The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
Well, distance isn't always everything, but if the principle behind is is this moral (agree or otherwise) there seems no need to bend over backwards when it comes to money, once 'good' deal deserves another.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
Isn't it really an American base in all but name? Wiki has 90% of the soldiers there as US.
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
They got 22% in Bannockburn recently in a local by-election.
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
Opinion polls four and a half years out from a general election mean the square root of f all. At the same stage in the last Parliament, Labour were 25 points behind and Starmer's leadership was in serious trouble. Most people just don't focus on politics until a few months before they have to vote.
Sorry if that's ruined the next 400 threads on how well/badly/neutral the Cons/Lab/Ref/LD are doing.
The way the UK is plunging down the toilet voting Reform won’t be enough by 2029. We’ll need something much further to the right
Tommeh backed by Musk?
Just think, Leon was about to vote SNP when he saw the stories about the SNP banning cats.
A near miss.
No: he *wants* cats banned, or at least their predation controlled, IIRC. You mean he was about to vote Reform, then saw the stories - and then he saw the stories about the SNP not banning cats.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
Isn't it really an American base in all but name? Wiki has 90% of the soldiers there as US.
For whatever reason we’ve decided to keep hold of it and sublet to the USA rather than just letting them deal with Mauritius. I assume it still has military utility for us.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
They got 22% in Bannockburn recently in a local by-election.
It's certainly at the grittier end of Stirling. I'm not even sure who their Scottish leader is (if there is one). They're on course to take at least half a dozen MSPs. Amazing how quick the tide turns, I wouldn't bet on Sarwar to become FM now
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
Opinion polls four and a half years out from a general election mean the square root of f all. At the same stage in the last Parliament, Labour were 25 points behind and Starmer's leadership was in serious trouble. Most people just don't focus on politics until a few months before they have to vote.
Sorry if that's ruined the next 400 threads on how well/badly/neutral the Cons/Lab/Ref/LD are doing.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
Isn't it really an American base in all but name? Wiki has 90% of the soldiers there as US.
For whatever reason we’ve decided to keep hold of it and sublet to the USA rather than just letting them deal with Mauritius. I assume it still has military utility for us.
I would alternatively assume we are doing it on US defence establishment orders (or as a favour to them, as preferred). Which would make some sense in a Biden world but not under Trump.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
The traitor stuff is what annoys me. Especially coming from Jenrick. Who was a serving minister when Boris gave a peerage to Evgeny Lebedev.
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
It's frankly ridiculous that a few mean words said can constitute a crime worthy of a trial at a county court.
Crown court.... having been called for jury service recently, I doubt this is the most pointless case that's made it that far. After a week of sitting around, then 30 minutes as a juror, during which the details of the charges were outlined in the opening statement, 2 of which appeared to be no case to answer and the remaining could probably have been dealt with by "words of advice", then wasted a further morning before finally being called in to be told that the original judge had been taken ill and therefore the trial wouldn't go forward. In summary, it could be run more efficiently.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
It’s the closest country apart from the Maldives. And a heck of a lot closer than Britain.
Whilst I appreciate the William Glenn-like attempt to argue a ludicrous point against all comers, nearly everything you've said is utter nonsense.
The 'court ruling' has no legal bearing, it is advisory and Britain was not obliged to respond, let alone do anything.
It is not similar to other post-colonial transactions - there is no nascent independence movement we're handing over to, and the intended recipients have never held the territory.
We do not need to lease the military base, it is an American base. They have decided that they need a base there - it is very doubtful that we would have had a base there independently at this point. There is absolutely no reason why the UK should be part of that commercial arrangement - clearly it is for the US and Mauritius to decide what the relationship should be.
Sweden says the 11,000 prison places they currently have are not enough, and that they need 27,000 in total within a few years. They will ask other countries to help out with the additional 16,000 required.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
It’s the closest country apart from the Maldives. And a heck of a lot closer than Britain.
Whilst I appreciate the William Glenn-like attempt to argue a ludicrous point against all comers, nearly everything you've said is utter nonsense.
The 'court ruling' has no legal bearing, it is advisory and Britain was not obliged to respond, let alone do anything.
It is not similar to other post-colonial transactions - there is no nascent independence movement we're handing over to, and the intended recipients have never held the territory.
We do not need to lease the military base, it is an American base. They have decided that they need a base there - it is very doubtful that we would have had a base there independently at this point. There is absolutely no reason why the UK should be part of that commercial arrangement - clearly it is for the US and Mauritius to decide what the relationship should be.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
Rising with inflation is ridiculous, Starmer is weak and a fool. Tell the kangaroo court to get fucked and Mauritius to get fucked too.
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
It's frankly ridiculous that a few mean words said can constitute a crime worthy of a trial at a county court.
Crown court.... having been called for jury service recently, I doubt this is the most pointless case that's made it that far. After a week of sitting around, then 30 minutes as a juror, during which the details of the charges were outlined in the opening statement, 2 of which appeared to be no case to answer and the remaining could probably have been dealt with by "words of advice", then wasted a further morning before finally being called in to be told that the original judge had been taken ill and therefore the trial wouldn't go forward. In summary, it could be run more efficiently.
My one time on a jury, the case is almost done on Friday mid morning when the judge says lets adjourn til Monday as "we all have homes in the country to get to over the weekend." So 12 jurors all traipse back for about an hour on the Monday......baffling.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
It’s the closest country apart from the Maldives. And a heck of a lot closer than Britain.
Whilst I appreciate the William Glenn-like attempt to argue a ludicrous point against all comers, nearly everything you've said is utter nonsense.
The 'court ruling' has no legal bearing, it is advisory and Britain was not obliged to respond, let alone do anything.
It is not similar to other post-colonial transactions - there is no nascent independence movement we're handing over to, and the intended recipients have never held the territory.
We do not need to lease the military base, it is an American base. They have decided that they need a base there - it is very doubtful that we would have had a base there independently at this point. There is absolutely no reason why the UK should be part of that commercial arrangement - clearly it is for the US and Mauritius to decide what the relationship should be.
Britain ran the Chagos Islands from an office in Mauritius
That sort of administrative bond is unbreakable for all time
"Wes Streeting attacks NHS over diversity schemes Health Secretary says staff boasted of ‘anti-whiteness’ as part of ‘daft’ equality and inclusion agenda"
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
It's frankly ridiculous that a few mean words said can constitute a crime worthy of a trial at a county court.
Crown court.... having been called for jury service recently, I doubt this is the most pointless case that's made it that far. After a week of sitting around, then 30 minutes as a juror, during which the details of the charges were outlined in the opening statement, 2 of which appeared to be no case to answer and the remaining could probably have been dealt with by "words of advice", then wasted a further morning before finally being called in to be told that the original judge had been taken ill and therefore the trial wouldn't go forward. In summary, it could be run more efficiently.
My one time on a jury, the case is almost done on Friday mid morning when the judge says lets adjourn til Monday as "we all have homes in the country to get to over the weekend." So 12 jurors all traipse back for about an hour on the Monday......baffling.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was press-ganged in off the street to make up the numbers on a jury in Cambridge when I was simply visiting for the day. I've never heard of this happening to anybody else and I've never been called for jury service the regular way. It was a fairly pointless cannabis possession with intent to supply case and was over in a day.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
It’s the closest country apart from the Maldives. And a heck of a lot closer than Britain.
Whilst I appreciate the William Glenn-like attempt to argue a ludicrous point against all comers, nearly everything you've said is utter nonsense.
The 'court ruling' has no legal bearing, it is advisory and Britain was not obliged to respond, let alone do anything.
It is not similar to other post-colonial transactions - there is no nascent independence movement we're handing over to, and the intended recipients have never held the territory.
We do not need to lease the military base, it is an American base. They have decided that they need a base there - it is very doubtful that we would have had a base there independently at this point. There is absolutely no reason why the UK should be part of that commercial arrangement - clearly it is for the US and Mauritius to decide what the relationship should be.
Calais is a lot closer to Britain than to Paris.
So….
On the other hand the Malvinas and South Georgia are much closer to Argentina...
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
It’s the closest country apart from the Maldives. And a heck of a lot closer than Britain.
Whilst I appreciate the William Glenn-like attempt to argue a ludicrous point against all comers, nearly everything you've said is utter nonsense.
The 'court ruling' has no legal bearing, it is advisory and Britain was not obliged to respond, let alone do anything.
It is not similar to other post-colonial transactions - there is no nascent independence movement we're handing over to, and the intended recipients have never held the territory.
We do not need to lease the military base, it is an American base. They have decided that they need a base there - it is very doubtful that we would have had a base there independently at this point. There is absolutely no reason why the UK should be part of that commercial arrangement - clearly it is for the US and Mauritius to decide what the relationship should be.
Britain ran the Chagos Islands from an office in Mauritius
That sort of administrative bond is unbreakable for all time
Starmer has simply laid bare the attitude of the average senior civil servant, and shown why they shouldn't even be employed by the state, let alone Governing it.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
It’s the closest country apart from the Maldives. And a heck of a lot closer than Britain.
Whilst I appreciate the William Glenn-like attempt to argue a ludicrous point against all comers, nearly everything you've said is utter nonsense.
The 'court ruling' has no legal bearing, it is advisory and Britain was not obliged to respond, let alone do anything.
It is not similar to other post-colonial transactions - there is no nascent independence movement we're handing over to, and the intended recipients have never held the territory.
We do not need to lease the military base, it is an American base. They have decided that they need a base there - it is very doubtful that we would have had a base there independently at this point. There is absolutely no reason why the UK should be part of that commercial arrangement - clearly it is for the US and Mauritius to decide what the relationship should be.
I’m happy to accept there are arguments as to whether we should have followed the court direction or not. It was arguably a bit of a non sequitur - the big issue is our shameful treatment of the Chagossians, and this deal doesn’t give them the redress they deserve.
But the base lease - there are transactions like this every few weeks. Sell offs of UK government assets to foreign sovereign wealth funds, procurement contracts at eye watering prices, construction contracts it’s hard to believe were ever entered into. I’ve no idea whether there is a benefit in retaining ownership of the base but it seems likely there is some geostrategic benefit of some sort. But it’s one transaction among thousands. I don’t know if it’s the cumulation of a century of payments into the 18bn number that makes this more salient or something else.
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
It’s the closest country apart from the Maldives. And a heck of a lot closer than Britain.
Whilst I appreciate the William Glenn-like attempt to argue a ludicrous point against all comers, nearly everything you've said is utter nonsense.
The 'court ruling' has no legal bearing, it is advisory and Britain was not obliged to respond, let alone do anything.
It is not similar to other post-colonial transactions - there is no nascent independence movement we're handing over to, and the intended recipients have never held the territory.
We do not need to lease the military base, it is an American base. They have decided that they need a base there - it is very doubtful that we would have had a base there independently at this point. There is absolutely no reason why the UK should be part of that commercial arrangement - clearly it is for the US and Mauritius to decide what the relationship should be.
Calais is a lot closer to Britain than to Paris.
So….
On the other hand the Malvinas and South Georgia are much closer to Argentina...
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
Assuming it is £90m in year 1 for 99 years and the total cash value is £18bn, then the annual indexation is 1.3% pa.
Which means the actual cost of this, on a present values basis using the government's current cost of borrowing, is £2.7bn.
Anyone referring to £18bn can henceforth be ignored as financially illiterate. It is so wrong that the £90m is actually closer to the truth.
Number 10 has not denied the £18bn figure
Well if it is the sum of the cash payments then it's not untrue as such, but not a relevant number for real world purposes. As shown by the £2.7bn calculated.
It is the present value of cashflows then it would have to be indexed at over 1% above current government borrowing costs for 99 years - so over 5% pa. I find that hard to believe.
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
It's frankly ridiculous that a few mean words said can constitute a crime worthy of a trial at a county court.
Crown court.... having been called for jury service recently, I doubt this is the most pointless case that's made it that far. After a week of sitting around, then 30 minutes as a juror, during which the details of the charges were outlined in the opening statement, 2 of which appeared to be no case to answer and the remaining could probably have been dealt with by "words of advice", then wasted a further morning before finally being called in to be told that the original judge had been taken ill and therefore the trial wouldn't go forward. In summary, it could be run more efficiently.
My one time on a jury, the case is almost done on Friday mid morning when the judge says lets adjourn til Monday as "we all have homes in the country to get to over the weekend." So 12 jurors all traipse back for about an hour on the Monday......baffling.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was press-ganged in off the street to make up the numbers on a jury in Cambridge when I was simply visiting for the day. I've never heard of this happening to anybody else and I've never been called for jury service the regular way. It was a fairly pointless cannabis possession with intent to supply case and was over in a day.
I would have assumed in order:
Some sort of con Unpaid extra in Trigger Happy TV clone Mistaken person kidnap attempt Actual jury service
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Close to, yes, when expressed non-misleadingly, ie annually. Why do you think otherwise?
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Assuming it is £90m in year 1 for 99 years and the total cash value is £18bn, then the annual indexation is 1.3% pa.
Which means the actual cost of this, on a present values basis using the government's current cost of borrowing, is £2.7bn.
Anyone referring to £18bn can henceforth be ignored as financially illiterate. It is so wrong that the £90m is actually closer to the truth.
Number 10 has not denied the £18bn figure
Well if it is the sum of the cash payments then it's not untrue as such, but not a relevant number for real world purposes. As shown by the £2.7bn calculated.
It is the present value of cashflows then it would have to be indexed at over 1% above current government borrowing costs for 99 years - so over 5% pa. I find that hard to believe.
Surely there's cover in the no-fault evictions legislation. We pass all these laws, we may as well use them.
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
You're basing your Holyrood prediction for next year on a subsample of a UK Westminster poll? Superb!
The previous deal I could get my head around. You’re giving back sovereignty based on an international ruling (although given the historical treatment of the Chagos islanders giving this to another country essentially behind their back feels suboptimal), but in order to maintain a military base there you agree to pay a 90m a year lease for the 99 year term.
This is roughly covered by the lease income you get from the US for their use of the base - paid through discounts on Trident. So in effect you lose a territory but get to keep the base pretty much for free.
The giving away the territory bit is not great business on the face of it but it’s just following the established post-war decolonisation playbook. I assume it costs something to maintain too.
But now it looks like we’re paying more for the lease to Mauritius than we get back from the US. So there’s a net cost. Which you’d better hope is worth it given that before this deal there wasn’t.
I don't really accept this summary - for starters we were paying nothing before and still getting the 'Trident discount' so even the original shit deal was an extreme added net cost.
But if this goes through, how are any Labour politicians going to stand up and ever claim that a saving needs to be made? How will they ever justify a spending cut or a tax rise? How will they ever criticise the profligacy of the Tories? How will they ever claim that Reform's sums don't add up? How will they campaign for re-election? If it's so easy to find £18bn down the back of the sofa for this crap, it makes a total mockery of everything else.
I really think it will be stopped somehow. I think Labour figures must somehow tap Starmer on the shoulder.
It’s 18bn over 99 years (or as I understand it 90m per year with indexation). That may or may not be a good deal but it’s of an order of magnitude well below plenty of spending decisions made all the time.
There are two separate points of contention here, which I think people are conflating.
1. Britain had an overseas possession. It’s relinquishing sovereignty over it based on an international court ruling. Depending on taste, one is either for or against this kind of thing. Both major parties have accepted in principle that it should happen. It’s similar to various post-colonial transactions since the war 2. Because of 1, Britain now needs to lease the military base it has there. A bit like, dare I say, Russia leasing its Sevastopol base in Crimea from Ukraine after independence. The question is whether 90m a year is good or bad value.
I’m on board with1 in principle although I think it should have built in guarantees for the Chagossians. Others may not be.
I don’t know whether 2 is or isn’t a good deal. No idea what the going rate is for a base.
It's nothing like Russia leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It's more like Russia leasing Sevastopol from Eritrea. Chagos is nowhere near Mauritius.
The UK is nearer to Washington DC than Hawaii is.
And yet Hawaii has the Union Jack as a part of its flag. Coincidence???
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
We should just declare we have no interest there and move out. The US can then decide what it wants to do with its base.
We shouldn't pay a single penny to give away territory. (Relocation expenses and lawyers fees accepted - phew lucky on that last point!)
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
You're basing your Holyrood prediction for next year on a subsample of a UK Westminster poll? Superb!
Chaps get thrown out of the Pump Room at Bath for asking for a G&T, and out of PB for offering betting intelligence based on Scottish subsamples. But applying them to a completely different voting system? That requires something worse than blackballing.
Good old SLab, the ultimate learned nothing, forgotten nothing party (or sub branch).
Scotsman Politics @scotpolitics Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis, via @alistairkgrant scotsman.com Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis The Scottish Labour leader said he would not turn his back on a good idea from any MSP 12:53 pm · 4 Feb 2025
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
You're basing your Holyrood prediction for next year on a subsample of a UK Westminster poll? Superb!
Even the latest Holyrood polls have the SNP over 10% down on the constituency vote and at least 9% down on the list vote with the main gainers Reform and the LDs just also on the list the Greens too
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
You're basing your Holyrood prediction for next year on a subsample of a UK Westminster poll? Superb!
Chaps get thrown out of the Pump Room at Bath for asking for a G&T, and out of PB for offering betting intelligence based on Scottish subsamples. But applying them to a completely different voting system? That requires something worse than blackballing.
Good old SLab, the ultimate learned nothing, forgotten nothing party (or sub branch).
Scotsman Politics @scotpolitics Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis, via @alistairkgrant scotsman.com Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis The Scottish Labour leader said he would not turn his back on a good idea from any MSP 12:53 pm · 4 Feb 2025
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
You're basing your Holyrood prediction for next year on a subsample of a UK Westminster poll? Superb!
Even the latest Holyrood polls have the SNP over 10% down on the constituency vote and at least 9% down on the list vote with the main gainers Reform and the LDs just also on the list the Greens too
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
Why haven't you NPV'd that figure?
The NPV of the deal is precisely £18 Bn as it is inflation linked
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
You're basing your Holyrood prediction for next year on a subsample of a UK Westminster poll? Superb!
Chaps get thrown out of the Pump Room at Bath for asking for a G&T, and out of PB for offering betting intelligence based on Scottish subsamples. But applying them to a completely different voting system? That requires something worse than blackballing.
Keelhauling!
Slightly to my surprise, he's taken the point so we'll let him off with a verbal gantlet.
Good old SLab, the ultimate learned nothing, forgotten nothing party (or sub branch).
Scotsman Politics @scotpolitics Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis, via @alistairkgrant scotsman.com Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis The Scottish Labour leader said he would not turn his back on a good idea from any MSP 12:53 pm · 4 Feb 2025
Strange thing for a Lab leader to say.
Why? He's already disagreeing with London Labour half the time, so why not the rest?
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
You're basing your Holyrood prediction for next year on a subsample of a UK Westminster poll? Superb!
Chaps get thrown out of the Pump Room at Bath for asking for a G&T, and out of PB for offering betting intelligence based on Scottish subsamples. But applying them to a completely different voting system? That requires something worse than blackballing.
Keelhauling!
I long felt that this was a most ghastly punishment. It could be just somewhere in the novels of O'Brian, but people sometimes seemed to survive it. Wikipedia has little to offer. My favourite O'Brian punishment was nailing the culprits ears to a plank and setting them adrift. I think actually just as a threat to young midshipmen rather than an actual thing.
Assuming it is £90m in year 1 for 99 years and the total cash value is £18bn, then the annual indexation is 1.3% pa.
Which means the actual cost of this, on a present values basis using the government's current cost of borrowing, is £2.7bn.
Anyone referring to £18bn can henceforth be ignored as financially illiterate. It is so wrong that the £90m is actually closer to the truth.
Number 10 has not denied the £18bn figure
Well if it is the sum of the cash payments then it's not untrue as such, but not a relevant number for real world purposes. As shown by the £2.7bn calculated.
It is the present value of cashflows then it would have to be indexed at over 1% above current government borrowing costs for 99 years - so over 5% pa. I find that hard to believe.
No, I think the debt value is inflation linked. The payments will go up by an agreed inflation measure every year iiuc
The CPS wouldn’t have fallen for this if Starmer was still DPP.
Sam Kerr trial: officer did not mention impact of ‘stupid and white’ comments for 11 months, court hears
Defence claims PC Stephen Lovell only submitted second statement after the CPS declined to charge Matildas star
The Metropolitan police officer at the centre of Sam Kerr’s criminal trial did not mention being upset by being called “stupid and white” by the footballer in his first statement about the incident, a court has heard, and only included it in a further statement 11 months later.
On Monday, Kingston crown court heard that Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, called PC Stephen Lovell “fucking stupid and white” after he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver after a night out with her partner Kristie Mewis in January 2023.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body which has the final say on whether a criminal prosecution can go ahead in England and Wales, initially decided against charging Kerr as the evidence did not meet the required threshold.
But the CPS decided to charge Kerr with racially aggravated intentional harassment after a second statement was provided by Lovell in December 2023, 11 months after the incident first happened. He said her comments had left him “shocked, upset and humiliated”. She denies the charges.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Kerr’s defence barrister, Grace Forbes, asked Lovell about this first statement, which was submitted on 30 January 2023. She put it to Lovell: ““Your first statement made no mention of stupid and white having had an impact.”
Lovell said it did not.
She then accused Lovell of submitting a second statement in December 2023 “because the CPS declined to charge Kerr”, saying “only a year later did you make mention of these words having had an impact on you… The CPS didn’t identify charge. You knew that was the obstacle?”
“No,” Lovell said.
“You are claiming this impact purely to get a criminal charge over the line?” she asked him again.
It's frankly ridiculous that a few mean words said can constitute a crime worthy of a trial at a county court.
Crown court.... having been called for jury service recently, I doubt this is the most pointless case that's made it that far. After a week of sitting around, then 30 minutes as a juror, during which the details of the charges were outlined in the opening statement, 2 of which appeared to be no case to answer and the remaining could probably have been dealt with by "words of advice", then wasted a further morning before finally being called in to be told that the original judge had been taken ill and therefore the trial wouldn't go forward. In summary, it could be run more efficiently.
My one time on a jury, the case is almost done on Friday mid morning when the judge says lets adjourn til Monday as "we all have homes in the country to get to over the weekend." So 12 jurors all traipse back for about an hour on the Monday......baffling.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was press-ganged in off the street to make up the numbers on a jury in Cambridge when I was simply visiting for the day. I've never heard of this happening to anybody else and I've never been called for jury service the regular way. It was a fairly pointless cannabis possession with intent to supply case and was over in a day.
I would have assumed in order:
Some sort of con Unpaid extra in Trigger Happy TV clone Mistaken person kidnap attempt Actual jury service
Yes! It was a uniformed copper who made the initial advance which gave it an official air, but still a weird experience.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Because if you are a lawyer like Starmer of the current AG then you just can’t put a price on that warm glow of uber liberal self-satisfaction for sticking it up the colonial gammons at your dinner party with Helena Kennedy and you might get to hobnob with Amal Clooney.
I mean, you were so righteous giving them £9b they don’t deserve, just imagine the smuggery from giving more!
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
Why haven't you NPV'd that figure?
The NPV of the deal is precisely £18 Bn as it is inflation linked
NPV discounts at the nominal interest rate which has an inflation and a real interest rate component, so no.
Good old SLab, the ultimate learned nothing, forgotten nothing party (or sub branch).
Scotsman Politics @scotpolitics Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis, via @alistairkgrant scotsman.com Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis The Scottish Labour leader said he would not turn his back on a good idea from any MSP 12:53 pm · 4 Feb 2025
Strange thing for a Lab leader to say.
Very odd - I thought turning their back good ideas was sort of the whole gig?
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
Why haven't you NPV'd that figure?
The NPV of the deal is precisely £18 Bn as it is inflation linked
NPV discounts at the nominal interest rate which has an inflation and a real interest rate component, so no.
Who knows where interest rates and inflation are going to go over the next 99 years ?! Nominal interest rates are not always +ve in real terms ! In real terms the deal is whatever the nominal figure is if it's inflation linked.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Because if you are a lawyer like Starmer of the current AG then you just can’t put a price on that warm glow of uber liberal self-satisfaction for sticking it up the colonial gammons at your dinner party with Helena Kennedy and you might get to hobnob with Amal Clooney.
I mean, you were so righteous giving them £9b they don’t deserve, just imagine the smuggery from giving more!
True I'm sure, but these are also very large sums of money, and Starmer has not earned the right to be considered above reproach.
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
You're basing your Holyrood prediction for next year on a subsample of a UK Westminster poll? Superb!
Chaps get thrown out of the Pump Room at Bath for asking for a G&T, and out of PB for offering betting intelligence based on Scottish subsamples. But applying them to a completely different voting system? That requires something worse than blackballing.
Keelhauling!
I long felt that this was a most ghastly punishment. It could be just somewhere in the novels of O'Brian, but people sometimes seemed to survive it. Wikipedia has little to offer. My favourite O'Brian punishment was nailing the culprits ears to a plank and setting them adrift. I think actually just as a threat to young midshipmen rather than an actual thing.
I thought keelhauling was intended to be survivalable? Just that the barnacles etc would rip your skin to shreds in the process? Or have I misinterpreted?
Opinion polls four and a half years out from a general election mean the square root of f all. At the same stage in the last Parliament, Labour were 25 points behind and Starmer's leadership was in serious trouble. Most people just don't focus on politics until a few months before they have to vote.
Sorry if that's ruined the next 400 threads on how well/badly/neutral the Cons/Lab/Ref/LD are doing.
Just waiting for the Classic Rock Show to start. Sitting directly behind the mixing deck. If you have never seen them and you are into 60s/70s rock I recommend them. They tend to finish with a brilliant version of Freebird.
Good old SLab, the ultimate learned nothing, forgotten nothing party (or sub branch).
Scotsman Politics @scotpolitics Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis, via @alistairkgrant scotsman.com Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis The Scottish Labour leader said he would not turn his back on a good idea from any MSP 12:53 pm · 4 Feb 2025
I bet he would turn his back on a good idea from an SNP MSP.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
Why haven't you NPV'd that figure?
The NPV of the deal is precisely £18 Bn as it is inflation linked
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Because we have a nitwit and passive traitor in No 10.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
Why haven't you NPV'd that figure?
The NPV of the deal is precisely £18 Bn as it is inflation linked
We must be doing it differently.
So £257 per person in the UK. I was thinking of going for a night away this Spring. But what the hell, I get to give the Chagos Islands away instead. Keir, you utter bellend.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Many things discussed on here don't affect any of us "directly". In this case, the fact that Keir From HR is utterly useless and his uselessness is amplified by Rachel From Accounts on other matters should be of concern to us all.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Because we have a nitwit and passive traitor in No 10.
Uncanny.
That's what I said when Johnson was PM.
Elevating Lebedev to the HoL and the Bunga Bunga party whilst FS sealed it for me.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
Why haven't you NPV'd that figure?
The NPV of the deal is precisely £18 Bn as it is inflation linked
We must be doing it differently.
Shouldn't inflation and nominal interest rates broadly track in the long run ?
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Because we have a nitwit and passive traitor in No 10.
Uncanny.
That's what I said when Johnson was PM.
Elevating Lebedev to the HoL and the Bunga Bunga party whilst FS sealed it for me.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Many things discussed on here don't affect any of us "directly". In this case, the fact that Keir From HR is utterly useless and his uselessness is amplified by Rachel From Accounts on other matters should be of concern to us all.
I was merely noting the irony of that comment about Brexit in the light of all the frothing about this (objectively far less impactful) matter of the Chagos Islands.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Because we have a nitwit and passive traitor in No 10.
Uncanny.
That's what I said when Johnson was PM.
Elevating Lebedev to the HoL and the Bunga Bunga party whilst FS sealed it for me.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Many things discussed on here don't affect any of us "directly". In this case, the fact that Keir From HR is utterly useless and his uselessness is amplified by Rachel From Accounts on other matters should be of concern to us all.
I was merely noting the irony of that comment about Brexit in the light of all the frothing about this (objectively far less impactful) matter of the Chagos Islands.
Pleased to see that you haven't bothered to disagree with Keir and Rachel being completely useless and out of their depth.
Sweden says the 11,000 prison places they currently have are not enough, and that they need 27,000 in total within a few years. They will ask other countries to help out with the additional 16,000 required.
Do exported prisoners who don't speak the language of the host gaol get interpreters?
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
Why haven't you NPV'd that figure?
The NPV of the deal is precisely £18 Bn as it is inflation linked
We must be doing it differently.
So £257 per person in the UK. I was thinking of going for a night away this Spring. But what the hell, I get to give the Chagos Islands away instead. Keir, you utter bellend.
Well on this basis Boris with his Brexit has nixed your holiday plans for the next 25 years.
Opinion polls four and a half years out from a general election mean the square root of f all. At the same stage in the last Parliament, Labour were 25 points behind and Starmer's leadership was in serious trouble. Most people just don't focus on politics until a few months before they have to vote.
Sorry if that's ruined the next 400 threads on how well/badly/neutral the Cons/Lab/Ref/LD are doing.
That all depends what you want polls for. They have a reasonably precise meaning, but only very indirectly related to the next GE. They are like an approximate thermometer telling you todays's average temperature. That is no use if you want to know the average temperature on 4th July 2029, or indeed next week. But it still tells you the temperature. And taken day after day, week after week, they tell you also a bit about the current direction of the wind.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Because we have a nitwit and passive traitor in No 10.
Uncanny.
That's what I said when Johnson was PM.
Elevating Lebedev to the HoL and the Bunga Bunga party whilst FS sealed it for me.
Oh dear, this is pretty bad whataboutery. This "deal" is shameful. Absurd. Much as I hate Trump I cannot imagine for one minute that he would agree to something as against his own country's interest as this.
Exclusive: Keir Starmer is for the first time facing criticism from within his cabinet over the Chagos deal
*One person says they don’t understand why the UK is sending so much money to Mauritius when the Treasury is asking departments to make brutal spending cuts at home
*Another says Starmer should cancel the deal
*They both blame the situation on legal advice from Richard Hermer, the attorney general
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Many things discussed on here don't affect any of us "directly". In this case, the fact that Keir From HR is utterly useless and his uselessness is amplified by Rachel From Accounts on other matters should be of concern to us all.
I was merely noting the irony of that comment about Brexit in the light of all the frothing about this (objectively far less impactful) matter of the Chagos Islands.
Pleased to see that you haven't bothered to disagree with Keir and Rachel being completely useless and out of their depth.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Many things discussed on here don't affect any of us "directly". In this case, the fact that Keir From HR is utterly useless and his uselessness is amplified by Rachel From Accounts on other matters should be of concern to us all.
I was merely noting the irony of that comment about Brexit in the light of all the frothing about this (objectively far less impactful) matter of the Chagos Islands.
Pleased to see that you haven't bothered to disagree with Keir and Rachel being completely useless and out of their depth.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Many things discussed on here don't affect any of us "directly". In this case, the fact that Keir From HR is utterly useless and his uselessness is amplified by Rachel From Accounts on other matters should be of concern to us all.
I was merely noting the irony of that comment about Brexit in the light of all the frothing about this (objectively far less impactful) matter of the Chagos Islands.
Pleased to see that you haven't bothered to disagree with Keir and Rachel being completely useless and out of their depth.
I disagree.
That is your public view for here, but in your heart you know they are just as useless as Boris Johnson, possibly even worse.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
We should just declare we have no interest there and move out. The US can then decide what it wants to do with its base.
We shouldn't pay a single penny to give away territory. (Relocation expenses and lawyers fees accepted - phew lucky on that last point!)
This is surely the correct answer: because we don't actually have an interest. It's a US base, and they can discuss it with the Mauritius government. (Plus, of course, good luck extracting money out of the current US government.)
Comments
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
Opinion polls four and a half years out from a general election mean the square root of f all. At the same stage in the last Parliament, Labour were 25 points behind and Starmer's leadership was in serious trouble. Most people just don't focus on politics until a few months before they have to vote.
Sorry if that's ruined the next 400 threads on how well/badly/neutral the Cons/Lab/Ref/LD are doing.
Hot apple pie to follow.
In summary, it could be run more efficiently.
https://x.com/pyrrrhos/status/1886805849382744394?s=61
The 'court ruling' has no legal bearing, it is advisory and Britain was not obliged to respond, let alone do anything.
It is not similar to other post-colonial transactions - there is no nascent independence movement we're handing over to, and the intended recipients have never held the territory.
We do not need to lease the military base, it is an American base. They have decided that they need a base there - it is very doubtful that we would have had a base there independently at this point. There is absolutely no reason why the UK should be part of that commercial arrangement - clearly it is for the US and Mauritius to decide what the relationship should be.
Assuming it is £90m in year 1 for 99 years and the total cash value is £18bn, then the annual indexation is 1.3% pa.
Which means the actual cost of this, on a present values basis using the government's current cost of borrowing, is £2.7bn.
Anyone referring to £18bn can henceforth be ignored as financially illiterate. It is so wrong that the £90m is actually closer to the truth.
So….
That sort of administrative bond is unbreakable for all time
Health Secretary says staff boasted of ‘anti-whiteness’ as part of ‘daft’ equality and inclusion agenda"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/stop-promoting-anti-whiteness-wes-streeting-tells-nhs/
Goodnight
But the base lease - there are transactions like this every few weeks. Sell offs of UK government assets to foreign sovereign wealth funds, procurement contracts at eye watering prices, construction contracts it’s hard to believe were ever entered into. I’ve no idea whether there is a benefit in retaining ownership of the base but it seems likely there is some geostrategic benefit of some sort. But it’s one transaction among thousands. I don’t know if it’s the cumulation of a century of payments into the 18bn number that makes
this more salient or something else.
https://news.sky.com/story/sweden-shooting-latest-danger-not-over-police-warn-after-shooting-at-swedish-adult-education-centre-13302984
It is the present value of cashflows then it would have to be indexed at over 1% above current government borrowing costs for 99 years - so over 5% pa. I find that hard to believe.
Some sort of con
Unpaid extra in Trigger Happy TV clone
Mistaken person kidnap attempt
Actual jury service
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Superb!
We shouldn't pay a single penny to give away territory. (Relocation expenses and lawyers fees accepted - phew lucky on that last point!)
Scotsman Politics
@scotpolitics
Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis, via @alistairkgrant
scotsman.com
Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis
The Scottish Labour leader said he would not turn his back on a good idea from any MSP
12:53 pm · 4 Feb 2025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
I mean, you were so righteous giving them £9b they don’t deserve, just imagine the smuggery from giving more!
In real terms the deal is whatever the nominal figure is if it's inflation linked.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24910308.report-never-asked-snp-ban-cats-expert-commission-chair-says/?ref=eb&nid=1948&block=article_block_a&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=040225
Talk about the burden of an ageing population!
He is.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Have always said so.
Keir, you utter bellend.
That's what I said when Johnson was PM.
Elevating Lebedev to the HoL and the Bunga Bunga party whilst FS sealed it for me.
£18bn does seem to be contestable at the moment.
Good evening everyone.
Bastard!
I'm getting increasingly angry the more I think about the Chagos treason.
Exclusive: Keir Starmer is for the first time facing criticism from within his cabinet over the Chagos deal
*One person says they don’t understand why the UK is sending so much money to Mauritius when the Treasury is asking departments to make brutal spending cuts at home
*Another says Starmer should cancel the deal
*They both blame the situation on legal advice from Richard Hermer, the attorney general
Why should I be bothered?