Howdy, Stranger!

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

They shall have wars and pay for their presumption – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 30 in General
They shall have wars and pay for their presumption – politicalbetting.com

It's not like defence has been a notable exception to the general picture. Army cut by a third. Nearly all weapons procurements behind schedule. Navy barely has any seaworthy ships. Concerns about nuclear weapons.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,813
    edited March 30
    1st class trip to Cleethorpes at 10.10
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,813
    edited March 30
    2nd class is rubbish full of hen parties
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,813
    edited March 30
    3rd like Labour in Islington North
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,813
    Can somebody post 4th so I can say

    Fifth Columnist like SKS
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    Far easier just to push a button (except, the missile just plops in the sea).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,813
    Bye I am off for fish chips candyfloss

    Not necessarily on the same plate
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    tlg86 said:

    Far easier just to push a button (except, the missile just plops in the sea).

    'Once they go up, who cares vhere they come down?
    That's not my department,' said Wernher von Braun.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150
    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Irrespective of the level of funding, defence spending needs radical reform.
    The Tories have simultaneously cut defence capacity, while continuing with outdated and incompetent procurement - often driven by prestige rather than practicality.

    The problems go back long before 2010, but it's no longer possible to pretend they aren't there.

    There's little or no scope for massive increases in spending - and even if there were, it would likely be futile without reform.

    Is there anyone in Labour's team with a clue ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    Nigelb said:

    Irrespective of the level of funding, defence spending needs radical reform.
    The Tories have simultaneously cut defence capacity, while continuing with outdated and incompetent procurement - often driven by prestige rather than practicality.

    The problems go back long before 2010, but it's no longer possible to pretend they aren't there.

    There's little or no scope for massive increases in spending - and even if there were, it would likely be futile without reform.

    Is there anyone in Labour's team with a clue ?

    Past experience suggests probably not.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,813

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
    Cleethorpes has no entry requirements.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,334
    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    "No downsides", as the Brexit Secretary said.

    Now this downside is pretty small, and there are technical fixes for the worst of it. Then we're down to the useful life of a passport being 9.5 years instead of 10. But it is another bit of grit in the system.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,236
    edited March 30
    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    I made this point on the last thread

    Since 2003 when our son emigrated to New Zealand we have travelled extensively world wide and this rule applies so we renewed our passports accordingly

    There is a tedious nature of the continual bewailing of our previous membership of the EU, not least because 'we have left and there is no prospect of us rejoining the single market or freedom of movement'

    The quotes are by one Sir Keir Starmer just this week, and reaffirmed by the EU as well at the same time in connection with the review of the treaty next year when they reaffirned they will not reopen UKs membership

    It is a forlorn hope but time to move on on the EU membership and to be fair it seems Starmer agrees
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,236

    On topic, the comedy wasn't just the exclamation mark. It was the subheadline: "Poll reveals voters now associate Conservatives with cutting military spending, not increasing it"

    Well, as the Conservatives continually cut military spending, why the surprise that people have noticed? Oh yeah, because the Heil exists to weaponise ignorance and stupidity so that people interpret the real cut as an increase.

    Game over boys. People have seen through you.

    Very true but increased defence spending will not be a priority for Starmer

    There is no money
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,236
    edited March 30
    Nigelb said:

    Irrespective of the level of funding, defence spending needs radical reform.
    The Tories have simultaneously cut defence capacity, while continuing with outdated and incompetent procurement - often driven by prestige rather than practicality.

    The problems go back long before 2010, but it's no longer possible to pretend they aren't there.

    There's little or no scope for massive increases in spending - and even if there were, it would likely be futile without reform.

    Is there anyone in Labour's team with a clue ?

    I can honestly say I have not heard anyone in labour even want to talk about it
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,334
    On topic, I suspect that the detailed failings at the MoD are a rather specialist subject. Apart from the rocket that didn't really go up much, so much as swoosh around for a bit.

    The bigger issue is that this Conservative government isn't trusted on anything, so why should defence be exempt from that?

    And in the case of defence, how much military capability is appropriate for a significant (but not as significant as it likes to believe), fairly rich (but probably poorer than it thinks) nation to have? If we don't know what we're trying to do, our chances of doing it are slim.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,236

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    "No downsides", as the Brexit Secretary said.

    Now this downside is pretty small, and there are technical fixes for the worst of it. Then we're down to the useful life of a passport being 9.5 years instead of 10. But it is another bit of grit in the system.
    I assume you haven’t travelled outside of Europe otherwise you would have had to comply with this rule
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,962
    edited March 30

    On topic, the comedy wasn't just the exclamation mark. It was the subheadline: "Poll reveals voters now associate Conservatives with cutting military spending, not increasing it"

    Well, as the Conservatives continually cut military spending, why the surprise that people have noticed? Oh yeah, because the Heil exists to weaponise ignorance and stupidity so that people interpret the real cut as an increase.

    Game over boys. People have seen through you.

    Very true but increased defence spending will not be a priority for Starmer

    There is no money
    More money is the last thing the MoD needs. It would be possible to get better balanced and more effective armed forces with the same (or even) less money if adjusting priorities and taking some difficult decisions were done.

    I don't know if Starmer will engage on this level. I doubt it. He'll probably just ignore the issues and do tory style stealth cuts as that is the path of least resistance and he'll have more interesting and important things to worry about than the Russians turning up off fucking Beachy Head - which seems to be a contemporary tory obsession.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,334

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    "No downsides", as the Brexit Secretary said.

    Now this downside is pretty small, and there are technical fixes for the worst of it. Then we're down to the useful life of a passport being 9.5 years instead of 10. But it is another bit of grit in the system.
    I assume you haven’t travelled outside of Europe otherwise you would have had to comply with this rule
    Yes I have, but clearly a lot of people haven't. Their passports are now five percent less useful than they were before.

    It's a small extra hassle to add to the pile. It's what we voted for, and it's not going to be reversed soon. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware of the pile of hassles we have created for ourselves.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024

    On topic, the comedy wasn't just the exclamation mark. It was the subheadline: "Poll reveals voters now associate Conservatives with cutting military spending, not increasing it"

    Well, as the Conservatives continually cut military spending, why the surprise that people have noticed? Oh yeah, because the Heil exists to weaponise ignorance and stupidity so that people interpret the real cut as an increase.

    Game over boys. People have seen through you.

    Very true but increased defence spending will not be a priority for Starmer

    There is no money
    There's plenty of money in the country but much of it is tied up in property.

    And of that which is in circulation people prefer it to be spent on other things.

    To combine two discussions this morning I'll point out that the UK spent over £70bn on foreign holidays in 2023, a tourism deficit of almost £40bn.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/datasets/monthlyoverseastravelandtourismreferencetables

    The UK government is effectively borrowing money from foreigners to fund people having foreign holidays.

    The young will be paying the costs via taxation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    "No downsides", as the Brexit Secretary said.

    Now this downside is pretty small, and there are technical fixes for the worst of it. Then we're down to the useful life of a passport being 9.5 years instead of 10. But it is another bit of grit in the system.
    It should be noted though - that was actually the recommendation even *before* we left.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024
    Re Prime Ministers and defence cuts.

    David Cameron is perhaps particularly notable for being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    Dura_Ace said:

    On topic, the comedy wasn't just the exclamation mark. It was the subheadline: "Poll reveals voters now associate Conservatives with cutting military spending, not increasing it"

    Well, as the Conservatives continually cut military spending, why the surprise that people have noticed? Oh yeah, because the Heil exists to weaponise ignorance and stupidity so that people interpret the real cut as an increase.

    Game over boys. People have seen through you.

    Very true but increased defence spending will not be a priority for Starmer

    There is no money
    More money is the last thing the MoD needs. It would be possible to get better balanced and more effective armed forces with the same (or even) less money if adjusting priorities and taking some difficult decisions were done.

    I don't know if Starmer will engage on this level. I doubt it. He'll probably just ignore the issues and do tory style stealth cuts as that is the path of least resistance and he'll have more interesting and important things to worry about than the Russians turning up off fucking Beachy Head - which seems to be a contemporary tory obsession.
    There is a rumour that during the Cold War the Soviets took MoD main building off their target list on the grounds that its elimination would vastly improve the performance of the British Armed Forces.

    There is also what is surely an urban myth but I would like to think it is true, that it was put back on the target list when the Soviets realised ordinary servicemen hated the MoD so much they might well switch sides if the Soviets blew it up for them.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,842
    Dura_Ace said:

    The problem is that defending the country is some way down the list of priorities for defence spending which looks something like this...

    1. Straightforward transfer of public wealth to the capital owning classes via the usual suspects. (BAE, Lockheed Martin, Thales, etc.)

    2. Scaffolding of the tremendously fragile English national vanity (Red Arrows, horses, brass bands, etc.)

    3. Dig-a-hole-and-fill-it-in job creation exercises in politically opportunistic locations (Ajax, T31, etc.)

    ...

    99. Ensuring the territorial integrity of the UK and security of overseas possessions.

    They should start by flogging the aircraft carriers to whichever country needs an ego boost. If we are looking at getting involved in a country that is so far away we need floating airstrips then we shouldn’t be getting involved in the first place as it’s not our business.

    Spend all the money on defensive kit. As long as no missile, ships, planes etc can hit British territory then that’s the most important thing. Defensive kit can also be used in conjunction with European allies if we need to get involved stopping the Russians and their tank from driving through Poland.

    Blow it all on Iron dome and patriot. Keep the nuclear subs as a last resort threat. Bring recruitment in house and make it rewarding for NCOs who are about to retire or quit to run it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    edited March 30
    Dura_Ace said:

    On topic, the comedy wasn't just the exclamation mark. It was the subheadline: "Poll reveals voters now associate Conservatives with cutting military spending, not increasing it"

    Well, as the Conservatives continually cut military spending, why the surprise that people have noticed? Oh yeah, because the Heil exists to weaponise ignorance and stupidity so that people interpret the real cut as an increase.

    Game over boys. People have seen through you.

    Very true but increased defence spending will not be a priority for Starmer

    There is no money
    More money is the last thing the MoD needs. It would be possible to get better balanced and more effective armed forces with the same (or even) less money if adjusting priorities and taking some difficult decisions were done.

    I don't know if Starmer will engage on this level. I doubt it. He'll probably just ignore the issues and do tory style stealth cuts as that is the path of least resistance and he'll have more interesting and important things to worry about than the Russians turning up off fucking Beachy Head - which seems to be a contemporary tory obsession.
    Considering that the Russians took a year and tens of thousands of casualties to capture a derelict Donbas mining town, the prospect of them pulling of a "Riddle of The Sands" invasion of Blighty seems very low indeed.

    Our problem with defence is that we have Imperial pretentions to an oceangoing Navy with pointy ships and pointy nosed planes without either the funding or the manpower to deliver.

    It's not so much that we have obsolete weapons (indeed for most conceivable enemies slightly obsolete would be fine) but rather obsolete pretensions.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    Re Prime Ministers and defence cuts.

    David Cameron is perhaps particularly notable for being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.

    Tony Blair was as bad, to be fair. As was John Major.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,195

    Re Prime Ministers and defence cuts.

    David Cameron is perhaps particularly notable for being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.

    The Thatcher government won the Falklands SMO and went straight back to cutting the navy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    Re Prime Ministers and defence cuts.

    David Cameron is perhaps particularly notable for being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.

    The Thatcher government won the Falklands SMO and went straight back to cutting the navy.
    Macmillan was in favour of Suez* but then changed our defence policy to rely much more heavily on nuclear weapons, cutting the Army, Navy and Air Force to save money.

    This did end conscription, which I think was a positive change and long overdue, but it did have its downsides.

    *Until the moment he suddenly wasn't.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024
    ydoethur said:

    Re Prime Ministers and defence cuts.

    David Cameron is perhaps particularly notable for being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.

    Tony Blair was as bad, to be fair. As was John Major.
    The world has become a steadily more dangerous place and since September 2001.

    The more recent the PM the more deserving of criticism they are.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    I made this point on the last thread

    Since 2003 when our son emigrated to New Zealand we have travelled extensively world wide and this rule applies so we renewed our passports accordingly

    There is a tedious nature of the continual bewailing of our previous membership of the EU, not least because 'we have left and there is no prospect of us rejoining the single market or freedom of movement'

    The quotes are by one Sir Keir Starmer just this week, and reaffirmed by the EU as well at the same time in connection with the review of the treaty next year when they reaffirned they will not reopen UKs membership

    It is a forlorn hope but time to move on on the EU membership and to be fair it seems Starmer agrees
    Nah. Rejoin is just off the agenda for the next 5 years, not forever.

    It's Lib Dem policy to rejoin the SM and while being likely on the opposition benches next Parliament they may well be need for 2029.

    It's impossible to resist the polling forever.

    Rejoin: 48% (=)
    Stay out: 32% (=)

    via @wethinkpolling, 27-28 Mar

    And more interesting:

    EU Membership Voting Intention:

    *UK must adopt Euro*

    Rejoin: 39% (+1)
    Stay out: 40% (-1)

    via @wethinkpolling, 27-28 Mar

    It looks like increasingly people are less bothered by keeping Sterling. Perhaps because people rarely use cash anymore, so it's just numbers on a card account.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024
    edited March 30

    Re Prime Ministers and defence cuts.

    David Cameron is perhaps particularly notable for being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.

    The Thatcher government won the Falklands SMO and went straight back to cutting the navy.
    As with so many popular memories of Thatcher that of the 'iron lady' strong on defence is wrong.

    Thatcher did have the relative benefit that the Labour of Foot and Kinnock was even weaker on defence.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129
    It'll be fascinating to see if Labour does bite the bullet (sorry) and make a significant increase in defence spending. I mean, given the noises off about lack of cash and the ever ballooning health and pensions bills it doesn't seem likely, but perhaps those who insist that everything will be different once they've dispensed with the need to lure the grey vote into backing them will be proven right?

    Given our geography, even if the Government feels it can't afford the spectrum of capabilities that it would like, you'd at least think it could be persuaded to fork out for a functioning navy?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    But it is so counterintuitive, tbf. PB intellectuals are not typical of the wider population who tend to think in much simpler terms. Passport says it's valid to July 2024, so what are they supposed to think?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,940
    Off topic, this pic just won a big photography prize. I assume it was arrived at without AI trickery, but I think I've been corrupted and made cynical by all the guff around that I think it looks a bit Artifical Intelligence-y.

    'Shetland: Photographer wins global prize with image taken in Scotland'


  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,960
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pigeon, highly unlikely. Money is tight, and Labour will always be happier spending on areas such as Health or Education rather than Defence.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,195
    edited March 30
    ydoethur said:

    Re Prime Ministers and defence cuts.

    David Cameron is perhaps particularly notable for being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.

    Tony Blair was as bad, to be fair. As was John Major.
    Blair may have been a warmonger but defence spending rose during the 2000s.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556

    Off topic, this pic just won a big photography prize. I assume it was arrived at without AI trickery, but I think I've been corrupted and made cynical by all the guff around that I think it looks a bit Artifical Intelligence-y.

    'Shetland: Photographer wins global prize with image taken in Scotland'


    Nah, Leon's favourite programme would have used Blue-footed Boobies and given them six toes on each webbed foot.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pigeon, highly unlikely. Money is tight, and Labour will always be happier spending on areas such as Health or Education rather than Defence.

    Money doesn't have to be tight - but, I'm not about to embark on another bleat about the gross under taxation of assets again this morning. And yes, you're probably right, they'll most likely leave the defence establishment to rot.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,195

    Even the Mail has noticed.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    pigeon said:

    It'll be fascinating to see if Labour does bite the bullet (sorry) and make a significant increase in defence spending. I mean, given the noises off about lack of cash and the ever ballooning health and pensions bills it doesn't seem likely, but perhaps those who insist that everything will be different once they've dispensed with the need to lure the grey vote into backing them will be proven right?

    Given our geography, even if the Government feels it can't afford the spectrum of capabilities that it would like, you'd at least think it could be persuaded to fork out for a functioning navy?

    More like use the existing money efficiently, rather than buy frigates without fixed antisubmarine torpedo tubes and ear-killing armoured vehicles when perfectly good designs exist off the shelf from other suppliers.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
    Cleethorpes has no entry requirements.
    Don't you have to show your tattoos?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,549
    pigeon said:

    It'll be fascinating to see if Labour does bite the bullet (sorry) and make a significant increase in defence spending. I mean, given the noises off about lack of cash and the ever ballooning health and pensions bills it doesn't seem likely, but perhaps those who insist that everything will be different once they've dispensed with the need to lure the grey vote into backing them will be proven right?

    Given want is happening I don't think Labour will have much choice but to increase defence spending significantly. All Starmer's talk about doing levelling up properly is likely to be binned as he deals with the growing threat from Russia and a realisation that we are not equipped to fight contemporary wars.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,195
    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    It'll be fascinating to see if Labour does bite the bullet (sorry) and make a significant increase in defence spending. I mean, given the noises off about lack of cash and the ever ballooning health and pensions bills it doesn't seem likely, but perhaps those who insist that everything will be different once they've dispensed with the need to lure the grey vote into backing them will be proven right?

    Given our geography, even if the Government feels it can't afford the spectrum of capabilities that it would like, you'd at least think it could be persuaded to fork out for a functioning navy?

    More like use the existing money efficiently, rather than buy frigates without fixed antisubmarine torpedo tubes and ear-killing armoured vehicles when perfectly good designs exist off the shelf from other suppliers.
    Even the US Navy is buying Italian frigates. Trouble is, we need (whether for military or political reasons is moot) to prop up our own defence industries.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,710
    The Tories are likely to make another tax or NI cut before the election .

    Labour should be brave and cancel that , instead putting that into public services and defence. I fear they’ll chicken out and just go along with it .

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150
    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,236

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    "No downsides", as the Brexit Secretary said.

    Now this downside is pretty small, and there are technical fixes for the worst of it. Then we're down to the useful life of a passport being 9.5 years instead of 10. But it is another bit of grit in the system.
    I assume you haven’t travelled outside of Europe otherwise you would have had to comply with this rule
    Yes I have, but clearly a lot of people haven't. Their passports are now five percent less useful than they were before.

    It's a small extra hassle to add to the pile. It's what we voted for, and it's not going to be reversed soon. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware of the pile of hassles we have created for ourselves.
    I would just comment that it is not a hassle for anyone who has travelled wider than the EU
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
    Cleethorpes has no entry requirements.
    Don't you have to show your tattoos?
    Cleethorpes - the last resort...

    https://www.redmolotov.com/cleethorpes-tshirt
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129
    glw said:

    pigeon said:

    It'll be fascinating to see if Labour does bite the bullet (sorry) and make a significant increase in defence spending. I mean, given the noises off about lack of cash and the ever ballooning health and pensions bills it doesn't seem likely, but perhaps those who insist that everything will be different once they've dispensed with the need to lure the grey vote into backing them will be proven right?

    Given want is happening I don't think Labour will have much choice but to increase defence spending significantly. All Starmer's talk about doing levelling up properly is likely to be binned as he deals with the growing threat from Russia and a realisation that we are not equipped to fight contemporary wars.
    Equipping the nation to fight contemporary wars doesn't win the vote of Doreen from Hunstanton who wants her dodgy hip fixing and her pension to go up be 10% every year though. Does it?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,334
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    I made this point on the last thread

    Since 2003 when our son emigrated to New Zealand we have travelled extensively world wide and this rule applies so we renewed our passports accordingly

    There is a tedious nature of the continual bewailing of our previous membership of the EU, not least because 'we have left and there is no prospect of us rejoining the single market or freedom of movement'

    The quotes are by one Sir Keir Starmer just this week, and reaffirmed by the EU as well at the same time in connection with the review of the treaty next year when they reaffirned they will not reopen UKs membership

    It is a forlorn hope but time to move on on the EU membership and to be fair it seems Starmer agrees
    Nah. Rejoin is just off the agenda for the next 5 years, not forever.

    It's Lib Dem policy to rejoin the SM and while being likely on the opposition benches next Parliament they may well be need for 2029.

    It's impossible to resist the polling forever.

    Rejoin: 48% (=)
    Stay out: 32% (=)

    via @wethinkpolling, 27-28 Mar

    And more interesting:

    EU Membership Voting Intention:

    *UK must adopt Euro*

    Rejoin: 39% (+1)
    Stay out: 40% (-1)

    via @wethinkpolling, 27-28 Mar

    It looks like increasingly people are less bothered by keeping Sterling. Perhaps because people rarely use cash anymore, so it's just numbers on a card account.
    Also, while it's a cold bucket of water on Rejoin, that only gets supporters of the status quo so far. The current situation is unpopular and gradually getting more so.

    For fans of the "Brexit is like having children" theory, the country is now looking for boarding schools that stay open during the vacations. We might balk at the cost, but on the other hand...

    I still prefer the "Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we can't get rid of just yet, because we know Uncle Nigel will go off on another one" model.
  • guybrushguybrush Posts: 236

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    "No downsides", as the Brexit Secretary said.

    Now this downside is pretty small, and there are technical fixes for the worst of it. Then we're down to the useful life of a passport being 9.5 years instead of 10. But it is another bit of grit in the system.
    I assume you haven’t travelled outside of Europe otherwise you would have had to comply with this rule
    Yes I have, but clearly a lot of people haven't. Their passports are now five percent less useful than they were before.

    It's a small extra hassle to add to the pile. It's what we voted for, and it's not going to be reversed soon. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware of the pile of hassles we have created for ourselves.
    I would just comment that it is not a hassle for anyone who has travelled wider than the EU
    Interrupting my high speed train trip in Taiwan, to point out actually it is. Thanks to brexit I now have about 8 months less life on my lovely EU spec passport.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,236
    edited March 30
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    I made this point on the last thread

    Since 2003 when our son emigrated to New Zealand we have travelled extensively world wide and this rule applies so we renewed our passports accordingly

    There is a tedious nature of the continual bewailing of our previous membership of the EU, not least because 'we have left and there is no prospect of us rejoining the single market or freedom of movement'

    The quotes are by one Sir Keir Starmer just this week, and reaffirmed by the EU as well at the same time in connection with the review of the treaty next year when they reaffirned they will not reopen UKs membership

    It is a forlorn hope but time to move on on the EU membership and to be fair it seems Starmer agrees
    Nah. Rejoin is just off the agenda for the next 5 years, not forever.

    It's Lib Dem policy to rejoin the SM and while being likely on the opposition benches next Parliament they may well be need for 2029.

    It's impossible to resist the polling forever.

    Rejoin: 48% (=)
    Stay out: 32% (=)

    via @wethinkpolling, 27-28 Mar

    And more interesting:

    EU Membership Voting Intention:

    *UK must adopt Euro*

    Rejoin: 39% (+1)
    Stay out: 40% (-1)

    via @wethinkpolling, 27-28 Mar

    It looks like increasingly people are less bothered by keeping Sterling. Perhaps because people rarely use cash anymore, so it's just numbers on a card account.
    The most likely compromise is Macron's outer EU proposals

    https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/macron-proposes-european-political-community-to-include-nations-outside-eu-122051000207_1.html
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 778

    On topic, I suspect that the detailed failings at the MoD are a rather specialist subject. Apart from the rocket that didn't really go up much, so much as swoosh around for a bit.

    The bigger issue is that this Conservative government isn't trusted on anything, so why should defence be exempt from that?

    And in the case of defence, how much military capability is appropriate for a significant (but not as significant as it likes to believe), fairly rich (but probably poorer than it thinks) nation to have? If we don't know what we're trying to do, our chances of doing it are slim.

    I suspect, in the event of large scale conventional war, America will become the 'arsenal of democracy' and NATO countries that are not the US will find themselves with plenty enough materiel to equip expanded numbers of personnel to go and die in the required numbers - I suspect such an arrangement is a semi-deliberate structuring of US hegemony because the last thing the Americans want is European allies being capable of conducting operations independently of Uncle Sam.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,797
    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    Spread that out over 20-30 years though, and what % of defence spending does it actually entail in the long run. 10%? 20%? A chunk for sure, but to the exclusion of substantial spending elsewhere that should deliver a lot?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    It's not the remaining time on the Passport that is the only issue, it is that it cannot be a Passport more than 10 years old including that 6 months.

    In theory it is possible to have a 10 year old passport with 9 months left, and be refused entry.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,134
    pigeon said:

    It'll be fascinating to see if Labour does bite the bullet (sorry) and make a significant increase in defence spending. I mean, given the noises off about lack of cash and the ever ballooning health and pensions bills it doesn't seem likely, but perhaps those who insist that everything will be different once they've dispensed with the need to lure the grey vote into backing them will be proven right?

    Given our geography, even if the Government feels it can't afford the spectrum of capabilities that it would like, you'd at least think it could be persuaded to fork out for a functioning navy?

    If Labour can focus on defence industry spend and pour the money into UK-based manufacturing then they may be able to square that circle.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    ydoethur said:

    Re Prime Ministers and defence cuts.

    David Cameron is perhaps particularly notable for being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.

    Tony Blair was as bad, to be fair. As was John Major.
    Blair may have been a warmonger but defence spending rose during the 2000s.
    Yes, to spend on his wars.

    I was thinking of the 2004 spending review which cut budgets elsewhere substantially, including the merging of infantry regiments and the withdrawal of several types of aircraft.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,940
    Pro_Rata said:

    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    Spread that out over 20-30 years though, and what % of defence spending does it actually entail in the long run. 10%? 20%? A chunk for sure, but to the exclusion of substantial spending elsewhere that should deliver a lot?

    If HS2 is a comparison with Trident, does that mean the missiles will stop at Birmingham?
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 413
    sbjme19 said:

    O/T BBC News full of stories about people who couldn't board their flights to Europe because of the 10-year passport rule, lost money etc.
    I hope none of them voted Leave.

    The main point of this kind of story is to promote travel abroad on bank holiday weekends by making it seem normal.

    Any political effect will be to stoke xenophobia and the idea that foreigners are pushing "Britons" around and shouldn't be trusted. Few who voted Leave will have enough intelligence to work out that a close union with foreign countries might make travelling to them less of a hassle.

    Note the absence of stories about getting ripped off when changing money.



  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
    Cleethorpes has no entry requirements.
    Don't you have to show your tattoos?
    One of the minor mysteries of the country is why the Lincolnshire coastal resorts are so much more downmarket than the Yorkshire ones.
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 413

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    I made this point on the last thread

    Since 2003 when our son emigrated to New Zealand we have travelled extensively world wide and this rule applies so we renewed our passports accordingly

    There is a tedious nature of the continual bewailing of our previous membership of the EU, not least because 'we have left and there is no prospect of us rejoining the single market or freedom of movement'

    The quotes are by one Sir Keir Starmer just this week, and reaffirmed by the EU as well at the same time in connection with the review of the treaty next year when they reaffirned they will not reopen UKs membership

    It is a forlorn hope but time to move on on the EU membership and to be fair it seems Starmer agrees
    Nah. Rejoin is just off the agenda for the next 5 years, not forever.

    It's Lib Dem policy to rejoin the SM and while being likely on the opposition benches next Parliament they may well be need for 2029.

    It's impossible to resist the polling forever.

    Rejoin: 48% (=)
    Stay out: 32% (=)

    via @wethinkpolling, 27-28 Mar

    And more interesting:

    EU Membership Voting Intention:

    *UK must adopt Euro*

    Rejoin: 39% (+1)
    Stay out: 40% (-1)

    via @wethinkpolling, 27-28 Mar

    It looks like increasingly people are less bothered by keeping Sterling. Perhaps because people rarely use cash anymore, so it's just numbers on a card account.
    Also, while it's a cold bucket of water on Rejoin, that only gets supporters of the status quo so far. The current situation is unpopular and gradually getting more so.

    For fans of the "Brexit is like having children" theory, the country is now looking for boarding schools that stay open during the vacations. We might balk at the cost, but on the other hand...
    That kind of joke wouldn't be told in any other country than Britain.
    Foreigners like their children.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    edited March 30

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
    Cleethorpes has no entry requirements.
    Don't you have to show your tattoos?
    One of the minor mysteries of the country is why the Lincolnshire coastal resorts are so much more downmarket than the Yorkshire ones.
    The Yorkshire manufacturing towns had better rail communication with Blackpool?

    Skegness etc would be fed from Nottingham/Leicester.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,292

    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.

    The more notable Trump supporters within the party (Truss, Boris) are also the most anti-Putin. I am not sure I am aware of anyone prominent in the party favouring a more neutral attitude.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    Not just people but non-hominine organisms: HMG has changed its mind so often that the Customs processing spaces are now redundant where they were originally supposed to be, while there isn't enough room where HMG now suddenly wants the processing done.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/30/it-was-built-for-80-vehicles-were-expecting-six-the-big-brexit-border-posts-that-may-never-be-fully-used
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,710

    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.

    The more notable Trump supporters within the party (Truss, Boris) are also the most anti-Putin. I am not sure I am aware of anyone prominent in the party favouring a more neutral attitude.
    You can’t be anti Putin and support Trump.

    If Trump gets in what do Truss and co think will happen to Ukraine ?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,292
    edited March 30
    Pro_Rata said:

    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    Spread that out over 20-30 years though, and what % of defence spending does it actually entail in the long run. 10%? 20%? A chunk for sure, but to the exclusion of substantial spending elsewhere that should deliver a lot?

    As many (many) have said, Trident is useless. It's an American weapon we pay for - that's why Obama gave the serial numbers of our warheads (against our objections) to Putin as part of a nuclear inventory that Russia and America were swapping when they loved each other.

    It's like the Two Ronnies racing pigeon/duck sketch - Trident looks like a white elephant, it misfires like a white elephant, it's expensive like a white elephant, it's irrelevant to today's defence needs like a white elephant, and we keep trying to convince ourselves it is a lethal deterrent feared by dictators the world over. The coalman has done us again. Remember when he sold us that day old labrador pup that turned out to be a hamster?

    Until 1998 we still had nukes we could deliver by air - that was a truly independent nuclear deterrent, and that's what we should resume, whilst letting Trident be phased out. Spend the difference on conventional forces.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
    Cleethorpes has no entry requirements.
    Don't you have to show your tattoos?
    One of the minor mysteries of the country is why the Lincolnshire coastal resorts are so much more downmarket than the Yorkshire ones.
    It's a beautiful county, AR, and a great place to visit. Wouldn't joke about it otherwise.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,841
    edited March 30

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
    Cleethorpes has no entry requirements.
    Don't you have to show your tattoos?
    One of the minor mysteries of the country is why the Lincolnshire coastal resorts are so much more downmarket than the Yorkshire ones.
    That's a really good question, and I wonder if part of the answer is access. Skegness, as an example, is the nearest 'resort' for places like the East Midlands, especially by train. In ye olden days it was competitive, even from Birmingham. The Yorkshire ones are shut out by the moors, so people in Sheffield, Leeds etc probably made their way to the west coast.

    Also the coast is flatter, the sandy beaches are also more expansive than in Yorkshire (except for places like Scarborough), allowing much more ribbon development along the coast. You essentially have sandy or muddy beaches all the way from Gibraltar Point up towards Grimsby. In Yorkshire, even where there are expansive beaches (e.g. to the south of Filey), they are backed with high cliffs.

    All this would have meant that the Yorkshire resorts, Scarborough aside, would have been more upmarket than the Lincolnshire ones that were more accessible. P'haps.

    Edit: the exception is the coast to the south of Bridlington; but then to get there from the south, you need to cross the Humber. More difficult in the days before the Humber Bridge.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,962
    Pro_Rata said:

    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    The Trident boats and associated systems cost about 3bn quid/year to run so maybe 20% of the RN's running costs. However, it's nuclear boats in general that are the money furnace. Once the operating costs of the Astutes/Trafalgars are added in, those 9ish boats are consuming 50% of the RN's operational budget.

    Even though they are 15 years away, the Aukus boats are having exactly the same effect on the RAN already - Hunter class frigates recently cut from 9 to 6 hulls.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,977
    nico679 said:

    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.

    The more notable Trump supporters within the party (Truss, Boris) are also the most anti-Putin. I am not sure I am aware of anyone prominent in the party favouring a more neutral attitude.
    You can’t be anti Putin and support Trump.

    If Trump gets in what do Truss and co think will happen to Ukraine ?
    What do you think will happen?

    It’s not as simple an equation as you might imagine. For one thing there is more chance of other European countries intervening under Trump than under Biden.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,195
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Re Prime Ministers and defence cuts.

    David Cameron is perhaps particularly notable for being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.

    Tony Blair was as bad, to be fair. As was John Major.
    Blair may have been a warmonger but defence spending rose during the 2000s.
    Yes, to spend on his wars.

    I was thinking of the 2004 spending review which cut budgets elsewhere substantially, including the merging of infantry regiments and the withdrawal of several types of aircraft.
    Defence spending was increased in the 2004 review, and separately from the ongoing cost of firing cruise missiles whenever and wherever the Pentagon determined.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,841

    Pro_Rata said:

    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    Spread that out over 20-30 years though, and what % of defence spending does it actually entail in the long run. 10%? 20%? A chunk for sure, but to the exclusion of substantial spending elsewhere that should deliver a lot?

    As many (many) have said, Trident is useless. It's an American weapon we pay for - that's why Obama gave the serial numbers of our warheads (against our objections) to Putin as part of a nuclear inventory that Russia and America were swapping when they loved each other.

    It's like the Two Ronnies racing pigeon/duck sketch - Trident looks like a white elephant, it misfires like a white elephant, it's expensive like a white elephant, it's irrelevant to today's defence needs like a white elephant, and we keep trying to convince ourselves it is a lethal deterrent feared by dictators the world over. The coalman has done us again. Remember when he sold us that day old labrador pup that turned out to be a hamster?

    Until 1998 we still had nukes we could deliver by air - that was a truly independent nuclear deterrent, and that's what we should resume, whilst letting Trident be phased out. Spend the difference on conventional forces.
    On the other hand, the mere threat of Russian nukes - a threat which Putin and his lapdogs throw about a lot - has given an excuse to some not to do what is needed. Just the possession of nuclear weapons can be a powerful diplomatic weapon. Especially with the French usage rules...
  • glwglw Posts: 9,549
    Pro_Rata said:

    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    Spread that out over 20-30 years though, and what % of defence spending does it actually entail in the long run. 10%? 20%? A chunk for sure, but to the exclusion of substantial spending elsewhere that should deliver a lot?

    No the cost of Trident is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. The issue is that 2% of GDP is not remotely enough if we need to spend at a level comparable to the Cold War, or even worse at a higher level if Russia carries on fighting indefinitely. 4% would be much more realistic as a starting point.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,549

    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.

    The more notable Trump supporters within the party (Truss, Boris) are also the most anti-Putin. I am not sure I am aware of anyone prominent in the party favouring a more neutral attitude.
    You can't logically be anti Putin and pro Trump as Trump being re-elected will undoubtedly aid Russia.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,946
    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    I do find those stories irritate me a surprising amount.

    It’s positioned as some great negative for the country and it’s entirely the fault of politicians.

    No one has any sense of personal responsibility
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,334
    glw said:

    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.

    The more notable Trump supporters within the party (Truss, Boris) are also the most anti-Putin. I am not sure I am aware of anyone prominent in the party favouring a more neutral attitude.
    You can't logically be anti Putin and pro Trump as Trump being re-elected will undoubtedly aid Russia.
    But what's logic got to do with politics?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,977
    glw said:

    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.

    The more notable Trump supporters within the party (Truss, Boris) are also the most anti-Putin. I am not sure I am aware of anyone prominent in the party favouring a more neutral attitude.
    You can't logically be anti Putin and pro Trump as Trump being re-elected will undoubtedly aid Russia.
    It was more clear that reelecting Obama in 2012 would aid Putin.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,564
    Happy Schrodinger Day!

    The day when Jesus is both alive and dead inside the tomb.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,900
    edited March 30
    Morning all. A bit of Harrowing of Hell between the x and the ^

    I dreamt about the next election last night, all i can remember is the first result was some Tory holding 'Halifax' and everyone losing their shit about it and the blues being on 260 seats and someone saying 'well, OK the polls might have been wrong'
    Obviously lots of stuff in there about old geography teachers and submarines flying in the sky but clearly prophetic. I mean who isn't convinced by 260 seats and Con HOLD Halifax?!
  • glwglw Posts: 9,549
    edited March 30

    glw said:

    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.

    The more notable Trump supporters within the party (Truss, Boris) are also the most anti-Putin. I am not sure I am aware of anyone prominent in the party favouring a more neutral attitude.
    You can't logically be anti Putin and pro Trump as Trump being re-elected will undoubtedly aid Russia.
    It was more clear that reelecting Obama in 2012 would aid Putin.
    Obama was wrong. That's history.

    Trump essentially never criticises Putin, and has literally taken Russia's side over his own intelligence agencies. Anyone thinking Trump will be tough on Russia is a clown. There is nothing ambigous about Trump's cosying up to autocrats and his unwillingness to support America's democratic allies.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,710

    nico679 said:

    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.

    The more notable Trump supporters within the party (Truss, Boris) are also the most anti-Putin. I am not sure I am aware of anyone prominent in the party favouring a more neutral attitude.
    You can’t be anti Putin and support Trump.

    If Trump gets in what do Truss and co think will happen to Ukraine ?
    What do you think will happen?

    It’s not as simple an equation as you might imagine. For one thing there is more chance of other European countries intervening under Trump than under Biden.
    I don’t get that logic. Trump has made his views known , he couldn’t care less about Ukraine . He’s also bitter because they refused to go along with his plan to discredit Biden in 2020 .
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,292

    Pro_Rata said:

    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    Spread that out over 20-30 years though, and what % of defence spending does it actually entail in the long run. 10%? 20%? A chunk for sure, but to the exclusion of substantial spending elsewhere that should deliver a lot?

    As many (many) have said, Trident is useless. It's an American weapon we pay for - that's why Obama gave the serial numbers of our warheads (against our objections) to Putin as part of a nuclear inventory that Russia and America were swapping when they loved each other.

    It's like the Two Ronnies racing pigeon/duck sketch - Trident looks like a white elephant, it misfires like a white elephant, it's expensive like a white elephant, it's irrelevant to today's defence needs like a white elephant, and we keep trying to convince ourselves it is a lethal deterrent feared by dictators the world over. The coalman has done us again. Remember when he sold us that day old labrador pup that turned out to be a hamster?

    Until 1998 we still had nukes we could deliver by air - that was a truly independent nuclear deterrent, and that's what we should resume, whilst letting Trident be phased out. Spend the difference on conventional forces.
    On the other hand, the mere threat of Russian nukes - a threat which Putin and his lapdogs throw about a lot - has given an excuse to some not to do what is needed. Just the possession of nuclear weapons can be a powerful diplomatic weapon. Especially with the French usage rules...
    But aren't those tactical nukes he's threatening? We can't threaten to use ours because they're only used when the country is a pile of irradiated ash. We couldn't deploy (for example) a strategic nuclear strike against a conventional invasion (by a nuclear power), because it's better to be invaded than obliterated in response.

    I want to keep tactical nuclear capability.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,000
    I’m anti-nuclear for a number of reasons, but Trident’s uselessness aiui is a significant one.

    Is it a genuine deterrent or a vestigial status symbol we cling on to as a former Great Power?

    I do wish we would bin off the military-imperial crap and embrace our true global role as a cultural superpower. Ditch the nukes and the adventurism and instead build culture and tech industries.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,880
    edited March 30

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
    Cleethorpes has no entry requirements.
    Don't you have to show your tattoos?
    One of the minor mysteries of the country is why the Lincolnshire coastal resorts are so much more downmarket than the Yorkshire ones.
    That's a really good question, and I wonder if part of the answer is access. Skegness, as an example, is the nearest 'resort' for places like the East Midlands, especially by train. In ye olden days it was competitive, even from Birmingham. The Yorkshire ones are shut out by the moors, so people in Sheffield, Leeds etc probably made their way to the west coast.

    Also the coast is flatter, the sandy beaches are also more expansive than in Yorkshire (except for places like Scarborough), allowing much more ribbon development along the coast. You essentially have sandy or muddy beaches all the way from Gibraltar Point up towards Grimsby. In Yorkshire, even where there are expansive beaches (e.g. to the south of Filey), they are backed with high cliffs.

    All this would have meant that the Yorkshire resorts, Scarborough aside, would have been more upmarket than the Lincolnshire ones that were more accessible. P'haps.

    Edit: the exception is the coast to the south of Bridlington; but then to get there from the south, you need to cross the Humber. More difficult in the days before the Humber Bridge.
    I'm not totally convinced that all the Yorkshire resorts are better...

    Have you ever been to Withernsea? [Oh, hang on, you must have been!]

    The East coast south of Bridlington all the way to Gibraltar Point is very dull, excepting Spurn and Gibraltar Point itself. There's no focal points really and there is seemingly no limit to the number of crappy caravan sites that can go up.

    Part of it might be that it is eroding so fast there's nowhere to put down anything very permanent without substantial reinforcement (although that also applies in Scarborough).

    There's also a failed Yorkshire resort at Ravenscar where all the streets were sold off-plan but the whole thing basically collapsed.

    Anyway, that reminds me, it is probably time for a trip to Flamborough...even if that's also partially spoilt by crappy caravan sites.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 2,194

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pigeon, highly unlikely. Money is tight, and Labour will always be happier spending on areas such as Health or Education rather than Defence.

    The problem is that there may not be a choice: Putin is determined to expand his attack and the UK is directly threatened. War is coming.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,000

    Pro_Rata said:

    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    Spread that out over 20-30 years though, and what % of defence spending does it actually entail in the long run. 10%? 20%? A chunk for sure, but to the exclusion of substantial spending elsewhere that should deliver a lot?

    If HS2 is a comparison with Trident, does that mean the missiles will stop at Birmingham?
    Threads being set in Sheffield was prescient.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,946

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    "No downsides", as the Brexit Secretary said.

    Now this downside is pretty small, and there are technical fixes for the worst of it. Then we're down to the useful life of a passport being 9.5 years instead of 10. But it is another bit of grit in the system.
    I assume you haven’t travelled outside of Europe otherwise you would have had to comply with this rule
    Yes I have, but clearly a lot of people haven't. Their passports are now five percent less useful than they were before.

    It's a small extra hassle to add to the pile. It's what we voted for, and it's not going to be reversed soon. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware of the pile of
    hassles we have created for ourselves.
    No, it’s not.

    They have to do the same thing slightly earlier.

    I doubt there is anyone who will have to change their passport many more times in their life as a result
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,900

    Pro_Rata said:

    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    Spread that out over 20-30 years though, and what % of defence spending does it actually entail in the long run. 10%? 20%? A chunk for sure, but to the exclusion of substantial spending elsewhere that should deliver a lot?

    As many (many) have said, Trident is useless. It's an American weapon we pay for - that's why Obama gave the serial numbers of our warheads (against our objections) to Putin as part of a nuclear inventory that Russia and America were swapping when they loved each other.

    It's like the Two Ronnies racing pigeon/duck sketch - Trident looks like a white elephant, it misfires like a white elephant, it's expensive like a white elephant, it's irrelevant to today's defence needs like a white elephant, and we keep trying to convince ourselves it is a lethal deterrent feared by dictators the world over. The coalman has done us again. Remember when he sold us that day old labrador pup that turned out to be a hamster?

    Until 1998 we still had nukes we could deliver by air - that was a truly independent nuclear deterrent, and that's what we should resume, whilst letting Trident be phased out. Spend the difference on conventional forces.
    On the other hand, the mere threat of Russian nukes - a threat which Putin and his lapdogs throw about a lot - has given an excuse to some not to do what is needed. Just the possession of nuclear weapons can be a powerful diplomatic weapon. Especially with the French usage rules...
    But aren't those tactical nukes he's threatening? We can't threaten to use ours because they're only used when the country is a pile of irradiated ash. We couldn't deploy (for example) a strategic nuclear strike against a conventional invasion (by a nuclear power), because it's better to be invaded than obliterated in response.

    I want to keep tactical nuclear capability.
    Who's invading? Long before they are massing our borders the time for nuclear exchange has been and gone.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044
    What was defence spending as a percentage of GDP pre-2010? Wasn't it about 3%. The main criticism of Blair was that he made big demands without increasing the budget.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,549
    Ghedebrav said:

    I’m anti-nuclear for a number of reasons, but Trident’s uselessness aiui is a significant one.

    Is it a genuine deterrent or a vestigial status symbol we cling on to as a former Great Power?

    I do wish we would bin off the military-imperial crap and embrace our true global role as a cultural superpower. Ditch the nukes and the adventurism and instead build culture and tech industries.

    The assumptions of the 90s about the general direction of the world were wrong, free market economics and the collapse of communism were meant to eventually turn Russia and China into broadly liberal and at least somewhat democratic countries. We were collectively completely wrong. If we can't defend ourselves it will be Chinese and Russian culture taking over the world, including here at home in time.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,000
    boulay said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The problem is that defending the country is some way down the list of priorities for defence spending which looks something like this...

    1. Straightforward transfer of public wealth to the capital owning classes via the usual suspects. (BAE, Lockheed Martin, Thales, etc.)

    2. Scaffolding of the tremendously fragile English national vanity (Red Arrows, horses, brass bands, etc.)

    3. Dig-a-hole-and-fill-it-in job creation exercises in politically opportunistic locations (Ajax, T31, etc.)

    ...

    99. Ensuring the territorial integrity of the UK and security of overseas possessions.

    They should start by flogging the aircraft carriers to whichever country needs an ego boost. If we are looking at getting involved in a country that is so far away we need floating airstrips then we shouldn’t be getting involved in the first place as it’s not our business.

    Spend all the money on defensive kit. As long as no missile, ships, planes etc can hit British territory then that’s the most important thing. Defensive kit can also be used in conjunction with European allies if we need to get involved stopping the Russians and their tank from driving through Poland.

    Blow it all on Iron dome and patriot. Keep the nuclear subs as a last resort threat. Bring recruitment in house and make it rewarding for NCOs who are about to retire or quit to run it.
    I find it hard to disagree with you or Dura on this.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,292

    ydoethur said:

    Can I ask, with these people being turned away at the airport because of impending out of date passports - didn't they think to check the entry requirements for the country first?

    When I went to Malta, I checked and they wanted a passport valid for six months. Mine had only three left, so I replaced it before checking in.

    Not really hard, and would have saved any hassle at all.

    Look, why can't these so-called foreigners respect the 17.4m people who voted to leave? Them imposing rules on us wasn't the idea, we're supposed to be imposing the rules on THEM. Don't they know their so-called tourist spots like Marbellah would be dead without us?
    Cleethorpes has no entry requirements.
    Don't you have to show your tattoos?
    One of the minor mysteries of the country is why the Lincolnshire coastal resorts are so much more downmarket than the Yorkshire ones.
    That's a really good question, and I wonder if part of the answer is access. Skegness, as an example, is the nearest 'resort' for places like the East Midlands, especially by train. In ye olden days it was competitive, even from Birmingham. The Yorkshire ones are shut out by the moors, so people in Sheffield, Leeds etc probably made their way to the west coast.

    Also the coast is flatter, the sandy beaches are also more expansive than in Yorkshire (except for places like Scarborough), allowing much more ribbon development along the coast. You essentially have sandy or muddy beaches all the way from Gibraltar Point up towards Grimsby. In Yorkshire, even where there are expansive beaches (e.g. to the south of Filey), they are backed with high cliffs.

    All this would have meant that the Yorkshire resorts, Scarborough aside, would have been more upmarket than the Lincolnshire ones that were more accessible. P'haps.

    Edit: the exception is the coast to the south of Bridlington; but then to get there from the south, you need to cross the Humber. More difficult in the days before the Humber Bridge.
    I'm not totally convinced that all the Yorkshire resorts are better...

    Have you ever been to Withernsea? [Oh, hang on, you must have been!]

    The East coast south of Bridlington all the way to Gibraltar Point is very dull, excepting Spurn and Gibraltar Point itself. There's no focal points really and there is seemingly no limit to the number of crappy caravan sites that can go up.

    Part of it might be that it is eroding so fast there's nowhere to put down anything very permanent without substantial reinforcement (although that also applies in Scarborough).

    There's also a failed Yorkshire resort at Ravenscar where all the streets were sold off-plan but the whole thing basically collapsed.

    Anyway, that reminds me, it is probably time for a trip to Flamborough...even if that's also partially spoilt by crappy caravan sites.
    I have a dim recollection from a geography lesson long ago that coastal erosion in the UK was tolerated because the land was just floating away to the Netherlands to make their country bigger, and it was all part of European cooperation.

    I realise this is liable to have been some sort of eurosceptic cheese dream, but it has stuck in my head.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,344
    Pro_Rata said:

    Is it really correct to blame Trident? Latest iteration was a 100bn headline project, always quoted as if a one off CapEx cost, but
    aiui spent in trickle fashion over some years. cf also HS2.

    Spread that out over 20-30 years though, and what % of defence spending does it actually entail in the long run. 10%? 20%? A chunk for sure, but to the exclusion of substantial spending elsewhere that should deliver a lot?

    It's a huge question. I can point to causes, but difficult to quantify as we have little transparency. In no particular order:

    Penny wise pound foolish short-termist culture at the Treasury - just like the £50bn pissed away on building enough of HS2 to negate the benefits, whilst wasting most money. Famously Gordon Brown delayed aircraft carriers by a year two to save money in the short term and meet this year's targets, increasing the overall cost by ~25% ie wasting £1-2bn and getting a worse outcome.

    Cooking the books. eg Adding things into the Defence Budget such as pensions, and I think Trident was folded in in the last decade having been treated separately before. AFAICS that's mainly Cameron trying to hide salami slicing whilst in power. I could be wrong on this - not sure, but GCHQ - £2-3bn a year - could be in there as well.

    Ill-considered privatisation culture, without maintaining adequate control. So now we are over a barrel being continuously porked by BAE on various fronts. Combine that with a fits-and-starts culture at the MoD, and guess what happens?

    Gold plating. Which is basically continuous requirements changes whilst demanding "British made". Consider current armoured vehicle programmes, and compare the cost of our lets-deafen-the-troops versions, with buying from elsewhere. Ajax are costing £10m each, where we could have had CV90 (from BAE Sweden) for about 25-30% less off the shelf.

    Project and programme management, impossible to do effectively in the face of pushmi-pullu politicians, about which a book could be written.

    I'd add culture of secrecy - observe just how little is communicated in response to Commons' Questions for 'security reasons', and selecting shysters as Ministers - which I will leave there for the sake of OGH Jr.

    I'm sure our resident pilot can be more detailed and more vitriolic, and correct me on some points.

    I suspect the USA system is far worse however, given how corrupt their voting system is; I hate to think what % of the US Defence Budget is p*ssed away on pork barrels and earmarks.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,710
    Given events in Ukraine I’d suspect support for a UK nuclear deterrent has gone up significantly.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044
    glw said:

    glw said:

    In can understand why so many of today's Tories are Trumpers. Copy the Donald - you don't need to spend money defending us against Russia if we just become bezzies with Putin.

    The more notable Trump supporters within the party (Truss, Boris) are also the most anti-Putin. I am not sure I am aware of anyone prominent in the party favouring a more neutral attitude.
    You can't logically be anti Putin and pro Trump as Trump being re-elected will undoubtedly aid Russia.
    It was more clear that reelecting Obama in 2012 would aid Putin.
    Obama was wrong. That's history.

    Trump essentially never criticises Putin, and has literally taken Russia's side over his own intelligence agencies. Anyone thinking Trump will be tough on Russia is a clown. There is nothing ambigous about Trump's cosying up to autocrats and his unwillingness to support America's democratic allies.
    If Trump's opponents had any sense what they would do is suggest that he is AFRAID of Putin. I mean the one thing you could say about Trump is that he shoots from the hip and doesn't care about offending people. So why not Putin? What is he scared of?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,549

    What was defence spending as a percentage of GDP pre-2010? Wasn't it about 3%. The main criticism of Blair was that he made big demands without increasing the budget.

    5% around 1980. 4% around 1990. 2.5% to 2.0% since about 2000, and that includes some fudging of what counts as defence spending. Capital expenditure has dwindled since the 1990s. We have decades of underinvestment to make up now.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,292
    Ghedebrav said:

    boulay said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The problem is that defending the country is some way down the list of priorities for defence spending which looks something like this...

    1. Straightforward transfer of public wealth to the capital owning classes via the usual suspects. (BAE, Lockheed Martin, Thales, etc.)

    2. Scaffolding of the tremendously fragile English national vanity (Red Arrows, horses, brass bands, etc.)

    3. Dig-a-hole-and-fill-it-in job creation exercises in politically opportunistic locations (Ajax, T31, etc.)

    ...

    99. Ensuring the territorial integrity of the UK and security of overseas possessions.

    They should start by flogging the aircraft carriers to whichever country needs an ego boost. If we are looking at getting involved in a country that is so far away we need floating airstrips then we shouldn’t be getting involved in the first place as it’s not our business.

    Spend all the money on defensive kit. As long as no missile, ships, planes etc can hit British territory then that’s the most important thing. Defensive kit can also be used in conjunction with European allies if we need to get involved stopping the Russians and their tank from driving through Poland.

    Blow it all on Iron dome and patriot. Keep the nuclear subs as a last resort threat. Bring recruitment in house and make it rewarding for NCOs who are about to retire or quit to run it.
    I find it hard to disagree with you or Dura on this.
    He wants to keep Trident and you've stated expressly that you're against it. Apart from that, I agree with everything too.

Sign In or Register to comment.