Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
We know the Tories are the patriots because they are the party who run down the armed forces in terms of both personnel and equipment. We know that Labour are the 5th columnists because Corby was scruffy. Only by breaking his own election pledge to not cut troop numbers can the PM show us the real threat from Labour who would run down troop numbers.
Funny how two faced some people are. Its an *awful* policy when Labour propose it, a brilliant policy when the Tories do it.
Jeez. Pretty grim. I’ve yet to hear an entirely convincing explanation why it hits BAME communities so bad. Perhaps it is a constellation of reasons. Religious devotions, multi-gen housing, more co-morbidities?
I am truely amazed how the EU and the EU countries are doing this.
Making a mistake is one thing, continuing time after time to cock it up is another, and not learning from any mistakes.
It's a bit like a job I'm working on. I got given a document riddled with errors. I pointed them out. It comes back with even more errors and the errors not all removed.
You really have to lose faith at a point they have any competency.
I remember quite a few years ago hiring an Indian firm to build a website for a new business I setup...it was the most frustrating experience of my life. I would point out issues and obvious mistakes, be told yes yes we have it covered, and the next revision, not only would they not be fixed, they had managed to introduce more. I think it took 3-4 months before I had to bin them off and hire some people in Estonia, who sorted it all in a few weeks.
Quite standard - the productivity multiplier is as real as the wage multiplier.
When you put them together - the cost vs work actually done is rather interesting.
One company I work for discovered that the cheapest locations for software development were, in order
1) London and Eastern Europe tied in first place 2) US 3) Canada 4) India
London and Bulgaria / Sofia from memory.
Eastern Europe can be very expensive now as productivity isn't as great as it might be.
I would argue that nearshoring to other UK cities will easily match London and might work out cheaper.
Quite possibly - though if you pay lower wages than London, all the top talent goes there.
I've encountered a few attempts to setup up software development around the UK. The ones that have succeeded have to pay big wages to stop the drift to London. As in at least 2/3rd of the London rate...
There's a lot of great talent that really doesn't want to work on what are perceived as soul destroying projects in banks. If you look to recruit in Nottingham, Birmingham etc (especially with the ubiquity of remote working, and the ability to build local clusters of employees who can meet up socially) it can improve everyone's quality of life.
(But 2/3 the London rate means for every 3 employees, you get one free!)
I remember a bunch of companies having to close up shop in the Reading corridor... One manager was flabbergasted - "But I sold the board on 50% of London wages - so it would payback in the first year! 2/3rds wouldn't do that!"
The fuckwittery of UK Management summed up....
Didn't they realise that the cost of living in the M4 and M3 corridors is damn nearly the same as for jobs in London?
They missed that tens of thousands of people leave Reading, Bracknell, Basingstoke and a dozen places in between, on the train for London every morning! (when there's not a pandemic on).
They didn't so much miss it as not care - they needed to pitch a massive cost reductions in 1 year to get their promotions. Trebles all round as they say in Private Eye.
So yes, the fact that the house prices in the area are set by London wages was ignored.
A friend who worked in London was offered to move to the new location in the same company, just round the corner from his house. When he pointed out that he wouldn't be able to pay his mortgage in the new job/location, this seemed to be taken as him being "difficult".
My job moved - we all kept our London salaries and slashed our fares - lovely jubbly
I am truely amazed how the EU and the EU countries are doing this.
Making a mistake is one thing, continuing time after time to cock it up is another, and not learning from any mistakes.
It's a bit like a job I'm working on. I got given a document riddled with errors. I pointed them out. It comes back with even more errors and the errors not all removed.
You really have to lose faith at a point they have any competency.
I remember quite a few years ago hiring an Indian firm to build a website for a new business I setup...it was the most frustrating experience of my life. I would point out issues and obvious mistakes, be told yes yes we have it covered, and the next revision, not only would they not be fixed, they had managed to introduce more. I think it took 3-4 months before I had to bin them off and hire some people in Estonia, who sorted it all in a few weeks.
Quite standard - the productivity multiplier is as real as the wage multiplier.
When you put them together - the cost vs work actually done is rather interesting.
One company I work for discovered that the cheapest locations for software development were, in order
1) London and Eastern Europe tied in first place 2) US 3) Canada 4) India
London and Bulgaria / Sofia from memory.
Eastern Europe can be very expensive now as productivity isn't as great as it might be.
I would argue that nearshoring to other UK cities will easily match London and might work out cheaper.
Quite possibly - though if you pay lower wages than London, all the top talent goes there.
I've encountered a few attempts to setup up software development around the UK. The ones that have succeeded have to pay big wages to stop the drift to London. As in at least 2/3rd of the London rate...
There's a lot of great talent that really doesn't want to work on what are perceived as soul destroying projects in banks. If you look to recruit in Nottingham, Birmingham etc (especially with the ubiquity of remote working, and the ability to build local clusters of employees who can meet up socially) it can improve everyone's quality of life.
'At least two thirds of the London rate' smells about right. Surely it must be possible for businesses to make massive savings locating outsise London on that basis?
I am truely amazed how the EU and the EU countries are doing this.
Making a mistake is one thing, continuing time after time to cock it up is another, and not learning from any mistakes.
It's a bit like a job I'm working on. I got given a document riddled with errors. I pointed them out. It comes back with even more errors and the errors not all removed.
You really have to lose faith at a point they have any competency.
I remember quite a few years ago hiring an Indian firm to build a website for a new business I setup...it was the most frustrating experience of my life. I would point out issues and obvious mistakes, be told yes yes we have it covered, and the next revision, not only would they not be fixed, they had managed to introduce more. I think it took 3-4 months before I had to bin them off and hire some people in Estonia, who sorted it all in a few weeks.
Quite standard - the productivity multiplier is as real as the wage multiplier.
When you put them together - the cost vs work actually done is rather interesting.
One company I work for discovered that the cheapest locations for software development were, in order
1) London and Eastern Europe tied in first place 2) US 3) Canada 4) India
London and Bulgaria / Sofia from memory.
Eastern Europe can be very expensive now as productivity isn't as great as it might be.
I would argue that nearshoring to other UK cities will easily match London and might work out cheaper.
Quite possibly - though if you pay lower wages than London, all the top talent goes there.
I've encountered a few attempts to setup up software development around the UK. The ones that have succeeded have to pay big wages to stop the drift to London. As in at least 2/3rd of the London rate...
There's a lot of great talent that really doesn't want to work on what are perceived as soul destroying projects in banks. If you look to recruit in Nottingham, Birmingham etc (especially with the ubiquity of remote working, and the ability to build local clusters of employees who can meet up socially) it can improve everyone's quality of life.
(But 2/3 the London rate means for every 3 employees, you get one free!)
I remember a bunch of companies having to close up shop in the Reading corridor... One manager was flabbergasted - "But I sold the board on 50% of London wages - so it would payback in the first year! 2/3rds wouldn't do that!"
The fuckwittery of UK Management summed up....
Didn't they realise that the cost of living in the M4 and M3 corridors is damn nearly the same as for jobs in London?
They missed that tens of thousands of people leave Reading, Bracknell, Basingstoke and a dozen places in between, on the train for London every morning! (when there's not a pandemic on).
They didn't so much miss it as not care - they needed to pitch a massive cost reductions in 1 year to get their promotions. Trebles all round as they say in Private Eye.
So yes, the fact that the house prices in the area are set by London wages was ignored.
A friend who worked in London was offered to move to the new location in the same company, just round the corner from his house. When he pointed out that he wouldn't be able to pay his mortgage in the new job/location, this seemed to be taken as him being "difficult".
I actually became a software engineer by accident. I bashed out a control program in C for a spectrophotometer because the suppliers software didn't do what we needed and I ended up just writing software for the company full time.
I asked for a pay rise to bring me in line with programmer salaries in the area after a year of doing this which would have been at that time 24k where as I was on 16k.
My department head looked puzzled and said you are already over paid we only pay secretaries 12k and you both do the same job which is typing. Notice went in following week after I found a new job
He's missed out the best bit - COVAX is enthusiastically supported by both the EU and the Italian government.
But surely these poor countries in the developing world fail the reciprocity criterion, because they aren't exporting vaccines to the EU?
Isn't it a good idea to wait to hear from Covax, or any other reputable source, if any vaccine supplies have been delayed before jumping to conclusions?
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
We know the Tories are the patriots because they are the party who run down the armed forces in terms of both personnel and equipment. We know that Labour are the 5th columnists because Corby was scruffy. Only by breaking his own election pledge to not cut troop numbers can the PM show us the real threat from Labour who would run down troop numbers.
Funny how two faced some people are. Its an *awful* policy when Labour propose it, a brilliant policy when the Tories do it.
" "
Or you could look at what people actually posted ......
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
We know the Tories are the patriots because they are the party who run down the armed forces in terms of both personnel and equipment. We know that Labour are the 5th columnists because Corby was scruffy. Only by breaking his own election pledge to not cut troop numbers can the PM show us the real threat from Labour who would run down troop numbers.
Funny how two faced some people are. Its an *awful* policy when Labour propose it, a brilliant policy when the Tories do it.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
Indeed. As a swing voter the answer that works for me is a simple:
"We committed to funding and improving the armed services and following a review we now believe with the extra funding we are providing they are strongest with yes, fewer troops, but more investment in technology."
That would be fine with me. Not everything has to be denied when it is blatantly true.
I am truely amazed how the EU and the EU countries are doing this.
Making a mistake is one thing, continuing time after time to cock it up is another, and not learning from any mistakes.
It's a bit like a job I'm working on. I got given a document riddled with errors. I pointed them out. It comes back with even more errors and the errors not all removed.
You really have to lose faith at a point they have any competency.
I remember quite a few years ago hiring an Indian firm to build a website for a new business I setup...it was the most frustrating experience of my life. I would point out issues and obvious mistakes, be told yes yes we have it covered, and the next revision, not only would they not be fixed, they had managed to introduce more. I think it took 3-4 months before I had to bin them off and hire some people in Estonia, who sorted it all in a few weeks.
Quite standard - the productivity multiplier is as real as the wage multiplier.
When you put them together - the cost vs work actually done is rather interesting.
One company I work for discovered that the cheapest locations for software development were, in order
1) London and Eastern Europe tied in first place 2) US 3) Canada 4) India
London and Bulgaria / Sofia from memory.
Eastern Europe can be very expensive now as productivity isn't as great as it might be.
I would argue that nearshoring to other UK cities will easily match London and might work out cheaper.
Quite possibly - though if you pay lower wages than London, all the top talent goes there.
I've encountered a few attempts to setup up software development around the UK. The ones that have succeeded have to pay big wages to stop the drift to London. As in at least 2/3rd of the London rate...
There's a lot of great talent that really doesn't want to work on what are perceived as soul destroying projects in banks. If you look to recruit in Nottingham, Birmingham etc (especially with the ubiquity of remote working, and the ability to build local clusters of employees who can meet up socially) it can improve everyone's quality of life.
(But 2/3 the London rate means for every 3 employees, you get one free!)
I remember a bunch of companies having to close up shop in the Reading corridor... One manager was flabbergasted - "But I sold the board on 50% of London wages - so it would payback in the first year! 2/3rds wouldn't do that!"
The fuckwittery of UK Management summed up....
Didn't they realise that the cost of living in the M4 and M3 corridors is damn nearly the same as for jobs in London?
They missed that tens of thousands of people leave Reading, Bracknell, Basingstoke and a dozen places in between, on the train for London every morning! (when there's not a pandemic on).
They didn't so much miss it as not care - they needed to pitch a massive cost reductions in 1 year to get their promotions. Trebles all round as they say in Private Eye.
So yes, the fact that the house prices in the area are set by London wages was ignored.
A friend who worked in London was offered to move to the new location in the same company, just round the corner from his house. When he pointed out that he wouldn't be able to pay his mortgage in the new job/location, this seemed to be taken as him being "difficult".
My job moved - we all kept our London salaries and slashed our fares - lovely jubbly
Yup. But watch out for gradual pay erosion going forward - that's the smart way of doing it....
He's missed out the best bit - COVAX is enthusiastically supported by both the EU and the Italian government.
But surely these poor countries in the developing world fail the reciprocity criterion, because they aren't exporting vaccines to the EU?
Isn't it a good idea to wait to hear from Covax, or any other reputable source, if any vaccine supplies have been delayed before jumping to conclusions?
Talking of ‘jumping to conclusions’, here’s an esteemed EU journalist. Austrian.
I am truely amazed how the EU and the EU countries are doing this.
Making a mistake is one thing, continuing time after time to cock it up is another, and not learning from any mistakes.
It's a bit like a job I'm working on. I got given a document riddled with errors. I pointed them out. It comes back with even more errors and the errors not all removed.
You really have to lose faith at a point they have any competency.
I remember quite a few years ago hiring an Indian firm to build a website for a new business I setup...it was the most frustrating experience of my life. I would point out issues and obvious mistakes, be told yes yes we have it covered, and the next revision, not only would they not be fixed, they had managed to introduce more. I think it took 3-4 months before I had to bin them off and hire some people in Estonia, who sorted it all in a few weeks.
Quite standard - the productivity multiplier is as real as the wage multiplier.
When you put them together - the cost vs work actually done is rather interesting.
One company I work for discovered that the cheapest locations for software development were, in order
1) London and Eastern Europe tied in first place 2) US 3) Canada 4) India
London and Bulgaria / Sofia from memory.
Eastern Europe can be very expensive now as productivity isn't as great as it might be.
I would argue that nearshoring to other UK cities will easily match London and might work out cheaper.
Quite possibly - though if you pay lower wages than London, all the top talent goes there.
I've encountered a few attempts to setup up software development around the UK. The ones that have succeeded have to pay big wages to stop the drift to London. As in at least 2/3rd of the London rate...
There's a lot of great talent that really doesn't want to work on what are perceived as soul destroying projects in banks. If you look to recruit in Nottingham, Birmingham etc (especially with the ubiquity of remote working, and the ability to build local clusters of employees who can meet up socially) it can improve everyone's quality of life.
'At least two thirds of the London rate' smells about right. Surely it must be possible for businesses to make massive savings locating outsise London on that basis?
If you aren't a fuckwit manager trying to save squillions in one year, yes.
On topic, the miracle is that the young have been compliant for so long for lockdown restrictions which have devastated their livelihoods and which often make no sense for a disease which affects them very little if at all.
The old owe the young a huge debt of gratitude for their compliance up to this point.
What they'll probably get in return, of course, is more of the shafting that's been going on for about twenty years.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
We know the Tories are the patriots because they are the party who run down the armed forces in terms of both personnel and equipment. We know that Labour are the 5th columnists because Corby was scruffy. Only by breaking his own election pledge to not cut troop numbers can the PM show us the real threat from Labour who would run down troop numbers.
Funny how two faced some people are. Its an *awful* policy when Labour propose it, a brilliant policy when the Tories do it.
" "
LOL Rochdale usual grasp of reality from yourself
So are the Tories breaking their election pledge in cutting troop numbers or not?
We know how easy it is to attack Labour on the Armed forces. They will cut resources and troop numbers. Huzzah for the Tories! They will protect our brave boys by cutting resources and troop numbers.
You don't see the problem? Park party point scoring and look at the policy. If cutting troop numbers is Bad then why are the Tories pledged not to cut troop numbers? Something which they have a long consistent track record on.
He's missed out the best bit - COVAX is enthusiastically supported by both the EU and the Italian government.
But surely these poor countries in the developing world fail the reciprocity criterion, because they aren't exporting vaccines to the EU?
Isn't it a good idea to wait to hear from Covax, or any other reputable source, if any vaccine supplies have been delayed before jumping to conclusions?
Talking of ‘jumping to conclusions’, here’s an esteemed EU journalist. Austrian.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
The armed forces are being modernised with record investment and increased spending, yes.
I'd rather fewer but better equipped armed forces fit for the times, than having more troops operating without the protection, equipment or weaponry that they require. Which would you prefer?
Another EU journalist. Raving about 30m hidden AZ doses ‘destined for Britain’
Literally halfway through the thread he seamlessly walks away from this by saying ‘it doesn’t matter if they were going to Britain or not’, then carries on raving. 5,000 retweets. This mad shit is going viral
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
Indeed. As a swing voter the answer that works for me is a simple:
"We committed to funding and improving the armed services and following a review we now believe with the extra funding we are providing they are strongest with yes, fewer troops, but more investment in technology."
That would be fine with me. Not everything has to be denied when it is blatantly true.
The problem is that its a totem for the right that only they can protect our brave boys. Cutting numbers, pay, housing, equipment, mental health support etc etc isn't what they claim, so best to lie. Anyway, when people are happy to continue to insist that they really are protecting our brave boys from Labour doing the things the Tories are doing anyway, they can get away with it.
Defence is a wee bit of a problem for Labour, they are seen as way too soft on national defence. Because they are. That doesn't somehow mean that yet another swinging round of Tory cuts doesn't exist though. Saying you support the troops despite not doing works apparently/
So are the Tories breaking their election pledge in cutting troop numbers or not?
We know how easy it is to attack Labour on the Armed forces. They will cut resources and troop numbers. Huzzah for the Tories! They will protect our brave boys by cutting resources and troop numbers.
You don't see the problem? Park party point scoring and look at the policy. If cutting troop numbers is Bad then why are the Tories pledged not to cut troop numbers? Something which they have a long consistent track record on.
The Tories are not cutting resources. Qyite the opposite.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
The armed forces are being modernised with record investment and increased spending, yes.
I'd rather fewer but better equipped armed forces fit for the times, than having more troops operating without the protection, equipment or weaponry that they require. Which would you prefer?
I would quite like a decent sized air force and a navy that could actually run its ships rather than use them for spares to keep others running
If Labour had just announced they were cutting troop numbers Tories here would be all over them.
Lack of consistency and hypocrisy, the Tory way
Actually you may not be old enough to remember but when Tony Blair sent our troops to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and there were reports that our troops lacked life saving equipment and protection that they required and were having to borrow it from the Americans, then that is what got criticised.
Sending troops to war without equipment they need is worse than having fewer troops who are better equiped and able to act with top notch modern supplies.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
The armed forces are being modernised with record investment and increased spending, yes.
I'd rather fewer but better equipped armed forces fit for the times, than having more troops operating without the protection, equipment or weaponry that they require. Which would you prefer?
Honesty. If your advocated plan is a Good Thing, then own it. Don't make stupid but popular pledges, then bin them, then lie that you've binned them.
He's missed out the best bit - COVAX is enthusiastically supported by both the EU and the Italian government.
But surely these poor countries in the developing world fail the reciprocity criterion, because they aren't exporting vaccines to the EU?
Isn't it a good idea to wait to hear from Covax, or any other reputable source, if any vaccine supplies have been delayed before jumping to conclusions?
Talking of ‘jumping to conclusions’, here’s an esteemed EU journalist. Austrian.
They are all starting to sound like Alex Jones.... everything is a massive conspiracy. Only a tweet away from claiming the jabs turn the frogs gay.
Yes. The EU elite is descending into QAnon territory. It’s simultaneously compelling yet disturbing to watch.
The fall-out could be painful for everyone
Obvious question is: do these people REALLY believe AZ decided to ‘hide’ 30m jabs in Italy so they could secretly transport them to the UK, or is this yet another fake-news narrative being pushed by the EU and EU shills to divert from EU failings?
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
Indeed. As a swing voter the answer that works for me is a simple:
"We committed to funding and improving the armed services and following a review we now believe with the extra funding we are providing they are strongest with yes, fewer troops, but more investment in technology."
That would be fine with me. Not everything has to be denied when it is blatantly true.
The problem is that its a totem for the right that only they can protect our brave boys. Cutting numbers, pay, housing, equipment, mental health support etc etc isn't what they claim, so best to lie. Anyway, when people are happy to continue to insist that they really are protecting our brave boys from Labour doing the things the Tories are doing anyway, they can get away with it.
Defence is a wee bit of a problem for Labour, they are seen as way too soft on national defence. Because they are. That doesn't somehow mean that yet another swinging round of Tory cuts doesn't exist though. Saying you support the troops despite not doing works apparently/
Johnson kept saying its a 14% increase in spending and Starmer didn't once dispute that figure. Again and again Starmer teed off Johnson to be able to say 14% increase.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
We know the Tories are the patriots because they are the party who run down the armed forces in terms of both personnel and equipment. We know that Labour are the 5th columnists because Corby was scruffy. Only by breaking his own election pledge to not cut troop numbers can the PM show us the real threat from Labour who would run down troop numbers.
Funny how two faced some people are. Its an *awful* policy when Labour propose it, a brilliant policy when the Tories do it.
" "
LOL Rochdale usual grasp of reality from yourself
So are the Tories breaking their election pledge in cutting troop numbers or not?
We know how easy it is to attack Labour on the Armed forces. They will cut resources and troop numbers. Huzzah for the Tories! They will protect our brave boys by cutting resources and troop numbers.
You don't see the problem? Park party point scoring and look at the policy. If cutting troop numbers is Bad then why are the Tories pledged not to cut troop numbers? Something which they have a long consistent track record on.
It's all quite clear. The Government have set out a policy which will refine and improve our defences to face the ever-changing threats in the world. Sensible policies backed by significant further investment.
It's called standing up for and defending our country - which is the first duty of any Government.
If Labour had just announced they were cutting troop numbers Tories here would be all over them.
Lack of consistency and hypocrisy, the Tory way
Actually you may not be old enough to remember but when Tony Blair sent our troops to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and there were reports that our troops lacked life saving equipment and protection that they required and were having to borrow it from the Americans, then that is what got criticised.
Sending troops to war without equipment they need is worse than having fewer troops who are better equiped and able to act with top notch modern supplies.
The late senator McCain wondered why the equipment "lost" and "written off" seemed to spike in certain circumstance. It was explained that when stationed next to UK troops, US units would start a barter trade, usually heavily in favour of the UK....
I am truely amazed how the EU and the EU countries are doing this.
Making a mistake is one thing, continuing time after time to cock it up is another, and not learning from any mistakes.
It's a bit like a job I'm working on. I got given a document riddled with errors. I pointed them out. It comes back with even more errors and the errors not all removed.
You really have to lose faith at a point they have any competency.
I remember quite a few years ago hiring an Indian firm to build a website for a new business I setup...it was the most frustrating experience of my life. I would point out issues and obvious mistakes, be told yes yes we have it covered, and the next revision, not only would they not be fixed, they had managed to introduce more. I think it took 3-4 months before I had to bin them off and hire some people in Estonia, who sorted it all in a few weeks.
Quite standard - the productivity multiplier is as real as the wage multiplier.
When you put them together - the cost vs work actually done is rather interesting.
One company I work for discovered that the cheapest locations for software development were, in order
1) London and Eastern Europe tied in first place 2) US 3) Canada 4) India
London and Bulgaria / Sofia from memory.
Eastern Europe can be very expensive now as productivity isn't as great as it might be.
I would argue that nearshoring to other UK cities will easily match London and might work out cheaper.
Quite possibly - though if you pay lower wages than London, all the top talent goes there.
I've encountered a few attempts to setup up software development around the UK. The ones that have succeeded have to pay big wages to stop the drift to London. As in at least 2/3rd of the London rate...
There's a lot of great talent that really doesn't want to work on what are perceived as soul destroying projects in banks. If you look to recruit in Nottingham, Birmingham etc (especially with the ubiquity of remote working, and the ability to build local clusters of employees who can meet up socially) it can improve everyone's quality of life.
(But 2/3 the London rate means for every 3 employees, you get one free!)
I remember a bunch of companies having to close up shop in the Reading corridor... One manager was flabbergasted - "But I sold the board on 50% of London wages - so it would payback in the first year! 2/3rds wouldn't do that!"
The fuckwittery of UK Management summed up....
Didn't they realise that the cost of living in the M4 and M3 corridors is damn nearly the same as for jobs in London?
They missed that tens of thousands of people leave Reading, Bracknell, Basingstoke and a dozen places in between, on the train for London every morning! (when there's not a pandemic on).
They didn't so much miss it as not care - they needed to pitch a massive cost reductions in 1 year to get their promotions. Trebles all round as they say in Private Eye.
So yes, the fact that the house prices in the area are set by London wages was ignored.
A friend who worked in London was offered to move to the new location in the same company, just round the corner from his house. When he pointed out that he wouldn't be able to pay his mortgage in the new job/location, this seemed to be taken as him being "difficult".
My job moved - we all kept our London salaries and slashed our fares - lovely jubbly
Yup. But watch out for gradual pay erosion going forward - that's the smart way of doing it....
That could also be an issue in London....
Another major business in my field has apparently given everyone zero percent this year
Another EU journalist. Raving about 30m hidden AZ doses ‘destined for Britain’
Literally halfway through the thread he seamlessly walks away from this by saying ‘it doesn’t matter if they were going to Britain or not’, then carries on raving. 5,000 retweets. This mad shit is going viral
"Don't want to be paranoid, but maybe they know that something is wrong with the vaccine and they don't want to sell certain batches anymore. The behavior of this company is more than strange."
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
The armed forces are being modernised with record investment and increased spending, yes.
I'd rather fewer but better equipped armed forces fit for the times, than having more troops operating without the protection, equipment or weaponry that they require. Which would you prefer?
Honesty. If your advocated plan is a Good Thing, then own it. Don't make stupid but popular pledges, then bin them, then lie that you've binned them.
There's been an integrated review and its outcome is being owned.
It seems like a good thing to me to have a modernised military with modern tech. What about you? Do you think the integrated review makes sense or not?
I am truely amazed how the EU and the EU countries are doing this.
Making a mistake is one thing, continuing time after time to cock it up is another, and not learning from any mistakes.
It's a bit like a job I'm working on. I got given a document riddled with errors. I pointed them out. It comes back with even more errors and the errors not all removed.
You really have to lose faith at a point they have any competency.
I remember quite a few years ago hiring an Indian firm to build a website for a new business I setup...it was the most frustrating experience of my life. I would point out issues and obvious mistakes, be told yes yes we have it covered, and the next revision, not only would they not be fixed, they had managed to introduce more. I think it took 3-4 months before I had to bin them off and hire some people in Estonia, who sorted it all in a few weeks.
Quite standard - the productivity multiplier is as real as the wage multiplier.
When you put them together - the cost vs work actually done is rather interesting.
One company I work for discovered that the cheapest locations for software development were, in order
1) London and Eastern Europe tied in first place 2) US 3) Canada 4) India
London and Bulgaria / Sofia from memory.
Eastern Europe can be very expensive now as productivity isn't as great as it might be.
I would argue that nearshoring to other UK cities will easily match London and might work out cheaper.
Quite possibly - though if you pay lower wages than London, all the top talent goes there.
I've encountered a few attempts to setup up software development around the UK. The ones that have succeeded have to pay big wages to stop the drift to London. As in at least 2/3rd of the London rate...
There's a lot of great talent that really doesn't want to work on what are perceived as soul destroying projects in banks. If you look to recruit in Nottingham, Birmingham etc (especially with the ubiquity of remote working, and the ability to build local clusters of employees who can meet up socially) it can improve everyone's quality of life.
(But 2/3 the London rate means for every 3 employees, you get one free!)
I remember a bunch of companies having to close up shop in the Reading corridor... One manager was flabbergasted - "But I sold the board on 50% of London wages - so it would payback in the first year! 2/3rds wouldn't do that!"
The fuckwittery of UK Management summed up....
Didn't they realise that the cost of living in the M4 and M3 corridors is damn nearly the same as for jobs in London?
They missed that tens of thousands of people leave Reading, Bracknell, Basingstoke and a dozen places in between, on the train for London every morning! (when there's not a pandemic on).
They didn't so much miss it as not care - they needed to pitch a massive cost reductions in 1 year to get their promotions. Trebles all round as they say in Private Eye.
So yes, the fact that the house prices in the area are set by London wages was ignored.
A friend who worked in London was offered to move to the new location in the same company, just round the corner from his house. When he pointed out that he wouldn't be able to pay his mortgage in the new job/location, this seemed to be taken as him being "difficult".
My job moved - we all kept our London salaries and slashed our fares - lovely jubbly
Yup. But watch out for gradual pay erosion going forward - that's the smart way of doing it....
That could also be an issue in London....
Another major business in my field has apparently given everyone zero percent this year
Its a long time since I have worked for a company that gave anyone an annual cost of living rise let alone an actual payrise. Same experience pretty much for all my friends except those on min wage and public sector
He's missed out the best bit - COVAX is enthusiastically supported by both the EU and the Italian government.
But surely these poor countries in the developing world fail the reciprocity criterion, because they aren't exporting vaccines to the EU?
Isn't it a good idea to wait to hear from Covax, or any other reputable source, if any vaccine supplies have been delayed before jumping to conclusions?
Talking of ‘jumping to conclusions’, here’s an esteemed EU journalist. Austrian.
They are all starting to sound like Alex Jones.... everything is a massive conspiracy. Only a tweet away from claiming the jabs turn the frogs gay.
Yes. The EU elite is descending into QAnon territory. It’s simultaneously compelling yet disturbing to watch.
The fall-out could be painful for everyone
Obvious question is: do these people REALLY believe AZ decided to ‘hide’ 30m jabs in Italy so they could secretly transport them to the UK, or is this yet another fake-news narrative being pushed by the EU and EU shills to divert from EU failings?
Just as well you’ve never been known to spread any fake news or jump on suggestions of a conspiracy?
Another EU journalist. Raving about 30m hidden AZ doses ‘destined for Britain’
Literally halfway through the thread he seamlessly walks away from this by saying ‘it doesn’t matter if they were going to Britain or not’, then carries on raving. 5,000 retweets. This mad shit is going viral
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Once you’re speaking in numbers of troops and not discussing outputs, you are basically saying you don’t care about military capability, you just want pretty parades. You’re like Sadam, with dozens of Mig29s, almost none of which flew.
And for the discussion we were having before, lockdown was lifted in Israel at the start of February, when the young adults were not yet vaccinated. Cases still continued to fall.
We now have more adults with at least one vaccine than the did at the start of February.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Credit for consistency, but I am sceptical the line of attack will do Labour much good. Although I suppose there may be a few red wall seats with army bases where it might play well.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
Indeed. As a swing voter the answer that works for me is a simple:
"We committed to funding and improving the armed services and following a review we now believe with the extra funding we are providing they are strongest with yes, fewer troops, but more investment in technology."
That would be fine with me. Not everything has to be denied when it is blatantly true.
The problem is that its a totem for the right that only they can protect our brave boys. Cutting numbers, pay, housing, equipment, mental health support etc etc isn't what they claim, so best to lie. Anyway, when people are happy to continue to insist that they really are protecting our brave boys from Labour doing the things the Tories are doing anyway, they can get away with it.
Defence is a wee bit of a problem for Labour, they are seen as way too soft on national defence. Because they are. That doesn't somehow mean that yet another swinging round of Tory cuts doesn't exist though. Saying you support the troops despite not doing works apparently/
Johnson kept saying its a 14% increase in spending and Starmer didn't once dispute that figure. Again and again Starmer teed off Johnson to be able to say 14% increase.
And you talk about Tory cuts?
As always the valid question is spending on what? The Tories have presided over simultaneous record spending in the NHS and crisis levels of front line service cuts. How? Because the marketisation sucks money out of medicine into management.
With hundreds of billions banded out to pub landlord mates of the Health Secretary combined with the long and proud MoD history of vast wastes of money, spending 14% more at source is not remotely the same as a 14% increase in resources.
Germany is “in a new pandemic” in which the British Covid variant is dominant, Angela Merkel has said, as she announced a strict shutdown over Easter to halt soaring infection rates.
Angela Merkel has performed a U-turn on plans to put Germany under a hard lockdown over Easter following a critical backlash, describing the decision to close churches and shops over a five-day period as a mistake.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
We know the Tories are the patriots because they are the party who run down the armed forces in terms of both personnel and equipment. We know that Labour are the 5th columnists because Corby was scruffy. Only by breaking his own election pledge to not cut troop numbers can the PM show us the real threat from Labour who would run down troop numbers.
Funny how two faced some people are. Its an *awful* policy when Labour propose it, a brilliant policy when the Tories do it.
" "
LOL Rochdale usual grasp of reality from yourself
So are the Tories breaking their election pledge in cutting troop numbers or not?
We know how easy it is to attack Labour on the Armed forces. They will cut resources and troop numbers. Huzzah for the Tories! They will protect our brave boys by cutting resources and troop numbers.
You don't see the problem? Park party point scoring and look at the policy. If cutting troop numbers is Bad then why are the Tories pledged not to cut troop numbers? Something which they have a long consistent track record on.
It's all quite clear. The Government have set out a policy which will refine and improve our defences to face the ever-changing threats in the world. Sensible policies backed by significant further investment.
It's called standing up for and defending our country - which is the first duty of any Government.
And you'd have voted for a policy dubbed as "cutting our armed forces" of course...
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
He'll be able to capitalize on it ... how? What taxes will Labour raise and what services will it cut to guarantee no fall in troop levels? Most people will have noticed this little thing called the fiscal black hole caused by the global pandemic, all of which occurred after the manifesto was written.
Another EU journalist. Raving about 30m hidden AZ doses ‘destined for Britain’
Literally halfway through the thread he seamlessly walks away from this by saying ‘it doesn’t matter if they were going to Britain or not’, then carries on raving. 5,000 retweets. This mad shit is going viral
"Don't want to be paranoid, but maybe they know that something is wrong with the vaccine and they don't want to sell certain batches anymore. The behavior of this company is more than strange."
To be fair to the EU (it’s hard, but I’ll give it a go) AZ has made some perplexing errors - eg the latest gaffe in America. These feed into the lunatic theories. Shame
On the other hand, everyone seems to forget this is the cheapest jab by a distance, the easiest to use and distribute, the IP is being freely exported (cf India) and it is all being done NOT-FOR-PROFIT
It occurs to me that this generosity was an error. If AZ were charging $20 a jab rather than $2, everyone would probably be saying ‘what a brilliant vaccine, please can we have some more, at whatever price, you are too kind’.
People always place more value on things that cost more, even if they are exactly the same as free equivalents. See the behavior of readers to newspapers you buy versus newspapers given away.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Once you’re speaking in numbers of troops and not discussing outputs, you are basically saying you don’t care about military capability, you just want pretty parades. You’re like Sadam, with dozens of Mig29s, almost none of which flew.
To recapture the Falklands, for example, we would need troops and special forces and subs and aircraft carriers, to contribute to UN peacekeeping obligations and our NATO commitments we need troops and boots on the ground.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Once you’re speaking in numbers of troops and not discussing outputs, you are basically saying you don’t care about military capability, you just want pretty parades. You’re like Sadam, with dozens of Mig29s, almost none of which flew.
100% this.
The integrated review is about what works for the modern world and our allies and NATO have praised it. That's good enough for me.
We should never repeat the shame of Tony Blair sending underequipped troops to war. It seems from Starmer's behaviour today he views the purpose of the military to be a few jobs for the boys (and maybe a few girls) and not actually about what they need to go with it.
I do, though, feel that the outside activity relaxation could well be brought forwards. The indications are very strong that outside activity is far far lower risk (not zero risk, but considerably lower).
It could also help with holding on for the rest of the roadmap.
The proportion of ICU patients outside of Groups 1-4 and 5-9 is still very significant. Around 15-20% of ICU patients admitted throughout have been outside the Groups 1-9, and about 50-65% were in Groups 5-9 (only part of whom have been one-dose vaccinated) (varying over time)
Suppose we relax fully and the reduction in hospitalisation levels is 85% for the vaccinated.
Out of every 100 people admitted to ICU prior to vaccination, we'd expect:
NOW (half of Groups 5-9 vaccinated) Unvaccinated: 20 Groups 5-9: 28.75 Groups 1-4: 4.75 Total: 54
Call it 50%. That buys us one doubling.
Wait until about 4 weeks from now and assume that Groups 5-9 will be done and have developed immunity and most of Groups 1-4 will have been double-dosed and further improved on protection. Some of the outside-Groups-1-9 will have been done as well): Unvaccinated: 18 Groups 5-9: 7.5 Groups 1-4: ~2 Total: 28 That buys us nearly two doublings.
The R number can spring up FAST and is not comparable with last June. Not only are we less outdoorsy in April than in June, we have a variant that's far more transmissible.
There are plenty of people that can fill the ICUs. We ramped up fast in December even with Tier 3 and Tier 4 in plenty of places; reducing to below that would see a big potential springing up.
Maybe we'd be lucky. Or maybe we'd need to lock down yet again. How about we relax outdoors stuff a bit early and otherwise stick to the roadmap instead?
Yes, I think that's a fair argument. It seems bonkers that we are opening up beer gardens the week AFTER Easter, thus losing all that benefit to the sector. There seems to be this puritanical view among some that you can't open up the pubs on bank holiday weekends, as people will somehow "go mad". Yet as they are outdoor only, it seems – as you say – that this is low risk in covid terms.
I wonder why they chose 12 April not 2 April?
I would put that down to not wanting to be opening up initially in these circs on a traditionally huge weekend. Presumably also the polizei would be on double not triple time, or something !
Rather like the Church of England did (do?) their attendance sentences on the most "normal" Sunday in the year, which iirc used to be a quiet Sunday in October.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Fair play HYUFD. Still some supine acolytes banging the somewhat reduced in size drum, mind.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
The armed forces are being modernised with record investment and increased spending, yes.
I'd rather fewer but better equipped armed forces fit for the times, than having more troops operating without the protection, equipment or weaponry that they require. Which would you prefer?
That isn't the choice though, is it? The tories have committed to this global power projection bollocks while cutting 30% of the strategic airlift capability, taking at least a two year capability gap on AWACS and cutting the new AWACS fleet by 40% before the first aircraft even arrives. Etc, etc.
It's all just empty posturing while real capabilities get cut and gapped because they cannot bring themselves to align the goals with the available funding. The government is trying to do global power projection AND have a massive land force committed to NATO on about 60% of the budget needed to do both properly.
He's missed out the best bit - COVAX is enthusiastically supported by both the EU and the Italian government.
But surely these poor countries in the developing world fail the reciprocity criterion, because they aren't exporting vaccines to the EU?
Isn't it a good idea to wait to hear from Covax, or any other reputable source, if any vaccine supplies have been delayed before jumping to conclusions?
Talking of ‘jumping to conclusions’, here’s an esteemed EU journalist. Austrian.
So no actual evidence that any Covax vaccines have been stolen? Quick let's retweet some Austrian.
Unfortunately, this site has descended into an ugly form of groupthink.
The rules are you can post anything, no matter how inaccurate, you can just make any crap up, post any irrational conspiracy theory, it's all fine, positively encouraged, so long as the target is the EU or European governments.
It's ugly and shows a worrying fanatical mindset has taken hold in lots of people.
There's plenty to severely criticise the EU for or, for example the German government, while remaining accurate and in touch with reality.
Maybe my impression is coming from a vocal minority of hate-filled posters such as Leon, but I've had enough, I just leave with a plea to people to try to be accurate, and to see how things might look to someone from a different perspective.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
He'll be able to capitalize on it ... how? What taxes will Labour raise and what services will it cut to guarantee no fall in troop levels? Most people will have noticed this little thing called the fiscal black hole caused by the global pandemic, all of which occurred after the manifesto was written.
There are plenty of other cuts that can be made before further cuts to the armed forces who are supposed to be part of the Tories core vote!
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
Indeed. As a swing voter the answer that works for me is a simple:
"We committed to funding and improving the armed services and following a review we now believe with the extra funding we are providing they are strongest with yes, fewer troops, but more investment in technology."
That would be fine with me. Not everything has to be denied when it is blatantly true.
The problem is that its a totem for the right that only they can protect our brave boys. Cutting numbers, pay, housing, equipment, mental health support etc etc isn't what they claim, so best to lie. Anyway, when people are happy to continue to insist that they really are protecting our brave boys from Labour doing the things the Tories are doing anyway, they can get away with it.
Defence is a wee bit of a problem for Labour, they are seen as way too soft on national defence. Because they are. That doesn't somehow mean that yet another swinging round of Tory cuts doesn't exist though. Saying you support the troops despite not doing works apparently/
Johnson kept saying its a 14% increase in spending and Starmer didn't once dispute that figure. Again and again Starmer teed off Johnson to be able to say 14% increase.
And you talk about Tory cuts?
As always the valid question is spending on what? The Tories have presided over simultaneous record spending in the NHS and crisis levels of front line service cuts. How? Because the marketisation sucks money out of medicine into management.
With hundreds of billions banded out to pub landlord mates of the Health Secretary combined with the long and proud MoD history of vast wastes of money, spending 14% more at source is not remotely the same as a 14% increase in resources.
Thanks to the money the government has spent the UK now has the best response to Covid in the entirety of Europe currently. The lowest levels of Covid deaths, hospitalisation, cases happening this week in Europe. The highest rate of vaccines in Europe. The spending has worked, it hasn't failed.
Absolutely getting value for money is important, but having underequipped troops without the protection they need going to war is not a good level of resources don't you agree with that concept?
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
He'll be able to capitalize on it ... how? What taxes will Labour raise and what services will it cut to guarantee no fall in troop levels? Most people will have noticed this little thing called the fiscal black hole caused by the global pandemic, all of which occurred after the manifesto was written.
There are plenty of other cuts that can be made before further cuts to the armed forces who are supposed to be part of the Tories core vote!
The armed forces expenditure is being increased not cut!
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
The armed forces are being modernised with record investment and increased spending, yes.
I'd rather fewer but better equipped armed forces fit for the times, than having more troops operating without the protection, equipment or weaponry that they require. Which would you prefer?
That isn't the choice though, is it? The tories have committed to this global power projection bollocks while cutting 30% of the strategic airlift capability, taking at least a two year capability gap on AWACS and cutting the new AWACS fleet by 40% before the first aircraft even arrives. Etc, etc.
It's all just empty posturing while real capabilities get cut and gapped because they cannot bring themselves to align the goals with the available funding. The government is trying to do global power projection AND have a massive land force committed to NATO on about 60% of the budget needed to do both properly.
Come off it Dura. You don't have the real world experience of the armed forces that Philip has...
Another EU journalist. Raving about 30m hidden AZ doses ‘destined for Britain’
Literally halfway through the thread he seamlessly walks away from this by saying ‘it doesn’t matter if they were going to Britain or not’, then carries on raving. 5,000 retweets. This mad shit is going viral
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
He'll be able to capitalize on it ... how? What taxes will Labour raise and what services will it cut to guarantee no fall in troop levels? Most people will have noticed this little thing called the fiscal black hole caused by the global pandemic, all of which occurred after the manifesto was written.
Got it. We can't afford armed forces. A truly Tory campaign slogan.
Except that as Philip points out, spending is going up, not down.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Once you’re speaking in numbers of troops and not discussing outputs, you are basically saying you don’t care about military capability, you just want pretty parades. You’re like Sadam, with dozens of Mig29s, almost none of which flew.
To recapture the Falklands, for example, we would need troops and special forces and subs and aircraft carriers, to contribute to UN peacekeeping obligations and our NATO commitments we need troops and boots on the ground.
Cyberwarfare and drones will only go so far
1) Theres a garrison, which is enough to deter. 2) Argentina currently presents no military threat to anyone.
Regarding other obligations - why should we do peacekeeping? Leave that to countries without high capabilities, and the high end capabilities are what NATO needs from us. At most, troops in Europe are a speed bump/trip wire while we decide whether to go nuclear. We’ve assumed we’d lose the ground war with Russia since the 1970s. Might as well be a battle group as a division.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
He'll be able to capitalize on it ... how? What taxes will Labour raise and what services will it cut to guarantee no fall in troop levels? Most people will have noticed this little thing called the fiscal black hole caused by the global pandemic, all of which occurred after the manifesto was written.
There are plenty of other cuts that can be made before further cuts to the armed forces who are supposed to be part of the Tories core vote!
How about we compromise and only cut the troops from Scotland, to make it easier to, you know... < taps nose >
He's missed out the best bit - COVAX is enthusiastically supported by both the EU and the Italian government.
But surely these poor countries in the developing world fail the reciprocity criterion, because they aren't exporting vaccines to the EU?
Isn't it a good idea to wait to hear from Covax, or any other reputable source, if any vaccine supplies have been delayed before jumping to conclusions?
Talking of ‘jumping to conclusions’, here’s an esteemed EU journalist. Austrian.
So no actual evidence that any Covax vaccines have been stolen? Quick let's retweet some Austrian.
Unfortunately, this site has descended into an ugly form of groupthink.
The rules are you can post anything, no matter how inaccurate, you can just make any crap up, post any irrational conspiracy theory, it's all fine, positively encouraged, so long as the target is the EU or European governments.
It's ugly and shows a worrying fanatical mindset has taken hold in lots of people.
There's plenty to severely criticise the EU for or, for example the German government, while remaining accurate and in touch with reality.
Maybe my impression is coming from a vocal minority of hate-filled posters such as Leon, but I've had enough, I just leave with a plea to people to try to be accurate, and to see how things might look to someone from a different perspective.
You must have missed the 13 million times we have all been brutally critical of our own UK government, for its many terrible failings. Which are countless. We are not exactly kind
The problem is, right now, it is the EU and the member states which are royally fucking up, time and again, DURING A PLAGUE
Not one single person here wants to see our neighbours and friends in Europe suffer an hour more than necessary. They are often friends and family - certainly in my case.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Once you’re speaking in numbers of troops and not discussing outputs, you are basically saying you don’t care about military capability, you just want pretty parades. You’re like Sadam, with dozens of Mig29s, almost none of which flew.
To recapture the Falklands, for example, we would need troops and special forces and subs and aircraft carriers, to contribute to UN peacekeeping obligations and our NATO commitments we need troops and boots on the ground.
Cyberwarfare and drones will only go so far
1) Theres a garrison, which is enough to deter. 2) Argentina currently presents no military threat to anyone.
Regarding other obligations - why should we do peacekeeping? Leave that to countries without high capabilities, and the high end capabilities are what NATO needs from us. At most, troops in Europe are a speed bump/trip wire while we decide whether to go nuclear. We’ve assumed we’d lose the ground war with Russia since the 1970s. Might as well be a battle group as a division.
Who knows what the Argentine military will be like in a few years time and obviously much of its military is much closer to the islands than ours is so we need a sizeable military garrison to deter it as well as to be able to recapture them if necessary.
We are a UN Security council permanent member, one of just 5 in that role and a key member of NATO, we have obligations as part of both roles. It makes a complete mockery of the supposed post Brexit 'global Britain' to have troop numbers which would be significantly less than the French have for example, our main comparator power within the UN Security Council and NATO
Another EU journalist. Raving about 30m hidden AZ doses ‘destined for Britain’
Literally halfway through the thread he seamlessly walks away from this by saying ‘it doesn’t matter if they were going to Britain or not’, then carries on raving. 5,000 retweets. This mad shit is going viral
"Don't want to be paranoid, but maybe they know that something is wrong with the vaccine and they don't want to sell certain batches anymore. The behavior of this company is more than strange."
To be fair to the EU (it’s hard, but I’ll give it a go) AZ has made some perplexing errors - eg the latest gaffe in America. These feed into the lunatic theories. Shame
On the other hand, everyone seems to forget this is the cheapest jab by a distance, the easiest to use and distribute, the IP is being freely exported (cf India) and it is all being done NOT-FOR-PROFIT
It occurs to me that this generosity was an error. If AZ were charging $20 a jab rather than $2, everyone would probably be saying ‘what a brilliant vaccine, please can we have some more, at whatever price, you are too kind’.
People always place more value on things that cost more, even if they are exactly the same as free equivalents. See the behavior of readers to newspapers you buy versus newspapers given away.
It's pretty obvious the availability of a competitor at nigh on a 10th of the price is driving lots of 'sniping' from the more 'premium' vaccine makers.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
"Keir on fire"
Oh happy memories. I can remember a time on here where certain posters had two stock responses to PMQs. "Cameron on fire" or "Cameron pulling his punches" depending on how he had performed.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
😂😂😂😂😂
You watched a different PMQs to me then. Keir was ridiculous and hasn't a leg to stand on.
Surely this is a pretty straight forward one.
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
The armed forces are being modernised with record investment and increased spending, yes.
I'd rather fewer but better equipped armed forces fit for the times, than having more troops operating without the protection, equipment or weaponry that they require. Which would you prefer?
That isn't the choice though, is it? The tories have committed to this global power projection bollocks while cutting 30% of the strategic airlift capability, taking at least a two year capability gap on AWACS and cutting the new AWACS fleet by 40% before the first aircraft even arrives. Etc, etc.
It's all just empty posturing while real capabilities get cut and gapped because they cannot bring themselves to align the goals with the available funding. The government is trying to do global power projection AND have a massive land force committed to NATO on about 60% of the budget needed to do both properly.
I don't disagree that there's been cuts over the past decade, Osborne had no choice but to cut expenditure after what he inherited and that was done in the past I completely agree with you 100% on that. It was also the right thing to do as we needed to fix the black hole in the economy which is why we were able to cope with this pandemic as we went into it without the black hole that had been inherited.
The budget has been increased here - do you believe that the increase in budget would be better spent as the integrated review has advised on more modern equipment, or do you believe that the increase in budget would be better spent on more troops but without the equipment they need?
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
He'll be able to capitalize on it ... how? What taxes will Labour raise and what services will it cut to guarantee no fall in troop levels? Most people will have noticed this little thing called the fiscal black hole caused by the global pandemic, all of which occurred after the manifesto was written.
Got it. We can't afford armed forces. A truly Tory campaign slogan.
Except that as Philip points out, spending is going up, not down.
There's no logical inconsistency in increasing spending overall, but putting more of it into the latest equipment than into maintaining troop levels. There's this thing called technology, which makes it more effective to have one man with a machine gun than a hundred with stone knives.
Another EU journalist. Raving about 30m hidden AZ doses ‘destined for Britain’
Literally halfway through the thread he seamlessly walks away from this by saying ‘it doesn’t matter if they were going to Britain or not’, then carries on raving. 5,000 retweets. This mad shit is going viral
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Once you’re speaking in numbers of troops and not discussing outputs, you are basically saying you don’t care about military capability, you just want pretty parades. You’re like Sadam, with dozens of Mig29s, almost none of which flew.
To recapture the Falklands, for example, we would need troops and special forces and subs and aircraft carriers, to contribute to UN peacekeeping obligations and our NATO commitments we need troops and boots on the ground.
Cyberwarfare and drones will only go so far
1) Theres a garrison, which is enough to deter. 2) Argentina currently presents no military threat to anyone.
Regarding other obligations - why should we do peacekeeping? Leave that to countries without high capabilities, and the high end capabilities are what NATO needs from us. At most, troops in Europe are a speed bump/trip wire while we decide whether to go nuclear. We’ve assumed we’d lose the ground war with Russia since the 1970s. Might as well be a battle group as a division.
Who knows what the Argentine military will be like in a few years time and obviously much of its military is much closer to the islands than ours is so we need a sizeable military garrison to deter it as well as to be able to recapture them if necessary.
We are a UN Security council permanent member, one of just 5 in that role and a key member of NATO, we have obligations as part of both roles. It makes a complete mockery of the supposed post Brexit 'global Britain' to have troop numbers which would be significantly less than the French have for example, our main comparator power within the UN Security Council and NATO
Warfare for centuries now has not been just about the number of troops but the equipment those troops are wielding matters much more.
Having more troops that are underequipped is a step backwards not forwards.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
He'll be able to capitalize on it ... how? What taxes will Labour raise and what services will it cut to guarantee no fall in troop levels? Most people will have noticed this little thing called the fiscal black hole caused by the global pandemic, all of which occurred after the manifesto was written.
There are plenty of other cuts that can be made before further cuts to the armed forces who are supposed to be part of the Tories core vote!
How about we compromise and only cut the troops from Scotland, to make it easier to, you know... < taps nose >
The tories have just cut a battalion from the Mercians to shore up the chronically under recruited Royal Regiment of Scotland for ultimately futile reasons of union preservation. 100% political and probably pointless.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
He'll be able to capitalize on it ... how? What taxes will Labour raise and what services will it cut to guarantee no fall in troop levels? Most people will have noticed this little thing called the fiscal black hole caused by the global pandemic, all of which occurred after the manifesto was written.
Got it. We can't afford armed forces. A truly Tory campaign slogan.
Except that as Philip points out, spending is going up, not down.
There's no logical inconsistency in increasing spending overall, but putting more of it into the latest equipment than into maintaining troop levels. There's this thing called technology, which makes it more effective to have one man with a machine gun than a hundred with stone knives.
Oh I understand all that. Its just that your response to objections to cutting troop numbers was to demand to know how Keir would pay for it...
I was thinking about FOM on my bike ride earlier and came to the conclusion the only way it can work is for there to be an EU Health Service, an EU Welfare system and EU social housing - so if a family in Paris were after a council house, they’d have to accept one in Lithuania, for instance. I think I’d be ok with if we voted for it to be honest, it was the lopsided-ness push and pull factors of the system that I found unfair
The Office for National Statistics admitted its Labour Force Survey (LFS) may have 'significantly overstate(d) the change in the non-UK national population' in the year to December.
It reported a 20 per cent fall in the number of EU nationals - around 500,000 people. But Real Time Information (RTI) taken from PAYE tax records suggested that the decline in employed EU nationals was closer to 7 per cent, or 185,000 people.
The European Union has urged member states to consider if vaccine exports are "justified", as the bloc unveils tighter restrictions on shipping Covid-19 jabs beyond its borders.
Speaking at a press conference from Brussels Valdis Dombrovskis, the executive vice-president of the European Commission, said current guidelines on exporting vaccines have been updated to include the principles of "reciprocity" and "proportionality".
EU states should therefore consider whether a destination country restricts its own exports of vaccines and if the "conditions prevailing" - including the epidemiological situation, vaccination rates and access to jabs - mean exports are "justified".
The change comes amid growing criticism for the bloc's stuttering immunisation drive, and increasingly strained relations with Britain. The EU says it has exported 10 million jabs to the UK, but received none in return.
Keir on fire today, Labour can win on the armed forces
Labour however is choosing whether to oppose based entirely on how it looks. They won’t oppose on anything Brexit related, because it would look bad, despite the fact that the government has got it wrong and is driving small businesses into bankruptcy and individuals into unemployment. Labour will oppose on the armed forces, because they think it looks good, despite the fact that we don’t need so many troops and the changes are probably sensible.
You’d expect Tories like HY who are always banging on about the Tory election manifesto to be more vocal with their criticism. But where are they?
I said on Sunday I thought this decision was appalling and I stick to that now, we made a promise to keep troop numbers as they are and we should stick to that, I know a lot of Tory members are very unhappy with this and Starmer will obviously be able to capitalise on it
Fair play HYUFD. Still some supine acolytes banging the somewhat reduced in size drum, mind.
We're very different types of Tories.
HYUFD wants a large military he can send in to occupy Scotland and quash independence.
I want a military fit for NATO and the modern world.
Investing heavily in a domestic manufacturing site, that didn't previously produce vaccines, to provide for a country's domestic market isn't protectionism.
The EU simply fails to grasp the simple concept that the production of vaccines in Britain only exists because the UK asked for it and invested in it. Out of fear that they wouldn't have security of supply if they didn't. It wasn't created with the intention (in the short term) for export abroad, or supplying external markets. The fact that these sites appeared incidentally in the AZ/EU contract does not change this. There was no promise to supply the EU from these sites. On behalf of either AZ or the UK. They were there only in the event that they had spare capacity.
And AZ's manufacturing model is not based on this. Local manufacturing sites to support local supply lines. Unlike, say Pfizer who had established plants in Europe set up to provide for global supply.
Setting all humour aside - I know - you have to wonder how many more millions of vaccine doses are actually lost in various member states because they cannot persuade anyone to be vaccinated. Spain has had today to state that refusers of AZN will not be offered an alternative.
The nice thing about being a LibDem is that I can point to bollox on both Labour and Tory sides, knowing that our own policy platform is thin enough for us likely not to have our own position to be pulled up on.
Tories pledged not to cut troop numbers all of 2 years ago. The world and technology hasn't changed that much. They know their core vote thinks the Tories will protect the troops so tell them what they want to know. It doesn't matter that its an utter lie when the opposition are seen as being the ones who would actually cut troop numbers.
There is something genuinely funny watching some of you dancing on a pinhead trying to defend this. Its only @HYUFD on the blue side who has called it for what it is - a manifesto breech. Why not maintain troop numbers AND equip them properly?
Comments
Funny how two faced some people are. Its an *awful* policy when Labour propose it, a brilliant policy when the Tories do it.
"
Is the government going to cut troop numbers or not?
I asked for a pay rise to bring me in line with programmer salaries in the area after a year of doing this which would have been at that time 24k where as I was on 16k.
My department head looked puzzled and said you are already over paid we only pay secretaries 12k and you both do the same job which is typing. Notice went in following week after I found a new job
"We committed to funding and improving the armed services and following a review we now believe with the extra funding we are providing they are strongest with yes, fewer troops, but more investment in technology."
That would be fine with me. Not everything has to be denied when it is blatantly true.
https://twitter.com/grimmse/status/1374639886817443844?s=21
But....
The old owe the young a huge debt of gratitude for their compliance up to this point.
What they'll probably get in return, of course, is more of the shafting that's been going on for about twenty years.
We know how easy it is to attack Labour on the Armed forces. They will cut resources and troop numbers. Huzzah for the Tories! They will protect our brave boys by cutting resources and troop numbers.
You don't see the problem? Park party point scoring and look at the policy. If cutting troop numbers is Bad then why are the Tories pledged not to cut troop numbers? Something which they have a long consistent track record on.
Lack of consistency and hypocrisy, the Tory way
I'd rather fewer but better equipped armed forces fit for the times, than having more troops operating without the protection, equipment or weaponry that they require. Which would you prefer?
Literally halfway through the thread he seamlessly walks away from this by saying ‘it doesn’t matter if they were going to Britain or not’, then carries on raving. 5,000 retweets. This mad shit is going viral
https://twitter.com/stefanleifert/status/1374666289243901954?s=21
Defence is a wee bit of a problem for Labour, they are seen as way too soft on national defence. Because they are. That doesn't somehow mean that yet another swinging round of Tory cuts doesn't exist though. Saying you support the troops despite not doing works apparently/
We know how easy it is to attack Labour on the Armed forces. They will cut resources and troop numbers. Huzzah for the Tories! They will protect our brave boys by cutting resources and troop numbers.
You don't see the problem? Park party point scoring and look at the policy. If cutting troop numbers is Bad then why are the Tories pledged not to cut troop numbers? Something which they have a long consistent track record on.
The Tories are not cutting resources. Qyite the opposite.
Sending troops to war without equipment they need is worse than having fewer troops who are better equiped and able to act with top notch modern supplies.
The fall-out could be painful for everyone
Obvious question is: do these people REALLY believe AZ decided to ‘hide’ 30m jabs in Italy so they could secretly transport them to the UK, or is this yet another fake-news narrative being pushed by the EU and EU shills to divert from EU failings?
Tell Australia that.
And you talk about Tory cuts?
It's called standing up for and defending our country - which is the first duty of any Government.
Another major business in my field has apparently given everyone zero percent this year
"Don't want to be paranoid, but maybe they know that something is wrong with the vaccine and they don't want to sell certain batches anymore. The behavior of this company is more than strange."
It seems like a good thing to me to have a modernised military with modern tech. What about you? Do you think the integrated review makes sense or not?
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1374696404262719497?s=20
There increasingly seems to be a mindset in the EU that vaccines are to be hoarded as some store of value rather than consumed by being used.
We now have more adults with at least one vaccine than the did at the start of February.
With hundreds of billions banded out to pub landlord mates of the Health Secretary combined with the long and proud MoD history of vast wastes of money, spending 14% more at source is not remotely the same as a 14% increase in resources.
Germany is “in a new pandemic” in which the British Covid variant is dominant, Angela Merkel has said, as she announced a strict shutdown over Easter to halt soaring infection rates.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/23/merkel-germany-covid-british-variant-easter-lockdown
Today:
Angela Merkel has performed a U-turn on plans to put Germany under a hard lockdown over Easter following a critical backlash, describing the decision to close churches and shops over a five-day period as a mistake.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/24/angela-merkel-reverses-plans-for-easter-covid-lockdown-in-germany
Is this the record covid U turn ?
On the other hand, everyone seems to forget this is the cheapest jab by a distance, the easiest to use and distribute, the IP is being freely exported (cf India) and it is all being done NOT-FOR-PROFIT
It occurs to me that this generosity was an error. If AZ were charging $20 a jab rather than $2, everyone would probably be saying ‘what a brilliant vaccine, please can we have some more, at whatever price, you are too kind’.
People always place more value on things that cost more, even if they are exactly the same as free equivalents. See the behavior of readers to newspapers you buy versus newspapers given away.
Cyberwarfare and drones will only go so far
The integrated review is about what works for the modern world and our allies and NATO have praised it. That's good enough for me.
We should never repeat the shame of Tony Blair sending underequipped troops to war. It seems from Starmer's behaviour today he views the purpose of the military to be a few jobs for the boys (and maybe a few girls) and not actually about what they need to go with it.
Rather like the Church of England did (do?) their attendance sentences on the most "normal" Sunday in the year, which iirc used to be a quiet Sunday in October.
Still some supine acolytes banging the somewhat reduced in size drum, mind.
It's all just empty posturing while real capabilities get cut and gapped because they cannot bring themselves to align the goals with the available funding. The government is trying to do global power projection AND have a massive land force committed to NATO on about 60% of the budget needed to do both properly.
Unfortunately, this site has descended into an ugly form of groupthink.
The rules are you can post anything, no matter how inaccurate, you can just make any crap up, post any irrational conspiracy theory, it's all fine, positively encouraged, so long as the target is the EU or European governments.
It's ugly and shows a worrying fanatical mindset has taken hold in lots of people.
There's plenty to severely criticise the EU for or, for example the German government, while remaining accurate and in touch with reality.
Maybe my impression is coming from a vocal minority of hate-filled posters such as Leon, but I've had enough, I just leave with a plea to people to try to be accurate, and to see how things might look to someone from a different perspective.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1374706667984723971?s=21
Absolutely getting value for money is important, but having underequipped troops without the protection they need going to war is not a good level of resources don't you agree with that concept?
Except that as Philip points out, spending is going up, not down.
Regarding other obligations - why should we do peacekeeping? Leave that to countries without high capabilities, and the high end capabilities are what NATO needs from us. At most, troops in Europe are a speed bump/trip wire while we decide whether to go nuclear. We’ve assumed we’d lose the ground war with Russia since the 1970s. Might as well be a battle group as a division.
*As reported in The Guns of August and elsewhere....
The problem is, right now, it is the EU and the member states which are royally fucking up, time and again, DURING A PLAGUE
Not one single person here wants to see our neighbours and friends in Europe suffer an hour more than necessary. They are often friends and family - certainly in my case.
The politicians however? Pfff.
We are a UN Security council permanent member, one of just 5 in that role and a key member of NATO, we have obligations as part of both roles. It makes a complete mockery of the supposed post Brexit 'global Britain' to have troop numbers which would be significantly less than the French have for example, our main comparator power within the UN Security Council and NATO
Or am I missing something?
Oh happy memories. I can remember a time on here where certain posters had two stock responses to PMQs.
"Cameron on fire" or "Cameron pulling his punches" depending on how he had performed.
The budget has been increased here - do you believe that the increase in budget would be better spent as the integrated review has advised on more modern equipment, or do you believe that the increase in budget would be better spent on more troops but without the equipment they need?
Having more troops that are underequipped is a step backwards not forwards.
The Office for National Statistics admitted its Labour Force Survey (LFS) may have 'significantly overstate(d) the change in the non-UK national population' in the year to December.
It reported a 20 per cent fall in the number of EU nationals - around 500,000 people. But Real Time Information (RTI) taken from PAYE tax records suggested that the decline in employed EU nationals was closer to 7 per cent, or 185,000 people.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9397455/Mass-exodus-EU-workers-pandemic-exaggerated-says-ONS.html
Speaking at a press conference from Brussels Valdis Dombrovskis, the executive vice-president of the European Commission, said current guidelines on exporting vaccines have been updated to include the principles of "reciprocity" and "proportionality".
EU states should therefore consider whether a destination country restricts its own exports of vaccines and if the "conditions prevailing" - including the epidemiological situation, vaccination rates and access to jabs - mean exports are "justified".
The change comes amid growing criticism for the bloc's stuttering immunisation drive, and increasingly strained relations with Britain. The EU says it has exported 10 million jabs to the UK, but received none in return.
HYUFD wants a large military he can send in to occupy Scotland and quash independence.
I want a military fit for NATO and the modern world.
The EU simply fails to grasp the simple concept that the production of vaccines in Britain only exists because the UK asked for it and invested in it. Out of fear that they wouldn't have security of supply if they didn't. It wasn't created with the intention (in the short term) for export abroad, or supplying external markets. The fact that these sites appeared incidentally in the AZ/EU contract does not change this. There was no promise to supply the EU from these sites. On behalf of either AZ or the UK. They were there only in the event that they had spare capacity.
And AZ's manufacturing model is not based on this. Local manufacturing sites to support local supply lines. Unlike, say Pfizer who had established plants in Europe set up to provide for global supply.
Lisa Nandy’s recent endorsement of a report calling for the army to be abolished and replaced with a woke “peace force
Tories pledged not to cut troop numbers all of 2 years ago. The world and technology hasn't changed that much. They know their core vote thinks the Tories will protect the troops so tell them what they want to know. It doesn't matter that its an utter lie when the opposition are seen as being the ones who would actually cut troop numbers.
There is something genuinely funny watching some of you dancing on a pinhead trying to defend this. Its only @HYUFD on the blue side who has called it for what it is - a manifesto breech. Why not maintain troop numbers AND equip them properly?