There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The Guardian usually ignores stories that aren't good for Labour and Starmer so this is surprising.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
That might occasionally be true, but in general it's just untrue.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical. And unsurprising.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
What's the difference between Boxer and Ajax?
(Apologies if this is equivalent to asking if either of them are a tank...)
One of them doesn't permanently disable its operators. (And is a wheeled not tracked vehicle.)
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The right to build them here certainly does, as it looks quite likely we'll order a significant number of them. There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
I demand that no one posts anything that raises issues I don't want to deal with.
Did I suggest that? It just seems an odd thing to want to flag up on this site.
It was discussed on Sky paper review with both contributors condemning the charity's position
Not sure why you are so sensitive to it being raised
Like many bleeding hearts here he's obsessed with "racism".
Which fucking idiot believes that US security guarantees would carry any credibility ?
Q:Did Putin agree to a ceasefire to allow a referendum?
Trump: Not a ceasefire. He feels that look,you know, they're fighting and to stop. & then if they have to start again, he doesn't want to be in that position. I understand Putin from that standpoint https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2005406314004979838
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The right to build them here certainly does, as it looks quite likely we'll order a significant number of them. There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
But you'd expect that decision to be part of the negotiations for the contract to buy the final vehicle. They're not at that stage yet.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The right to build them here certainly does, as it looks quite likely we'll order a significant number of them. There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
But you'd expect that decision to be part of the negotiations for the contract to buy the final vehicle. They're not at that stage yet.
So this bit is meaningless ? ..Edward Cutts, Senior Responsible Owner of Mobile Fires in the Army, said:
This joint demonstrator programme exemplifies the strength and ambition of the Trinity House Agreement. By working hand-in-hand with Germany, we’re not only accelerating the delivery of world-class artillery capability for the British Army, but doing so more efficiently and cost-effectively than either nation could achieve alone.
The RCH 155 represents a step-change in mobile artillery – combining devastating firepower with the ability to rapidly reposition. This collaboration ensures our soldiers will be equipped with cutting-edge technology whilst strengthening the interoperability between UK and German forces that is vital to NATO’s collective defence.
The contract agreement supports the Strategic Defence Review – ensuring defence is an engine for growth in this parliament and supporting skilled jobs across the UK defence industry...
Of course Putin wants a successful Ukraine. What Putin does not want is an independent Ukraine. Putin sees Ukraine as part of Russia, not unlike how China sees Taiwan.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The right to build them here certainly does, as it looks quite likely we'll order a significant number of them. There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
But you'd expect that decision to be part of the negotiations for the contract to buy the final vehicle. They're not at that stage yet.
So this bit is meaningless ? ..Edward Cutts, Senior Responsible Owner of Mobile Fires in the Army, said:
This joint demonstrator programme exemplifies the strength and ambition of the Trinity House Agreement. By working hand-in-hand with Germany, we’re not only accelerating the delivery of world-class artillery capability for the British Army, but doing so more efficiently and cost-effectively than either nation could achieve alone.
The RCH 155 represents a step-change in mobile artillery – combining devastating firepower with the ability to rapidly reposition. This collaboration ensures our soldiers will be equipped with cutting-edge technology whilst strengthening the interoperability between UK and German forces that is vital to NATO’s collective defence.
The contract agreement supports the Strategic Defence Review – ensuring defence is an engine for growth in this parliament and supporting skilled jobs across the UK defence industry...
Yes, pretty much. It's a £52m contract for a vehicle that isn't ready for serial production.
You can say that it's one step to achieving the things they mention, but it's in process, not at the result stage yet.
The Guardian usually ignores stories that aren't good for Labour and Starmer so this is surprising.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
That might occasionally be true, but in general it's just untrue.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical. And unsurprising.
To further my aim of running the country, I've not bothered to look at any of these tweets except those mentioned on pb but it does seem that they can be explained and excused in the right context. For instance, the one calling for burning Downing Street came during the riots after the police shot Mark Duggan – the tweet can be read as criticising the motives of rioters for pinching trainers and large-screen televisions.
Of course, if you have to excuse every tweet, there comes a point when the sheer mass becomes an issue, but so far my take is the entire political and media Establishment has leapt from one hysterical position, the sanctitude of el-Fattah, to its diametric opposite.
The No 10 insiders who revealed their secrets: How we made Yes Minister The show's writers - and their sources - recall how they created a comedy classic ... Each episode would reveal such intimate understanding of the previously hidden machinations of political life that it seemed obvious its writers had a mole on the inside. Lynn, speaking to me from his home in upstate New York, tells me that it felt authentic for good reason. He cannot, however, say very much more on the subject.
“We promised certain people [within Parliament] that we would never say,” is how he puts it. The political sketch writer Simon Hoggart once wrote in The Guardian that they got much of their intel from the Labour Party politician Richard Crossman’s 1975 book Diary of a Cabinet Minister, “from which whole chunks of dialogue were lifted”.
What Lynn can tell me is that their main sources were Harold Wilson’s political secretary, and the then head of policy at No 10. “They introduced us to a variety of people who, once they felt confident that we weren’t going to name them, told us pretty much everything we wanted to know.”
Which seems rather indiscreet of them, no? Careless, even?
By coincidence, I'm Sorry, Prime Minister opens in the West End in a month or so.
From the BAFTA Award-winning co-creator of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, Jonathan Lynn, comes the long-awaited final chapter of British political satire — and it is as cunning, cutting, and catastrophically funny as ever.
Jim Hacker (played by national treasure Griff Rhys Jones) is back — older, but perhaps not wiser, and still utterly baffled by the real world. Hoping for a quiet retirement at the tranquil Hacker College, Oxford, Jim instead finds himself facing the ultimate modern crisis: cancelled by the college committee.
Enter the delightfully devious Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by the acclaimed Clive Francis), who has lost none of his love for bureaucracy, Latin phrases, and well-timed obstruction.
Can Humphrey out manoeuvre the meddling students, the Fellowship, and reality itself?
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
You and I disagree in principle.
There is little point in continuing this discussion
Circles back to what I said before, this is not about safeguarding to ensure that the person's choice is actually their own, but about satisfying those who object to the very principle.
If you want safeguards to ensure that someone's choice is their own, then I respect that, and a sensible compromise is how we do that. We both have different views, but agree for instance that a cooling off period (my words) or time delay (your words) is logical.
However the six months to death proviso in the proposed law has jack all to do with that. It does absolutely nothing for those trapped in non-terminal conditions that wish to die and can clearly and unambiguously express their own wishes.
It is purely about placating those who oppose the principle of letting people rather than the state choose their own fates.
Laws can’t be written for specific cases. They need to be kept simple and designed to protect the vulnerable.
I certainly very reluctant that governments should get involved in killing citizens or even assisting them in dying. Because it is simply no business of the government to do that, and most powers that the government takes are expanded and abused over time.
The Guardian usually ignores stories that aren't good for Labour and Starmer so this is surprising.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
That might occasionally be true, but in general it's just untrue.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical. And unsurprising.
What Badenoch has said is that it was a mistake to grant him citizenship, but that the decision was made by a civil servant and not escalated to the ministerial level. That is entirely plausible.
Comments
It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
By the time we all realise that it is other people who will be deciding, and our speech that will be persecuted, we will have a long road back.
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical.
And unsurprising.
There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
Trump: "Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed. It sounds a little strange but President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2005403883791851621
Q:Did Putin agree to a ceasefire to allow a referendum?
Trump: Not a ceasefire. He feels that look,you know, they're fighting and to stop. & then if they have to start again, he doesn't want to be in that position. I understand Putin from that standpoint
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2005406314004979838
..Edward Cutts, Senior Responsible Owner of Mobile Fires in the Army, said:
This joint demonstrator programme exemplifies the strength and ambition of the Trinity House Agreement. By working hand-in-hand with Germany, we’re not only accelerating the delivery of world-class artillery capability for the British Army, but doing so more efficiently and cost-effectively than either nation could achieve alone.
The RCH 155 represents a step-change in mobile artillery – combining devastating firepower with the ability to rapidly reposition. This collaboration ensures our soldiers will be equipped with cutting-edge technology whilst strengthening the interoperability between UK and German forces that is vital to NATO’s collective defence.
The contract agreement supports the Strategic Defence Review – ensuring defence is an engine for growth in this parliament and supporting skilled jobs across the UK defence industry...
You can say that it's one step to achieving the things they mention, but it's in process, not at the result stage yet.
Of course, if you have to excuse every tweet, there comes a point when the sheer mass becomes an issue, but so far my take is the entire political and media Establishment has leapt from one hysterical position, the sanctitude of el-Fattah, to its diametric opposite.
The show's writers - and their sources - recall how they created a comedy classic
...
Each episode would reveal such intimate understanding of the previously hidden machinations of political life that it seemed obvious its writers had a mole on the inside. Lynn, speaking to me from his home in upstate New York, tells me that it felt authentic for good reason. He cannot, however, say very much more on the subject.
“We promised certain people [within Parliament] that we would never say,” is how he puts it. The political sketch writer Simon Hoggart once wrote in The Guardian that they got much of their intel from the Labour Party politician Richard Crossman’s 1975 book Diary of a Cabinet Minister, “from which whole chunks of dialogue were lifted”.
What Lynn can tell me is that their main sources were Harold Wilson’s political secretary, and the then head of policy at No 10. “They introduced us to a variety of people who, once they felt confident that we weren’t going to name them, told us pretty much everything we wanted to know.”
Which seems rather indiscreet of them, no? Careless, even?
“Well, I’ve learned that people do like to be asked questions, and to show what they know,” he says. “Also, the politicians liked that we were giving them an alibi, and the civil servants liked that it revealed just how crucial they were to the whole process.”
https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/no-10-insiders-secrets-how-made-yes-minister-4101068
This came up on the last thread iirc.
From the BAFTA Award-winning co-creator of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, Jonathan Lynn, comes the long-awaited final chapter of British political satire — and it is as cunning, cutting, and catastrophically funny as ever.
Jim Hacker (played by national treasure Griff Rhys Jones) is back — older, but perhaps not wiser, and still utterly baffled by the real world. Hoping for a quiet retirement at the tranquil Hacker College, Oxford, Jim instead finds himself facing the ultimate modern crisis: cancelled by the college committee.
Enter the delightfully devious Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by the acclaimed Clive Francis), who has lost none of his love for bureaucracy, Latin phrases, and well-timed obstruction.
Can Humphrey out manoeuvre the meddling students, the Fellowship, and reality itself?
Or is it finally time to say, "I’m Sorry, Prime Minister..."?
https://theapollotheatre.co.uk/tickets/im-sorry-prime-minister/
I certainly very reluctant that governments should get involved in killing citizens or even assisting them in dying. Because it is simply no business of the government to do that, and most powers that the government takes are expanded and abused over time.