It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
All that is a given - just one of a range of problems that don't have solutions; but it is not relevant now. Elections in the modern era are not about ideological choices.
On the whole the pragmatic Overton window has narrowed to a thin Romanesque lancet; while most of the issues engaging the public are filed under 'too difficult'. Like, tax, spend, debt, deficit, defence, NHS, social care, migration, housing, transport, post-Brexit deals, the submerged tenth, corruption in public life, and so on.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Apparently if an extremely unlikely series of events had led to Ukraine holding on to its Soviet era nukes (which we are told are pretty useless anyway) this would have stopped Putin invading. Afaics from recent evidence there’s nothing in Putin’s psyche that would be remotely deterred by a few corroding ICBMs.
There is everything in Putin's psyche that he would be deterred by ICBMs.
He's a classic bully who wants to pick on those he thinks are weaker than him. Ukraine voluntarily surrrendering their ICBMs made them so.
Had Ukraine remained a nuclear power in their own right, then there is zero chance that Putin would have invaded them. He might have invaded someone else instead.
The team behind Labour's media operation is just leagues ahead of the Tories, I wonder if they've pinched anyone from the Tory 2019 campaign which was also in a similar style?
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
I'm sure the good people of the Baltic states and Moldova will be thoroughly reassured. But then I think the argument you (and Trump and his cultists) are making is that these are quarrels between peoples in a faraway land of which we know nothing.
Trump was of course in power when the Russians decided to send assassins armed with chemical weapons into the UK and killed a member of the public.
which lest face it is very minor compared to full scale invasions and nuclear sabre rattling
Maybe I am wrong but i have never experienced a General Election where one major side (the tories) have seemingly given up and no fight - Even in the landslide years of previous elections , the other side seemed to fight . Its as if the tories know they are not fit for another 5 years . Sunak looked like and presented like a man who hated his job and was looking forward to retirement but just did not have the heart to say so so spends a few months waiting for his employer to make him redundant anyway. The tories do well because they usually have a a good ground operation to get out the core or traditional vote - I doubt that will happen in the same way this time - I think the tories could get well under a 100 seats
We're only eighteen and a half hours into the election campaign. Certainly seems like the Tories as a whole are less keen on the election than Labour and Lib Dems, but give them a couple of days to contemplate a Labour landslide and they may well come out scrapping a bit harder than it looks like at the moment.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
But Scott will stop posting about it as soon as Labour win
Scott is PBs own Steve Bray.
What are they going to do come July ?
We get to find out how much anti-brexitism was sui generis, and how much merely the anti-toryism du nos jours.
Scott was a passionate supporter of Cameron and Osborne before Brexit.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride . you cannot defeat a country with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world despite wishful thinking, it needs an agreement
I thought Rory Stewart gave a very sound analysis of Russia in a recent podcast. At this point there's going to have be some kind of negotiated settlement, when that exactly will come is unclear but something is going to have to be negotiated eventually - so Stewart said. This seemed realistic based on where things are.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride
No, it does not mean everyone saving face, it means Putin needs to be defeated.
America was defeated in Vietnam. They never saved face. The USSR was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face. America was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face.
Stop worrying about saving face for Putin. He needs to be defeated instead.
@thetimes Jo Churchill, a junior minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, has become the 109th MP to announce they will not stand again at the general election, citing “family reasons”
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride
No, it does not mean everyone saving face, it means Putin needs to be defeated.
America was defeated in Vietnam. They never saved face. The USSR was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face. America was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face.
Stop worrying about saving face for Putin. He needs to be defeated instead.
Do you think it was wrong to end the war in Korea?
I thought Rory Stewart gave a very sound analysis of Russia in a recent podcast. At this point there's going to have be some kind of negotiated settlement, when that exactly will come is unclear but something is going to have to be negotiated eventually - so Stewart said. This seemed realistic based on where things are.
No, there does not need to be a negotiated settlement, there needs to be a Russian surrender and Russia retreating back to their own borders.
What negotiated settlement did America get in Vietnam, or Afghanistan? What negotiated settlement did the USSR get in Afghanistan?
There is no reason whatsoever that foreign power, even superpowers (which Russia is not, the USSR was), have a divine right to a negotiated settlement.
I thought Rory Stewart gave a very sound analysis of Russia in a recent podcast. At this point there's going to have be some kind of negotiated settlement, when that exactly will come is unclear but something is going to have to be negotiated eventually - so Stewart said. This seemed realistic based on where things are.
Generally Nixon is not condemned for ending the Vietnamese war (and the inevitable subsequent collapse of the south Vietnamese regime), Nixon is condemned for getting in the way of it happening sooner.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride
No, it does not mean everyone saving face, it means Putin needs to be defeated.
America was defeated in Vietnam. They never saved face. The USSR was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face. America was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face.
Stop worrying about saving face for Putin. He needs to be defeated instead.
Do you think it was wrong to end the war in Korea?
I think its a shame for the people in North Korea, yes.
Though over 70 years later NK remains a total pariah state and we have not negotiated normality with them.
Keir Starmer strongly pitching himself as the “normal person” candidate
Not a bad line to take with voters when it emerged last week that Rishi Sunak is richer than the King…
Naff politics from Starmer. Rishi Sunak being richer than the king means you don’t need to pitch yourself as being a pleb in comparison. Concentrate on explaining your policies instead.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride . you cannot defeat a country with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world despite wishful thinking, it needs an agreement
Yet oddly enough that's exactly what the Taliban just did a few years ago, and what the North Vietnamese did in the 70s, and the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
All that is a given - just one of a range of problems that don't have solutions; but it is not relevant now. Elections in the modern era are not about ideological choices.
On the whole the pragmatic Overton window has narrowed to a thin Romanesque lancet; while most of the issues engaging the public are filed under 'too difficult'. Like, tax, spend, debt, deficit, defence, NHS, social care, migration, housing, transport, post-Brexit deals, the submerged tenth, corruption in public life, and so on.
For some people high immigration is a problem in itself, for others (like me) it is a symptom of some problems (ageing, skills shortages) and an exacerbator of others (housing shortages, underfunded public services). This difference in perspective suggests different solutions, but it doesn't mean that anyone thinks the issue isn't important.
I thought Rory Stewart gave a very sound analysis of Russia in a recent podcast. At this point there's going to have be some kind of negotiated settlement, when that exactly will come is unclear but something is going to have to be negotiated eventually - so Stewart said. This seemed realistic based on where things are.
There doesn't have to be a negotiated settlement. Is there a negotiated settlement on the Korean peninsula, between Taiwan and the mainland, between Israel and Palestine?
Secondly, a negotiated settlement could be about the level of Russian reparations that would normalise relations after Russian forces had withdrawn from Ukraine, or about whether the rump of Western Ukraine centred on Lviv would join the EU after Russia had conquered the rest of the country.
The difference between those two negotiated settlements being how well the war goes between now and then, and that being largely determined by how much external assistance Ukraine and Russia receive from their allies.
So saying, "there has to be a negotiated settlement," doesn't really get you anywhere. It doesn't inform what action you should take next.
@thetimes Jo Churchill, a junior minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, has become the 109th MP to announce they will not stand again at the general election, citing “family reasons”
Halifax Labour MP Holly Lynch is also stepping down for family reasons,
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
Nothing magic about it, migration plummeted as an issue following 23/06/2016.
Net migration of over 1.2 million people in the past two years and the overwhelming majority of the country, unlike you, just shrugs their shoulders and gets on with their life and doesn't care obsessively.
Most people do care about other things like can they get a GP appointment, or the state of their roads, or can they get a train, or can they get a house etc - migration without corresponding investment does make those problems worse, but its entirely possible to have a growing population and have those problems get better not worse - indeed we've done so for centuries.
Failing to invest in infrastructure, failure to construct enough housing etc is a political choice not an economic or demographic necessity.
I thought Rory Stewart gave a very sound analysis of Russia in a recent podcast. At this point there's going to have be some kind of negotiated settlement, when that exactly will come is unclear but something is going to have to be negotiated eventually - so Stewart said. This seemed realistic based on where things are.
This was true a year ago, as some of us pointed out, and we got called "fucking appeasers" for our sins. And it is still true today, only with about 200,000 more corpses
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride . you cannot defeat a country with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world despite wishful thinking, it needs an agreement
Yet oddly enough that's exactly what the Taliban just did a few years ago, and what the North Vietnamese did in the 70s, and the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s.
sometimes the imbalance between enemies (like the ones you mention ) is so great , the big guy can go away without much fuss (its a bit like giving in as a parent to a kid , the parent can still maintain they are control of the decision ) - The difficulty is when enemies are more equal in status, then the "loser" cannot claim control and destiny without losing face - unfortunately thats the position we are in with Russia and The West now - there needs an agreement and no side will get all they want but importantly it will be enough for both sides - Trump I suggest is more of this mindset than the current western leaders
🚨 NEW: During Labour Party's election campaign launch this morning, Keir Starmer said that his dad was a toolmaker. HUGE if true
Apparently in a recent poll only a small minority of people were aware of this despite it having been repeated ad infinitum. More people knew about Rishi's father in law.
I think the election campaign will actually be the first time many voters get to know anything meaningful about Starmer or Labour policy, and likewise Ed Davey. The big question is whether that warms them to the two men or puts them off, relative to how their views of Sunak evolve.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
All that is a given - just one of a range of problems that don't have solutions; but it is not relevant now. Elections in the modern era are not about ideological choices.
On the whole the pragmatic Overton window has narrowed to a thin Romanesque lancet; while most of the issues engaging the public are filed under 'too difficult'. Like, tax, spend, debt, deficit, defence, NHS, social care, migration, housing, transport, post-Brexit deals, the submerged tenth, corruption in public life, and so on.
Corruption in public life is pretty close to non existent and clamped down heavily when uncovered. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride . you cannot defeat a country with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world despite wishful thinking, it needs an agreement
Yet oddly enough that's exactly what the Taliban just did a few years ago, and what the North Vietnamese did in the 70s, and the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s.
sometimes the imbalance between enemies (like the ones you mention ) is so great , the big guy can go away without much fuss (its a bit like giving in as a parent to a kid , the parent can still maintain they are control of the decision ) - The difficulty is when enemies are more equal in status, then the "loser" cannot claim control and destiny without losing face - unfortunately thats the position we are in with Russia and The West now - there needs an agreement and no side will get all they want but importantly it will be enough for both sides - Trump I suggest is more of this mindset than the current western leaders
Ukraine and Russia are not equal in status. Ukraine is very similar in status to North Vietnam. Russian "trainers" were flying sorties over Vietnam for heaven's sake!
🚨 NEW: During Labour Party's election campaign launch this morning, Keir Starmer said that his dad was a toolmaker. HUGE if true
Apparently in a recent poll only a small minority of people were aware of this despite it having been repeated ad infinitum. More people knew about Rishi's father in law.
I think the election campaign will actually be the first time many voters get to know anything meaningful about Starmer or Labour policy, and likewise Ed Davey. The big question is whether that warms them to the two men or puts them off, relative to how their views of Sunak evolve.
Nobody thinks he's working class no matter how much he cosplays it. Rayner, yes. Knight of the realm, not so much
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride . you cannot defeat a country with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world despite wishful thinking, it needs an agreement
Yet oddly enough that's exactly what the Taliban just did a few years ago, and what the North Vietnamese did in the 70s, and the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s.
sometimes the imbalance between enemies (like the ones you mention ) is so great , the big guy can go away without much fuss (its a bit like giving in as a parent to a kid , the parent can still maintain they are control of the decision ) - The difficulty is when enemies are more equal in status, then the "loser" cannot claim control and destiny without losing face - unfortunately thats the position we are in with Russia and The West now - there needs an agreement and no side will get all they want but importantly it will be enough for both sides - Trump I suggest is more of this mindset than the current western leaders
Ukraine and Russia are not equal in status. Ukraine is very similar in status to North Vietnam. Russian "trainers" were flying sorties over Vietnam for heaven's sake!
I said Russia and the West - Its not about Ukraine and Russia - as i said the two sides are of very equal status
I thought Rory Stewart gave a very sound analysis of Russia in a recent podcast. At this point there's going to have be some kind of negotiated settlement, when that exactly will come is unclear but something is going to have to be negotiated eventually - so Stewart said. This seemed realistic based on where things are.
This was true a year ago, as some of us pointed out, and we got called "fucking appeasers" for our sins. And it is still true today, only with about 200,000 more corpses
How, precisely, would you have forced Putin to the negotiating table a year ago?
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
Nothing magic about it, migration plummeted as an issue following 23/06/2016.
Net migration of over 1.2 million people in the past two years and the overwhelming majority of the country, unlike you, just shrugs their shoulders and gets on with their life and doesn't care obsessively.
Most people do care about other things like can they get a GP appointment, or the state of their roads, or can they get a train, or can they get a house etc - migration without corresponding investment does make those problems worse, but its entirely possible to have a growing population and have those problems get better not worse - indeed we've done so for centuries.
Failing to invest in infrastructure, failure to construct enough housing etc is a political choice not an economic or demographic necessity.
No, it's nonsense. Polls show that migration is resurging as an issue
And why? Because voters are only now waking up to the scale of what is happening
"Cut immigration levels, say voters in nine out of 10 constituencies Polling also shows public underestimating scale of net migration by almost 10 times"
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
All that is a given - just one of a range of problems that don't have solutions; but it is not relevant now. Elections in the modern era are not about ideological choices.
On the whole the pragmatic Overton window has narrowed to a thin Romanesque lancet; while most of the issues engaging the public are filed under 'too difficult'. Like, tax, spend, debt, deficit, defence, NHS, social care, migration, housing, transport, post-Brexit deals, the submerged tenth, corruption in public life, and so on.
Corruption in public life is pretty close to non existent and clamped down heavily when uncovered. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
I think the UK is pretty good for having minimal out and out corruption, unlike a lot of countries. In general, promising a load of cash as a backhander doesn't really work here. There is plenty of what I would suggest is soft corruption, of you do this for me and you will then be the preferred option for that, I am golfing mates or school / uni friends with this guy who will get my son a prime internship in government / big organisation.
Where the UK also seems very bad is the failing upwards / sideways and how organisations will close ranks and protect / lie / obfuscate until the bitter end. There seem little punishment for failure, at worst you resign (still get your payoff) and a year or two later there you are back again at the top of another organisation.
Long-term net migration (the number of people immigrating minus the number emigrating) was provisionally estimated to be 685,000 in the year ending (YE) December 2023, compared with our updated estimate of 764,000 for the YE December 2022; while it is too early to say if this is the start of a new downward trend, emigration increased in 2023, while new Home Office data show visa applications have fallen in recent months....
Literally 1% of the population of the UK, arriving in a single year. This is the overwhelming Tory failure and this is why they need to DIE
I recall the heady days when people used to say that our population would now fall due to leaving the EU as nobody would want to come to Brexit Britain.
And the heady days when Brexiteers said time to take in the talent of the world instead of being restricted by the racist EU.
Some folk seem to want to leave Brexit Britain, whether they're indigenes or not is unclear.
'emigration increased in 2023'
Well I’ve just applied for my Spanish digital nomad visa. Whether I ever use it I dunno. But good to have the option - emigration
Thank you for your assistance cutting off that option for those whose jobs require a physical presence in the UK.
You’re welcome. I’ll post one photo a day from my hacienda to keep you cheerful
I might see you there. I am not one of them. But I tend to think about my fellow countrymen and women when making electoral choices - at least sometimes anyway. I'm not pretending I'm a complete saint.
When I voted for Brexit I voted for democracy and sovereignty - but I also hoped we would stay in rhe EEA or something like it, at least for ten years as a minimum pain holding position. I had no problem with freedom of movement. Polish plumbers are quite unlikely to blow me up or establish massive racist grooming gangs etc etc etc
But T May in her infinitely zero wisdom went for Hard Brexit and here we are
Anyway you will now get your Labour govt with a massive majority and they can reverse all this or not, as they please. So you can finally blame someone else, and I’ll be cheering you on from my balcony in Ibiza
As long as you don't stay for longer than 90 days. The South of france and Ibiza seem so much more cosmopolitan than any place in England outside parts of central Londion which is not how it used to be. PS How do you get this visa? Working out ways to screw Brexit is one of the main topics of conversation with people who have homes in France and Italy
Er, Rog, there's this thing called a Digital Nomad Visa. Do try and keep up
They're mostly creatives. How many of those do you think have graduate or post graduate degrees? And in any case it's just for Spain. The Austrian one which gives full EU status including a second passport to anyone with great grandparents or the progeny thereof is more interesting. Doesn't work for me but apparently it's working for plenty of others
@thetimes Jo Churchill, a junior minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, has become the 109th MP to announce they will not stand again at the general election, citing “family reasons”
Halifax Labour MP Holly Lynch is also stepping down for family reasons,
I rather suspect the family circumstances are rather different.
Lynch is the 37 year old mother to a young son, and it's interesting she's decided not to go again with Labour on the brink of power - it probably is quite genuinely related to the burden placed on the family of an MP (particularly for a constituency a long way from Westminster).
Churchill is (not to be indelicate) 60 years old. She'd be very likely to be returned even in current circumstances (Bury St Edmunds is a plum seat). But she's never going to serve in government again. Even if the Tories got back in at first time of asking, which is unlikely, she'd be yesterday's woman. Slightly early retirement may well just be a more attractive option for her than a thankless, aimless slog on the backbenches of a fractious opposition party.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
All that is a given - just one of a range of problems that don't have solutions; but it is not relevant now. Elections in the modern era are not about ideological choices.
On the whole the pragmatic Overton window has narrowed to a thin Romanesque lancet; while most of the issues engaging the public are filed under 'too difficult'. Like, tax, spend, debt, deficit, defence, NHS, social care, migration, housing, transport, post-Brexit deals, the submerged tenth, corruption in public life, and so on.
Corruption in public life is pretty close to non existent and clamped down heavily when uncovered. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Is this a joke? You are new to this site I see and I wonder if you’re here for nefarious reasons?
Greenshill - Mr David Cameron the now Foreign Secretary in particular. Michelle Mone The Post Office Water companies syphoning off investment to shareholders Operations Midland and Conifer and the subsequent jobs for boys in blue e.g. promotion to the head of the NCA Peerages for donations
Actually, do I really need to go on? The list is endless. Deplorable corruption akin to a third world country.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride . you cannot defeat a country with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world despite wishful thinking, it needs an agreement
Yet oddly enough that's exactly what the Taliban just did a few years ago, and what the North Vietnamese did in the 70s, and the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s.
sometimes the imbalance between enemies (like the ones you mention ) is so great , the big guy can go away without much fuss (its a bit like giving in as a parent to a kid , the parent can still maintain they are control of the decision ) - The difficulty is when enemies are more equal in status, then the "loser" cannot claim control and destiny without losing face - unfortunately thats the position we are in with Russia and The West now - there needs an agreement and no side will get all they want but importantly it will be enough for both sides - Trump I suggest is more of this mindset than the current western leaders
Ukraine and Russia are not equal in status. Ukraine is very similar in status to North Vietnam. Russian "trainers" were flying sorties over Vietnam for heaven's sake!
I said Russia and the West - Its not about Ukraine and Russia - as i said the two sides are of very equal status
Why is that any different from the USSR and the West in both Vietnam or Afghanistan, which were the two examples I mentioned?
If you're in the imperialist "Ukraine is a proxy war" camp then Vietnam and Afghanistan were absolutely proxy wars.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m Dangerously dark mood amongst Tory MPs. Cold fury at what they see as Sunak bouncing them into an unwinnable election. Does not bode well for unity during the campaign. Would be amazed if we don’t see some sort of rupture before polling day.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
All that is a given - just one of a range of problems that don't have solutions; but it is not relevant now. Elections in the modern era are not about ideological choices.
On the whole the pragmatic Overton window has narrowed to a thin Romanesque lancet; while most of the issues engaging the public are filed under 'too difficult'. Like, tax, spend, debt, deficit, defence, NHS, social care, migration, housing, transport, post-Brexit deals, the submerged tenth, corruption in public life, and so on.
Corruption in public life is pretty close to non existent and clamped down heavily when uncovered. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
I think the UK is pretty good for having minimal out and out corruption, unlike a lot of countries. In general, promising a load of cash as a backhander doesn't really work here. There is plenty of what I would suggest is soft corruption, of you do this for me and you will then be the preferred option for that.
Where the UK also seems very bad is the failing upwards / sideways and how organisations will close ranks and protect / lie / obfuscate until the bitter end.
yes its a form of established and legal corruption - even encouraged in a lot of public and even third sector bodies . Even encouraged in law - If you want to leave a job try making a nuisance of yourself and doing stuff just below gross misconduct level and you will get 6 months payoff - dont just be a good employee and hand your notice in .We are a weak society now for bad behaviour being rewarded
"Make no mistake: the latest immigration statistics represent the biggest failure in public policy in modern British history, surpassing even the 1992 sterling crisis when the UK Government was forced to withdraw sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism."
This is why the Tories are going to be obliterated
"Of course, the term "failure" needs to be qualified here. It suggests that the Tory party genuinely tried to control our borders, and that the increase in non-EU migrants is the result of some administrative error or hiccup in the Home Office. This, I am afraid, is not the case. The reason we have record-breaking levels of mass immigration is that the Conservative government intended it to be so. It was a purposeful policy, not a failure of policy. What evidence do I have for this? Well, firstly, look at the actual policies that were implemented. The Tories:
- abolished the annual cap on non-EU workers. - expanded overseas recruitment for lower-skilled jobs like migrant care workers. - scrapped the Resident Labour Market Test. - expanded the Shortage Occupation List. - reduced the general salary threshold. - outsourced student admissions to British universities. - extended post-graduation stays for international students. - initiated a recruitment drive for postgraduate students from Nigeria and India. - expanded humanitarian visas without a numerical cap or a time limit. - refused to abolish the Human Rights Act, knowing full well that the courts would challenge the Rwanda Plan on non-refoulement grounds."
The "wally with no brolly" motif is, I think, instructive. Obviously referencing Steve McClaren's ill-fated time as England manager, if he'd stood there holding a brolly, it would have been "the wally with the brolly mk II". If he'd had someone hold one for him, he'd have looked like some imperial figure with a lackey. If he'd delayed to wait for the rain to stop, he'd have been "afraid of a bit of weather". A gazebo flapping around him would have been criticised (and probably noisy with the rain). And so on.
When you've lost the public, you can't win no matter what you do. That's where we're at with Sunak and the Conservatives in general.
Maybe something radical, like find a room ?
Thereby losing the optics of talking in front of the glossy black door. Anyway, I'm not saying that some options were better or worse, I'm just pointing out that when you get to a particular space you get hammered no matter what you do.
"Make no mistake: the latest immigration statistics represent the biggest failure in public policy in modern British history, surpassing even the 1992 sterling crisis when the UK Government was forced to withdraw sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism."
This is why the Tories are going to be obliterated
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
All that is a given - just one of a range of problems that don't have solutions; but it is not relevant now. Elections in the modern era are not about ideological choices.
On the whole the pragmatic Overton window has narrowed to a thin Romanesque lancet; while most of the issues engaging the public are filed under 'too difficult'. Like, tax, spend, debt, deficit, defence, NHS, social care, migration, housing, transport, post-Brexit deals, the submerged tenth, corruption in public life, and so on.
For some people high immigration is a problem in itself, for others (like me) it is a symptom of some problems (ageing, skills shortages) and an exacerbator of others (housing shortages, underfunded public services). This difference in perspective suggests different solutions, but it doesn't mean that anyone thinks the issue isn't important.
Of course, but as with a number of issues neither major party gains an advantage by drawing unnecessary attention to issues where either there is no solution, or no solution that doesn't divide the voters they need.
What we shall not find (I suggest) is Labour coming out with a clear migration policy, with numbers, which shows clear water between them and the Tories. On the 'boats' where a line is unavoidable, both parties have differing and utterly bogus (Rwanda v better enforcement) lines.
Nearly all migration is of course unrelated to the boats.
"total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m Dangerously dark mood amongst Tory MPs. Cold fury at what they see as Sunak bouncing them into an unwinnable election. Does not bode well for unity during the campaign. Would be amazed if we don’t see some sort of rupture before polling day.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride
No, it does not mean everyone saving face, it means Putin needs to be defeated.
America was defeated in Vietnam. They never saved face. The USSR was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face. America was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face.
Stop worrying about saving face for Putin. He needs to be defeated instead.
Do you think it was wrong to end the war in Korea?
Being pedantic about it, the war in Korea hasn't ended in the sense there was never a peace treaty. The shooting (largely) stopped and there was an armistice agreement for the cessation of a hot war whilst a peace treaty was hammered out... but it never was.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
All that is a given - just one of a range of problems that don't have solutions; but it is not relevant now. Elections in the modern era are not about ideological choices.
On the whole the pragmatic Overton window has narrowed to a thin Romanesque lancet; while most of the issues engaging the public are filed under 'too difficult'. Like, tax, spend, debt, deficit, defence, NHS, social care, migration, housing, transport, post-Brexit deals, the submerged tenth, corruption in public life, and so on.
Corruption in public life is pretty close to non existent and clamped down heavily when uncovered. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
I think the UK is pretty good for having minimal out and out corruption, unlike a lot of countries. In general, promising a load of cash as a backhander doesn't really work here. There is plenty of what I would suggest is soft corruption, of you do this for me and you will then be the preferred option for that.
Where the UK also seems very bad is the failing upwards / sideways and how organisations will close ranks and protect / lie / obfuscate until the bitter end.
yes its a form of established and legal corruption - even encouraged in a lot of public and even third sector bodies . Even encouraged in law - If you want to leave a job try making a nuisance of yourself and doing stuff just below gross misconduct level and you will get 6 months payoff - dont just be a good employee and hand your notice in .We are a weak society now for bad behaviour being rewarded
My understanding now is that references for jobs are practically worthless as no employer dares say anything bad about a previous employee. So again this just allow people to behaviour poorly and bullshit their way into a similar job. At best all you can infer from a reference is the lack of extremely positive words probably means the last employer didn't rate them that highly (but for what reason, is unknown).
"total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."
Yes very true - Its odd because the UK State loves control and planning and the one area it seems to shy away from this is the one area control and planning makes sense - Maybe its the emotion side but its a severe failing of the state in the last 20 years
"total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."
But we are going to spend 6 weeks talking about 10,000 people arriving via small boats, in which neither party has a real plan to change this anyway.
I feel a distraction is required - Beach Bollards.
Why does @Leon not collect photos of bollards he sees as he perambulates the planet on his progressions?
They beat Numerous Noomorous castles to a cocked hat.
I try not to clog up the board by intervening in these sorts of disputes, but I feel compelled to say that I value the wonderful photos of old castles and other random old places, and if Leon switched to bollards I think something inside me would wither and die.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Yes, put like that, it was a lie. Nuclear weapons are to deter attacks by nuclear weapons, via MAD. They are not for using which is just as well because they probably will not work (as shown by recent tests) but our enemies, the French, cannot be 100 per cent sure our weapons will not work. Just as we doubt Russia's weapons have been properly maintained but cannot risk finding out.
How many wars has Britain been involved in where we did not use nuclear weapons? A dozen or so? We did not use nuclear weapons in the Falklands, the Middle East, Sierra Leone to name but three. Nuclear missiles are for having, not using. A bit like cakes.
Unfortunately, four decades of Tory defence cuts have left our conventional armed forces depleted. We have aircraft carriers that cannot both work at the same time because we do not have enough planes, and also because one of them is always needing repair. Nor do we have enough ships to sail alongside the carriers, or sailors to drive the boats. Ditto the RAF where even the Red Arrows have shrunk, and the army is now little more than the SAS and some lorries parked in Catterick.
Feels like some of big structural questions resolved quickly:
- Farage not around so Reform won't get the same publicity - Reform standing in all seats in Britain means they'll pick up a modest protest vote given high migration, but not sufficient to win any seats
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m Dangerously dark mood amongst Tory MPs. Cold fury at what they see as Sunak bouncing them into an unwinnable election. Does not bode well for unity during the campaign. Would be amazed if we don’t see some sort of rupture before polling day.
Seeing how utterly terrified these Tory MPs are of democracy is very unedifying.
Anyway they'll soon all be off to their individual constituencies (if they can remember where to find them) to explain themselves...
Indeed. They can mutter darkly about it for the next few days. But then they are back in their constituencies for the hard slog of trying to hang on. I'm not sure how a "rupture" comes about - the die is cast and it's every man for himself until polling day.
I feel a distraction is required - Beach Bollards.
Why does @Leon not collect photos of bollards he sees as he perambulates the planet on his progressions?
They beat Numerous Noomorous castles to a cocked hat.
I try not to clog up the board by intervening in these sorts of disputes, but I feel compelled to say that I value the wonderful photos of old castles and other random old places, and if Leon switched to bollards I think something inside me would wither and die.
On balance I will let you have both ... and.
A bonus just for you. Child-protecting Pencil Bollards of Dublin.
I feel a distraction is required - Beach Bollards.
Why does @Leon not collect photos of bollards he sees as he perambulates the planet on his progressions?
They beat Numerous Noomorous castles to a cocked hat.
I try not to clog up the board by intervening in these sorts of disputes, but I feel compelled to say that I value the wonderful photos of old castles and other random old places, and if Leon switched to bollards I think something inside me would wither and die.
Very kind of you, and you're welcome. And I enjoy posting them - please tell the powers that be that one photo a day is an unnecessary limit, perhaps, if we are using an external site to host the photos and putting them here with html
Because in the morning I might see a screenshot of a Tweet that deserves to be posted, and then later the conversation comes round to history and I have a really good inage to show, and I won't be able to do so
I completely get the idea we don't want to burden Vanilla, but if we are not using Vanilla to post the images?
Why does @Leon not collect photos of bollards he sees as he perambulates the planet on his progressions?
They beat Numerous Noomorous castles to a cocked hat.
For some bizarre reason my wife insisted on being photographed next to the (7) different coloured hydrants as we toured New England (different colour for each state). She seemed to have got over it for the Las Vegas trip (3 states).
Swinney is backing Matheson after the recommended suspension. I suspect this is his Owen Patterson moment
Extraordinary decision by John Swinney. He questions the integrity of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of the Scottish Parliament, and rejects its proposed sanction of Michael Matheson.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Yes, put like that, it was a lie. Nuclear weapons are to deter attacks by nuclear weapons, via MAD. They are not for using which is just as well because they probably will not work (as shown by recent tests) but our enemies, the French, cannot be 100 per cent sure our weapons will not work. Just as we doubt Russia's weapons have been properly maintained but cannot risk finding out.
How many wars has Britain been involved in where we did not use nuclear weapons? A dozen or so? We did not use nuclear weapons in the Falklands, the Middle East, Sierra Leone to name but three. Nuclear missiles are for having, not using. A bit like cakes.
Unfortunately, four decades of Tory defence cuts have left our conventional armed forces depleted. We have aircraft carriers that cannot both work at the same time because we do not have enough planes, and also because one of them is always needing repair. Nor do we have enough ships to sail alongside the carriers, or sailors to drive the boats. Ditto the RAF where even the Red Arrows have shrunk, and the army is now little more than the SAS and some lorries parked in Catterick.
The military budget was quite sufficient from 1979 -91. We have a big military budget, but it's not big enough to do everything that governments expect it to do. Either it has to be increased, or else, some things must be axed, and other things funded to the max.
I predict the Tories will do particularly badly in the Reading area. A seat like the new Earley & Woodley could go to Labour, where their candidate is Chinese-born FT journalist Yuan Yang.
Oxbridge educated journalist with a degree in PPE....not enough of those in parliament.
In terms of my local patch,Berkshire, I'm thinking the following:
Reading Central - very safe Lab hold Slough - Lab hold but could see a relatively good Con performance due to the council issues and Gaza Earley and Woodley - I guess Lab gain but on a low share with very split opposition Bracknell - Lab would take on current polls but they've said it's not a target seat and haven't selected a candidate
Wokingham & Newbury - the 2 main LD targets. Boundary changes make Newbury a bit better and Wokingham a bit worse for them. Again depends on national polls and if Con can squeeze reform
Maidenhead, Windsor and Reading W & Mid Berks - Con holds unless complete meltdown. I can't see LDs having the resources to target these as well as the 2 above and Labour don't have enough local strength in any of them to squeeze the LDs out.
Feels like some of big structural questions resolved quickly:
- Farage not around so Reform won't get the same publicity - Reform standing in all seats in Britain means they'll pick up a modest protest vote given high migration, but not sufficient to win any seats
Reform on between 4-6% is my guess, and less in the key marginals.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
Starmer's pitch for the general election reminds me a lot of Boris in 2019. Blathering on about all the nice things they are going to do and spend money on in the next Parliament. I suspect that events will intervene and the UK will have to find a lot more money very quickly to spend on defence and the Labour government will have to put all the nice things on the back burner.
Starmer has a mere 6 months to prepare for a full on crisis if Trump is re-elected. If that's not the first thing he sits down to do the man is a fool.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m Dangerously dark mood amongst Tory MPs. Cold fury at what they see as Sunak bouncing them into an unwinnable election. Does not bode well for unity during the campaign. Would be amazed if we don’t see some sort of rupture before polling day.
He was seeing off a putsch. If that's not true it's at least likely enough that you would expect to see the possibility discussed by mainstream commentators
With Farage taking no part, I'll stand by my prediction that Reform will amount to very little, and will poll about the same as the Referendum Party.
Will reform voters return to the Conservatives, or will they be more likely to stay at home - a plague on all your houses etc.
Could be interesting in terms of betting on overall turnout.
On the one hand, I think it's going to be high, just based on the sheer numbers of people I know IRL who are hopping mad - many of them traditional Conservative voters - and want a change.
On the other hand I wonder how many of those traditional Conservative voters will just stay at home this time, and as for reform voters, whose primary motivation seems to be immigration, will they really come back to a Conservative party that's allowing a net immigration figure of six or seven hundred thousand annually (with absolutely no infrastructure development to back it up)?
Immigration is simply a numerical problem at this point. We are importing far, far more people than we have housing, transport, health, education capacity, etc, and none of the main parties seems to have a scooby what to do about it.
I still like my idea of passing a law that caps annual immigration at the annual rate of housebuilding. No new places, no new spaces. My guess is this would lead to very rapid planning reform...
Very kind of you, and you're welcome. And I enjoy posting them - please tell the powers that be that one photo a day is an unnecessary limit, perhaps, if we are using an external site to host the photos and putting them here with html
We have a limit? Perhaps I'm just naturally not-annoying-sometimes and have not been banned therefore.
"total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."
Starmer will have to do something about it, whether his party likes it or not.
Swinney is backing Matheson after the recommended suspension. I suspect this is his Owen Patterson moment
Extraordinary decision by John Swinney. He questions the integrity of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of the Scottish Parliament, and rejects its proposed sanction of Michael Matheson.
Haven't read it in detail, no Twitter, but AIUI two Tories on the committee were involved in making partisan attacks beforehand (before it formally came to the committee, but that could have been expected). The fact that one of them recused himself for that very reason (and was rseplaced by another precisely because the latter had not made any such comments) rather throws a poor light on the other one, who did not follow suit.
I feel a distraction is required - Beach Bollards.
Why does @Leon not collect photos of bollards he sees as he perambulates the planet on his progressions?
They beat Numerous Noomorous castles to a cocked hat.
I try not to clog up the board by intervening in these sorts of disputes, but I feel compelled to say that I value the wonderful photos of old castles and other random old places, and if Leon switched to bollards I think something inside me would wither and die.
On balance I will let you have both ... and.
A bonus just for you. Child-protecting Pencil Bollards of Dublin.
HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???
Reasons are as follows
I) Our current ruling classes have no tie to the physical United Kingdom, either living in other countries (Andrew Neil, Stanley Johnson, David Miliband, Nick Clegg) or wanting to (Rishi Sunak). It does not matter to them in the UK is shit
II) Enshittification. Having taken on large debt from foreign powers, the UK has to be forced to grow to service that debt
III) Distance of the political class from the working class, as previously discussed
IV) Cargo-cult management of abstractions. By becoming reliant on indicators on a screen they attempt to tune the economy to those indicators, whilst neglecting the things that really matter to people.
V) other stuff I forgot
So they don't know how to run an economy, consider their clients to be foreigners not the locals, don't know the locals enough to assess anyway, and will fuck off when it becomes too difficult.
I could throw this into a PowerPoint if you'd like.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride
No, it does not mean everyone saving face, it means Putin needs to be defeated.
America was defeated in Vietnam. They never saved face. The USSR was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face. America was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face.
Stop worrying about saving face for Putin. He needs to be defeated instead.
Do you think it was wrong to end the war in Korea?
The Koreans didn't, which is the point. Similarly in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
In sharp contrast, Ukraine does not wish to give in to Putin, and that remains the case.
HOW have the Tories so COMPLETELY lost control of immigration???
Reasons are as follows
I) Our current ruling classes have no tie to the physical United Kingdom, either living in other countries (Andrew Neil, Stanley Johnson, David Miliband, Nick Clegg) or wanting to (Rishi Sunak). It does not matter to them in the UK is shit Ii) Enshittification. Having taken on large debt from foreign powers, the UK has to be forced to grow to service that debt Iii) Distance of the political class from the working class, as previously discussed Iv) Cargo-cult management of abstractions. By becoming reliant on indicators on a screen they attempt to tune the economy to those indicators, whilst neglecting the things that really matter to people. V) other stuff I forgot
So they don't know how to run an economy, consider their clients to be foreigners not the locals, don't know the locals enough to assess anyway, and will fuck off when it becomes too difficult.
I could throw this into a PowerPoint if you'd like.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m Dangerously dark mood amongst Tory MPs. Cold fury at what they see as Sunak bouncing them into an unwinnable election. Does not bode well for unity during the campaign. Would be amazed if we don’t see some sort of rupture before polling day.
For this reason I still half-believe the election will be in January and yesterday's announcement was just a dream, as a July election is clearly against the interests of the Conservative Party and also of Conservative MPs. It is the type of half-cocked, spur of the moment decision associated with the sort of man who absent-mindedly steps out into the rain without an umbrella.
The British part is 775 words long so here is a shorter AI summary via AHRefs
"...Britain has transitioned from a global empire to relying heavily on its nuclear arsenal for defence. The war in Ukraine highlighted the UK's inability to defend itself with conventional power. Despite donating aging Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Britain struggles with weapon stock insufficiency and slow procurement of replacements. The British military has faced challenges for two decades, with economic woes exacerbated by Brexit and Covid. The security environment demands more from the defence budget, while Britain faces new threats and commitments. To prepare for future wars, Britain is increasing spending on R&D, but faces obstacles in cooperating with domestic defence industries. In the nuclear field, the UK is investing in modernization but relies on the US for Trident II D5 missiles. Manpower shortages plague the military, with the British army at its lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars. Despite calls for increased defence spending, the UK is projected to shrink tank fleets and air force, with no solid plans to address supply shortages. The future of the UK in a major conventional war appears grim..."
So, what exactly IS the problem of relying on nuclear weapons for defence [against conventional wars]?
For a long time we've been told that nukes are a deterrent against being attacked [by states]. Was this always a lie?
Nuclear weapons are about existential stuff.
Conventional weapons are about what we do when Russia invades Latvia.
What we do when Russia invades Latvia, and a Trump-led US sits back and decides not to get involved. UK, France, Germany, Poland and our Nordic neighbours need to get a move on. Poland and the Nordics are already on the case, but the rest of us are still in denial.
I think Trump is actually rather good at keeping peace with dictators - He sort of charmed North Korea and Putin and the odd economic spat with China never descended to the distrust of today. Like him or loath him as a person , he is perhaps the best chance of avoiding WW3 and lets face it the nuclear holocaust of the UK and Europe. Russia is likely to be able to save face more with Trump in charge. Sometimes its not about winniig but existing
Who would you have preferred calling the shots in WWII: Lord Halifax or Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor?
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
This argument is irrelevant as nuclear weapons were not around at the start of WW2 and of course when they were around they were used . WW3 is important to stop and that means everyone saving face , WW2 less so. Trump is all about saving face , its what he understands more than anything given his ego and pride
No, it does not mean everyone saving face, it means Putin needs to be defeated.
America was defeated in Vietnam. They never saved face. The USSR was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face. America was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face.
Stop worrying about saving face for Putin. He needs to be defeated instead.
Do you think it was wrong to end the war in Korea?
Being pedantic about it, the war in Korea hasn't ended in the sense there was never a peace treaty. The shooting (largely) stopped and there was an armistice agreement for the cessation of a hot war whilst a peace treaty was hammered out... but it never was.
Leon would have negotiated a 'deal' when N Korean forces surrounded Busan, I guess.
Maybe I am wrong but i have never experienced a General Election where one major side (the tories) have seemingly given up and no fight - Even in the landslide years of previous elections , the other side seemed to fight . Its as if the tories know they are not fit for another 5 years . Sunak looked like and presented like a man who hated his job and was looking forward to retirement but just did not have the heart to say so so spends a few months waiting for his employer to make him redundant anyway. The tories do well because they usually have a a good ground operation to get out the core or traditional vote - I doubt that will happen in the same way this time - I think the tories could get well under a 100 seats
We're only eighteen and a half hours into the election campaign. Certainly seems like the Tories as a whole are less keen on the election than Labour and Lib Dems, but give them a couple of days to contemplate a Labour landslide and they may well come out scrapping a bit harder than it looks like at the moment.
...the sort of man who absent-mindedly steps out into the rain without an umbrella.
He didn't absent-mindedly step out into the rain without an umbrella. He deliberately, and in full knowledge of the situation, walked out into the rain, spoke, and continued to speak without caring that he was becoming increasingly soaking wet and ridiculous.
It's hard to over-state how bad things are going to get for the government on migration during the general election campaign
Small boats at a record high, numbers set to explode in the summer, 10,000 threshold will soon be crossed, but Sunak says no Rwanda flights before 4 July
And yet somehow we are told that as soon as Labour wins, this issue - migration - will disappear, magically, because Labour are in power and once we have David Lammy in Downing Street no one will care about immigration just because
These two things cannot be true. I submit that immigration is going to be an enormous and immediate migraine for the new govt, and I am right
But Scott will stop posting about it as soon as Labour win
Scott is PBs own Steve Bray.
What are they going to do come July ?
We get to find out how much anti-brexitism was sui generis, and how much merely the anti-toryism du nos jours.
Scott was a passionate supporter of Cameron and Osborne before Brexit.
William was a passionate supporter of Remain before Brexit.
Comments
On the whole the pragmatic Overton window has narrowed to a thin Romanesque lancet; while most of the issues engaging the public are filed under 'too difficult'. Like, tax, spend, debt, deficit, defence, NHS, social care, migration, housing, transport, post-Brexit deals, the submerged tenth, corruption in public life, and so on.
He's a classic bully who wants to pick on those he thinks are weaker than him. Ukraine voluntarily surrrendering their ICBMs made them so.
Had Ukraine remained a nuclear power in their own right, then there is zero chance that Putin would have invaded them. He might have invaded someone else instead.
Keir Starmer strongly pitching himself as the “normal person” candidate
Not a bad line to take with voters when it emerged last week that Rishi Sunak is richer than the King…
Sometimes it is about winning. We don't need to make peace with Putin, he needs to be defeated.
So Rishi Sunak just took a question from a hi-vis jacket-wearing man at a campaign event in a McVities warehouse.
It turns out the man is actually local Conservative councillor Ross Hills.
Hills just admitted to me to being asked to appear at the event
There really is a Labour mole in Richi's team, isn't there
America was defeated in Vietnam. They never saved face.
The USSR was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face.
America was defeated in Afghanistan. They never saved face.
Stop worrying about saving face for Putin. He needs to be defeated instead.
Jo Churchill, a junior minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, has become the 109th MP to announce they will not stand again at the general election, citing “family reasons”
What negotiated settlement did America get in Vietnam, or Afghanistan?
What negotiated settlement did the USSR get in Afghanistan?
There is no reason whatsoever that foreign power, even superpowers (which Russia is not, the USSR was), have a divine right to a negotiated settlement.
Though over 70 years later NK remains a total pariah state and we have not negotiated normality with them.
Secondly, a negotiated settlement could be about the level of Russian reparations that would normalise relations after Russian forces had withdrawn from Ukraine, or about whether the rump of Western Ukraine centred on Lviv would join the EU after Russia had conquered the rest of the country.
The difference between those two negotiated settlements being how well the war goes between now and then, and that being largely determined by how much external assistance Ukraine and Russia receive from their allies.
So saying, "there has to be a negotiated settlement," doesn't really get you anywhere. It doesn't inform what action you should take next.
HUGE if true
Net migration of over 1.2 million people in the past two years and the overwhelming majority of the country, unlike you, just shrugs their shoulders and gets on with their life and doesn't care obsessively.
Most people do care about other things like can they get a GP appointment, or the state of their roads, or can they get a train, or can they get a house etc - migration without corresponding investment does make those problems worse, but its entirely possible to have a growing population and have those problems get better not worse - indeed we've done so for centuries.
Failing to invest in infrastructure, failure to construct enough housing etc is a political choice not an economic or demographic necessity.
Carlton Bank has had landslides in the past I think, and there's an Alum quarry which was supposedly stabilised about 30 years ago.
I've been up there with a mountain bike and whilst it is steep I don't think I'd have thought of mudslides as an obvious problem if assessing risks.
It certainly isn't Rest and Be Thankful levels of hazard.
Hard to say any more without knowing exactly what happened.
I think the election campaign will actually be the first time many voters get to know anything meaningful about Starmer or Labour policy, and likewise Ed Davey. The big question is whether that warms them to the two men or puts them off, relative to how their views of Sunak evolve.
(It says he was active in March '24)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13448151/Immigration-living-costs-NHS-key-issues-Rishi-Keir-need-convince-say-voters-despite-split-party-theyre-united-one-thing-Britain-ready-polls.html
And why? Because voters are only now waking up to the scale of what is happening
"Cut immigration levels, say voters in nine out of 10 constituencies
Polling also shows public underestimating scale of net migration by almost 10 times"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/13/cut-immigration-levels-voters-nine-of-10-constituencies/
Where the UK also seems very bad is the failing upwards / sideways and how organisations will close ranks and protect / lie / obfuscate until the bitter end. There seem little punishment for failure, at worst you resign (still get your payoff) and a year or two later there you are back again at the top of another organisation.
Lynch is the 37 year old mother to a young son, and it's interesting she's decided not to go again with Labour on the brink of power - it probably is quite genuinely related to the burden placed on the family of an MP (particularly for a constituency a long way from Westminster).
Churchill is (not to be indelicate) 60 years old. She'd be very likely to be returned even in current circumstances (Bury St Edmunds is a plum seat). But she's never going to serve in government again. Even if the Tories got back in at first time of asking, which is unlikely, she'd be yesterday's woman. Slightly early retirement may well just be a more attractive option for her than a thankless, aimless slog on the backbenches of a fractious opposition party.
Greenshill - Mr David Cameron the now Foreign Secretary in particular.
Michelle Mone
The Post Office
Water companies syphoning off investment to shareholders
Operations Midland and Conifer and the subsequent jobs for boys in blue e.g. promotion to the head of the NCA
Peerages for donations
Actually, do I really need to go on? The list is endless. Deplorable corruption akin to a third world country.
If you're in the imperialist "Ukraine is a proxy war" camp then Vietnam and Afghanistan were absolutely proxy wars.
@DPJHodges
·
33m
Dangerously dark mood amongst Tory MPs. Cold fury at what they see as Sunak bouncing them into an unwinnable election. Does not bode well for unity during the campaign. Would be amazed if we don’t see some sort of rupture before polling day.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1793589139297935484
I feel a distraction is required - Beach Bollards.
https://x.com/WorldBollard/status/1792955144855859358
Why does @Leon not collect photos of bollards he sees as he perambulates the planet on his progressions?
They beat Numerous Noomorous castles to a cocked hat.
Even encouraged in law - If you want to leave a job try making a nuisance of yourself and doing stuff just below gross misconduct level and you will get 6 months payoff - dont just be a good employee and hand your notice in .We are a weak society now for bad behaviour being rewarded
"Make no mistake: the latest immigration statistics represent the biggest failure in public policy in modern British history, surpassing even the 1992 sterling crisis when the UK Government was forced to withdraw sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism."
This is why the Tories are going to be obliterated
https://x.com/technopopulist/status/1793575619315319188
He adds:
"Of course, the term "failure" needs to be qualified here. It suggests that the Tory party genuinely tried to control our borders, and that the increase in non-EU migrants is the result of some administrative error or hiccup in the Home Office. This, I am afraid, is not the case. The reason we have record-breaking levels of mass immigration is that the Conservative government intended it to be so. It was a purposeful policy, not a failure of policy. What evidence do I have for this? Well, firstly, look at the actual policies that were implemented. The Tories:
- abolished the annual cap on non-EU workers.
- expanded overseas recruitment for lower-skilled jobs like migrant care workers.
- scrapped the Resident Labour Market Test.
- expanded the Shortage Occupation List.
- reduced the general salary threshold.
- outsourced student admissions to British universities.
- extended post-graduation stays for international students.
- initiated a recruitment drive for postgraduate students from Nigeria and India.
- expanded humanitarian visas without a numerical cap or a time limit.
- refused to abolish the Human Rights Act, knowing full well that the courts would challenge the Rwanda Plan on non-refoulement grounds."
What we shall not find (I suggest) is Labour coming out with a clear migration policy, with numbers, which shows clear water between them and the Tories. On the 'boats' where a line is unavoidable, both parties have differing and utterly bogus (Rwanda v better enforcement) lines.
Nearly all migration is of course unrelated to the boats.
"total net migration in the whole of the 1980s and 1990s was 606,000. In short the UK is experiencing more net immigration in a single year than we had in the last two decades of the 20th century."
Anyway they'll soon all be off to their individual constituencies (if they can remember where to find them) to explain themselves...
How many wars has Britain been involved in where we did not use nuclear weapons? A dozen or so? We did not use nuclear weapons in the Falklands, the Middle East, Sierra Leone to name but three. Nuclear missiles are for having, not using. A bit like cakes.
Unfortunately, four decades of Tory defence cuts have left our conventional armed forces depleted. We have aircraft carriers that cannot both work at the same time because we do not have enough planes, and also because one of them is always needing repair. Nor do we have enough ships to sail alongside the carriers, or sailors to drive the boats. Ditto the RAF where even the Red Arrows have shrunk, and the army is now little more than the SAS and some lorries parked in Catterick.
- Farage not around so Reform won't get the same publicity
- Reform standing in all seats in Britain means they'll pick up a modest protest vote given high migration, but not sufficient to win any seats
Aldershot
Amber Valley
Ashford
Aylesbury
Banbury
Basingstoke
Bracknell
Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe
Bromley and Biggin Hill
Buckingham and Bletchley
Burton and Uttoxeter
Chester South and Eddisbury
Chippenham
Croydon South
Didcot and Wantage
Epsom and Ewell
Forest of Dean
Great Yarmouth
Harborough, Oadby and Wigston
Harrogate and Knaresborough
Harrow East
Henley and Thame
Horsham
Isle of Wight West
Kettering
Lowestoft
Mansfield
Morecambe and Lunesdale
Newark
Newbury
Newcastle-under-Lyme
North Cornwall
North Devon
North Somerset
North West Cambridgeshire
North West Leicestershire
Redditch
Ribble Valley
Romford
Rugby
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Sherwood Forest
Stafford
Staffordshire Moorlands
Tamworth
Thornbury and Yate
Tunbridge Wells
Wellingborough and Rushden
Weston-Super-Mare
York Outer
All Sports > Politics > UK - General Election - Key Constituencies
A bonus just for you. Child-protecting Pencil Bollards of Dublin.
(I'd put them further out, make the footway wider, and add a cycle track. But Dublin, Belfast and Ashfield are not there yet.)
https://x.com/WorldBollard/status/1629791158573383680?lang=en-GB
(Has PB stopped creating pixel-puzzles? We can post pictures of Go boards now.)
Because in the morning I might see a screenshot of a Tweet that deserves to be posted, and then later the conversation comes round to history and I have a really good inage to show, and I won't be able to do so
I completely get the idea we don't want to burden Vanilla, but if we are not using Vanilla to post the images?
https://x.com/staylorish/status/1793602143640842281
Reading Central - very safe Lab hold
Slough - Lab hold but could see a relatively good Con performance due to the council issues and Gaza
Earley and Woodley - I guess Lab gain but on a low share with very split opposition
Bracknell - Lab would take on current polls but they've said it's not a target seat and haven't selected a candidate
Wokingham & Newbury - the 2 main LD targets. Boundary changes make Newbury a bit better and Wokingham a bit worse for them. Again depends on national polls and if Con can squeeze reform
Maidenhead, Windsor and Reading W & Mid Berks - Con holds unless complete meltdown. I can't see LDs having the resources to target these as well as the 2 above and Labour don't have enough local strength in any of them to squeeze the LDs out.
NEW THREAD
Starmer has a mere 6 months to prepare for a full on crisis if Trump is re-elected. If that's not the first thing he sits down to do the man is a fool.
Could be interesting in terms of betting on overall turnout.
On the one hand, I think it's going to be high, just based on the sheer numbers of people I know IRL who are hopping mad - many of them traditional Conservative voters - and want a change.
On the other hand I wonder how many of those traditional Conservative voters will just stay at home this time, and as for reform voters, whose primary motivation seems to be immigration, will they really come back to a Conservative party that's allowing a net immigration figure of six or seven hundred thousand annually (with absolutely no infrastructure development to back it up)?
Immigration is simply a numerical problem at this point. We are importing far, far more people than we have housing, transport, health, education capacity, etc, and none of the main parties seems to have a scooby what to do about it.
I still like my idea of passing a law that caps annual immigration at the annual rate of housebuilding. No new places, no new spaces. My guess is this would lead to very rapid planning reform...
- I) Our current ruling classes have no tie to the physical United Kingdom, either living in other countries (Andrew Neil, Stanley Johnson, David Miliband, Nick Clegg) or wanting to (Rishi Sunak). It does not matter to them in the UK is shit
- II) Enshittification. Having taken on large debt from foreign powers, the UK has to be forced to grow to service that debt
- III) Distance of the political class from the working class, as previously discussed
- IV) Cargo-cult management of abstractions. By becoming reliant on indicators on a screen they attempt to tune the economy to those indicators, whilst neglecting the things that really matter to people.
- V) other stuff I forgot
So they don't know how to run an economy, consider their clients to be foreigners not the locals, don't know the locals enough to assess anyway, and will fuck off when it becomes too difficult.I could throw this into a PowerPoint if you'd like.
Similarly in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
In sharp contrast, Ukraine does not wish to give in to Putin, and that remains the case.
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, everybody.