens in a free market.
This is different, virgin steel is strategic. One instance where perhaps national security should take precedence over zero emissions. Cameron understood this, Sunak doesn't.
Did you know that the plant shuts down every night at teatime so the residents of Neath and Port Talbot can cook an evening meal.
The Tory Party is so far to the right that Penny Mordaunt is apparently "woke". As I've said many times, this word has lost all definition. It now means anything I don't like.
Hello again, burghers of PB !
It's political wokeness gone mad, I tell you all !
The Tory Party is so far to the right that Penny Mordaunt is apparently "woke". As I've said many times, this word has lost all definition. It now means anything I don't like.
If she didn’t want to be seen as ‘woke’, then perhaps she shouldn’t have had her flagship legislation on equalities written by Stonewall, and then lied about it when challenged during the leadership campaign.
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.
Except that the Houthi crisis shows that our interests can absolutely be threatened by hostile actors doing hostile shit, a long way away
If the Houthis manage to close the Red Sea, that means a global recession, especially in energy and import dependant Europe. So we need to be able handle stuff like that
What is your alternative? Rely on the Americans? I have two answers for you:
1. President Donald Trump
2. America is energy self sufficient: it actually has less need for safe Red Sea shiplanes than us
So, yeah, we actually do need armed forces. We need a big enough army that can make a difference if dropped into a war, we definitely need a navy and airforce and drones. And we need AI to make it all harder and better
@Casino_Royale is right. The era of the peace dividend is over
I used to believe in a global British military presence/capability but find it completely undeliverable now.
You are right that the Houthi situation needs dealing with but why is it the US and us doing it? Why is the UK firing a number of nurse’s salaries (and the US firing a number of hospital new builds) to keep trade flowing whilst the likes of Italy do fuck all and say “cheers guys, we can keep selling Gucci loafers to China”. Why isn’t China being called out to help - they need to be shamed for being more interested in political games than keeping trade, which they rely on, smooth.
So if we are going to be Robin to the US Batman then we need to get other countries who benefit from our risk and cost to pony up towards it. I can understand why Trump has issues with NATO because there are free riders. If Europe shows it’s making a serious effort then the Us even under Trump are more likely to step up in a real emergency rather than say “you did fuck all and relaxed on our dime so tough.”
What we can do best is ensure Europe is so well defended that if it’s in Europe’s interests (as a continent not the EU) to help out or intervene outside Europe then we can do so better with better integrated forces and kit to share the burden.
As it stands being able to send an aircraft carrier to the pacific without a Royal naval escort fleet is just pointless.
So I agree entirely we need a big and skilled and well equipped army, navy and airforce ready to be dropped into a war and be very effective but that should be focussed on Europe and should be matched by all those countries who benefit from that security such as Ireland.
I completely agree, but you seem to have done a total volte face in half an hour, which is impressive even for a bipolar ex alcoholic like me
You've gone from saying we only need three guys with a shotgun to agreeing we need a capable military, in all forms, able to project power, as well - as we depend on global trade for our prosperity (that has always been the justification for British power, never land wars and invasions)
I wholly concur we need to put much more pressure on European partners to step up. Let's start with the fucking free riding Irish, get them to actually pay for their own defence out of all those taxes they skimmed off everyone else
I mean, look at it. Look at what they spend. Wankers
Likewise Austria, Belgium,Germany, all of them. Time to cough up, chaps
Where did I say we need three guys with a shotgun? I was arguing that we need a strong military with money spent where it actually is useful on good kit, relevant kit and strong defensive capabilities as well as quality troops.
“ 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 maInufacturing 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.”
I don’t however think we have a role in projecting power into the pacific for example until we can actually sort out defending our own back yard and if there comes a time we do start projecting globally it needs to be done in a coordinated and fair burden of countries who benefit from that projection.
i was kinda teasing. I am in a mellow mood. It is 6pm and tiffin time in Phnom Penh, I can hear a trainee monk plaiyng the oboe in Wat Bovey Temple, just below my balcony, in the same rooms where Pol Pot was a novice
Swallows wheel in the dulcet air, the sun retires over the Mekong - in quiet flames of dusty orange, the beautiful Khmer girls - like apsaras from Ankor - gracefully walk along dusklit Sisowath Quay, as the squid sellers and the mango sellers call out their wares in the cooling warmth...
'McGrath said that she has been repeatedly asked to prove her existence since 2020 and faces losing her income each time. [...]
She had fallen victim to a vetting procedure that regularly checks pension beneficiaries against the death register to prevent ineligible payments. According to the Department for Education (DfE), which oversees Teachers’ Pensions, death register entries may be matched to scheme members even if personal details differ.
The DfE told the Guardian that once a possible match has been identified, the beneficiary may be asked to confirm that they are not the same deceased stranger every 12 months since the system, administered by Capita, does not log a disproved link.'
So Capita gets paid £x a time to hassle people but not the £x it would cost to add a last disproved date on the database table
President Biden’s top aides told lawmakers in a private meeting that if Congress fails to authorize additional military aid for Ukraine in the coming days, Russia could win the war in a matter of weeks — months at best, according to two sources. https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1748555976754516149
Just what the Trump GOP wants.
It does rather emphasise the importance if having our own capable defences. If the US were to retreat into isolationism, whether or not Europe is a 'backwater' is beside the point.
Yes, quite so
Also, Europe is absolutely not a "backwater". It is probably still the biggest trading bloc on earth (if you add EU to non EU Europe), it is 500 million rich people in highly advanced economies and with colonies and dependencies in strategic spots all over the globe, it is a huge centre of science, education, and the rest
Australia is a backwater. Much of south America and central Africa is a backwater. Europe, no
This is not a political point, nor a Brexity point, it is just a fact
All true. And worth defending. The issue all free Europe hasn't addressed is whether it is willing to defend itself.
Here is a list of wars that Russia has instigated since 1990:
Georgian Civil War South Ossetian War War in Abkhazia Transnistria War Tajikistan Civil War First Chechen War Second Chechan War Georgia 2008 Ukraine (2014) Ukraine (2022)
Thanks JJ.
Where's our Saturday morning Russian troll? Surely it has something to say about this.
Here is a list of wars that Russia has instigated since 1990:
Georgian Civil War South Ossetian War War in Abkhazia Transnistria War Tajikistan Civil War First Chechen War Second Chechan War Georgia 2008 Ukraine (2014) Ukraine (2022)
And America? Heck, New Labour was said to have had seven wars under Tony Blair. It's a big bad world out there and we've been mixing it too.
The Tory Party is so far to the right that Penny Mordaunt is apparently "woke". As I've said many times, this word has lost all definition. It now means anything I don't like.
If she didn’t want to be seen as ‘woke’, then perhaps she shouldn’t have had her flagship legislation on equalities written by Stonewall, and then lied about it when challenged during the leadership campaign.
Who flipping cares? Whatever the merits, this is a fringe issue. It's like disqualifying Rishi Sunak for drinking Coke not Pepsi.
President Biden’s top aides told lawmakers in a private meeting that if Congress fails to authorize additional military aid for Ukraine in the coming days, Russia could win the war in a matter of weeks — months at best, according to two sources. https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1748555976754516149
Just what the Trump GOP wants.
It does rather emphasise the importance if having our own capable defences. If the US were to retreat into isolationism, whether or not Europe is a 'backwater' is beside the point.
Yes, quite so
Also, Europe is absolutely not a "backwater". It is probably still the biggest trading bloc on earth (if you add EU to non EU Europe), it is 500 million rich people in highly advanced economies and with colonies and dependencies in strategic spots all over the globe, it is a huge centre of science, education, and the rest
Australia is a backwater. Much of south America and central Africa is a backwater. Europe, no
This is not a political point, nor a Brexity point, it is just a fact
All true. And worth defending. The issue all free Europe hasn't addressed is whether it is willing to defend itself.
To be fair, there does seem to be a general awokening on this
I note that Sweden has introduced what I proposed for the UK a couple of weeks ago: a compulsory national service for young people, but one where you can choose military or civilian work
‘It might as well be me’: young Swedes prepare for new form of national service Historically neutral Sweden prioritises civil defence amid concerns of preparing for possible war"
Comments
Cameron from the Lords is not a runner without a change in the party constitution. Even then....really?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/19/donald-trump-threats-vigilante-justice-2024-election
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/20/uk-measles-outbreaks-why-are-cases-rising-and-vaccination-rates-falling
It can’t figure out why. Weird. Maybe that autism thing in about 1986?
But wait. There’s a particular distribution of non vaxxed kids. Hackney is especially bad, for instance. Its the darker line here
The data
🚨 The HuffPost UK weekend political read on how Rishi Sunak's fight with the Lords has sparked a fresh Tory civil war.
🔥"He’s got no political memory beyond the time he’s been in parliament. It just looks like he doesn’t really believe in anything."
The argument for Hunt is that he is not nearly as incompetent as Richi, and has a better grasp of how politics works. Plus he probably knows how to fill a car with petrol, use a debit card, and doesn't look like an inbetweener interning in Downing Street
If the reason Port Talbot is closing is because of CO2 we need to find other things to cut..
Oh...
@KieranPAndrews
Under the Inquiries Act, it is a criminal offence if someone “intentionally alters or destroys any [relevant] document”
Definition of a relevant document is one that “it is likely that the inquiry panel would ... wish to be provided with it”
How would America react if Mexico joined a Chinese led military/nuclear alliance?
They would immediately topple the Mexican government and get that shit changed
I think they should elect Jake Berry. Most likely to squeeze RefUK. Would have to make concessions to the Wet tendency. Maybe Cameron as Deputy *shudders*. Implement as much of Truss's platform as possible given the time constraints.
This is true whatever the Tories do between now and the GE.
The easy course to take in the coming battle for the Tory soul as of now therefore is: Change Policy. Put in X as Leader etc, Then We Will Win" knowing this won't happen.
Then afterwards you have a free hit at "I told you what to do and you ignored it, we would have won with X", a claim which while false and delusional (IMHO) cannot be falsified. From that position you claim the future of the party, with the loud support of the remaining members.
If there were to be a vacancy before the election, well that’s less clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=925wmb-4Yr4
@nytimes:
“These Hamas words [its vow to annihilate Israel] are a gift from heaven to Israel's extremist hawks, because they inflict despair on the Israeli public -- a loss of any hope of reaching a compromise.
These statements are also a gift because, while much harsher than all the mysticism spouted by the zealous right in Israel, they are not far removed from the Israeli hard line in engendering an atmosphere of religious, chauvinist egoism.
Hamas therefore should be seen as the most effective collaborator of the extreme right in Israel.”
The op ed was titled “The Hamas-Likud Connection”.
https://twitter.com/faniaoz/status/1748479120651046925
If the Houthis manage to close the Red Sea, that means a global recession, especially in energy and import dependant Europe. So we need to be able handle stuff like that
What is your alternative? Rely on the Americans? I have two answers for you:
1. President Donald Trump
2. America is energy self sufficient: it actually has less need for safe Red Sea shiplanes than us
So, yeah, we actually do need armed forces. We need a big enough army that can make a difference if dropped into a war, we definitely need a navy and airforce and drones. And we need AI to make it all harder and better
@Casino_Royale is right. The era of the peace dividend is over
Besides, Putin didn't need much of a provocation. He'd have done this whatever. The NATO expansion bullshit is just excusing fascism.
(*) Understandably, given Russia's behaviour.
It is to us. We really need to take back control of these things and invest in them. Being able to produce steel is a Good Investment. Cheaper than the alternative in the long run. And a lot more secure.
Further, if they do make a change this year, time is of the essence.
I’m pretty sure if Biden had said something similar, the diagnosis would be rather less hesitant.
Trump confuses Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi when talking about Jan. 6
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1748577852092490036
Former President Donald Trump appeared to mistakenly refer to GOP rival Nikki Haley instead of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., when discussing the Jan. 6 riot at a campaign rally in New Hampshire on Friday night.
The mixup came during Trump's remarks to a crowd of supporters in Concord, N.H., where he spoke for more than 90 minutes and repeatedly bashed Haley, who served in his administration as an ambassador to the United Nations and has never been a member of Congress.
“Nikki Haley, you know they, do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it because of lots of things like Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guard, whatever they want. They turned it down. They don’t want to talk about that. These are very dishonest people,” Trump said.
NBC News has reached out to Trump’s campaign for comment on his remarks...
Back onto Tata. Who is the President of the Board of Trade? No one seems to know so it was left to Rishi to explain why Port Talbot, in essence, has to close in 2024 prior to reopening in circa 2027/8. Now Rishi's response from a football stadium, far, far away from Swansea Bay was remarkable in it's tin earedness. My paraphrase "if it wasn't for me the Port Talbot plant would close in it's entirely. Because of investment in electric blast furnaces by the Conservative Government in Westminster without a penny from the Labour administration in Cardiff bay I have saved half the jobs". It is a big deal!
Now Rishi, the headline figure of 2,800 is very misleading. Most of the service jobs on site have been farmed out to the likes of Harsco, Darlow Lloyd, Mii and Runtech. (I have named four out of a couple of dozen). These contractors manage the kress carriers, plant such as fork trucks, the landfill, cleaning, waste management including recycling of slag, transport, safety management, environmental compliance, asbestos management, catering, training, the list goes on and on. I would suggest we could probably double that 2,800.
When the plant was threatened a decade ago there were all hands on deck from local politicians like Steve Kinnock and First Minister Carwyn Jones, but unlike this week the alarm also sounded in Downing Street. Javid, I believe was caught on a jolly with his daughter to Aussie, so Soubry AND Cameron came West. Cameron worked with Jones and Kinnock and met with the workforce. He asked the workforce what they required of him and he went back and was as good as his word. There are soon to be former steel workers in Port Talbot who are "Labour 'til they die" but they won't hear a bad word spoken of Cameron. @ydoethur suggested the other day that he had his doubts that the arc furnace would see the light of day. I was sceptical, but thinking about the delay after immediate closure of the blast furnaces he has a point. Rishi could have leveraged the retention of one blast furnace (as requested by the unions) against his comittment of cash to Tata. Despite his proclamations of saving the site, Rishi was too preoccupied with stopping the boats.
Whilst we are on the subject of campaigning Rishi, he was soundly defended on here after the full VT of his interaction with the retired nurse was revealed, and it was slightly less damaging than the Sky edit. However, is giving a member of the public the same sound thrashing he gives Starmer every Wednesday with ignoring the question, obfuscation, lies and misuse of statistics a winning strategy? Perhaps if he had just listened to her he might not have looked so ridiculous.
It's not just about steelmaking at the raw end; it's about end-products as well.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6obNJKeFRh8
Also featuring a very soft-soap opening interview with Gov. Newsom, who is definitely not even thinking about possibly running for any other office this year.
See this video here.
‘Can you guarantee to the bereaved families that you will disclose emails, WhatsApps, private emails if you’ve been using them. Whatever. That nothing will be off limits in this inquiry?’
My question to
@NicolaSturgeon
August 2021
Sturgeon's reply:
@NicolaSturgeon
: ‘If you understand statutory public inquiries you would know that even if I wasn’t prepared to give that assurance, which for the avoidance of doubt I am, then I wouldn’t have the ability. This will be a judge-led statutory inquiry.’
https://x.com/C4Ciaran/status/1718577918295597313?s=20
What's more she delivers her "promise" in that particular sanctimonious, chummy yet condescending style, as if the very idea she would do this is an affront; and, by the way, she IS the nice sensible mother of the nation, reliable and honest, unlike the hated English Tories
Now it turns out that was all utter bollocks and she has deleted every message, and the "bereaved families" can go fuck themselves
She is an absolute snake. Pure lies with an extra dash of hypocrisy
That self-determination is an important principle?
That the countries adjoining Russia had the right to choose to join NATO?
That the countries adjoining Russia had good reasons to join NATO?
That Putin did not need much of a provocation to invade and bully smaller neighbours?
https://msrc.microsoft.com/blog/2024/01/microsoft-actions-following-attack-by-nation-state-actor-midnight-blizzard/
Now, answer my questions. And BTW, if you hadn't noticed, the USA is rather different to Russia. Even under Trump...
https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1748555976754516149
I am not sure that is enough. What about Mordaunt? No, that's not enough either.
What you need Mark (post before Scott's) is the dream ticket of Braverman and Jenrick declaring martial law, cancelling the election and going full-frontal Putin. That way, you retain power.
The party is toxic and riven between the ascendant GB News faction that feels the party isn’t toxic enough and the neutered One Nation faction that seems resigned to declaring the water to be wet as the ship goes down.
In the absence of a dynamic, charismatic figure that could unite the party, drag it back to its senses and persuade the public to give it a second look, the leadership is practically irrelevant.
Seriously, which of these prospects would make any difference at all (in the absence of a serious failure on the part of Labour)?
Anderson: too provocative
Badenoch: too wild
Barclay: too bland
Braverman: too fired
Cameron: too previous
Cleverly: too gaffe-prone
Dowden: too forgettable
Farage: too outside
Frost: too unelected
Gove: too weird
Hunt: too unpopular
Johnson: too Johnson
Mordaunt: too woke
Shapps: too schizophrenic
Truss: to the pub
Is it time to weld the doors shut of apartment blocks in certain postcodes?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/19/us/politics/trump-biden-voters-2024-election.html
https://news-sky-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/post-offices-horizon-compensation-chief-to-step-down-from-board-13051657
Deadline is Monday; the salary is £40K pa and, as the Chair has said, you don't need to read anything. Plus you get the chance to determine Nick Read's pay.
Oh, did I forget to mention: it's for the independent director on the Post Office Board.
I know, I know: we're into losing a soul but profiting to gain territory - but for the Post Office!!!!
(* permanent before anyone starts wittering on about Harriet Harman)
Also - you suddenly need a lot of steel, where is it coming from once the old motor car heaps are cleared? In the 1930s scrap steel prices went right up thanks to rearmament (which is why they started salving and cutting up the German warships at the bottom of, and around, Scapa Flow).
@kevwodonnell
There will not be a single person in the country remotely shocked at Nicola Sturgeon deleting all of her Covid WhatsApps. As predictable as night following day. At least she deleted them in a Scottish way, however, unlike Boris Johnson and co.
Asks another tedious interlocutor.
I is idiot
You are right that the Houthi situation needs dealing with but why is it the US and us doing it? Why is the UK firing a number of nurse’s salaries (and the US firing a number of hospital new builds) to keep trade flowing whilst the likes of Italy do fuck all and say “cheers guys, we can keep selling Gucci loafers to China”. Why isn’t China being called out to help - they need to be shamed for being more interested in political games than keeping trade, which they rely on, smooth.
So if we are going to be Robin to the US Batman then we need to get other countries who benefit from our risk and cost to pony up towards it. I can understand why Trump has issues with NATO because there are free riders. If Europe shows it’s making a serious effort then the Us even under Trump are more likely to step up in a real emergency rather than say “you did fuck all and relaxed on our dime so tough.”
What we can do best is ensure Europe is so well defended that if it’s in Europe’s interests (as a continent not the EU) to help out or intervene outside Europe then we can do so better with better integrated forces and kit to share the burden.
As it stands being able to send an aircraft carrier to the pacific without a Royal naval escort fleet is just pointless.
So I agree entirely we need a big and skilled and well equipped army, navy and airforce ready to be dropped into a war and be very effective but that should be focussed on Europe and should be matched by all those countries who benefit from that security such as Ireland.
hardware and consumer electronics. This is our final plant for such a crucial product, it is a big deal. This is why Cameron intervened when the plant was threatened a decade ago.
If you want to apportion blame on previous Governments, Mrs Thatcher shouldn't have allowed key UK industry to be sold off to foreign asset strippers at fire-sale prices.
Begat by Brexit, it's the only form of government Richi has ever known, which is perhaps why he is so fixated on "stop the boats" instead of properly devising and implementing policies that would, you know, actually stops some boats...
Modern steel is too contaminated even if made de novo. Remarkable thought.
#Priti4Leader
But there is some shit even I don't want to go near. Not with the current lot in charge.
https://apply-for-public-appointment.service.gov.uk/roles/7960
How is someone working two days a month in any organisation, supposed to understand in any detail what’s going on there?
Yet we were solemnly told on here the edit was egregious, he continued the conversation and shook her hand. Passively. Because she could have stood there open-mouthed with the cameras watching him walk away as she was mid-sentance.
This is the thing with Rishi. He shrieks on about Starmer having no plan. But Sunak believes in nothing. He can't engage with normals because he doesn't know what to say other than a strapline. Even his big policy - STOP THE BOATS - he was opposed to.
Compare and contrast with John Major on his soapbox. He passionately believed in the party and what he was doing and could talk from personal experience. Hecklers? He engaged them.
Home Office grants asylum seekers route to employment in care, construction and farming
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/19/channel-migrants-given-right-to-work/ (£££)
Don't stop the boats. Someone has to wipe the bottoms and pick the apples.
This aged well.
When Nicola Sturgeon Resigned:
"There's been no drama, no scandal. I think Nicola Sturgeon has been a breath of fresh air for Scottish politics".
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
https://x.com/markthehibby/status/1625999555916357634?s=20
To paraphrase a former Yorkshire MD of mine "if it were up to me, I wouldn't even pay (you b*******) Nick Read with washers"
If the US were to retreat into isolationism, whether or not Europe is a 'backwater' is beside the point.
You've gone from saying we only need three guys with a shotgun to agreeing we need a capable military, in all forms, able to project power, as well - as we depend on global trade for our prosperity (that has always been the justification for British power, never land wars and invasions)
I wholly concur we need to put much more pressure on European partners to step up. Let's start with the fucking free riding Irish, get them to actually pay for their own defence out of all those taxes they skimmed off everyone else
I mean, look at it. Look at what they spend. Wankers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_Europe_by_military_expenditures
Likewise Austria, Belgium,Germany, all of them. Time to cough up, chaps
(And as you say, he does not seem to believe in anything but again, that is also true of most politicians.)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/20/teachers-in-england-left-to-support-at-risk-school-children-after-social-services-cuts
12 May 2021: PM announces Covid public inquiry “with full powers under the Inquiries Act .. including the ability to compel the production of all relevant materials”
13 May 2021: Scot Gov national clinical director Jason Leitch boasts of wiping his messages daily
https://x.com/ChrisMusson/status/1748624981553004741?s=20
But as I said: there was zero noise from Labour when a speciality steelworks, more than two centuries old, which had built iconic structures such as St Pancras trainshed, the Spinaker Tower, and the Falkirk Wheel, closed. And one that was firmly in a Labour area as well. We need a steel industry that does something with the steel, as well as producing it at the source end.
Also, Europe is absolutely not a "backwater". It is probably still the biggest trading bloc on earth (if you add EU to non EU Europe), it is 500 million rich people in highly advanced economies and with colonies and dependencies in strategic spots all over the globe, it is a huge centre of science, education, and the rest
Australia is a backwater. Much of south America and central Africa is a backwater. Europe, no
This is not a political point, nor a Brexity point, it is just a fact
“If he lives for a million years, Rishi Sunak is never going to be John Major.”
Neil Kinnock interviewed by @georgeeaton on why the election won’t be a repeat of 1992.
https://x.com/NewStatesman/status/1748631716804137028?s=20
I cannot comment on Port Talbot as I do not know the details but I assume this is an example of insufficient time to transition to net zero, much like the banning of oil and gas licences in the North Sea
However on the subject of immigration I note the report this morning that 16,000 asylum seekers have been given jobs whilst their applications are considered
What an utterly sensible idea but predictably the right in the guise of Isabel Oakeshott and Reform have had a fit of the vapours
Reform and the right of the conservative party are a group of people who need to lose, and at least that seems inevitable sometime this year and for me, the sooner the better
Remember when the solemnly told us that Sturgeon's resignation was, once more, a demonstration of her greater probity, her natural sense of morality and grace, a willingness to know when your time is up, without the need to cling on to power.... and, errrr, nothing to do with the police about to dig up her garden in a fortnight as they cart her off to be arrested
Sturgeon and Leitch may have deleted their messages, but those they were speaking with may not have done so. Hell, from what we now know of the SNP implosion, I imagine plenty of people have gone looking for old backups!
“ 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.”
I don’t however think we have a role in projecting power into the pacific for example until we can actually sort out defending our own back yard and if there comes a time we do start projecting globally it needs to be done in a coordinated and fair burden of countries who benefit from that projection.
Georgian Civil War
South Ossetian War
War in Abkhazia
Transnistria War
Tajikistan Civil War
First Chechen War
Second Chechan War
Georgia 2008
Ukraine (2014)
Ukraine (2022)
While the party you suppose, with a long history of being led by white males - and for many years London based white males - is not?
Right. Glad we’ve cleared that up.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/20/retired-teachers-pension-stopped-as-provider-refuses-to-believe-she-is-not-dead
'McGrath said that she has been repeatedly asked to prove her existence since 2020 and faces losing her income each time. [...]
She had fallen victim to a vetting procedure that regularly checks pension beneficiaries against the death register to prevent ineligible payments. According to the Department for Education (DfE), which oversees Teachers’ Pensions, death register entries may be matched to scheme members even if personal details differ.
The DfE told the Guardian that once a possible match has been identified, the beneficiary may be asked to confirm that they are not the same deceased stranger every 12 months since the system, administered by Capita, does not log a disproved link.'
This is different, virgin steel is strategic. One instance where perhaps national security should take precedence over zero emissions. Cameron understood this, Sunak doesn't.
Did you know that the plant shuts down every night at teatime so the residents of Neath and Port Talbot can cook an evening meal.
It's political wokeness gone mad, I tell you all !
Swallows wheel in the dulcet air, the sun retires over the Mekong - in quiet flames of dusty orange, the beautiful Khmer girls - like apsaras from Ankor - gracefully walk along dusklit Sisowath Quay, as the squid sellers and the mango sellers call out their wares in the cooling warmth...
It's better than Deptford
Where's our Saturday morning Russian troll? Surely it has something to say about this.
I note that Sweden has introduced what I proposed for the UK a couple of weeks ago: a compulsory national service for young people, but one where you can choose military or civilian work
‘It might as well be me’: young Swedes prepare for new form of national service
Historically neutral Sweden prioritises civil defence amid concerns of preparing for possible war"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/sweden-young-people-national-service-civic-duty-nato-war
Let's do this. Why not? This should be in the Labour manifesto.