I'm enjoying the debate about the change to the tax treatment of double cab pickup trucks. Essentially townies don't like the people who drive them in town and think its great. Those of us in the sticks realise its a disaster.
"Just pay the tax" says one - £7k a year? Or "separate business and non-business use". How do you do that when your business is where you live? And separating business and non business use means driving scores of additional miles to swap vehicles which means less work done at more cost.
I assume the HMRC / Treasury people have never been to the countryside.
The issue for HMRC is that that type of vehicle is being used by more and more people as a 2 for the price of 1 deal to avoid tax - so I can see why HMRC are cracking down on it.
Easiest solution is to replace it with a single cab track when you come to replace it and buy a car for personal use -
How does that work? I know of several local contractors who have these. They buy a double cab because they use the space. They have a business based at home (one is a farm), and when the nearest shop is 10 miles away the idea of separating business and non business is for the birds.
Its great for fans of EVs as so far they are exempt - BIK is 2%. Maxus have just done a firesale on their first attempt (rear wheel drive only lol) to import a proper one. Ford are to launch an EV Ranger. Bye bye diesel in the medium term.
But in the short term? Less work gets done at a higher cost. Well done Tories, well done...
How does that work? Government wants money for tax cuts so anything that looks like abuse (and I can see why double cabs are seen as abuse) is going to be investigated.
So yep the people near you are collateral damage but hey some of us have been subject to the collateral damage of other HMRC crackdowns for 20+ years and you just have to accept it - while praying that HMRC don’t decide to use you as an example test case
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
Listening to Ben Wallace yesterday and found the following interesting:
The French apparently include their police costs in their figure which distorts them. He also commented that German is the one that really matters and that although Greece was a high percentage in absolute terms it really didn't matter compared to Germany.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
Listening to Ben Wallace yesterday and found the following interesting:
The French apparently include their police costs in their figure which distorts them. He also commented that German is the one that really matters and that although Greece was a high percentage in absolute terms it really didn't matter compared to Germany.
There’s all sort of anomalies. The French and Italians include the gendarmes. The French have a larger army but some of it is only capable of internal emergency response work. Many nations include coast guard and what, for us, would be border force. Some include what we put in the intelligence vote.
I'm enjoying the debate about the change to the tax treatment of double cab pickup trucks. Essentially townies don't like the people who drive them in town and think its great. Those of us in the sticks realise its a disaster.
"Just pay the tax" says one - £7k a year? Or "separate business and non-business use". How do you do that when your business is where you live? And separating business and non business use means driving scores of additional miles to swap vehicles which means less work done at more cost.
I assume the HMRC / Treasury people have never been to the countryside.
I have a feeling they'd have been out here mob-handed on 1st February if I hadn't coughed up my income tax.
Salisbury has a good claim to being the most beautifully situated of all the great European cathedrals
I've walked extensively around the area, and Salisbury is very well situated, especially across the meadows from Harnham. But for sheer drama of setting, I'd say something like Ely (but then, i would...) But Ely cathedral itself is... malformed, despite the astonishing octagon.
Peterborough is also a divine cathedral, except for its obvious impediment of being in the centre of Peterborough...
Salisbury has a good claim to being the most beautifully situated of all the great European cathedrals
I've walked extensively around the area, and Salisbury is very well situated, especially across the meadows from Harnham. But for sheer drama of setting, I'd say something like Ely (but then, i would...) But Ely cathedral itself is... malformed, despite the astonishing octagon.
Peterborough is also a divine cathedral, except for its obvious impediment of being in the centre of Peterborough...
Suspect we could say that for a lot of Catherdals - Durham shame it’s full of students
A perspective from one of our US correspondents...
Ah, I remember ahead of the last General Election, @Leon told me that - because I lived in California - I knew nothing about UK politics.
Leon posts about Aliens. Does that mean for him to know what he is talking about he must be an Alien? Would explain a lot.
I do have this image of a @Leon homunculus (@Leonunculus?) bursting from the chest of a butler in Goshwatta Country House and saying "where de drugs at??" before vomiting and skiing off the table in a screech.
Why replace NATO if the US pulls out? NATO would still exist. See the EU and the UK for an example. The dynamic would change, and European nations would be rather uncomfortable having to increase defence spending, but I don't see a need for a European Army.
Even in WW2 the British, US and Canada did not have a formal alliance.
Salisbury has a good claim to being the most beautifully situated of all the great European cathedrals
I've walked extensively around the area, and Salisbury is very well situated, especially across the meadows from Harnham. But for sheer drama of setting, I'd say something like Ely (but then, i would...) But Ely cathedral itself is... malformed, despite the astonishing octagon.
Peterborough is also a divine cathedral, except for its obvious impediment of being in the centre of Peterborough...
Suspect we could say that for a lot of Catherdals - Durham shame it’s full of students
Yes, but Durham city is beautiful by itself (iirc there is a large empty picture frame by the riverside path outside the city, which you can use to frame pictures. Whilst Peterborough is in... Peterborough...
I'm enjoying the debate about the change to the tax treatment of double cab pickup trucks. Essentially townies don't like the people who drive them in town and think its great. Those of us in the sticks realise its a disaster.
"Just pay the tax" says one - £7k a year? Or "separate business and non-business use". How do you do that when your business is where you live? And separating business and non business use means driving scores of additional miles to swap vehicles which means less work done at more cost.
I assume the HMRC / Treasury people have never been to the countryside.
The issue for HMRC is that that type of vehicle is being used by more and more people as a 2 for the price of 1 deal to avoid tax - so I can see why HMRC are cracking down on it.
Easiest solution is to replace it with a single cab track when you come to replace it and buy a car for personal use -
How does that work? I know of several local contractors who have these. They buy a double cab because they use the space. They have a business based at home (one is a farm), and when the nearest shop is 10 miles away the idea of separating business and non business is for the birds.
Its great for fans of EVs as so far they are exempt - BIK is 2%. Maxus have just done a firesale on their first attempt (rear wheel drive only lol) to import a proper one. Ford are to launch an EV Ranger. Bye bye diesel in the medium term.
But in the short term? Less work gets done at a higher cost. Well done Tories, well done...
How does that work? Government wants money for tax cuts so anything that looks like abuse (and I can see why double cabs are seen as abuse) is going to be investigated.
So yep the people near you are collateral damage but hey some of us have been subject to the collateral damage of other HMRC crackdowns for 20+ years and you just have to accept it - while praying that HMRC don’t decide to use you as an example test case
There is a real anger about townies in pick-up trucks. I get it. Ironically as this will collapse the used market in pick-up trucks we will see a glut of vehicles at low low prices. Ideal for townies to buy...
There is no way the UK is joining a EU army if the USA fucks off. We will cling to Uncle Sam, as will Canada, Oz and NZ
I'm not sure anyone will join a European army, not least of all Poland and France - they'd all want to retain national control over their men and bullets, and wouldn't want the European Commission directing it or risk it being subject to QMV.
My guess is it'd be a specific European coalition/alliance governance structure - with lots of vetos - for anything big and important; anything "European" would be entirely tokenistic and so small it didn't matter, like a few support troops tidying up or training a few civvies in logistics in the Balkans or similar.
A 'European Army' wouldn't mean giving over all your forces to it - that would be daft. It would mean supplying an agreed number of troops and materiel to it with a command structure that meant it could quickly respond to a crisis, plus agreeing to share capabilities where appropriate so budgets are used more efficiently. I'd also imagine it would be separate to the EU, given certain countries in the EU would try to undermine it, while certain ones outside would stand to benefit.
It could be quite good for Britain - worry less about land capabilities we don't really use much, upgrade the Navy which we do but is getting dangerously threadbare. Though I'm not sure it'll influence 'rejoin' - which will depend on a) what conditions the EU set for rejoining and b) Whether it remains so unpopular a main party (in practice Labour) decides it is in their interests to pitch taking us back in or it'll lose some voters to a minor party offering that.
Salisbury has a good claim to being the most beautifully situated of all the great European cathedrals
I certainly enjoy seeing the spire as I drive up the A36 from Southampton. Amazingly they started the work on the spire when I started at Bishop Wordsworths Grammar school (directly below that drone). Crazy to think back to 40 years ago...
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
I don't think 2% equates to being serious.
It's an arbitrary target, which you're right many aren't even meeting as it is, but it's already out of date.
I think pretty much everyone has 20% real terms moves planned for the next three years. Now, you can argue that it should be more, but it's definitely heading in the right direction.
Yes, I'm arguing that it should be more and also I'll believe it when I see it.
Why replace NATO if the US pulls out? NATO would still exist. See the EU and the UK for an example. The dynamic would change, and European nations would be rather uncomfortable having to increase defence spending, but I don't see a need for a European Army.
Even in WW2 the British, US and Canada did not have a formal alliance.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
Listening to Ben Wallace yesterday and found the following interesting:
The French apparently include their police costs in their figure which distorts them. He also commented that German is the one that really matters and that although Greece was a high percentage in absolute terms it really didn't matter compared to Germany.
(Pedant alert)
I think the French include the Gendarmerie Nationale, as that is a branch of the French armed forces, but not the National Police.
There is no way the UK is joining a EU army if the USA fucks off. We will cling to Uncle Sam, as will Canada, Oz and NZ
I'm not sure anyone will join a European army, not least of all Poland and France - they'd all want to retain national control over their men and bullets, and wouldn't want the European Commission directing it or risk it being subject to QMV.
My guess is it'd be a specific European coalition/alliance governance structure - with lots of vetos - for anything big and important; anything "European" would be entirely tokenistic and so small it didn't matter, like a few support troops tidying up or training a few civvies in logistics in the Balkans or similar.
A 'European Army' wouldn't mean giving over all your forces to it - that would be daft. It would mean supplying an agreed number of troops and materiel to it with a command structure that meant it could quickly respond to a crisis, plus agreeing to share capabilities where appropriate so budgets are used more efficiently. I'd also imagine it would be separate to the EU, given certain countries in the EU would try to undermine it, while certain ones outside would stand to benefit.
It could be quite good for Britain - worry less about land capabilities we don't really use much, upgrade the Navy which we do but is getting dangerously threadbare. Though I'm not sure it'll influence 'rejoin' - which will depend on a) what conditions the EU set for rejoining and b) Whether it remains so unpopular a main party (in practice Labour) decides it is in their interests to pitch taking us back in or it'll lose some voters to a minor party offering that.
Yes, and I'm saying no European country is ever going to give over anything serious to such a structure unless they had national controls and vetos and it was clearly prescribed.
I agree it should be separate to the EU but the EU really doesn't want it to be because they see an army as a key trapping of statehood.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
I don't think 2% equates to being serious.
It's an arbitrary target, which you're right many aren't even meeting as it is, but it's already out of date.
I think pretty much everyone has 20% real terms moves planned for the next three years. Now, you can argue that it should be more, but it's definitely heading in the right direction.
Yes, I'm arguing that it should be more and also I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm happy to bet you it will happen. It's one of those few things I'm next to 100% sure of.
All the big European arms manufacturers have reported big increases in orders, and most armed forces are actively recruiting in a way that simply wasn't the case a few years ago.
Now, could they easily end up missing targets because arms companies don't ramp up production quick enough, and not enough people sign up for army jobs? Sure. But the willingness to spend is there pretty much across the board.
Something cheering. For the first time in 40 years, all the scaffolding has been removed from Salisbury Cathedral, and she can now be seen in all her purist beauty. Magnificent and peerless
We hack and sneer at our planning rules but just look at how beautiful and rural that medieval cathedral still looks, with a few developments sensitively nestling into the landscape around it, in a way that simply wouldn't be the case in many other countries.
Some sort of European version of Nato minus the United States would seem more likely.
In other news and I'm sorry if this has already been posted but we have footage of a police officer in Edinburgh telling a Jewish person to hide their star of David as it may 'trigger' a group of protesters. Why aren't you all as angry about this as you are with the Tories and their failings?
'At a rally in Edinburgh, a PoliceScotland officer asked a Jewish bystander to hide his Star of David, to avoid “triggering” the protesters.
The police officer is clearly worried that he and his colleagues are heavily outnumbered and that these protesters could pose a threat to Jews, but his response was effectively to stop a passing Jewish man and ask him to hide his identity before continuing on his way.
Whose rights are actually being protected here, those of law-abiding people or those of mobs of extremists who might be “triggered” by people being Jewish in public?'
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
Listening to Ben Wallace yesterday and found the following interesting:
The French apparently include their police costs in their figure which distorts them. He also commented that German is the one that really matters and that although Greece was a high percentage in absolute terms it really didn't matter compared to Germany.
(Pedant alert)
I think the French include the Gendarmerie Nationale, as that is a branch of the French armed forces, but not the National Police.
Last year Germany spent 1.6%, this year it will supposedly be 2.0%.
There's also talk of acquiring nuclear weapons, which won't happen, but shows how far discussion has moved in 2 years.
As for Trump making the UK rejoin the EU - this is just fantasy. The UK and US will remain allies even if NATO ends - quite a few people in the UK will be happy that the alliance with the US no longer requires the UK to be allied to continental Europeans.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
Listening to Ben Wallace yesterday and found the following interesting:
The French apparently include their police costs in their figure which distorts them. He also commented that German is the one that really matters and that although Greece was a high percentage in absolute terms it really didn't matter compared to Germany.
(Pedant alert)
I think the French include the Gendarmerie Nationale, as that is a branch of the French armed forces, but not the National Police.
iirc George Osborne did some creative accountancy on our numbers by reclassifying spending that had not previously been counted as defence.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
That was a very different Russia; over thirty years ago; before Putin, and when Russia was in the doldrums. Russia could have taken many different routes - as could a reunified Germany. Putin chose Russia's current route, to his shame.
Russia could have become a very different - and from our perspective, better, country, had Putin and the oligarchs made different decisions.
Not sure we helped, to be honest.
We spent much of the 90s laughing at Russia, how far they'd fallen and how drunk Yeltsin was.
Well, on the contrary you had:
Automatic successor status for Russia at the UN Membership of the G7 Persuading Ukraine to give up nukes International space programme Rather a lot of aid Turning a blind eye to Chechnya
Some sort of European version of Nato minus the United States would seem more likely.
In other news and I'm sorry if this has already been posted but we have footage of a police officer in Edinburgh telling a Jewish person to hide their star of David as it may 'trigger' a group of protesters. Why aren't you all as angry about this as you are with the Tories and their failings?
'At a rally in Edinburgh, a PoliceScotland officer asked a Jewish bystander to hide his Star of David, to avoid “triggering” the protesters.
The police officer is clearly worried that he and his colleagues are heavily outnumbered and that these protesters could pose a threat to Jews, but his response was effectively to stop a passing Jewish man and ask him to hide his identity before continuing on his way.
Whose rights are actually being protected here, those of law-abiding people or those of mobs of extremists who might be “triggered” by people being Jewish in public?'
I'm convinced the public authorities now try and go for an easy life rather than stand up for what's right and risk dealing with violence.
In their defence they probably get little protection, cover or support from their superiors for the latter, but that's not an excuse.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
I don't think 2% equates to being serious.
It's an arbitrary target, which you're right many aren't even meeting as it is, but it's already out of date.
I think pretty much everyone has 20% real terms moves planned for the next three years. Now, you can argue that it should be more, but it's definitely heading in the right direction.
Yes, I'm arguing that it should be more and also I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm happy to bet you it will happen. It's one of those few things I'm next to 100% sure of.
All the big European arms manufacturers have reported big increases in orders, and most armed forces are actively recruiting in a way that simply wasn't the case a few years ago.
Now, could they easily end up missing targets because arms companies don't ramp up production quick enough, and not enough people sign up for army jobs? Sure. But the willingness to spend is there pretty much across the board.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
I don't think 2% equates to being serious.
It's an arbitrary target, which you're right many aren't even meeting as it is, but it's already out of date.
I think pretty much everyone has 20% real terms moves planned for the next three years. Now, you can argue that it should be more, but it's definitely heading in the right direction.
Yes, I'm arguing that it should be more and also I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm happy to bet you it will happen. It's one of those few things I'm next to 100% sure of.
All the big European arms manufacturers have reported big increases in orders, and most armed forces are actively recruiting in a way that simply wasn't the case a few years ago.
Now, could they easily end up missing targets because arms companies don't ramp up production quick enough, and not enough people sign up for army jobs? Sure. But the willingness to spend is there pretty much across the board.
I'm not sure the funding solutions for these new commitments have all been worked through yet, and that's where it will get sticky.
And here we've not even made the commitment. Just that we'll maybe have a good think about 2.5% as and when the economic situation permits. Weak.
We keep talking about it and then doing nothing more than throw an extra couple of coppers in the charity box.
Both the French and German governments have already passed budgets and bills with increased spending in them, though. We're - candidly - a bit of a laggard, but at least we're doing it from a position of spending reasonable (if still inadequate) sums already.
Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.
The Dutch already have a joint armoured unit (brigade?) with Germany. There's no need to have a big central project, when you can allow for natural, organic, cooperation.
The emphasis would have to be on capability, rather than on bureaucracy.
Yes I don't mean a single army, more a European NATO. It'd need to be structured as appropriate to the mission - defence against external aggression. ATM that's Russia but if the US goes bad it could one day be them.
There is no way the UK is joining a EU army if the USA fucks off. We will cling to Uncle Sam, as will Canada, Oz and NZ
I'm not sure anyone will join a European army, not least of all Poland and France - they'd all want to retain national control over their men and bullets, and wouldn't want the European Commission directing it or risk it being subject to QMV.
My guess is it'd be a specific European coalition/alliance governance structure - with lots of vetos - for anything big and important; anything "European" would be entirely tokenistic and so small it didn't matter, like a few support troops tidying up or training a few civvies in logistics in the Balkans or similar.
A 'European Army' wouldn't mean giving over all your forces to it - that would be daft. It would mean supplying an agreed number of troops and materiel to it with a command structure that meant it could quickly respond to a crisis, plus agreeing to share capabilities where appropriate so budgets are used more efficiently. I'd also imagine it would be separate to the EU, given certain countries in the EU would try to undermine it, while certain ones outside would stand to benefit.
It could be quite good for Britain - worry less about land capabilities we don't really use much, upgrade the Navy which we do but is getting dangerously threadbare. Though I'm not sure it'll influence 'rejoin' - which will depend on a) what conditions the EU set for rejoining and b) Whether it remains so unpopular a main party (in practice Labour) decides it is in their interests to pitch taking us back in or it'll lose some voters to a minor party offering that.
Yes, and I'm saying no European country is ever going to give over anything serious to such a structure unless they had national controls and vetos and it was clearly prescribed.
I agree it should be separate to the EU but the EU really doesn't want it to be because they see an army as a key trapping of statehood.
I don't think the EU can want anything as it is the collection of national governments. It depends on what national leaders want. In normal times there wouldn't be too much going for it given the diversity of defence interests.
However, with America seemingly moving towards isolationism or prioritising their interests in the Pacific (even the Democrats are displaying these leanings a bit) and a belligerent Russia that changes. It suddenly becomes rather useful to have a combined force that can swiftly respond and can make the cost of making war in Europe to Putin or a similar successor too high. You suspect one other selling point to other countries would be an ability to police Europe's borders with conflict zones.
@kinabalu last thread re cats the word used was 'entice an animal' and the example given was as you described and they even interviewed a women who confronted a neighbour who let her cat into their house. Your only hope in avoiding getting banged up in future is the fact that, like most, a barrister interviewed on the program went into full rant mode as to how stupid the proposal was quoting the queue in court for rape cases and we shouldn't be concerned about prosecuting people if cats find a new part time owner.
I think you are ok, but if you cross anyone here they might shop you to the plod. Your own fault by declaring your criminal activities on a public forum.
Ok KJ thanks for the warning but I'm in too deep. This cat is part of my life now. If it stopped coming I'd be bereft. In fact I'm already dreading it because it's bound to happen at some point. Still, that's the price you pay for dropping your emotional barriers.
Some sort of European version of Nato minus the United States would seem more likely.
In other news and I'm sorry if this has already been posted but we have footage of a police officer in Edinburgh telling a Jewish person to hide their star of David as it may 'trigger' a group of protesters. Why aren't you all as angry about this as you are with the Tories and their failings?
'At a rally in Edinburgh, a PoliceScotland officer asked a Jewish bystander to hide his Star of David, to avoid “triggering” the protesters.
The police officer is clearly worried that he and his colleagues are heavily outnumbered and that these protesters could pose a threat to Jews, but his response was effectively to stop a passing Jewish man and ask him to hide his identity before continuing on his way.
Whose rights are actually being protected here, those of law-abiding people or those of mobs of extremists who might be “triggered” by people being Jewish in public?'
I'm convinced the public authorities now try and go for an easy life rather than stand up for what's right and risk dealing with violence.
In their defence they probably get little protection, cover or support from their superiors for the latter, but that's not an excuse.
It's hard but the police are there to maintain order, not to take sides in a potential riot. Possibly they were too cautious. Yesterday someone posted a picture of a Genocide poster near Wes Streeting's office. I happened to be there yesterday and there are also Palestinian flags flying from several lampposts. But there was no damage to or graffiti on the Jewish community centre there, and so far as I know, nor was there to Streeting's office.
Probably there was no danger from the crowd but if there had been, what then?
I used to often find myself listening to Steve Wright in the Afternoon when I was a student.
I thought that the show was shite.
It's all relative. Anyone who hated Steve Wright's show must have really, really detested the remaining Radio 1 content e.g. The Hairy Cornflake/ Mike UKIP, Simon Bates, Gary Davies and Kid Jensen.
@kinabalu last thread re cats the word used was 'entice an animal' and the example given was as you described and they even interviewed a women who confronted a neighbour who let her cat into their house. Your only hope in avoiding getting banged up in future is the fact that, like most, a barrister interviewed on the program went into full rant mode as to how stupid the proposal was quoting the queue in court for rape cases and we shouldn't be concerned about prosecuting people if cats find a new part time owner.
I think you are ok, but if you cross anyone here they might shop you to the plod. Your own fault by declaring your criminal activities on a public forum.
Ok KJ thanks for the warning but I'm in too deep. This cat is part of my life now. If it stopped coming I'd be bereft. In fact I'm already dreading it because it's bound to happen at some point. Still, that's the price you pay for dropping your emotional barriers.
It would make as much sense to criminalise a cat enticing a human.
I used to often find myself listening to Steve Wright in the Afternoon when I was a student.
I thought that the show was shite.
It's all relative. Anyone who hated Steve Wright's show must have really, really detested the remaining Radio 1 content e.g. The Hairy Cornflake/ Mike UKIP, Simon Bates, Gary Davies and Kid Jensen.
Steve was a legend.
Six foot one, Bags of fun, Breakfast show on Radio One, Has anybody seen Mike Read? He was great aside from his politics and disdain for Frankie GTH; certainly the best of those you name.
@kinabalu last thread re cats the word used was 'entice an animal' and the example given was as you described and they even interviewed a women who confronted a neighbour who let her cat into their house. Your only hope in avoiding getting banged up in future is the fact that, like most, a barrister interviewed on the program went into full rant mode as to how stupid the proposal was quoting the queue in court for rape cases and we shouldn't be concerned about prosecuting people if cats find a new part time owner.
I think you are ok, but if you cross anyone here they might shop you to the plod. Your own fault by declaring your criminal activities on a public forum.
Ok KJ thanks for the warning but I'm in too deep. This cat is part of my life now. If it stopped coming I'd be bereft. In fact I'm already dreading it because it's bound to happen at some point. Still, that's the price you pay for dropping your emotional barriers.
Our neighbours' cat often pops round for a treat and some strokes. He was here at lunchtime as it goes.
When his family go on holiday he is lonely and relies on us for company.
I used to often find myself listening to Steve Wright in the Afternoon when I was a student.
I thought that the show was shite.
It's all relative. Anyone who hated Steve Wright's show must have really, really detested the remaining Radio 1 content e.g. The Hairy Cornflake/ Mike UKIP, Simon Bates, Gary Davies and Kid Jensen.
Now then, now then!
Steve was a legend.
I did. Was off limits before Andy Kershaw and John Peel time.
I used to often find myself listening to Steve Wright in the Afternoon when I was a student.
I thought that the show was shite.
It's all relative. Anyone who hated Steve Wright's show must have really, really detested the remaining Radio 1 content e.g. The Hairy Cornflake/ Mike UKIP, Simon Bates, Gary Davies and Kid Jensen.
Steve was a legend.
Six foot one, Bags of fun, Breakfast show on Radio One, Has anybody seen Mike Read? He was great aside from his politics and disdain for Frankie GTH; certainly the best of those you name.
He is often on that TV channel from some fellow's garage. I can't remember it's name but it shows stuff like Van Der Valk.
Edit: Talking Pictures
Started his career with Wrighty. Read and Wright on Radio 210 Reading.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
That was a very different Russia; over thirty years ago; before Putin, and when Russia was in the doldrums. Russia could have taken many different routes - as could a reunified Germany. Putin chose Russia's current route, to his shame.
Russia could have become a very different - and from our perspective, better, country, had Putin and the oligarchs made different decisions.
Not sure we helped, to be honest.
We spent much of the 90s laughing at Russia, how far they'd fallen and how drunk Yeltsin was.
Well, on the contrary you had:
Automatic successor status for Russia at the UN Membership of the G7 Persuading Ukraine to give up nukes International space programme Rather a lot of aid Turning a blind eye to Chechnya
Were we really so awful to them?
In accounts of the period from a Russian perspective, the Kosovo War was a major turning point.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
I don't think 2% equates to being serious.
It's an arbitrary target, which you're right many aren't even meeting as it is, but it's already out of date.
I think pretty much everyone has 20% real terms moves planned for the next three years. Now, you can argue that it should be more, but it's definitely heading in the right direction.
@kinabalu last thread re cats the word used was 'entice an animal' and the example given was as you described and they even interviewed a women who confronted a neighbour who let her cat into their house. Your only hope in avoiding getting banged up in future is the fact that, like most, a barrister interviewed on the program went into full rant mode as to how stupid the proposal was quoting the queue in court for rape cases and we shouldn't be concerned about prosecuting people if cats find a new part time owner.
I think you are ok, but if you cross anyone here they might shop you to the plod. Your own fault by declaring your criminal activities on a public forum.
Ok KJ thanks for the warning but I'm in too deep. This cat is part of my life now. If it stopped coming I'd be bereft. In fact I'm already dreading it because it's bound to happen at some point. Still, that's the price you pay for dropping your emotional barriers.
Our neighbours' cat often pops round for a treat and some strokes. He was here at lunchtime as it goes.
When his family go on holiday he is lonely and relies on us for company.
Meow.
You are all going to jail
@kinabalu you might need to go to 'Cat Anonymous'.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
I don't think 2% equates to being serious.
It's an arbitrary target, which you're right many aren't even meeting as it is, but it's already out of date.
I think pretty much everyone has 20% real terms moves planned for the next three years. Now, you can argue that it should be more, but it's definitely heading in the right direction.
Yes, I'm arguing that it should be more and also I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm happy to bet you it will happen. It's one of those few things I'm next to 100% sure of.
All the big European arms manufacturers have reported big increases in orders, and most armed forces are actively recruiting in a way that simply wasn't the case a few years ago.
Now, could they easily end up missing targets because arms companies don't ramp up production quick enough, and not enough people sign up for army jobs? Sure. But the willingness to spend is there pretty much across the board.
I'm not sure the funding solutions for these new commitments have all been worked through yet, and that's where it will get sticky.
And here we've not even made the commitment. Just that we'll maybe have a good think about 2.5% as and when the economic situation permits. Weak.
We keep talking about it and then doing nothing more than throw an extra couple of coppers in the charity box.
Both the French and German governments have already passed budgets and bills with increased spending in them, though. We're - candidly - a bit of a laggard, but at least we're doing it from a position of spending reasonable (if still inadequate) sums already.
Mind you we have already sunk costs into the two port based carriers. With a bit of thought and planning an allied carrier group of the two UK ones and CDG hosting aircraft from European air forces protected by carrier groups made up of all the maritime nations would make up for any lack of future spending.
So more maritime nations take up greater responsibility for the med, North Sea/arctic in a coordinated way, countries such as Poland and Germany with more skin in the land war game coordinate and focus on infantry and armour and countries such as Luxembourg, which can’t really do much, chuck money in the pot and Ireland can rest easy feeling superior about their neutrality whilst everyone else does their bit.
Have rolling battle groups of European infantry and armour doing tours in Eastern Europe under Polish leadership to keep everyone sharp and realise its best they all buy integrated kit and navies obliged to provide ships, airforces to provide rotating awacs, intercept cover, transport.
It doesn’t need to be a European military but get everyone to do their bit to make a greater whole.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
That was a very different Russia; over thirty years ago; before Putin, and when Russia was in the doldrums. Russia could have taken many different routes - as could a reunified Germany. Putin chose Russia's current route, to his shame.
Russia could have become a very different - and from our perspective, better, country, had Putin and the oligarchs made different decisions.
Not sure we helped, to be honest.
We spent much of the 90s laughing at Russia, how far they'd fallen and how drunk Yeltsin was.
Well, on the contrary you had:
Automatic successor status for Russia at the UN Membership of the G7 Persuading Ukraine to give up nukes International space programme Rather a lot of aid Turning a blind eye to Chechnya
Were we really so awful to them?
In accounts of the period from a Russian perspective, the Kosovo War was a major turning point.
Actually, it wasn't. They still co-operated with NATO over Afghanistan, for instance.
It was Iraq, where they had major financial and political interests locked up and the US went ahead over their objections, that pissed them off with the West.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
That was a very different Russia; over thirty years ago; before Putin, and when Russia was in the doldrums. Russia could have taken many different routes - as could a reunified Germany. Putin chose Russia's current route, to his shame.
Russia could have become a very different - and from our perspective, better, country, had Putin and the oligarchs made different decisions.
Not sure we helped, to be honest.
We spent much of the 90s laughing at Russia, how far they'd fallen and how drunk Yeltsin was.
Well, on the contrary you had:
Automatic successor status for Russia at the UN Membership of the G7 Persuading Ukraine to give up nukes International space programme Rather a lot of aid Turning a blind eye to Chechnya
Were we really so awful to them?
In accounts of the period from a Russian perspective, the Kosovo War was a major turning point.
Srebrenica was a major turning point from a Nato perspective. We were disinclined to sit on our arses watching it happen again.
I used to often find myself listening to Steve Wright in the Afternoon when I was a student.
I thought that the show was shite.
It's all relative. Anyone who hated Steve Wright's show must have really, really detested the remaining Radio 1 content e.g. The Hairy Cornflake/ Mike UKIP, Simon Bates, Gary Davies and Kid Jensen.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.
The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
Errr:
All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.
France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.
The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
Listening to Ben Wallace yesterday and found the following interesting:
The French apparently include their police costs in their figure which distorts them. He also commented that German is the one that really matters and that although Greece was a high percentage in absolute terms it really didn't matter compared to Germany.
(Pedant alert)
I think the French include the Gendarmerie Nationale, as that is a branch of the French armed forces, but not the National Police.
Another anomaly is lifeboat services and possibly 'coastguards'.
When our media were wazzocking away about how the UK had no coastal patrol boats to catch the migrants and therefore it was the end of civilisation, one difference was that we have the RNLI, whilst certain countries have their 'RNLI' in the armed forces and the count-on-their-thumbs-confused-at-"three" morons in the press missed the category error.
@kinabalu last thread re cats the word used was 'entice an animal' and the example given was as you described and they even interviewed a women who confronted a neighbour who let her cat into their house. Your only hope in avoiding getting banged up in future is the fact that, like most, a barrister interviewed on the program went into full rant mode as to how stupid the proposal was quoting the queue in court for rape cases and we shouldn't be concerned about prosecuting people if cats find a new part time owner.
I think you are ok, but if you cross anyone here they might shop you to the plod. Your own fault by declaring your criminal activities on a public forum.
Ok KJ thanks for the warning but I'm in too deep. This cat is part of my life now. If it stopped coming I'd be bereft. In fact I'm already dreading it because it's bound to happen at some point. Still, that's the price you pay for dropping your emotional barriers.
Our neighbours' cat often pops round for a treat and some strokes. He was here at lunchtime as it goes.
When his family go on holiday he is lonely and relies on us for company.
Meow.
You are all going to jail
@kinabalu you might need to go to 'Cat Anonymous'.
Leaked as a Russian new technical capability. Unnamed Gang of Eight says “it’s disturbing”. Another says nothing to panic about. Nicely timed to get the Ukraine bill to the floor I’d say.
I used to often find myself listening to Steve Wright in the Afternoon when I was a student.
I thought that the show was shite.
It's all relative. Anyone who hated Steve Wright's show must have really, really detested the remaining Radio 1 content e.g. The Hairy Cornflake/ Mike UKIP, Simon Bates, Gary Davies and Kid Jensen.
Now then, now then!
Steve was a legend.
My benchmark of a good DJ is one who keeps their mouth shut and just plays music.
Sadly, most of them seem to think that we tune in to music radio to listen to an idiot talking shite.
But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere
Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America
He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing
Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
Aw bless.
Do you genuinely think it makes a shiny shit of difference to Trump whether European countries spend 2% of GDP on defence? Do you truly believe that, because all the Baltic States have been spending more than 2% of their GDP on defence for many years that Trump would order US forces to fight in their defence?
Are you really that naive?
The 2% thing is just an excuse for Trump. He doesn't understand or believe in collective self-defence, and he is overawed by dictators.
No. A lot of Trump is bluster, some of it is for real. He loves things that make him look clever
If he can get Europe to do a ton of spending and take some burden off the USA he’d sell that as a win because he’s so clever; NATO would survive
We won’t know until and unless he wins in November. How exciting
So far, Trump, who actually was president before, his greatest foreign policy achievement was to be played by North Korea's tinpot dictator. Whether it's bluster or for real doesn't appear to make any difference, given his total incapability for government.
I used to often find myself listening to Steve Wright in the Afternoon when I was a student.
I thought that the show was shite.
It's all relative. Anyone who hated Steve Wright's show must have really, really detested the remaining Radio 1 content e.g. The Hairy Cornflake/ Mike UKIP, Simon Bates, Gary Davies and Kid Jensen.
Now then, now then!
Steve was a legend.
My benchmark of a good DJ is one who keeps their mouth shut and just plays music.
Sadly, most of them seem to think that we tune in to music radio to listen to an idiot talking shite.
Given the plethora of hugely popular podcasts of dubious quality on the internet I wouldn't rule out that they are correct about what people want to hear from radio, even music radio.
EU countries will be looking to boost security through alliances, which means for the first time since Brexit, the UK has some cards to play if it wishes to do so. Until now the EU has had very little interest in the UK.
Some sort of European version of Nato minus the United States would seem more likely.
In other news and I'm sorry if this has already been posted but we have footage of a police officer in Edinburgh telling a Jewish person to hide their star of David as it may 'trigger' a group of protesters. Why aren't you all as angry about this as you are with the Tories and their failings?
'At a rally in Edinburgh, a PoliceScotland officer asked a Jewish bystander to hide his Star of David, to avoid “triggering” the protesters.
The police officer is clearly worried that he and his colleagues are heavily outnumbered and that these protesters could pose a threat to Jews, but his response was effectively to stop a passing Jewish man and ask him to hide his identity before continuing on his way.
Whose rights are actually being protected here, those of law-abiding people or those of mobs of extremists who might be “triggered” by people being Jewish in public?'
I'm convinced the public authorities now try and go for an easy life rather than stand up for what's right and risk dealing with violence.
In their defence they probably get little protection, cover or support from their superiors for the latter, but that's not an excuse.
It's hard but the police are there to maintain order, not to take sides in a potential riot. Possibly they were too cautious. Yesterday someone posted a picture of a Genocide poster near Wes Streeting's office. I happened to be there yesterday and there are also Palestinian flags flying from several lampposts. But there was no damage to or graffiti on the Jewish community centre there, and so far as I know, nor was there to Streeting's office.
Probably there was no danger from the crowd but if there had been, what then?
The police are supposed to protect the public.
'Takes sides in a potential riot?' WTF?
Do you think it okay for Jewish people to display their identity in public? Or would it be better if they didn't so we can all have an easy life.
Some sort of European version of Nato minus the United States would seem more likely.
In other news and I'm sorry if this has already been posted but we have footage of a police officer in Edinburgh telling a Jewish person to hide their star of David as it may 'trigger' a group of protesters. Why aren't you all as angry about this as you are with the Tories and their failings?
'At a rally in Edinburgh, a PoliceScotland officer asked a Jewish bystander to hide his Star of David, to avoid “triggering” the protesters.
The police officer is clearly worried that he and his colleagues are heavily outnumbered and that these protesters could pose a threat to Jews, but his response was effectively to stop a passing Jewish man and ask him to hide his identity before continuing on his way.
Whose rights are actually being protected here, those of law-abiding people or those of mobs of extremists who might be “triggered” by people being Jewish in public?'
I'm convinced the public authorities now try and go for an easy life rather than stand up for what's right and risk dealing with violence.
In their defence they probably get little protection, cover or support from their superiors for the latter, but that's not an excuse.
It's hard but the police are there to maintain order, not to take sides in a potential riot. Possibly they were too cautious. Yesterday someone posted a picture of a Genocide poster near Wes Streeting's office. I happened to be there yesterday and there are also Palestinian flags flying from several lampposts. But there was no damage to or graffiti on the Jewish community centre there, and so far as I know, nor was there to Streeting's office.
Probably there was no danger from the crowd but if there had been, what then?
The police are supposed to protect the public.
'Takes sides in a potential riot?' WTF?
Do you think it okay for Jewish people to display their identity in public? Or would it be better if they didn't so we can all have an easy life.
Yes, I think it is OK. And if you read what I said, it was that the danger was most likely all in the police's head. But if it wasn't, what then?
Forget the Middle East. Let's imagine they were policing the Old Firm Game and three Rangers fans stumbled across thousands of Celtic fans. Would half a dozen coppers be able to hold the line or might they suggest that perhaps the Rangers trio took their scarves off?
TwiX consensus is that it’s the Russian hypersonic missile. It’s the real deal, it can do Mach 8 or more, it can be targeted, and it could carry a nuke warhead
And of course there is the strong possibility that this all bullshit. Or it’s aliens
Some sort of European version of Nato minus the United States would seem more likely.
In other news and I'm sorry if this has already been posted but we have footage of a police officer in Edinburgh telling a Jewish person to hide their star of David as it may 'trigger' a group of protesters. Why aren't you all as angry about this as you are with the Tories and their failings?
'At a rally in Edinburgh, a PoliceScotland officer asked a Jewish bystander to hide his Star of David, to avoid “triggering” the protesters.
The police officer is clearly worried that he and his colleagues are heavily outnumbered and that these protesters could pose a threat to Jews, but his response was effectively to stop a passing Jewish man and ask him to hide his identity before continuing on his way.
Whose rights are actually being protected here, those of law-abiding people or those of mobs of extremists who might be “triggered” by people being Jewish in public?'
Amongst UK police forces, Police Scotland are known for being rather shambolic, and are suffering from reduced funding aiui.
I'm sure that @Eabhal has more stories than I do, but I note a case last year when Police Scotland downgraded a prosecution from Dangerous Driving to Careless Driving with the reason given to the victim that 'the driver could not remember the incident'.
Police Scotland had been supplied with video evidence.
There are other lackadaisical, deliberately crime-tolerating, or possibly corrupt police forces (North Lincs is imo one for road crime, and there are a couple of others), but Police Scotland have big problems.
Cyber probably. Chinese/Russian/Iranian hackers? Deep fakes in the forthcoming US election?
CNN reporting it as a Russian military weapon for nearly an hour
Well, that's progress of a sort, but it needs to be more than an hour. If it's going to beat Ukraine we're seeing it needs to work for two solid years.
Some sort of European version of Nato minus the United States would seem more likely.
In other news and I'm sorry if this has already been posted but we have footage of a police officer in Edinburgh telling a Jewish person to hide their star of David as it may 'trigger' a group of protesters. Why aren't you all as angry about this as you are with the Tories and their failings?
'At a rally in Edinburgh, a PoliceScotland officer asked a Jewish bystander to hide his Star of David, to avoid “triggering” the protesters.
The police officer is clearly worried that he and his colleagues are heavily outnumbered and that these protesters could pose a threat to Jews, but his response was effectively to stop a passing Jewish man and ask him to hide his identity before continuing on his way.
Whose rights are actually being protected here, those of law-abiding people or those of mobs of extremists who might be “triggered” by people being Jewish in public?'
Amongst UK police forces, Police Scotland are known for being rather shambolic, and are suffering from reduced funding aiui.
I'm sure that @Eabhal has more stories than I do, but I note a case last year when Police Scotland downgraded a prosecution from Dangerous Driving to Careless Driving with the reason given to the victim that 'the driver could not remember the incident'.
Police Scotland had been supplied with video evidence.
There are other lackadaisical, deliberately crime-tolerating, or possibly corrupt police forces (North Lincs is imo one for road crime, and there are a couple of others), but Police Scotland have big problems.
Off topic. But. When pet food suppliers email you on Valentines afternoon to ask what you’re doing for your beloved dog today, even I begin to wonder whether that’s going too far.
Off topic. But. When pet food suppliers email you on Valentines afternoon to ask what you’re doing for your beloved dog today, even I begin to wonder whether that’s going too far.
I think they got a bit confused when somebody said they'd be going dogging.
Comments
So yep the people near you are collateral damage but hey some of us have been subject to the collateral damage of other HMRC crackdowns for 20+ years and you just have to accept it - while praying that HMRC don’t decide to use you as an example test case
The French apparently include their police costs in their figure which distorts them. He also commented that German is the one that really matters and that although Greece was a high percentage in absolute terms it really didn't matter compared to Germany.
Peterborough is also a divine cathedral, except for its obvious impediment of being in the centre of Peterborough...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Chiefs_of_Staff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3nNomiylYE
It could be quite good for Britain - worry less about land capabilities we don't really use much, upgrade the Navy which we do but is getting dangerously threadbare. Though I'm not sure it'll influence 'rejoin' - which will depend on a) what conditions the EU set for rejoining and b) Whether it remains so unpopular a main party (in practice Labour) decides it is in their interests to pitch taking us back in or it'll lose some voters to a minor party offering that.
Meanwhile, in "just a bit of fun" news.
We have our first MRP to put the Tories below 100 seats. (Find out now / Electoral calculus - 18k sample).
Con 22%, 80 seats
Lab 42%, 452 seats
Lib Dem 11%, 53 seats
Reform 10%, 0 seats
Green 7%, 2 seats
SNP 4%, 40 seats
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1757812934628004203
I accidentally wrote 500 basis points when I meant to write 50 and our stock tanked after we issued the correction.
https://twitter.com/anothercohen/status/1757563630755688545
Oops.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/mar/21/boris-johnson-compares-russian-world-cup-to-hitlers-1936-olympics
"Boris Johnson compares Russian World Cup to Hitler's 1936 Olympics"
I think the French include the Gendarmerie Nationale, as that is a branch of the French armed forces, but not the National Police.
I agree it should be separate to the EU but the EU really doesn't want it to be because they see an army as a key trapping of statehood.
All the big European arms manufacturers have reported big increases in orders, and most armed forces are actively recruiting in a way that simply wasn't the case a few years ago.
Now, could they easily end up missing targets because arms companies don't ramp up production quick enough, and not enough people sign up for army jobs? Sure. But the willingness to spend is there pretty much across the board.
See also: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/04/04/macron-sends-438-billion-military-budget-plan-to-french-parliament/, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2022/03/germanys-new-defence-policy-the-100-billion-euro-question, etc.
In other news and I'm sorry if this has already been posted but we have footage of a police officer in Edinburgh telling a Jewish person to hide their star of David as it may 'trigger' a group of protesters. Why aren't you all as angry about this as you are with the Tories and their failings?
https://twitter.com/antisemitism/status/1757759542551548181
'At a rally in Edinburgh, a PoliceScotland officer asked a Jewish bystander to hide his Star of David, to avoid “triggering” the protesters.
The police officer is clearly worried that he and his colleagues are heavily outnumbered and that these protesters could pose a threat to Jews, but his response was effectively to stop a passing Jewish man and ask him to hide his identity before continuing on his way.
Whose rights are actually being protected here, those of law-abiding people or those of mobs of extremists who might be “triggered” by people being Jewish in public?'
There's also talk of acquiring nuclear weapons, which won't happen, but shows how far discussion has moved in 2 years.
As for Trump making the UK rejoin the EU - this is just fantasy. The UK and US will remain allies even if NATO ends - quite a few people in the UK will be happy that the alliance with the US no longer requires the UK to be allied to continental Europeans.
Automatic successor status for Russia at the UN
Membership of the G7
Persuading Ukraine to give up nukes
International space programme
Rather a lot of aid
Turning a blind eye to Chechnya
Were we really so awful to them?
In their defence they probably get little protection, cover or support from their superiors for the latter, but that's not an excuse.
And here we've not even made the commitment. Just that we'll maybe have a good think about 2.5% as and when the economic situation permits. Weak.
We keep talking about it and then doing nothing more than throw an extra couple of coppers in the charity box.
But I don't see any of this happening really.
I used to often find myself listening to Steve Wright in the Afternoon when I was a student.
I thought that the show was shite.
However, with America seemingly moving towards isolationism or prioritising their interests in the Pacific (even the Democrats are displaying these leanings a bit) and a belligerent Russia that changes. It suddenly becomes rather useful to have a combined force that can swiftly respond and can make the cost of making war in Europe to Putin or a similar successor too high. You suspect one other selling point to other countries would be an ability to police Europe's borders with conflict zones.
Probably there was no danger from the crowd but if there had been, what then?
Now then, now then!
Steve was a legend.
When his family go on holiday he is lonely and relies on us for company.
Meow.
Might get Leon BRACING, though.
https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/1757814933167743303
Democratic source familiar w/threat tells
@NBCNews: “This is a serious issue that could lead to a destabilizing situation and a national security threat.”
Described it as a "potential foreign threat" but would not say where the threat is coming from.
Edit: Talking Pictures
Started his career with Wrighty. Read and Wright on Radio 210 Reading.
https://twitter.com/elwasson/status/1757816432077811770
Iran nukes ?
Chinese hypersonics ?
@kinabalu you might need to go to 'Cat Anonymous'.
So more maritime nations take up greater responsibility for the med, North Sea/arctic in a coordinated way, countries such as Poland and Germany with more skin in the land war game coordinate and focus on infantry and armour and countries such as Luxembourg, which can’t really do much, chuck money in the pot and Ireland can rest easy feeling superior about their neutrality whilst everyone else does their bit.
Have rolling battle groups of European infantry and armour doing tours in Eastern Europe under Polish leadership to keep everyone sharp and realise its best they all buy integrated kit and navies obliged to provide ships, airforces to provide rotating awacs, intercept cover, transport.
It doesn’t need to be a European military but get everyone to do their bit to make a greater whole.
Academics in US, UK and Australia collaborated on drone research with Iranian university close to regime
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/14/academics-in-us-uk-and-australia-collaborated-on-drone-research-with-iranian-university-close-to-regime
It was Iraq, where they had major financial and political interests locked up and the US went ahead over their objections, that pissed them off with the West.
When our media were wazzocking away about how the UK had no coastal patrol boats to catch the migrants and therefore it was the end of civilisation, one difference was that we have the RNLI, whilst certain countries have their 'RNLI' in the armed forces and the count-on-their-thumbs-confused-at-"three" morons in the press missed the category error.
That would explain the fuss.
Runnymede and Weybridge going Labour apparently.
Seems like a classic contradiction in terms at the moment.
It was wrong on so many levels!
Sadly, most of them seem to think that we tune in to music radio to listen to an idiot talking shite.
https://twitter.com/soyab_05/status/1757719072274321413
Though they would need some time to learn how to lead all those committees and so on, and pivot from tactics to strategy.
'Takes sides in a potential riot?' WTF?
Do you think it okay for Jewish people to display their identity in public? Or would it be better if they didn't so we can all have an easy life.
I flew into Salisbury airfield for lunch once, and remember the cathedral being a very handy landmark from the air
Which would be quite big. A potential carrier killer
But who knows
Forget the Middle East. Let's imagine they were policing the Old Firm Game and three Rangers fans stumbled across thousands of Celtic fans. Would half a dozen coppers be able to hold the line or might they suggest that perhaps the Rangers trio took their scarves off?
And of course there is the strong possibility that this all bullshit. Or it’s aliens
I'm sure that @Eabhal has more stories than I do, but I note a case last year when Police Scotland downgraded a prosecution from Dangerous Driving to Careless Driving with the reason given to the victim that 'the driver could not remember the incident'.
Police Scotland had been supplied with video evidence.
There are other lackadaisical, deliberately crime-tolerating, or possibly corrupt police forces (North Lincs is imo one for road crime, and there are a couple of others), but Police Scotland have big problems.