Just ask the French nicely to get a piece of their independent nuclear deterrent. It wouldn't be nuclear independence per se, but closer collaboration with a regional power on an approximately equivalent level may be preferable to being the(very) junior lickspittle partner in an unstable coalition with the USA, who appear to have quite a low opinion of us.
This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've read on PB all month.
Perhaps a joint programme with Putin would suit you better?
I always play the post not the man, so I'll just observe that recently your posts have been baleful, resentful hyperpolitical drivel, that always seems to come from a very bleak place. Feel better.
The problem we currently face is a nuclear programme that depends on another independent nation, who are free to elect someone that we cannot depend upon, and who may oppose our interests.
Enter stage left the utterly loony idea of 'a piece of' the French nuclear deterrent. Quite apart from the idea of France nuking someone because they've nuked Britain - thus laying France open to nuclear attack being f***ing idiotic, what if they go and elect Marine Le Pen? Who do you suggest we go to for 'a piece' then?
It's a classic of unserious remoaner guff from the 'serious people in the room'. Completely deranged, but it involves throwing money at the French combined with a nice bit of eating crow for the Brexiteer crowd, so it must be a great idea.
“ I always play the post not the man…”
Erm. Recollections may differ…
(and yes, I know I frequently play the man not the ball. But I’m not claiming otherwise)
Strictly speaking I was playing the man just then, because he had a go at me, and it's true his recent posts have been dire. We all take the bait sometimes. But overwhelmingly I would back myself that I attack arguments. Strongly sometimes, but arguments, not people.
So "This is possibly the most idiotic thing I've read on PB all month.", literally the previous thing you said, strictly speaking isn't playing the man?
Lib Dems going pro.nuclear. I can't get my head around it.
Labour were anti nuclear deterrent under Foot. The Liberals have always been pro nuclear missile deterrent
Not really true
Yes true, the Liberals have never had a leader who wanted to scrap the nuclear deterrent
Worth remembering that political leaders of all shades, from Attlee to Thatcher, have been pro-nuclear, so a Lib Dem being pro nuclear doesn't seem out of the question. Maybe it's a sign that the logic, sadly, demands it.
Yes but Labour has had leaders who have been anti nuclear like Foot and Corbyn whereas the Liberals haven’t
Not sure about that. Seem to remember some SDP folk weren't happy with the Liberals on matters nuclear back in the day, and wasn't Paddy Ashdown anti-nuke?
Nope Ashdown supported the nuclear deterrent
"You don't mess with Britain" Michael Portillo didn't.
It takes a certain amount of Davey Derangement syndrome to basically agree with the point that Sir Ed is making and then trash the man in favour of turning declinism into defeatism.
Davey has been way ahead of the curve on security - identifying that Trump is actually a *threat* to British security, and that we need to establish far greater strategic autonomy, whatever the cost. Incidentally Ed Davey has been quite realistic about both what is needed and how much it costs.
While Farage and Badenoch still think the Atlantic alliance can continue unchanged, they are basically irrelevant to the argument. Our primary challenge is Russia, and our primary policy must be the defence of Ukraine- both points that Ed Davey has spoken on at length. If UK resources are to be committed anywhere near Iran, then the US must stop coddling Putin and help Ukraine. If it won't do that, then why should we help the US? Months of insults, threats, tariffs and braggadocio have shown quite clearly that Trump is no ally of ours.
Davey is right and Moonrabbit has tripped over his defeatist prejudice.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
Yes, it is going to be far more difficult to wean ourselves off US dependency than the likes of Davey is willing to admit. But no, I don't accept that there is no going back. It needs to be a clear objective in our forward planning and resourcing.
Perhaps the biggest interdependency is in our intelligence and cyber defence. GCHQ is very integrated into the US system and needs to start thinking about how it would meet our needs if that were no longer the case. This is not going to be easy, not going to be cheap and in many ways it will reduce our global footprint markedly. But it needs to be done. It is not just Trump it is a country that is daft enough to elect him. Twice.
Completely agreed.
The idea the UK could not independently develop/maintain/replace Trident is absurd. It would be difficult, but entirely doable.
The US got the Manhattan Project going without any prior development or technology, during the war, over 80 years ago.
The UK already has nuclear weaponry and technology and has done for nearly a century. The UK already has advanced nuclear facilities and firms working in the nuclear sector.
Making the leap from dependent technology to independent technology would be difficult, but is entirely doable. If we prioritise it.
Of course we could do it. But resource devoted to that means less elsewhere in the defence budget. DavidL makes a good point about Trump though. Even if it turns out most of the current madness is because of him the individual rather than a lasting change in America (which I think is probably right), and so things get better when he's gone, still the fact is they elected him twice, and this indicates the permanent presence of 'crazy USA president' risk.
Building this sort of stuff is probably a good idea. We probably need to ask BAE to break themselves up a bit, and have a degree of competition. I have some slight memory of meeting people that built all sorts of things - they were delighted to have done so and a little proud of it. The unions, Labour, and recently almost everyone has dis-encouraged the roll-the-sleeves up development and manufacturing that was once a really shining light for us. Can you imagine the UK producing three different and really quite good V-Bomber designs today? The shipyards were private concerns, but they had to compete, and there was a steady flow of work. The government intervened a little bit to ensure that.
If I was somehow propelled to Downing St (and thank you all for your kind suggestions) then I'd throw modest amounts of money into all sorts of projects, and I'd cut out entirely the big numbers. The rail bosses would be back after a while, and eventually agree to a trade whereby the taxpayer had to buy them a packet of crisps.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
It takes a certain amount of Davey Derangement syndrome to basically agree with the point that Sir Ed is making and then trash the man in favour of turning declinism into defeatism.
Davey has been way ahead of the curve on security - identifying that Trump is actually a *threat* to British security, and that we need to establish far greater strategic autonomy, whatever the cost. Incidentally Ed Davey has been quite realistic about both what is needed and how much it costs.
While Farage and Badenoch still think the Atlantic alliance can continue unchanged, they are basically irrelevant to the argument. Our primary challenge is Russia, and our primary policy must be the defence of Ukraine- both points that Ed Davey has spoken on at length. If UK resources are to be committed anywhere near Iran, then the US must stop coddling Putin and help Ukraine. If it won't do that, then why should we help the US? Months of insults, threats, tariffs and braggadocio have shown quite clearly that Trump is no ally of ours.
Davey is right and Moonrabbit has tripped over his defeatist prejudice.
Centrist loon take. Criticism of Trump is ace. Criticise Ed Davey is bad.
Lib Dems going pro.nuclear. I can't get my head around it.
Labour were anti nuclear deterrent under Foot. The Liberals have always been pro nuclear missile deterrent
Not really true
Yes true, the Liberals have never had a leader who wanted to scrap the nuclear deterrent
Worth remembering that political leaders of all shades, from Attlee to Thatcher, have been pro-nuclear, so a Lib Dem being pro nuclear doesn't seem out of the question. Maybe it's a sign that the logic, sadly, demands it.
Yes but Labour has had leaders who have been anti nuclear like Foot and Corbyn whereas the Liberals haven’t
Not sure about that. Seem to remember some SDP folk weren't happy with the Liberals on matters nuclear back in the day, and wasn't Paddy Ashdown anti-nuke?
Nope Ashdown supported the nuclear deterrent
"You don't mess with Britain" Michael Portillo didn't.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What will this new ICE-like system give us that we don't already have?
It takes a certain amount of Davey Derangement syndrome to basically agree with the point that Sir Ed is making and then trash the man in favour of turning declinism into defeatism.
Davey has been way ahead of the curve on security - identifying that Trump is actually a *threat* to British security, and that we need to establish far greater strategic autonomy, whatever the cost. Incidentally Ed Davey has been quite realistic about both what is needed and how much it costs.
While Farage and Badenoch still think the Atlantic alliance can continue unchanged, they are basically irrelevant to the argument. Our primary challenge is Russia, and our primary policy must be the defence of Ukraine- both points that Ed Davey has spoken on at length. If UK resources are to be committed anywhere near Iran, then the US must stop coddling Putin and help Ukraine. If it won't do that, then why should we help the US? Months of insults, threats, tariffs and braggadocio have shown quite clearly that Trump is no ally of ours.
Davey is right and Moonrabbit has tripped over his defeatist prejudice.
Centrist loon take. Criticism of Trump is ace. Criticise Ed Davey is bad.
Quality PB stuff.
Er.. that isn't what he said - he's trying to make a case that Ed Davey has been right on international affairs previously. Which is arguable.
Trump is obviously a loose cannon and an unreliable ally, at best.
It takes a certain amount of Davey Derangement syndrome to basically agree with the point that Sir Ed is making and then trash the man in favour of turning declinism into defeatism.
Davey has been way ahead of the curve on security - identifying that Trump is actually a *threat* to British security, and that we need to establish far greater strategic autonomy, whatever the cost. Incidentally Ed Davey has been quite realistic about both what is needed and how much it costs.
While Farage and Badenoch still think the Atlantic alliance can continue unchanged, they are basically irrelevant to the argument. Our primary challenge is Russia, and our primary policy must be the defence of Ukraine- both points that Ed Davey has spoken on at length. If UK resources are to be committed anywhere near Iran, then the US must stop coddling Putin and help Ukraine. If it won't do that, then why should we help the US? Months of insults, threats, tariffs and braggadocio have shown quite clearly that Trump is no ally of ours.
Davey is right and Moonrabbit has tripped over his defeatist prejudice.
Centrist loon take. Criticism of Trump is ace. Criticise Ed Davey is bad.
Quality PB stuff.
Er.. that isn't what he said - he's trying to make a case that Ed Davey has been right on international affairs previously. Which is arguable.
Trump is obviously a loose cannon and an unreliable ally, at best.
Yes but here's a clue - @Taz doesn't like the Liberal Democrats very much.
It takes a certain amount of Davey Derangement syndrome to basically agree with the point that Sir Ed is making and then trash the man in favour of turning declinism into defeatism.
Davey has been way ahead of the curve on security - identifying that Trump is actually a *threat* to British security, and that we need to establish far greater strategic autonomy, whatever the cost. Incidentally Ed Davey has been quite realistic about both what is needed and how much it costs.
While Farage and Badenoch still think the Atlantic alliance can continue unchanged, they are basically irrelevant to the argument. Our primary challenge is Russia, and our primary policy must be the defence of Ukraine- both points that Ed Davey has spoken on at length. If UK resources are to be committed anywhere near Iran, then the US must stop coddling Putin and help Ukraine. If it won't do that, then why should we help the US? Months of insults, threats, tariffs and braggadocio have shown quite clearly that Trump is no ally of ours.
Davey is right and Moonrabbit has tripped over his defeatist prejudice.
It’s weird to look at Vote 2012, and see the first IPSOS poll there (from 2012), producing Labour 44% to Conservative 33%. Both figures are now halved.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
I agree, but I do think the mistake Reform made was to label it a U.K. ICE.
If it was branded differently it makes it less triggering. I have no problem, unlike the ‘open door to all’ Lib Dem’s and Greens, with people who have no right to be here being deported. I suspect most feel the same.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
I think the points Stodge makes in the first half of his post are going to play out Bigley in the Lib Dems over the next few months. This new initiative from Ed Davey is not going to go down well with many Party activists, who are already fed up with party policy being made on the hoof by the leadership. There is still a very large "ban the bomb" contingent in the Lib Dems, and they are the ones who deliveer the leaflets. I must say, I was staggered to hear about this on the radio this morning. (As it happens, I think it's OK as a policy, but it's a kick in the erogenous zones for many party activists.)
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
Let’s just make three types of our own nuclear weapons.
Big fat ones from subs like we have now for city destruction.
Smaller ones on planes and ships for big area destruction and then loads of dirty bomb types on drones so everyone shits themselves as they get hard to track and are possible to place in theatre sneakily so that even if the enemy are wiping out our subs and planes they know that nuclear bombs can pop up, Ukraine v Russian oil refinery style, anywhere any time.
Spread the threat, increase the options and increase the consideration from potential enemies.
I feel so sorry for Jamie Oliver - the level of abuse he got from the proto-MAGA types when he tried to introduce his healthy school dinners over there.
I’m greatly enjoying this outbreak of “I agree with Ed?” on PB.
NB. The major problem with the French nuclear deterrent is that their submarine launched ICBMs are (I believe) too thicc (as the kids would put it) to fit in our launch tubes. Completely rebuilding our submarines to accommodate French missiles is probably not a realistic proposition.
We make our own bombs (admittedly to a mostly US design, but we have that design) with our own fissile material & have our own submarines. The thing we don’t make is the missiles & it’s high time we started on our own ICBM program.
Maximum chaos / entertainment option: put Cummings on the job. He’d love it, would probably be quite good at running the program in a Musk-esque fashion. A program run by him wouldn’t cost a fortune & it would annoy the MoD so much that they’d probably agree to whatever you demanded in the hope that it would prevent you putting him in charge of anything else.
(Cumming past Russian links might be an issue with this otherwise great plan possibly? I propose it mostly on the principle of maximum entertainment potential.)
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
I think the points Stodge makes in the first half of his post are going to play out Bigley in the Lib Dems over the next few months. This new initiative from Ed Davey is not going to go down well with many Party activists, who are already fed up with party policy being made on the hoof by the leadership. There is still a very large "ban the bomb" contingent in the Lib Dems, and they are the ones who deliveer the leaflets. I must say, I was staggered to hear about this on the radio this morning. (As it happens, I think it's OK as a policy, but it's a kick in the erogenous zones for many party activists.)
As a Lib Dem leaflet deliver, I'm OK with it. If we are to have a nuclear deterrent, then it should certainly be one that we control.
It takes a certain amount of Davey Derangement syndrome to basically agree with the point that Sir Ed is making and then trash the man in favour of turning declinism into defeatism.
Davey has been way ahead of the curve on security - identifying that Trump is actually a *threat* to British security, and that we need to establish far greater strategic autonomy, whatever the cost. Incidentally Ed Davey has been quite realistic about both what is needed and how much it costs.
While Farage and Badenoch still think the Atlantic alliance can continue unchanged, they are basically irrelevant to the argument. Our primary challenge is Russia, and our primary policy must be the defence of Ukraine- both points that Ed Davey has spoken on at length. If UK resources are to be committed anywhere near Iran, then the US must stop coddling Putin and help Ukraine. If it won't do that, then why should we help the US? Months of insults, threats, tariffs and braggadocio have shown quite clearly that Trump is no ally of ours.
Davey is right and Moonrabbit has tripped over his defeatist prejudice.
Yes on Davey (about Trump) and about prioritising Ukraine - but it doesn't follow that we should be devoting resource to building a new nuclear deterrent.
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 28m US is holding off currently sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz with navy officers saying Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles could turn the area into a kill box for American sailors-WSJ
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Utterly loony. You make duff calls on occasion, but this takes the cake.
I rarely agree with Casino, but Casino is on the money this time.
Yes, Casino is spot on. Britain and France are only a few miles apart so one would suffer equally if the other was nuked; therefore a shared nuclear deterrent makes absolute strategic and economic sense.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Utterly loony. You make duff calls on occasion, but this takes the cake.
I rarely agree with Casino, but Casino is on the money this time.
It's a reflexive remoaner thing to say. You agree because it tickles your political pickle. Unfortunately also happens to be a butt-arse awful idea that puts us in exactly the same situation as 'sharing' the deterrent with the US. France aren't any more beholden to us, or any less independent, or any more a loyal ally, or any more sentimentally attached to us, or any less likely to elect people that you find objectionable, than the US.
I’m greatly enjoying this outbreak of “I agree with Ed?” on PB.
NB. The major problem with the French nuclear deterrent is that their submarine launched ICBMs are (I believe) too thicc (as the kids would put it) to fit in our launch tubes. Completely rebuilding our submarines to accommodate French missiles is probably not a realistic proposition.
We make our own bombs (admittedly to a mostly US design, but we have that design) with our own fissile material & have our own submarines. The thing we don’t make is the missiles & it’s high time we started on our own ICBM program.
Maximum chaos / entertainment option: put Cummings on the job. He’d love it, would probably be quite good at running the program in a Musk-esque fashion. A program run by him wouldn’t cost a fortune & it would annoy the MoD so much that they’d probably agree to whatever you demanded in the hope that it would prevent you putting him in charge of anything else.
(Cumming past Russian links might be an issue with this otherwise great plan possibly? I propose it mostly on the principle of maximum entertainment potential.)
The weapons we build are actually to joint US/UK designs - US version of the weapons integrate the UK features and they were designed by teams with UK members. The French were really upset that we got the designs for non-symmetric primaries for free, for example.
I’m greatly enjoying this outbreak of “I agree with Ed?” on PB.
NB. The major problem with the French nuclear deterrent is that their submarine launched ICBMs are (I believe) too thicc (as the kids would put it) to fit in our launch tubes. Completely rebuilding our submarines to accommodate French missiles is probably not a realistic proposition.
We make our own bombs (admittedly to a mostly US design, but we have that design) with our own fissile material & have our own submarines. The thing we don’t make is the missiles & it’s high time we started on our own ICBM program.
Maximum chaos / entertainment option: put Cummings on the job. He’d love it, would probably be quite good at running the program in a Musk-esque fashion. A program run by him wouldn’t cost a fortune & it would annoy the MoD so much that they’d probably agree to whatever you demanded in the hope that it would prevent you putting him in charge of anything else.
(Cumming past Russian links might be an issue with this otherwise great plan possibly? I propose it mostly on the principle of maximum entertainment potential.)
I'm for task forces being used to get past blobbery in all cases. The MOD and its partners should not be allowed within a mile of developing this.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul says that he is sceptical about a potential widening of the European Union’s Aspides naval mission to the Strait of Hormuz.
Wadephul said that the mission to help commercial shipments pass through the Red Sea was “not effective”.
“And that is why I am very sceptical that extending Aspides to the Strait of Hormuz would provide greater security,”
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 28m US is holding off currently sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz with navy officers saying Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles could turn the area into a kill box for American sailors-WSJ
Ah, so that's why he's asking his allies to send their ships there...
Spurs are in terrible trouble. All that penny pinching under Levy is finally coming home to roost. They frankly don't deserve any better but their magnificent new stadium would be a loss to the EPL.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
Spurs are in terrible trouble. All that penny pinching under Levy is finally coming home to roost. They frankly don't deserve any better but their magnificent new stadium would be a loss to the EPL.
Look at the positives.
It’s a great bonus for the Championship. The second best stadium after St Andrews, @Brixian59, I’m resigned to us not going up.
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 28m US is holding off currently sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz with navy officers saying Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles could turn the area into a kill box for American sailors-WSJ
Ah, so that's why he's asking his allies to send their ships there...
The winning move for Trump here is to impose a blockade himself in light of the dubious deals being done by some countries with Iran. If he closes the straits himself, then it no longer looks like it's putting him in a position of weakness.
Paging @Roger. Have you given us your usual Oscar predictions yet?
I don't see much value out there.
Possibly Chalomee as best actor as most voting was in before his recent gaffe, and in any case the academy may not take his remarks badly (2.84 with BFX)
I would also tip Retirement Plan for animated short (6/1 with Ladbrokes) and The Voice of Hind Rajab for international feature (34 with BFX) as a bit of a longshot, though Sentimental Value is a better film.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
We already have an agency dedicated to the task of deporting illegal immigrants. A friend of mine works for it, though she does spend most of the time lounging around the house at the taxpayers' expense waiting to be called up for an assignment.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
I think the points Stodge makes in the first half of his post are going to play out Bigley in the Lib Dems over the next few months. This new initiative from Ed Davey is not going to go down well with many Party activists, who are already fed up with party policy being made on the hoof by the leadership. There is still a very large "ban the bomb" contingent in the Lib Dems, and they are the ones who deliveer the leaflets. I must say, I was staggered to hear about this on the radio this morning. (As it happens, I think it's OK as a policy, but it's a kick in the erogenous zones for many party activists.)
Perhaps a residual element in the membership but the average LD general election voter is now an upper middle class high earner living in the Home Counties. Most LD seats voted for Cameron in 2015. The ‘ban the bomb’ sandal wearers are now largely in the Greens, so Davey is probably making a sensible point for his core vote who are more anti Trump than anti nuclear deterrent and would be fine sharing the bomb with Macron’s France or getting our own bomb.
Indeed Yougov has 56% of LD 2024 voters wanting to keep nuclear weapons in the UK, higher than the 53% of UK voters overall who want to keep nuclear missiles, just 32% opposed
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
Where does SKS sign, and would they also like an Island?
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
We already have an agency dedicated to the task of deporting illegal immigrants. A friend of mine works for it, though she does spend most of the time lounging around the house at the taxpayers' expense waiting to be called up for an assignment.
No wonder productivity is flat in the Public Sector
Spurs are in terrible trouble. All that penny pinching under Levy is finally coming home to roost. They frankly don't deserve any better but their magnificent new stadium would be a loss to the EPL.
Edit. Sometimes I scare myself.
Leicester are doomed to a further relegation. Yesterday against QPR was our season in a microcosm. 1 nil up then folded pathetically to lose 3/1. This is a team with no fight.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
The it was taken as a Fuck Off Offer at the time - they weren't interested. The assumption was that the French missile industry was worried that there would be UK workshare and hence money/job losses
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
God no. Greater cooperation yes. Command-and-control: no.
I do recall that Yes Minister once let on that the whole point of our nuclear defence was to take on the French in a foreign office that was still somewhat dominated by the Napoleonic wars in its thinking. As usual, there was some truth in the humour.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
I think the points Stodge makes in the first half of his post are going to play out Bigley in the Lib Dems over the next few months. This new initiative from Ed Davey is not going to go down well with many Party activists, who are already fed up with party policy being made on the hoof by the leadership. There is still a very large "ban the bomb" contingent in the Lib Dems, and they are the ones who deliveer the leaflets. I must say, I was staggered to hear about this on the radio this morning. (As it happens, I think it's OK as a policy, but it's a kick in the erogenous zones for many party activists.)
Perhaps a residual element in the membership but the average LD general election voter is now an upper middle class high earner living in the Home Counties. Most LD seats voted for Cameron in 2015. The ‘ban the bomb’ sandal wearers are now largely in the Greens, so Davey is probably making a sensible point for his core vote who are more anti Trump than anti nuclear deterrent and would be fine sharing the bomb with Macron’s France or getting our own bomb.
Indeed Yougov has 56% of LD 2024 voters wanting to keep nuclear weapons in the UK, just 32% opposed
It isn't just the policy, which does have a certain internal logic albeit at vast cost if to remain submarine based. It is the making up of such policy on the hoof without it being decided by the membership. LDs do not like that.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
I think the points Stodge makes in the first half of his post are going to play out Bigley in the Lib Dems over the next few months. This new initiative from Ed Davey is not going to go down well with many Party activists, who are already fed up with party policy being made on the hoof by the leadership. There is still a very large "ban the bomb" contingent in the Lib Dems, and they are the ones who deliveer the leaflets. I must say, I was staggered to hear about this on the radio this morning. (As it happens, I think it's OK as a policy, but it's a kick in the erogenous zones for many party activists.)
Perhaps a residual element in the membership but the average LD general election voter is now an upper middle class high earner living in the Home Counties. Most LD seats voted for Cameron in 2015. The ‘ban the bomb’ sandal wearers are now largely in the Greens, so Davey is probably making a sensible point for his core vote who are more anti Trump than anti nuclear deterrent and would be fine sharing the bomb with Macron’s France or getting our own bomb.
Indeed Yougov has 56% of LD 2024 voters wanting to keep nuclear weapons in the UK, just 32% opposed
It isn't just the policy, which does have a certain internal logic albeit at vast cost if to remain submarine based. It is the making up of such policy on the hoof without it being decided by the membership. LDs do not like that.
A few LD old guard activists maybe, the average LD general election voter now could not care less and will back Davey
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you.
I see no point in switching a dependency upon the Oval Office, with a dependency upon the Elysee Palace.
There is no point in switching a dependency upon a potential Trump, with a dependency upon a potential Le Pen.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
I think the points Stodge makes in the first half of his post are going to play out Bigley in the Lib Dems over the next few months. This new initiative from Ed Davey is not going to go down well with many Party activists, who are already fed up with party policy being made on the hoof by the leadership. There is still a very large "ban the bomb" contingent in the Lib Dems, and they are the ones who deliveer the leaflets. I must say, I was staggered to hear about this on the radio this morning. (As it happens, I think it's OK as a policy, but it's a kick in the erogenous zones for many party activists.)
You better believe this was also true 40 years ago.
in the dim and distant, the Liberal Assembly was the policy making body for the Party - the leadership had to enact the policy decisions of the activists at Assembly.
That went with the Alliance and it's not hard to see why - can you imagine the Conservatives allowing their activists to decide party policy or even Labour?
Student fees was another example of an activist-led policy which caused nothing about trouble. Candidates in strong University seats or student areas happily signed up to the NUS pledge not to bring in fees and that got LD MPs elected but of course when the brown and smelly stuff hit the fan the party was in big trouble - the analogy was Conservative candidates trying to bounce John Major on the Euro in 1997.
Activists have ideas but they are often extreme ideas, bad ideas or impractical ideas. This is particularly true of parties with little actual Government experience.
Stalin was very big on Party discipline as I recall and while I wouldn't advocate his methods of imposing that discipline, sometimes activists have to be reminded the lunatics don't run the asylum and policies have to be, more than anything else, able to be sold to the electorate.
I remember while the Alliance was agonising about defence, the Conservatives were getting excited about Poll Tax and wanting it introduced sooner and everywhere - remind me how that went.
The old timers complained the modern LD Conferences (not Assemblies) were all about suits and image - yes, they were. All parties should have a lively fringe where political debate can happen but on the Conference Floor loyalty and discipline has to be what is portrayed to the public who dislike disunited parties.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Utterly loony. You make duff calls on occasion, but this takes the cake.
I rarely agree with Casino, but Casino is on the money this time.
Yes, Casino is spot on. Britain and France are only a few miles apart so one would suffer equally if the other was nuked; therefore a shared nuclear deterrent makes absolute strategic and economic sense.
The local politics of that have the potential to be deeply problematic in both countries, though*. Technology sharing - and perhaps coordination of times on patrol (which could potentially save costs) - could make a lot of sense.
Spurs are in terrible trouble. All that penny pinching under Levy is finally coming home to roost. They frankly don't deserve any better but their magnificent new stadium would be a loss to the EPL.
Edit. Sometimes I scare myself.
But not as much trouble as they were in a few minutes ago. Or as much as I was, having backed them to draw today.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
Alien to our democracy (and to America's democracy too for that matter) is bands of armed thugs hauling people off the street because they look a bit foreign, putting them in camps that could reasonably be described as concentration camps, and then deporting them, all without any due process. These include many actual American citizens and children separated from their parents, in some cases deliberately separated.
When Badenoch says her Removals Force will be modelled on the successful ICE, maybe she means it won't be modelled on it. I see no reason to give her any benefit of the non-existent doubt.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
We already have an agency dedicated to the task of deporting illegal immigrants. A friend of mine works for it, though she does spend most of the time lounging around the house at the taxpayers' expense waiting to be called up for an assignment.
No wonder productivity is flat in the Public Sector
There is a story in the Dundee Courier that frankly makes you despair. They latched onto it because the Police were fined £66k for breaching the right to privacy of an officer who claimed she had been raped by a colleague. The police had downloaded everything on her phone, including nudes of her, and given all of it to the lawyers and the officer accused.
What this story has now established is that all of this happened during Covid. The police officer accused of rape has been suspended on full pay for more than 5 years, as has the officer making the allegation. Probably 4-5 hundred thousand wasted because the police simply cannot make basic decisions. If there is sufficient evidence against the accused he should have been prosecuted (and dismissed) 5 years ago. If there isn't a decision should have been made and he should have been sent back to work. Either way utter incompetence which should surely have resulted on the entire relevant HR department being sacked (as is normally required in these circumstances) and everyone in the managerial chain disciplined and demoted.
But, of course, none of that will happen. Its only public money after all.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you.
I see no point in switching a dependency upon the Oval Office, with a dependency upon the Elysee Palace.
There is no point in switching a dependency upon a potential Trump, with a dependency upon a potential Le Pen.
Just develop our own version and move on.
And this is a far from uncommon occasion where I disagree with both of you.
On the surface this is an arcane argument between statistics anoraks. In reality Reform are troubled. Their real problem being not YouGov - who like everyone else have a method to analyse the raw data - but the Reform downward curve which is, I think, universal among polling companies.
Can we expect a Reform 'Polling companies lie' campaign in true Trump style?
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you.
I see no point in switching a dependency upon the Oval Office, with a dependency upon the Elysee Palace.
There is no point in switching a dependency upon a potential Trump, with a dependency upon a potential Le Pen.
Just develop our own version and move on.
And this is a far from uncommon occasion where I disagree with both of you.
How is replacing Trump with Le Pen an improvement?
How is replacing the Oval Office with the Elysee Palace an improvement?
Either we desire an independent, nuclear deterrent or we don't. If we do, then logic dictates it should be independent. If we don't, we may as well not have it.
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 @WarMonitor3 · 28m US is holding off currently sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz with navy officers saying Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles could turn the area into a kill box for American sailors-WSJ
Ah, so that's why he's asking his allies to send their ships there...
The winning move for Trump here is to impose a blockade himself in light of the dubious deals being done by some countries with Iran. If he closes the straits himself, then it no longer looks like it's putting him in a position of weakness.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
Spurs are in terrible trouble. All that penny pinching under Levy is finally coming home to roost. They frankly don't deserve any better but their magnificent new stadium would be a loss to the EPL.
Edit. Sometimes I scare myself.
But not as much trouble as they were in a few minutes ago. Or as much as I was, having backed them to draw today.
If you turn up in the Championship with a load of self entitled, half halted, southern softies, you're on going one way.
DOWN agaun
Very rarely did Spurs ever at St Andrews, always mentally weak and unable to deal with the atmosphere and physicality.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
How do you combine the effort and share costs without creating dependencies?
And why would France agree to that, when they already have their own independent system?
Either we want an independent system, or we don't. If we do, we should develop it, independently. We have the technology, the materials, all we lack is the manufacturing so get on with it and move on.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
I think the points Stodge makes in the first half of his post are going to play out Bigley in the Lib Dems over the next few months. This new initiative from Ed Davey is not going to go down well with many Party activists, who are already fed up with party policy being made on the hoof by the leadership. There is still a very large "ban the bomb" contingent in the Lib Dems, and they are the ones who deliveer the leaflets. I must say, I was staggered to hear about this on the radio this morning. (As it happens, I think it's OK as a policy, but it's a kick in the erogenous zones for many party activists.)
You better believe this was also true 40 years ago.
in the dim and distant, the Liberal Assembly was the policy making body for the Party - the leadership had to enact the policy decisions of the activists at Assembly.
That went with the Alliance and it's not hard to see why - can you imagine the Conservatives allowing their activists to decide party policy or even Labour?
Student fees was another example of an activist-led policy which caused nothing about trouble. Candidates in strong University seats or student areas happily signed up to the NUS pledge not to bring in fees and that got LD MPs elected but of course when the brown and smelly stuff hit the fan the party was in big trouble - the analogy was Conservative candidates trying to bounce John Major on the Euro in 1997.
Activists have ideas but they are often extreme ideas, bad ideas or impractical ideas. This is particularly true of parties with little actual Government experience.
Stalin was very big on Party discipline as I recall and while I wouldn't advocate his methods of imposing that discipline, sometimes activists have to be reminded the lunatics don't run the asylum and policies have to be, more than anything else, able to be sold to the electorate.
I remember while the Alliance was agonising about defence, the Conservatives were getting excited about Poll Tax and wanting it introduced sooner and everywhere - remind me how that went.
The old timers complained the modern LD Conferences (not Assemblies) were all about suits and image - yes, they were. All parties should have a lively fringe where political debate can happen but on the Conference Floor loyalty and discipline has to be what is portrayed to the public who dislike disunited parties.
It seems impolite to pry, but I wonder, did you have the same views about the Assembly/Conference, and its need to defer to the Leadership, when you were in Eastbourne all those years ago?
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you.
I see no point in switching a dependency upon the Oval Office, with a dependency upon the Elysee Palace.
There is no point in switching a dependency upon a potential Trump, with a dependency upon a potential Le Pen.
Just develop our own version and move on.
And this is a far from uncommon occasion where I disagree with both of you.
How is replacing Trump with Le Pen an improvement?
How is replacing the Oval Office with the Elysee Palace an improvement?
Either we desire an independent, nuclear deterrent or we don't. If we do, then logic dictates it should be independent. If we don't, we may as well not have it.
The difference is that the US could hang us out to dry. The geographical closeness of Britain and France literally means that a nuclear attack on one is an attack on the other - two entirely different dynamics at play.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
I think the points Stodge makes in the first half of his post are going to play out Bigley in the Lib Dems over the next few months. This new initiative from Ed Davey is not going to go down well with many Party activists, who are already fed up with party policy being made on the hoof by the leadership. There is still a very large "ban the bomb" contingent in the Lib Dems, and they are the ones who deliveer the leaflets. I must say, I was staggered to hear about this on the radio this morning. (As it happens, I think it's OK as a policy, but it's a kick in the erogenous zones for many party activists.)
You better believe this was also true 40 years ago.
in the dim and distant, the Liberal Assembly was the policy making body for the Party - the leadership had to enact the policy decisions of the activists at Assembly.
That went with the Alliance and it's not hard to see why - can you imagine the Conservatives allowing their activists to decide party policy or even Labour?
Student fees was another example of an activist-led policy which caused nothing about trouble. Candidates in strong University seats or student areas happily signed up to the NUS pledge not to bring in fees and that got LD MPs elected but of course when the brown and smelly stuff hit the fan the party was in big trouble - the analogy was Conservative candidates trying to bounce John Major on the Euro in 1997.
Activists have ideas but they are often extreme ideas, bad ideas or impractical ideas. This is particularly true of parties with little actual Government experience.
Stalin was very big on Party discipline as I recall and while I wouldn't advocate his methods of imposing that discipline, sometimes activists have to be reminded the lunatics don't run the asylum and policies have to be, more than anything else, able to be sold to the electorate.
I remember while the Alliance was agonising about defence, the Conservatives were getting excited about Poll Tax and wanting it introduced sooner and everywhere - remind me how that went.
The old timers complained the modern LD Conferences (not Assemblies) were all about suits and image - yes, they were. All parties should have a lively fringe where political debate can happen but on the Conference Floor loyalty and discipline has to be what is portrayed to the public who dislike disunited parties.
There’s a definite generational divide in the Lib Dems. The older members (who do indeed make up most of the leafleters and constituency party activists) are reflexively anti nuclear, pro-green, and economically relatively left.
The youngsters (with some exceptions) remain very - probably more - environmentally conscious, less economically left, and definitely less anti-nuclear. They have very much a liberal Western attitude to foreign policy, ie Ukraine an absolute priority, Putin and Trump bad guys. On the Middle East the party seems reasonably united - critical of Netanyahu but not bought into the communitarian nonsense of the left and right.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
Where does SKS sign, and would they also like an Island?
I'm sure they'd refuse that. They wouldn't want us to give them any Sark.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
How do you combine the effort and share costs without creating dependencies?
And why would France agree to that, when they already have their own independent system?
Either we want an independent system, or we don't. If we do, we should develop it, independently. We have the technology, the materials, all we lack is the manufacturing so get on with it and move on.
I think we should call it a dependency, because it actually is. But it might be a dependency we risk accept. The point is, you can't cover all the bases and scenarios, so we need to manage risk in an affordable way.
We might instead stick with the American delivery system and take the risk of them preventing us using the weapon because money going towards redundant systems is better spent elsewhere. As I mentioned earlier, the focus should mainly be on capability.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you.
I see no point in switching a dependency upon the Oval Office, with a dependency upon the Elysee Palace.
There is no point in switching a dependency upon a potential Trump, with a dependency upon a potential Le Pen.
Just develop our own version and move on.
And this is a far from uncommon occasion where I disagree with both of you.
How is replacing Trump with Le Pen an improvement?
How is replacing the Oval Office with the Elysee Palace an improvement?
Either we desire an independent, nuclear deterrent or we don't. If we do, then logic dictates it should be independent. If we don't, we may as well not have it.
The difference is that the US could hang us out to dry. The geographical closeness of Britain and France literally means that a nuclear attack on one is an attack on the other - two entirely different dynamics at play.
Independent remains better. We can both cooperate to extend our nuclear umbrella over Europe, but having two operationally independent deterrents makes Europe as a whole much better protected than under one combined umbrella.
We do need to think about a future France under either a Bardella, or a very Gaulliste patriot who considers Britain Albion Perfide. And they need to worry about a Britain captured by Reform or worse, and handing over secrets to the Russians.
Spurs are in terrible trouble. All that penny pinching under Levy is finally coming home to roost. They frankly don't deserve any better but their magnificent new stadium would be a loss to the EPL.
Edit. Sometimes I scare myself.
But not as much trouble as they were in a few minutes ago. Or as much as I was, having backed them to draw today.
If you turn up in the Championship with a load of self entitled, half halted, southern softies, you're on going one way.
DOWN agaun
Very rarely did Spurs ever at St Andrews, always mentally weak and unable to deal with the atmosphere and physicality.
Been a soft touch team for too long.
Bill Nicholson, Dave Mackay would be ashamed
Dave Mackay, as hard as granite.
Managed us, signed some real dross as well as Trevor Matthewson & Dennis Bailey.
When I was mad keen I went to a pre season friendly at VS Rugby. Amazed how short he was
Using "Moon Rabbits" philosophy we might be better becoming the 51st state of the USA!!!! Then as part of the USA, electing President and members to Congress and Senate we would be part and parcel of the north American, now North Atlantic protective shield. Who would agree to this? Just saying.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
Alien to our democracy (and to America's democracy too for that matter) is bands of armed thugs hauling people off the street because they look a bit foreign, putting them in camps that could reasonably be described as concentration camps, and then deporting them, all without any due process. These include many actual American citizens and children separated from their parents, in some cases deliberately separated.
When Badenoch says her Removals Force will be modelled on the successful ICE, maybe she means it won't be modelled on it. I see no reason to give her any benefit of the non-existent doubt.
Reform and the Tories apparently want to campaign on the issue without and real discussion of the practical implications.
Having labelled it "ICE" they are going to have to be rather more explicit about what exactly they are proposing.
Farage got away with smoke and mirrors in the Brexit campaign. He need to be nailed to the floor this time around.
Using "Moon Rabbits" philosophy we might be better becoming the 51st state of the USA!!!! Then as part of the USA, electing President and members to Congress and Senate we would be part and parcel of the north American, now North Atlantic protective shield. Who would agree to this? Just saying.
Please! The 51st through 54th states!
(Although England would surely be very considerably larger than even California, no?)
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you.
I see no point in switching a dependency upon the Oval Office, with a dependency upon the Elysee Palace.
There is no point in switching a dependency upon a potential Trump, with a dependency upon a potential Le Pen.
Just develop our own version and move on.
And this is a far from uncommon occasion where I disagree with both of you.
How is replacing Trump with Le Pen an improvement?
How is replacing the Oval Office with the Elysee Palace an improvement?
Either we desire an independent, nuclear deterrent or we don't. If we do, then logic dictates it should be independent. If we don't, we may as well not have it.
The difference is that the US could hang us out to dry. The geographical closeness of Britain and France literally means that a nuclear attack on one is an attack on the other - two entirely different dynamics at play.
If you really believe that (I don't) then we may as well not have our own deterrent and hide under the French umbrella.
But its not the case. While some radiation could spread to eg Calais if eg London were bombed (let alone anything more distant like the NW, or Scotland, or Plymouth) it would not remotely be the same as a direct attack on France.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
How do you combine the effort and share costs without creating dependencies?
And why would France agree to that, when they already have their own independent system?
Either we want an independent system, or we don't. If we do, we should develop it, independently. We have the technology, the materials, all we lack is the manufacturing so get on with it and move on.
I think we should call it a dependency, because it actually is. But it might be a dependency we risk accept. The point is, you can't cover all the bases and scenarios, so we need to manage risk in an affordable way.
We might instead stick with the American delivery system and take the risk of them preventing us using the weapon because money going towards redundant systems is better spent elsewhere. As I mentioned earlier, the focus should mainly be on capability.
A cruise missile system on land, air and sea could be truly independent at more reasonable cost than a submarine based system.
Sure, it may be more vulnerable to an all out nuclear attack, but any attacking state doing that would be gambling that they get them all. It would also be gambling that when its missiles are launched the USA/France/China know that those missiles are aimed exclusively at us. If any state doubted it, they would launch an immediate counterstrike.
A submarine based system may have more survivability (assuming tracking and drone systems do not find it), but is rather after the event, only launching when the UK was a smoking wasteland populated only by cockroaches.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
Alien to our democracy (and to America's democracy too for that matter) is bands of armed thugs hauling people off the street because they look a bit foreign, putting them in camps that could reasonably be described as concentration camps, and then deporting them, all without any due process. These include many actual American citizens and children separated from their parents, in some cases deliberately separated.
When Badenoch says her Removals Force will be modelled on the successful ICE, maybe she means it won't be modelled on it. I see no reason to give her any benefit of the non-existent doubt.
Reform and the Tories apparently want to campaign on the issue without and real discussion of the practical implications.
Having labelled it "ICE" they are going to have to be rather more explicit about what exactly they are proposing.
Farage got away with smoke and mirrors in the Brexit campaign. He need to be nailed to the floor this time around.
Reform and Tories aligning themselves so closely to Trump on Ice and Iran will in time be when both lost the next GE
LD and Green will claim theyd never have touched him, had they been in power we'd have been hammered for Tariffs.
Labour hung on to his coattails long enough to get best tariffs on the planet. Starmer refusing to act with aggressive intent on Iran came at just the right time, help by blood thirsty Farage and Badenoch following Trump like poodles might be too late to save Starmer.
As policy positioning though it could give labour 5% Poll boost at least within 12 months, especially with any new Leader bounce.
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
How do you combine the effort and share costs without creating dependencies?
And why would France agree to that, when they already have their own independent system?
Either we want an independent system, or we don't. If we do, we should develop it, independently. We have the technology, the materials, all we lack is the manufacturing so get on with it and move on.
Because their own system is due replacement.
Collaboration without dependency on either side isn't impossible (though this is the French we're talking about).
There's certainly a large overlap in interests when it comes to deterrence, and it would be entirely possible (as an example) to coordinate on times at sea.
No need to share operational details beyond that, but it might considerably reduce the cost of maintaining a continuous at sea deterrent for both countries. Should we fall out, we simply cease that coordination.
Similar considerations might apply to tech and other cost sharing.
Again, this is the organisation Farage and (by her own account) Badenoch wish to emulate.
ICE detain husband of Democratic congressional candidate—who is also a disabled U.S. Army veteran.
He is wheelchair bound—after suffering severe injury during training for deployment in Iraq.
Agents arrested him one interview and a ceremony away from becoming a U.S. citizen.
Zahid Chaudhry has been awarded multiple medals for his service: ▪︎Army Service Ribbon ▪︎Global War on Terrorism Service Medal ▪︎Armed Forces Reserve Medal ▪︎Reserve Achievement Medal ▪︎National Defense Service Medal ▪︎Recruitment Achievement Medal ▪︎Army Strength Management Award
After 124 days in detention a federal judge finally ruled he had been wrongfully detained.
This is ridiculous. He’s not cheating the system. He’s following it. He’s playing by the rules and lost four months of his life.
Personally I find it ridiculous that because both Badenoch and Farage have said quite rightly that if we are going to deport the numbers that everyone agrees that we should (or have I been imagining Labour supporters critiquing the Boriswave), we will need an ICE-style organisation, that this apparently translates to replicating ICE's every foible. This is 12-year old level debating.
What are these numbers that "everyone agrees" ? Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
How is it alien to 'our democracy' to deport people who have no right to be here? And if it isn't alien to do that, if the scale of numbers needing to be deported, and being unwilling to be deported demands it, why would it not be a good idea to have an agency dedicated to the task? The only question is the one Taz poses - whether it is wise to make the direct comparison to ICE, or whether it gives fodder to idiots. I don't know the answer to that. I suspect the idiots would be making the comparison and drawing the idiotic inferences even if Badenoch and Farage were calling our version the cuddly lift home service.
Alien to our democracy (and to America's democracy too for that matter) is bands of armed thugs hauling people off the street because they look a bit foreign, putting them in camps that could reasonably be described as concentration camps, and then deporting them, all without any due process. These include many actual American citizens and children separated from their parents, in some cases deliberately separated.
When Badenoch says her Removals Force will be modelled on the successful ICE, maybe she means it won't be modelled on it. I see no reason to give her any benefit of the non-existent doubt.
Reform and the Tories apparently want to campaign on the issue without and real discussion of the practical implications.
Having labelled it "ICE" they are going to have to be rather more explicit about what exactly they are proposing.
Farage got away with smoke and mirrors in the Brexit campaign. He need to be nailed to the floor this time around.
Reform and Tories aligning themselves so closely to Trump on Ice and Iran will in time be when both lost the next GE
LD and Green will claim theyd never have touched him, had they been in power we'd have been hammered for Tariffs.
Labour hung on to his coattails long enough to get best tariffs on the planet. Starmer refusing to act with aggressive intent on Iran came at just the right time, help by blood thirsty Farage and Badenoch following Trump like poodles might be too late to save Starmer.
As policy positioning though it could give labour 5% Poll boost at least within 12 months, especially with any new Leader bounce.
Starmer could yet capitulate. Don't forget his political antennae are incredibly ineffective.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
I think the points Stodge makes in the first half of his post are going to play out Bigley in the Lib Dems over the next few months. This new initiative from Ed Davey is not going to go down well with many Party activists, who are already fed up with party policy being made on the hoof by the leadership. There is still a very large "ban the bomb" contingent in the Lib Dems, and they are the ones who deliveer the leaflets. I must say, I was staggered to hear about this on the radio this morning. (As it happens, I think it's OK as a policy, but it's a kick in the erogenous zones for many party activists.)
You better believe this was also true 40 years ago.
in the dim and distant, the Liberal Assembly was the policy making body for the Party - the leadership had to enact the policy decisions of the activists at Assembly.
That went with the Alliance and it's not hard to see why - can you imagine the Conservatives allowing their activists to decide party policy or even Labour?
Student fees was another example of an activist-led policy which caused nothing about trouble. Candidates in strong University seats or student areas happily signed up to the NUS pledge not to bring in fees and that got LD MPs elected but of course when the brown and smelly stuff hit the fan the party was in big trouble - the analogy was Conservative candidates trying to bounce John Major on the Euro in 1997.
Activists have ideas but they are often extreme ideas, bad ideas or impractical ideas. This is particularly true of parties with little actual Government experience.
Stalin was very big on Party discipline as I recall and while I wouldn't advocate his methods of imposing that discipline, sometimes activists have to be reminded the lunatics don't run the asylum and policies have to be, more than anything else, able to be sold to the electorate.
I remember while the Alliance was agonising about defence, the Conservatives were getting excited about Poll Tax and wanting it introduced sooner and everywhere - remind me how that went.
The old timers complained the modern LD Conferences (not Assemblies) were all about suits and image - yes, they were. All parties should have a lively fringe where political debate can happen but on the Conference Floor loyalty and discipline has to be what is portrayed to the public who dislike disunited parties.
It seems impolite to pry, but I wonder, did you have the same views about the Assembly/Conference, and its need to defer to the Leadership, when you were in Eastbourne all those years ago?
There was a lot of heat and passion in that hall that day but even then I could see how much potential damage voting down the motion proposed by the leadership was going to do.
The writers from the Mail and the Telegraph were only too quick to say how wonderful an afternoon it had been for Norman Tebbit who was Conservative chairman at the time.
The tension between going with that you believe and what was politically beneficial was acute - I was far form convinced even if we did pass the motion, the questions about the differences in defence policy between the SDP and Liberals would have gone away.
It was a big part of my personal political education and a big lesson about the realities and practicalities of politics and political campaigning.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
Indeed and with fast developing technology the ability to still farm on the same land is a win win
The serious alternative is to probably share a nuclear deterrent system with France.
Yes, I think that is the obvious solution. Europe needs a credible nuclear deterrent to protect itself from the hegemoni as Carney described them. Doing it alone is possible but prohibitively expensive. We need a partner and that partner can no longer be the USA.
When the original Trident decision was being made, back in the 80s, the French were asked for their terms for cooperation.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare 2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US 3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation. 4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
And that was a deeply shite offer. Typical France. They are not fun to negotiate with. But we both have too much to lose.
Are you actually f*ing serious?
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
I don't suggest dependency. I suggest a combined effort with costs shared.
How do you combine the effort and share costs without creating dependencies?
And why would France agree to that, when they already have their own independent system?
Either we want an independent system, or we don't. If we do, we should develop it, independently. We have the technology, the materials, all we lack is the manufacturing so get on with it and move on.
I think we should call it a dependency, because it actually is. But it might be a dependency we risk accept. The point is, you can't cover all the bases and scenarios, so we need to manage risk in an affordable way.
We might instead stick with the American delivery system and take the risk of them preventing us using the weapon because money going towards redundant systems is better spent elsewhere. As I mentioned earlier, the focus should mainly be on capability.
A cruise missile system on land, air and sea could be truly independent at more reasonable cost than a submarine based system.
Sure, it may be more vulnerable to an all out nuclear attack, but any attacking state doing that would be gambling that they get them all. It would also be gambling that when its missiles are launched the USA/France/China know that those missiles are aimed exclusively at us. If any state doubted it, they would launch an immediate counterstrike.
A submarine based system may have more survivability (assuming tracking and drone systems do not find it), but is rather after the event, only launching when the UK was a smoking wasteland populated only by cockroaches.
Yes. Way outside my knowledge area, but I suspect relatively cheap delivery mechanisms, eg airborne, would be the way to mitigate the risk of the Americans not playing ball, and that might be something we do with the French as a pan European project. You might not want to commit entirely to airborne delivery but it gives you an option for risk mitigation.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
Anyone who’s visited Almeria province (or ajuntamiento or whatever they call it) will have seen what ugly land use means. There are multiple hundreds of square km of “plasticos”, polytunnels as far as the eye can see, growing fresh fruit and veg for us Northern Europeans. There are whole hillsides riddled with layers of thin plastic. Truly the Anthropocene epoch (not era: heaven forbid!).
Ever eaten lettuce outside the period from May to September? Then you’re a part of the plasticos.
Set against that, a few South facing slopes covered in PV panels with sheep grazing under them are really nothing.
Big energy curtailment day today. Current marginal elec price is negative: -16.67.
A day where if we’d managed to sort transmission, and electrified heating and transport more quickly, we’d be happily looking on at the Straits of Hormuz with a sense of detachment.
Storage is the big item here, I think.
When solar + storage drops a bit further - maybe 2-5 years - it will be the cheapest option. I'm talking 12 hours of storage, by the way.
And before the "using up farmland" nonsense starts a - a chap I know whose converting to solar farming doesn't even dig footings for the panel frames - they are held down with weights, just sitting on the ground. At first they used concrete blocks - now he uses rock gabions. Just a mesh cage attached to the frame leg. Put the frame in place, pour in rocks....
He runs sheep in and around the panels.
Even the power electronics are put in a small shed that's bolted to a concrete slab that's just placed on the ground.
I did the calculation and IRC land equivalent to 0.5% of current farmland would cover the entire electricity demand of the UK through solar - not that anyone would do that of course.
The supposedly "impressive" Coutinho is one of those tilting at that particular windmill, so to speak.
Interesting note re Farmers.
A number round Devon reducing Cattle, increasing lamb and pork as can sit along side solar farms
Apart from solar having a very marginal requirement on land that could be used for farming, I don't even understand why people object in principle. A field used to generate electricity is a highly productive field.
Comments
https://x.com/forster_k/status/2033165202653352214?s=61
Davey has been way ahead of the curve on security - identifying that Trump is actually a *threat* to British security, and that we need to establish far greater strategic autonomy, whatever the cost. Incidentally Ed Davey has been quite realistic about both what is needed and how much it costs.
While Farage and Badenoch still think the Atlantic alliance can continue unchanged, they are basically irrelevant to the argument. Our primary challenge is Russia, and our primary policy must be the defence of Ukraine- both points that Ed Davey has spoken on at length. If UK resources are to be committed anywhere near Iran, then the US must stop coddling Putin and help Ukraine. If it won't do that, then why should we help the US? Months of insults, threats, tariffs and braggadocio have shown quite clearly that Trump is no ally of ours.
Davey is right and Moonrabbit has tripped over his defeatist prejudice.
I was in the hall at Eastbourne that Tuesday afternoon in 1986 when the Alliance basically committed suicide. I don't think I heard a more passionate debate in all my time as a Liberal and Liberal Democrat.
David Owen had spoken the day before and in not his finest speech argued for the Liberals to back the pro-deterrent policy but for the Liberals this was highly emotive. Those especially from the Methodist and Quaker sides of the party could not accept nuclear deterrence and wanted unilateral disarmament.
The leadership tried to rally the party to the pro-deterrence side and I've always wondered whether, had he spoken in the debate, David Penhaligon could have made the difference.
The fundamental problem which no amount of fudge could obscure, was the irreconciliable difference between those who supported nuclear weapons and had left a pro-disarmament Labour Party to form the SDP (that was one of the totemic policies, Europe was another) and those Liberals who for reasons of conscience wanted disarmament.
From a personal perspective, I was torn throughout the 80s on this - I came to realise it was much more nuanced (as it always is). Having the Bomb and being ostensibly prepared to use it had kept the peace and brought prosperity to western Europe. Had there been no nuclear weapons, we would either have had to maintain a huge conventional force in Europe on relied on chemical/biological weapons which would have been equally effective in terms of destroying the human part of civilisation though probably less effective in terms of infrastructure.
The fact civilisation (in all its forms) ends when the missiles are fired is sobering in extremis for all sides. I think the scenario in Threads is actually optimistic for post-war Britain - why would anyone seek to reduce humanity to that? I think the Trumps, Putins, Xis and all the others with access to "the button" enjoy the trappings of life too much to risk losing it all and, for what, to spend the rest of existence in a bunker?
Those who talk glibly about "dropping a nuke on Tehran" forget the consequences of letting that particular genie out of the bottle.
If I was somehow propelled to Downing St (and thank you all for your kind suggestions) then I'd throw modest amounts of money into all sorts of projects, and I'd cut out entirely the big numbers. The rail bosses would be back after a while, and eventually agree to a trade whereby the taxpayer had to buy them a packet of crisps.
Quality PB stuff.
Trump is obviously a loose cannon and an unreliable ally, at best.
If it was branded differently it makes it less triggering. I have no problem, unlike the ‘open door to all’ Lib Dem’s and Greens, with people who have no right to be here being deported. I suspect most feel the same.
Which "foibles" would you personally eschew ? (Most are inherent in the organisation; if you don't want them, you don't want an ICD style organisation.)
Childish debating is pretend that to explicitly choose an organisation as clearly alien to our democracy as ICE as a model should somehow be exempt from ridicule and contempt.
https://x.com/seckennedy/status/2033209700041306134?s=61
Big fat ones from subs like we have now for city destruction.
Smaller ones on planes and ships for big area destruction and then loads of dirty bomb types on drones so everyone shits themselves as they get hard to track and are possible to place in theatre sneakily so that even if the enemy are wiping out our subs and planes they know that nuclear bombs can pop up, Ukraine v Russian oil refinery style, anywhere any time.
Spread the threat, increase the options and increase the consideration from potential enemies.
https://x.com/amy_siskind/status/2032977589044674653?s=61
NB. The major problem with the French nuclear deterrent is that their submarine launched ICBMs are (I believe) too thicc (as the kids would put it) to fit in our launch tubes. Completely rebuilding our submarines to accommodate French missiles is probably not a realistic proposition.
We make our own bombs (admittedly to a mostly US design, but we have that design) with our own fissile material & have our own submarines. The thing we don’t make is the missiles & it’s high time we started on our own ICBM program.
Maximum chaos / entertainment option: put Cummings on the job. He’d love it, would probably be quite good at running the program in a Musk-esque fashion. A program run by him wouldn’t cost a fortune & it would annoy the MoD so much that they’d probably agree to whatever you demanded in the hope that it would prevent you putting him in charge of anything else.
(Cumming past Russian links might be an issue with this otherwise great plan possibly? I propose it mostly on the principle of maximum entertainment potential.)
@WarMonitor3
·
28m
US is holding off currently sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz with navy officers saying Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles could turn the area into a kill box for American sailors-WSJ
On this day in 44BC Julius Caesar was assassinated
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul says that he is sceptical about a potential widening of the European Union’s Aspides naval mission to the Strait of Hormuz.
Wadephul said that the mission to help commercial shipments pass through the Red Sea was “not effective”.
“And that is why I am very sceptical that extending Aspides to the Strait of Hormuz would provide greater security,”
Edit. Sometimes I scare myself.
The French offer was
1) All the missiles would be built in France. No workshare
2) UK would share all nuclear weapons design data in violation of the agreement with the US
3) The UK would turn over a Polaris missile to France for examination - another violation.
4) The cost per missile would higher than Trident
It’s a great bonus for the Championship. The second best stadium after St Andrews, @Brixian59, I’m resigned to us not going up.
Possibly Chalomee as best actor as most voting was in before his recent gaffe, and in any case the academy may not take his remarks badly (2.84 with BFX)
I would also tip Retirement Plan for animated short (6/1 with Ladbrokes) and The Voice of Hind Rajab for international feature (34 with BFX) as a bit of a longshot, though Sentimental Value is a better film.
Indeed Yougov has 56% of LD 2024 voters wanting to keep nuclear weapons in the UK, higher than the 53% of UK voters overall who want to keep nuclear missiles, just 32% opposed
https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20240122-c4fed-1
Currently 2.3 at BFX for relegation.
I don't see much point in replacing a dependency upon America with a dependency upon France.
Either we should develop our own independent capabilities, or we may as well scrap the damned thing.
The whole issue is that our deterrent is dependent on a foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is 'crazy' enough to elect people we don't like, and your whizzbang idea to solve this is that we cobble together a new partnership, with foreign power, with its own democracy, with differing foreign policy aims, and that is crazy enough to elect the National Front.
Jesus wept.
Pollster will change how it shows results after Reform leader accused it of being ‘deceptive’" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/03/15/yougov-backs-down-row-nigel-farage/
I see no point in switching a dependency upon the Oval Office, with a dependency upon the Elysee Palace.
There is no point in switching a dependency upon a potential Trump, with a dependency upon a potential Le Pen.
Just develop our own version and move on.
in the dim and distant, the Liberal Assembly was the policy making body for the Party - the leadership had to enact the policy decisions of the activists at Assembly.
That went with the Alliance and it's not hard to see why - can you imagine the Conservatives allowing their activists to decide party policy or even Labour?
Student fees was another example of an activist-led policy which caused nothing about trouble. Candidates in strong University seats or student areas happily signed up to the NUS pledge not to bring in fees and that got LD MPs elected but of course when the brown and smelly stuff hit the fan the party was in big trouble - the analogy was Conservative candidates trying to bounce John Major on the Euro in 1997.
Activists have ideas but they are often extreme ideas, bad ideas or impractical ideas. This is particularly true of parties with little actual Government experience.
Stalin was very big on Party discipline as I recall and while I wouldn't advocate his methods of imposing that discipline, sometimes activists have to be reminded the lunatics don't run the asylum and policies have to be, more than anything else, able to be sold to the electorate.
I remember while the Alliance was agonising about defence, the Conservatives were getting excited about Poll Tax and wanting it introduced sooner and everywhere - remind me how that went.
The old timers complained the modern LD Conferences (not Assemblies) were all about suits and image - yes, they were. All parties should have a lively fringe where political debate can happen but on the Conference Floor loyalty and discipline has to be what is portrayed to the public who dislike disunited parties.
Technology sharing - and perhaps coordination of times on patrol (which could potentially save costs) - could make a lot of sense.
*As helpfully illustrated for us by Luckyguy.
When Badenoch says her Removals Force will be modelled on the successful ICE, maybe she means it won't be modelled on it. I see no reason to give her any benefit of the non-existent doubt.
What this story has now established is that all of this happened during Covid. The police officer accused of rape has been suspended on full pay for more than 5 years, as has the officer making the allegation. Probably 4-5 hundred thousand wasted because the police simply cannot make basic decisions. If there is sufficient evidence against the accused he should have been prosecuted (and dismissed) 5 years ago. If there isn't a decision should have been made and he should have been sent back to work. Either way utter incompetence which should surely have resulted on the entire relevant HR department being sacked (as is normally required in these circumstances) and everyone in the managerial chain disciplined and demoted.
But, of course, none of that will happen. Its only public money after all.
Can we expect a Reform 'Polling companies lie' campaign in true Trump style?
How is replacing the Oval Office with the Elysee Palace an improvement?
Either we desire an independent, nuclear deterrent or we don't. If we do, then logic dictates it should be independent. If we don't, we may as well not have it.
DOWN agaun
Very rarely did Spurs ever at St Andrews, always mentally weak and unable to deal with the atmosphere and physicality.
Been a soft touch team for too long.
Bill Nicholson, Dave Mackay would be ashamed
And why would France agree to that, when they already have their own independent system?
Either we want an independent system, or we don't. If we do, we should develop it, independently. We have the technology, the materials, all we lack is the manufacturing so get on with it and move on.
Now Nigel, what is given must mean something taken away, time for Mr Goodwin to act in a similar respectful manner
The youngsters (with some exceptions) remain very - probably more - environmentally conscious, less economically left, and definitely less anti-nuclear. They have very much a liberal Western attitude to foreign policy, ie Ukraine an absolute priority, Putin and Trump bad guys. On the Middle East the party seems reasonably united - critical of Netanyahu but not bought into the communitarian nonsense of the left and right.
We might instead stick with the American delivery system and take the risk of them preventing us using the weapon because money going towards redundant systems is better spent elsewhere. As I mentioned earlier, the focus should mainly be on capability.
We do need to think about a future France under either a Bardella, or a very Gaulliste patriot who considers Britain Albion Perfide. And they need to worry about a Britain captured by Reform or worse, and handing over secrets to the Russians.
Managed us, signed some real dross as well as Trevor Matthewson & Dennis Bailey.
When I was mad keen I went to a pre season friendly at VS Rugby. Amazed how short he was
Then as part of the USA, electing President and members to Congress and Senate we would be part and parcel of the north American, now North Atlantic protective shield.
Who would agree to this?
Just saying.
Having labelled it "ICE" they are going to have to be rather more explicit about what exactly they are proposing.
Farage got away with smoke and mirrors in the Brexit campaign. He need to be nailed to the floor this time around.
(Although England would surely be very considerably larger than even California, no?)
But its not the case. While some radiation could spread to eg Calais if eg London were bombed (let alone anything more distant like the NW, or Scotland, or Plymouth) it would not remotely be the same as a direct attack on France.
And Starmer is apparently the worst PM in history.
Sure, it may be more vulnerable to an all out nuclear attack, but any attacking state doing that would be gambling that they get them all. It would also be gambling that when its missiles are launched the USA/France/China know that those missiles are aimed exclusively at us. If any state doubted it, they would launch an immediate counterstrike.
A submarine based system may have more survivability (assuming tracking and drone systems do not find it), but is rather after the event, only launching when the UK was a smoking wasteland populated only by cockroaches.
LD and Green will claim theyd never have touched him, had they been in power we'd have been hammered for Tariffs.
Labour hung on to his coattails long enough to get best tariffs on the planet. Starmer refusing to act with aggressive intent on Iran came at just the right time, help by blood thirsty Farage and Badenoch following Trump like poodles might be too late to save Starmer.
As policy positioning though it could give labour 5% Poll boost at least within 12 months, especially with any new Leader bounce.
Collaboration without dependency on either side isn't impossible (though this is the French we're talking about).
There's certainly a large overlap in interests when it comes to deterrence, and it would be entirely possible (as an example) to coordinate on times at sea.
No need to share operational details beyond that, but it might considerably reduce the cost of maintaining a continuous at sea deterrent for both countries.
Should we fall out, we simply cease that coordination.
Similar considerations might apply to tech and other cost sharing.
The writers from the Mail and the Telegraph were only too quick to say how wonderful an afternoon it had been for Norman Tebbit who was Conservative chairman at the time.
The tension between going with that you believe and what was politically beneficial was acute - I was far form convinced even if we did pass the motion, the questions about the differences in defence policy between the SDP and Liberals would have gone away.
It was a big part of my personal political education and a big lesson about the realities and practicalities of politics and political campaigning.
Ever eaten lettuce outside the period from May to September? Then you’re a part of the plasticos.
Set against that, a few South facing slopes covered in PV panels with sheep grazing under them are really nothing.
I'll get my coat