Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
Ye.
The world
You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
Please read my post again; it doesn’t say what you want it to say.
What Dura Ace said is that the French Navy has less ability to deploy on a sustained basis than the RN (or at least, did until the recent past). In term of actual combat ships we’re more or less even.
The question is, when will we be required to maintain most of our fleet at sea for an extended period without the support of the USA? I can’t foresee a scenario. Which rising power would want to cut the sea lanes to and from the U.K.? It certainly isn’t China.
At some point, financial reality has to enter your grand schemes. 1945-1970 was a dismal period when we overspent on defence at the expense of re-equipping our industrial base, leaving us 30-40% behind France and Germany on a per capita GDP basis. It would be a mistake to repeat that policy, and in any case, there is no meaningful constituency to do so.
The period you describe is more akin to 1945-1958, to be honest. And it’s a totally different ballgame overspending 5-10% of GDP on defence (where i’d agree with you) than the 2.5% we managed in the mid 1990s.
Oh, and we can easily afford to properly equip our armed forces. Financial reality isn’t the issue - we’ve just decided to increase spending on the NHS by more than tenfold what the MoD are asking for.
It’s just we’d rather put our fingers in our ears and spend the money on something else.
Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
Yes, it is a bad choice.
The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.
We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.
The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.
You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
The alliance that has successfully helped defend us for the last 70 years is NATO not Europe.
Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
To be fair, France was helpful.
It's easy to forget that we succeeded in Operation Corporate by a gnat's bollock hair. It's very possible that without the help we got from France (DGSE holding up the Peruvian Exocet shipment, DACT with Mirage V, etc.) we would have lost.
It would have been even nicer had France held up the Exocet sales before the war as well.
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.
The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.
Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
If the Dems lose Florida and Ohio they lose. I agree they lean Trump. That is why they need someone who can lean one of them back again.
As SeanT states Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were closer in 2016 than Florida and Ohio and if the Democrats win the former and hold the Hillary states they win the Electoral College
Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
Yes, it is a bad choice.
The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.
We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.
The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.
You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
The alliance that has successfully helped defend us for the last 70 years is NATO not Europe.
Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
Mr. Thompson, why didn't NATO get involved in the Falklands?
It was a case of the UK and US interests not aligning. The Eisenhower was in the Atlantic at the time with CVW-7 embarked (so 2 x F-14 squadrons, 2 x A-7 squadrons, 2 x A-6 squadrons with electronic warfare, tanking and AWACS support). If they had sailed the Ike and its battle group south in an offensive posture the towel would have come in from the Argentinians in less than a week.
Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.
The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.
Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
The GOP is in trouble if PA is THE swing state at the next election, the Democrats have been getting HUGE swings there in various house races.
Yes PA is key, Wisconsin and Michigan were even closer
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
Except Hunt is not even in the top 5 of Conservative Home's next Tory leader Tory members poll and he has the second worst yougov rating for a Cabinet Minister after Gove
Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
Yes, it is a bad choice.
The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.
We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.
The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.
You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
The alliance that has successfully helped defend us for the last 70 years is NATO not Europe.
Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
To be fair, France was helpful.
Except in providing Exocet missiles to Argentina
That was before the Falklands were invaded. Typical French, couldn't unerringly predict the future!
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
I do not always see eye to eye with Sarah Wollaston but her call for Boris to resign on principal is entirely justified. He is much diminished by his absence from the Heathrow vote tonight and as for Williamson, he was promoted way above his pay grade
And does anyone else agree that the hype over England's win over some minnows yesterday is beyond extreme. Lets see how they perform against proper opposition
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
Except Hunt is not even in the top 5 of Conservative Home's next Tory leader Tory members poll and he has the second worst yougov rating for a Cabinet Minister after Gove
Neither was Theresa May in the months before she became PM.
ConHome polls are quasi voodoo polls now.
As for that YouGov ‘rating’ you’ve been told that’s a glorified voodoo poll.
The rating is based on the last 100 respondents, which gives it a ridiculous MOE.
Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.
The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.
Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
The GOP is in trouble if PA is THE swing state at the next election, the Democrats have been getting HUGE swings there in various house races.
Yes PA is key, Wisconsin and Michigan were even closer
In theory. In practice, it's only the key swing state if everything else stays in line i.e. there are no bigger swings against that Trump won last time, or that he doesn't take any from the Democrats (there were six states last time where the margin was less than 5.5%).
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
I do not always see eye to eye with Sarah Wollaston but her call for Boris to resign on principal is entirely justified. He is much diminished by his absence from the Heathrow vote tonight and as for Williamson, he was promoted way above his pay grade
And does anyone else agree that the hype over England's win over some minnows yesterday is beyond extreme. Lets see how they perform against proper opposition
Re your last point, I didn't think England were that great. They gave the ball away quite often and looked vulnerable at the back a couple of times.
For all that though, they created a lot of chances and took most of them. And compared to the utterly insipid performances in the previous two tournaments it's a sea-change.
Mr. Thompson, why didn't NATO get involved in the Falklands?
On that sort of note, Erdogan's entirely democratic victory looks like it'll make him even more powerful, and the country even less free and democratic.
Because we didn’t ask for Article V to be invoked.
Mrs Thatcher realised it would have placed America in an invidious position.
Much better to have their support under the radar.
If you want to know how much America and the EC helped the UK regain the Falklands read the book by Sir Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins on the war, and Mrs Thatcher’s autobiography and Charles Moore’s biography.
Plus it was good for the national psyche if people thought it was just us that retook the Falklands.
It wouldn't have mattered anyway. Article V only refers to attacks against the signatories in N America or Europe. My guess would be that that restriction exists (and more particularly, existed in 1949) precisely so as to avoid the US from being drawn into European colonial conflicts. Even in 1982, where it was a clear example of aggression by a dictatorship against the territory of a democracy, where the people on the islands were keen to remain with their existing settlement, there was a sizable body of opinion within the government, never mind the wider population, which was closer in sympathy to Argentina than Britain, on both pan-American and anti-imperial grounds. Reagan himself was quite ambivalent to begin with (unlike Mitterrand, who firmly backed Britain).
Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.
The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.
Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
The GOP is in trouble if PA is THE swing state at the next election, the Democrats have been getting HUGE swings there in various house races.
Yes PA is key, Wisconsin and Michigan were even closer
In theory. In practice, it's only the key swing state if everything else stays in line i.e. there are no bigger swings against that Trump won last time, or that he doesn't take any from the Democrats (there were six states last time where the margin was less than 5.5%).
Actually correction PA was fractionally closer than Wisconsin so Wisconsin is the key swing state but it is unlikely Trump will take any Hillary states or the Democrats will take Florida or Ohio if Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Michigan are neck and neck
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
Except Hunt is not even in the top 5 of Conservative Home's next Tory leader Tory members poll and he has the second worst yougov rating for a Cabinet Minister after Gove
Neither was Theresa May in the months before she became PM.
ConHome polls are quasi voodoo polls now.
As for that YouGov ‘rating’ you’ve been told that’s a glorified voodoo poll.
The rating is based on the last 100 respondents, which gives it a ridiculous MOE.
May led the ConHome poll in January 2016, the yougov rating is the only rating we have on Hunt at the moment with the public and it is abysmal, even Mogg and Boris poll significantly better than Hunt let alone Javid and Davidson and Mourdaunt
Mr. Thompson, why didn't NATO get involved in the Falklands?
On that sort of note, Erdogan's entirely democratic victory looks like it'll make him even more powerful, and the country even less free and democratic.
Because we didn’t ask for Article V to be invoked.
Mrs Thatcher realised it would have placed America in an invidious position.
Much better to have their support under the radar.
If you want to know how much America and the EC helped the UK regain the Falklands read the book by Sir Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins on the war, and Mrs Thatcher’s autobiography and Charles Moore’s biography.
Plus it was good for the national psyche if people thought it was just us that retook the Falklands.
It wouldn't have mattered anyway. Article V only refers to attacks against the signatories in N America or Europe. My guess would be that that restriction exists (and more particularly, existed in 1949) precisely so as to avoid the US from being drawn into European colonial conflicts. Even in 1982, where it was a clear example of aggression by a dictatorship against the territory of a democracy, where the people on the islands were keen to remain with their existing settlement, there was a sizable body of opinion within the government, never mind the wider population, which was closer in sympathy to Argentina than Britain, on both pan-American and anti-imperial grounds. Reagan himself was quite ambivalent to begin with (unlike Mitterrand, who firmly backed Britain).
There was an understanding that it could be invoked if it was felt that Russia was behind a distraction war elsewhere to distract/occupy NATO forces.
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
I do not always see eye to eye with Sarah Wollaston but her call for Boris to resign on principal is entirely justified. He is much diminished by his absence from the Heathrow vote tonight and as for Williamson, he was promoted way above his pay grade
And does anyone else agree that the hype over England's win over some minnows yesterday is beyond extreme. Lets see how they perform against proper opposition
Re your last point, I didn't think England were that great. They gave the ball away quite often and looked vulnerable at the back a couple of times.
For all that though, they created a lot of chances and took most of them. And compared to the utterly insipid performances in the previous two tournaments it's a sea-change.
Most countries' defences have been poor, perhaps because now they tend to play for clubs scattered across Europe which means acting as a unit is harder. We can win this World Cup. The big four have all had shaky starts. Of course, almost anyone else can win it as well.
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
Except Hunt is not even in the top 5 of Conservative Home's next Tory leader Tory members poll and he has the second worst yougov rating for a Cabinet Minister after Gove
Neither was Theresa May in the months before she became PM.
ConHome polls are quasi voodoo polls now.
As for that YouGov ‘rating’ you’ve been told that’s a glorified voodoo poll.
The rating is based on the last 100 respondents, which gives it a ridiculous MOE.
May led the ConHome poll in January 2016, the yougov rating is the only rating we have on Hunt at the moment with the public and it is abysmal, even Mogg and Boris poll significantly better than Hunt let alone Javid and Davidson and Mourdaunt
She was further behind in late 2015.
She was a 66/1 shot a couple of years before she became PM.
YouGov themselves have said that rating shouldn’t be used as a political rating.
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
I do not always see eye to eye with Sarah Wollaston but her call for Boris to resign on principal is entirely justified. He is much diminished by his absence from the Heathrow vote tonight and as for Williamson, he was promoted way above his pay grade
And does anyone else agree that the hype over England's win over some minnows yesterday is beyond extreme. Lets see how they perform against proper opposition
No, it's not beyond extreme. For a start, Panama, while one of the lower-ranked teams, still qualified for the World Cup (ahead of the USA, for one). They're not the mugs they were made to look in the first half. Secondly, had England had their scoring boots on, or a referee who could spot a rugby tackle, they might well have done exactly the same against Tunisia. Thirdly, there are no stand-out teams in this tournament - there's no reason why any one of quite a lot of teams, including England, could go all the way with a bit of luck. Fourthly, there seems to be a much better atmosphere within the camp at the moment and the team is actually playing like a team (apart from that Panama goal), rather than a bunch of individuals.
None of this is to say that England will win, or even that they'll get past the second round, but it is to say that they have a realistic chance.
Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
Ye.
The world
You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
Please read my post again; it doesn’t say what you want it to say.
What Dura Ace said is that the French Navy has less ability to deploy on a sustained basis than the RN (or at least, did until the recent past). In term of actual combat ships we’re more or less even.
The question is, when will we be required to maintain most of our fleet at sea for an extended period without the support of the USA? I can’t foresee a scenario. Which rising power would want to cut the sea lanes to and from the U.K.? It certainly isn’t China.
At some point, financial reality has to enter your grand schemes. 1945-1970 was a dismal period when we overspent on defence at the expense of re-equipping our industrial base, leaving us 30-40% behind France and Germany on a per capita GDP basis. It would be a mistake to repeat that policy, and in any case, there is no meaningful constituency to do so.
The period you describe is more akin to 1945-1958, to be honest. And it’s a totally different ballgame overspending 5-10% of GDP on defence (where i’d agree with you) than the 2.5% we managed in the mid 1990s.
Oh, and we can easily afford to properly equip our armed forces. Financial reality isn’t the issue - we’ve just decided to increase spending on the NHS by more than tenfold what the MoD are asking for.
It’s just we’d rather put our fingers in our ears and spend the money on something else.
Perhaps you’d like to check what % of our population is 65+ compared to the 1980s and 1950s? The structural reasons for growing healthcare and pensions spending are not going away. Even if we scrapped overseas aid completely we’d get to 2.7%, which isn’t enough to rebuild all the ancillary capabilities we’ve lost.
The RN fleet going into the Second World War had a greater average age than that going into 1914. Our armed forces have been living off past glories for a very long time indeed.
The problem with defence is that the number of possible serious attack vectors against us (and our interests) is massive, and I do wonder if it is greater than it has been at any other time.
There are the obvious ones like full thermonuclear war, through to economic and terrorist attacks. A 'traditional' military of guns and planes is not necessarily good at tackling or responding to all these threats, and intelligence-based efforts may be far better.
For instance, enhancing MI5's and the polices capabilities against terrorists may prove to be more effective spending than the same amount on the 'traditional' military. Likewise, economic attacks on things like Internet and power infrastructure might best be done by other groups.
It's a case of looking at the realistic threats, and working out how we would respond to them. For instance, after Salisbury it might be good for Porton Down (MOD) to get more funding.
As ever, if you have to use the guns-and-planes aspect of a military then you have to a certain extent already failed. Is it better to invest in preventing the need for them to use, and maintain a reactionary force for when you fail?
Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
Ye.
The world
You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
Please read my post again; it doesn’t say what you want it to say.
What Dura Ace said is that the French Navy has less ability to deploy on a sustained basis than the RN (or at least, did until the recent past). In term of actual combat ships we’re more or less even.
The question is, when will we be required to maintain most of our fleet at sea for an extended period without the support of the USA? I can’t foresee a scenario. Which rising power would want to cut the sea lanes to and from the U.K.? It certainly isn’t China.
At some point, financial reality has to enter your grand schemes. 1945-1970 was a dismal period when we overspent on defence at the expense of re-equipping our industrial base, leaving us 30-40% behind France and Germany on a per capita GDP basis. It would be a mistake to repeat that policy, and in any case, there is no meaningful constituency to do so.
The period you describe is more akin to 1945-1958, to be honest. And it’s a totally different ballgame overspending 5-10% of GDP on defence (where i’d agree with you) than the 2.5% we managed in the mid 1990s.
Oh, and we can easily afford to properly equip our armed forces. Financial reality isn’t the issue - we’ve just decided to increase spending on the NHS by more than tenfold what the MoD are asking for.
It’s just we’d rather put our fingers in our ears and spend the money on something else.
Perhaps you’d like to check what % of our population is 65+ compared to the 1980s and 1950s? The structural reasons for growing healthcare and pensions spending are not going away. Even if we scrapped overseas aid completely we’d get to 2.7%, which isn’t enough to rebuild all the ancillary capabilities we’ve lost.
The RN fleet going into the Second World War had a greater average age than that going into 1914. Our armed forces have been living off past glories for a very long time indeed.
Yep. Keep those fingers in those ears, and keep whistling.
Mr. Thompson, why didn't NATO get involved in the Falklands?
On that sort of note, Erdogan's entirely democratic victory looks like it'll make him even more powerful, and the country even less free and democratic.
Because we didn’t ask for Article V to be invoked.
Mrs Thatcher realised it would have placed America in an invidious position.
Much better to have their support under the radar.
If you want to know how much America and the EC helped the UK regain the Falklands read the book by Sir Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins on the war, and Mrs Thatcher’s autobiography and Charles Moore’s biography.
Plus it was good for the national psyche if people thought it was just us that retook the Falklands.
It wouldn't have mattered anyway. Article V only refers to attacks against the signatories in N America or Europe. My guess would be that that restriction exists (and more particularly, existed in 1949) precisely so as to avoid the US from being drawn into European colonial conflicts. Even in 1982, where it was a clear example of aggression by a dictatorship against the territory of a democracy, where the people on the islands were keen to remain with their existing settlement, there was a sizable body of opinion within the government, never mind the wider population, which was closer in sympathy to Argentina than Britain, on both pan-American and anti-imperial grounds. Reagan himself was quite ambivalent to begin with (unlike Mitterrand, who firmly backed Britain).
There was an understanding that it could be invoked if it was felt that Russia was behind a distraction war elsewhere to distract/occupy NATO forces.
I imagine it was more an understanding that there would be a voluntary, but expected, NATO response in that circumstance, rather than a formal triggering of Article V.
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
I do not always see eye to eye with Sarah Wollaston but her call for Boris to resign on principal is entirely justified. He is much diminished by his absence from the Heathrow vote tonight and as for Williamson, he was promoted way above his pay grade
And does anyone else agree that the hype over England's win over some minnows yesterday is beyond extreme. Lets see how they perform against proper opposition
Re your last point, I didn't think England were that great. They gave the ball away quite often and looked vulnerable at the back a couple of times.
For all that though, they created a lot of chances and took most of them. And compared to the utterly insipid performances in the previous two tournaments it's a sea-change.
Most countries' defences have been poor, perhaps because now they tend to play for clubs scattered across Europe which means acting as a unit is harder. We can win this World Cup. The big four have all had shaky starts. Of course, almost anyone else can win it as well.
I agree with that. I reckon there's about the same chance we could win the competition as there is that we could lose the next two games. If it's the latter, I will console myself that I can enjoy the quarter-finals onwards stress-free.
Firstly, he didn't want to become President in the first place, what he was aiming for was to lose and be able to go on Fox and complain about the rotten election system that kept him out, etc. etc. etc..
Even with all the distraction kerfuffle about immigrants and splitting babies and children from their parents, the legal problems for Trump are growing day by day, if, and it seems likely that Cohen flips, then Trump will be going to prison. Both Mueller and NYC Justice reputedly have enough now to pull the plug on the Presidency, Cohen flipping would be the icing on the cake.
Lastly, and this seems unbelievable until you think about the first point, he is doing his best to lose the GOP their majority in both houses, as with the Dems in power, they would be blocking all of his "great" initiatives to make US great again, giving him more time on the golf course, and of course, plenty of air time on Fox complaining about the rotten electoral system....
Trump only thinks about one person, and he sees him every time he looks in a mirror.
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
I do not always see eye to eye with Sarah Wollaston but her call for Boris to resign on principal is entirely justified. He is much diminished by his absence from the Heathrow vote tonight and as for Williamson, he was promoted way above his pay grade
And does anyone else agree that the hype over England's win over some minnows yesterday is beyond extreme. Lets see how they perform against proper opposition
No, it's not beyond extreme. For a start, Panama, while one of the lower-ranked teams, still qualified for the World Cup (ahead of the USA, for one). They're not the mugs they were made to look in the first half. Secondly, had England had their scoring boots on, or a referee who could spot a rugby tackle, they might well have done exactly the same against Tunisia. Thirdly, there are no stand-out teams in this tournament - there's no reason why any one of quite a lot of teams, including England, could go all the way with a bit of luck. Fourthly, there seems to be a much better atmosphere within the camp at the moment and the team is actually playing like a team (apart from that Panama goal), rather than a bunch of individuals.
None of this is to say that England will win, or even that they'll get past the second round, but it is to say that they have a realistic chance.
I think that is fair but the test comes when they play the big teams and I reserve my judgement until then. However, if England even reach the final it would be a big boost to the UK, maybe apart from the SNP
Firstly, he didn't want to become President in the first place, what he was aiming for was to lose and be able to go on Fox and complain about the rotten election system that kept him out, etc. etc. etc..
Even with all the distraction kerfuffle about immigrants and splitting babies and children from their parents, the legal problems for Trump are growing day by day, if, and it seems likely that Cohen flips, then Trump will be going to prison. Both Mueller and NYC Justice reputedly have enough now to pull the plug on the Presidency, Cohen flipping would be the icing on the cake.
Lastly, and this seems unbelievable until you think about the first point, he is doing his best to lose the GOP their majority in both houses, as with the Dems in power, they would be blocking all of his "great" initiatives to make US great again, giving him more time on the golf course, and of course, plenty of air time on Fox complaining about the rotten electoral system....
Trump only thinks about one person, and he sees him every time he looks in a mirror.
Mueller and NYC Justice can't pull the plug on the presidency. The best they can do is write a report to Congress and see if they want to pull the plug on the presidency which, since their base is Trumpist, they won't.
What the presidency is giving Trump, in addition to feeding his ego, is lots of opportunities for stealing, and it's almost impossible to imagine that he'd pass up the opportunity to carry on stealing, as well as to use the office to protect himself and his people.
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
Except Hunt is not even in the top 5 of Conservative Home's next Tory leader Tory members poll and he has the second worst yougov rating for a Cabinet Minister after Gove
Neither was Theresa May in the months before she became PM.
ConHome polls are quasi voodoo polls now.
As for that YouGov ‘rating’ you’ve been told that’s a glorified voodoo poll.
The rating is based on the last 100 respondents, which gives it a ridiculous MOE.
May led the ConHome poll in January 2016, the yougov rating is the only rating we have on Hunt at the moment with the public and it is abysmal, even Mogg and Boris poll significantly better than Hunt let alone Javid and Davidson and Mourdaunt
She was further behind in late 2015.
She was a 66/1 shot a couple of years before she became PM.
YouGov themselves have said that rating shouldn’t be used as a political rating.
But you know better than YouGov.
May polled far better than Hunt with the public with Yougov pre June 2016 than Hunt is now, she was never a net negative on the Tories as Hunt is, going back to 2002 she was included in polls and always kept the Tories about par or slightly above at least. Hunt now polls significantly worse than May, only Gove does worse and at least Gove polls better with the Tory membership
Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
Yes, it is a bad choice.
The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.
We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.
The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.
You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
The alliance that has successfully helped defend us for the last 70 years is NATO not Europe.
Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
To be fair, France was helpful.
Except in providing Exocet missiles to Argentina
That was before the Falklands were invaded. Typical French, couldn't unerringly predict the future!
The story of the French, the Exocets and the Falklands is a complex one.....
Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
Yes, it is a bad choice.
The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.
We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.
The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.
You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
The alliance that has successfully helped defend us for the last 70 years is NATO not Europe.
Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
To be fair, France was helpful.
It's easy to forget that we succeeded in Operation Corporate by a gnat's bollock hair. It's very possible that without the help we got from France (DGSE holding up the Peruvian Exocet shipment, DACT with Mirage V, etc.) we would have lost.
O/t Why does it take at least an hour longer to get off the ferry and out of the port in Newcastle than it does in Amsterdam? Those who go on about the adverse consequences of another 15 minutes clearly have no experience of the current shambles.
My money is on Joe Biden. He's well known, likeable, experienced, appeals to the rust belt. He would have run and beat Trump last time had he not had a family tragedy.
Biden would probably have won, yes.
But:
Old, old, old, old, old, old, old.
Hickenlooper is the man. Great backstory. Popular governor of swing state. Slightly boring. Very competent. Beer.
The bigger question about Biden is whether he will run. I've backed him, but also profitably laid some of the stake, as I think it's maybe 50/50, and the longer he remains undecided, the less likely his candidature.
I have some money on Harris, too. If nothing else, she has guts: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html?_r=0 In April 2004, four months after she took office in San Francisco, a 29-year-old police officer, Isaac Espinoza, was shot and killed on patrol. The city’s police union urged Harris to seek the death penalty for the suspect. Three days after Espinoza’s death, Harris announced that she would not. More than 2,000 uniformed police officers packed St. Mary’s Cathedral for the funeral. With Harris in the front row, Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the state’s most powerful Democrats, took the pulpit and called for the death penalty. Waves of cops rose to their feet and applauded. Shyamala sent white roses to her daughter’s office with a card that read “Courage!” Harris held firm, and Espinoza’s killer received a sentence of life in prison. “Our members never forgave Harris,” says Gary Delagnes, then the president of the union…
That is a Trump attack ad in the making if ever there was one, Harris would be a sitting duck in Middle America as Dukakis was in 1988
Hardly. Dukakis came across as a wimp; Harris will give as good as she gets.
In any event, you should have read the rest of the piece: Once in office, she made a point of building bridges, and some of the law-enforcement leaders I spoke to praised her support (as they saw it) for Rackauckas in Orange County and the distance she has kept from sentencing reform. They also said she reassured them on the death penalty. In 2014, Harris appealed a federal judge’s decision striking down California’s system of capital punishment as unconstitutional. By the time of her re-election campaign two years ago, she had the endorsement of four dozen law enforcement groups, and she won easily....
The problem with defence is that the number of possible serious attack vectors against us (and our interests) is massive, and I do wonder if it is greater than it has been at any other time.
There are the obvious ones like full thermonuclear war, through to economic and terrorist attacks. A 'traditional' military of guns and planes is not necessarily good at tackling or responding to all these threats, and intelligence-based efforts may be far better.
For instance, enhancing MI5's and the polices capabilities against terrorists may prove to be more effective spending than the same amount on the 'traditional' military. Likewise, economic attacks on things like Internet and power infrastructure might best be done by other groups.
It's a case of looking at the realistic threats, and working out how we would respond to them. For instance, after Salisbury it might be good for Porton Down (MOD) to get more funding.
As ever, if you have to use the guns-and-planes aspect of a military then you have to a certain extent already failed. Is it better to invest in preventing the need for them to use, and maintain a reactionary force for when you fail?
It's both, really. There does need to be a recognition that cyber-warfare is a major threat and the UK's capacity both to withstand attack and also to launch attacks should be appropriate to the country's size. Whether that means beefing up GCHQ or establishing entirely new structures is a lesser question.
However, for a trading nation, the sea-lanes of the world need to be kept open, which means a strong navy able to project force - which in turn means having both carriers commissioned and usable, together with necessary escorts, plus sufficient destroyers / frigates to patrol elsewhere. We should also have an army capable of deploying at least 30,000 on major extended overseas operations such as the Gulf or Iraq Wars, with enough spare to cope with either a secondary conflict or domestic disturbance duties. So yes, there should be a sizable increase in spending, incremented over 5-10 years.
The problem with defence is that the number of possible serious attack vectors against us (and our interests) is massive, and I do wonder if it is greater than it has been at any other time.
There are the obvious ones like full thermonuclear war, through to economic and terrorist attacks. A 'traditional' military of guns and planes is not necessarily good at tackling or responding to all these threats, and intelligence-based efforts may be far better.
For instance, enhancing MI5's and the polices capabilities against terrorists may prove to be more effective spending than the same amount on the 'traditional' military. Likewise, economic attacks on things like Internet and power infrastructure might best be done by other groups.
It's a case of looking at the realistic threats, and working out how we would respond to them. For instance, after Salisbury it might be good for Porton Down (MOD) to get more funding.
As ever, if you have to use the guns-and-planes aspect of a military then you have to a certain extent already failed. Is it better to invest in preventing the need for them to use, and maintain a reactionary force for when you fail?
It's both, really. There does need to be a recognition that cyber-warfare is a major threat and the UK's capacity both to withstand attack and also to launch attacks should be appropriate to the country's size. Whether that means beefing up GCHQ or establishing entirely new structures is a lesser question.
However, for a trading nation, the sea-lanes of the world need to be kept open, which means a strong navy able to project force - which in turn means having both carriers commissioned and usable, together with necessary escorts, plus sufficient destroyers / frigates to patrol elsewhere. We should also have an army capable of deploying at least 30,000 on major extended overseas operations such as the Gulf or Iraq Wars, with enough spare to cope with either a secondary conflict or domestic disturbance duties. So yes, there should be a sizable increase in spending, incremented over 5-10 years.
Bang on.
I wrote an almost identical letter (to this post) to my MP on Friday, who just so happens to sit in Cabinet.
A pro-Corbyn group is to launch its own drive for a “people’s vote” on a final Brexit deal, with the aim of persuading leftwing Labour members concerned about backing a cross-party campaign.
Jezza better book up this diary with overseas engagements for the next year....
It will be in Boris's interest to say that Brexit is a fabulous success however it turns out. I really can't envisage him - or any other Leaver for that matter - saying 'Sorry chaps, we buggered up a bit with all that'. Brexit to them is necessarily perfect.
A pro-Corbyn group is to launch its own drive for a “people’s vote” on a final Brexit deal, with the aim of persuading leftwing Labour members concerned about backing a cross-party campaign.
Jezza better book up this diary with overseas engagements for the next year....
Very good article by Harris in the Graun as was pointed out earlier in this thread.
If anything it seems to be as much that having Her Majesty's Opposition run from an Islington Fair Trade Quinoa bar is becoming as much an issue as any particular policy stance, including Brexit.
Morning all. Can’t let a conversation about the Falklands War go past without mentioning the RAF strategists and their mad plan for 17 almost-retired relics of the 1950s...
Someone in the Guardian has com up with remark that the only part of Boris statement about Heathrow.... the lying down in front of the bulldozers one...... is the first three words, viz 'I will lie'
The way the other groups are panning out, it's a shame the score didn't stay the way it was at half time, in which case England would have definitely come second with a draw.
Look forward to Belgium and England both vying to lose to the other next week, or, in the event of not being able to persuade the other to score, contriving to have a sacrificial substitute sent off in the 90th minute in order to mess up their fair play tally.
If that's accurate then Boris has (once again) messed up the PR. It'll really look like the equivalent of hiding in the toilets if he flies out as late as this afternoon (with destination presumably still unknown). It'd have been much better for him to have appeared in a TV interview this morning with him already in India or Africa, for example.
If that's accurate then Boris has (once again) messed up the PR. It'll really look like the equivalent of hiding in the toilets if he flies out as late as this afternoon (with destination presumably still unknown). It'd have been much better for him to have appeared in a TV interview this morning with him already in India or Africa, for example.
If only pilots suddenly decided to strike this afternoon!!!
If that's accurate then Boris has (once again) messed up the PR. It'll really look like the equivalent of hiding in the toilets if he flies out as late as this afternoon (with destination presumably still unknown). It'd have been much better for him to have appeared in a TV interview this morning with him already in India or Africa, for example.
Is Britain so diminished that we can't find any foreign government willing to meet our Foreign Secretary at short notice?
If that's accurate then Boris has (once again) messed up the PR. It'll really look like the equivalent of hiding in the toilets if he flies out as late as this afternoon (with destination presumably still unknown). It'd have been much better for him to have appeared in a TV interview this morning with him already in India or Africa, for example.
Further down that Twitter feed is a suggestion that the Afghans are expcting him 'later today'. Surely he should have left by now!
The way the other groups are panning out, it's a shame the score didn't stay the way it was at half time, in which case England would have definitely come second with a draw.
Look forward to Belgium and England both vying to lose to the other next week, or, in the event of not being able to persuade the other to score, contriving to have a sacrificial substitute sent off in the 90th minute in order to mess up their fair play tally.
I don't understand this? Doesn't the winner of our group play the runner up of (probably) Japan and Senegal next who are still tied? I don't see how losing helps there and the latter rounds are even more of a lottery at this stage.
Given how other top teams are struggling the confidence boost from beating Belgium if we do is worth more than an easier tie.
A lot of people saying Dems need someone like Biden or Bernie to win white working class voters.
Sorry that is NOT where the Democratic base is. They will not nominate a white man for 2020, identity politics still reigns supreme in the party for better or for worse (of course the right is just as bad when it comes to identity politics if not worse).
Look at Dem nominee's for open House seats, women are way over preforming men and ideology is playing very little part in it apart from the far left candidates getting mostly badly beaten.
Boris should just say that when he's PM he'll cancel the Heathrow expansion - end of story. Yes, that will undermine and humiliate Theresa, but he's been doing that endlessly with Brexit anyway. What's the difference?
A lot of people saying Dems need someone like Biden or Bernie to win white working class voters.
Sorry that is NOT where the Democratic base is. They will not nominate a white man for 2020, identity politics still reigns supreme in the party for better or for worse (of course the right is just as bad when it comes to identity politics if not worse).
Look at Dem nominee's for open House seats, women are way over preforming men and ideology is playing very little part in it apart from the far left candidates getting mostly badly beaten.
Winning the south is key to winning the Democratic nominee since Black voters play a huge role in Dem primaries, punching well above their weight, therefore Harris has a very good shot at the nominee whether she would win in an General I'm not sure. But she's not that left wing as some think except maybe on immigration but America is well to the left on immigration to Britain anyway. Trump is an outlier who got fewer voter then McCain and out of touch Romney.
The way the other groups are panning out, it's a shame the score didn't stay the way it was at half time, in which case England would have definitely come second with a draw.
Look forward to Belgium and England both vying to lose to the other next week, or, in the event of not being able to persuade the other to score, contriving to have a sacrificial substitute sent off in the 90th minute in order to mess up their fair play tally.
I don't understand this? Doesn't the winner of our group play the runner up of (probably) Japan and Senegal next who are still tied? I don't see how losing helps there and the latter rounds are even more of a lottery at this stage.
Given how other top teams are struggling the confidence boost from beating Belgium if we do is worth more than an easier tie.
Absolutely. Under-performing (or giving leading players a rest, or whatever), to avoid opponents is a very public sign of being scared of the opposition, and an admission that you expect to lose as soon as you come up against a bigger team. Play to win, with confidence, and there's a decent chance you will. Let the other matches take care of themselves.
However, for a trading nation, the sea-lanes of the world need to be kept open, which means a strong navy able to project force - which in turn means having both carriers commissioned and usable, together with necessary escorts, plus sufficient destroyers / frigates to patrol elsewhere. We should also have an army capable of deploying at least 30,000 on major extended overseas operations such as the Gulf or Iraq Wars, with enough spare to cope with either a secondary conflict or domestic disturbance duties. So yes, there should be a sizable increase in spending, incremented over 5-10 years.
Yeah, that's going to take a lot more than a sizable increase and it's going to take a lot longer than 10 years.
To provision two carrier strike groups simultaneously you'd have to double the size of RN surface combatant fleet and acquire another three Astutes. The RFA is inadequate for what we're doing now so triple tanker and solid supply hulls. That will need a great deal of vertrep and ASW support so we're probably into increasing the size of the FAA rotary wing fleet. Now Culdrose isn't big enough so let's build another NAS. We probably need at least another 10-12 F-35s for the second air wing. Now Marham isn't big enough. Maybe we can buy Coltishall back and demolish the solar farm.
Pompey and Guzz are already full so there isn't the dock space for all of this (tories closed Portland and sold it off) so we need another Naval base on the Channel. Has anyone seen those forms we use for compulsory purchase orders?
Naturally we don't have anywhere near enough crew for all of this so they'll have to be recruited, trained and seasoned.
20bn and ten years wouldn't touch the sides. The hulls themselves are an expensive and time consuming proposition but all that pales when compared to building the supporting infrastructure and having sufficient people to crew them.
Inflation at 11% sounds quite high. One shudders to think what the journalists here who wet themselves over 3% would make of it.
Mrs Eek was in Turkey last week. For the first time in 10 years the resorts are pricing things in Euros / Dollars and would prefer Euros / Dollars to Lira....
The way the other groups are panning out, it's a shame the score didn't stay the way it was at half time, in which case England would have definitely come second with a draw.
Look forward to Belgium and England both vying to lose to the other next week, or, in the event of not being able to persuade the other to score, contriving to have a sacrificial substitute sent off in the 90th minute in order to mess up their fair play tally.
I don't understand this? Doesn't the winner of our group play the runner up of (probably) Japan and Senegal next who are still tied? I don't see how losing helps there and the latter rounds are even more of a lottery at this stage.
Given how other top teams are struggling the confidence boost from beating Belgium if we do is worth more than an easier tie.
A lot will depend on the outcome of the Brazil and Germany groups, but I can see advantages to finishing second. Finish first and we go to Rostov which is very hot. But more importantly, the quarter final would be played in the afternoon. Finish second and we then go to Moscow (not quite as hot) followed by an evening quarter final.
Inflation at 11% sounds quite high. One shudders to think what the journalists here who wet themselves over 3% would make of it.
Mrs Eek was in Turkey last week. For the first time in 10 years the resorts are pricing things in Euros / Dollars and would prefer Euros / Dollars to Lira....
I worked there in the mid 90's when the inflation rate was over 150%. Everyone other than locals were paid in dollars. They were offering interest rates of 90%.
However, for a trading nation, the sea-lanes of the world need to be kept open, which means a strong navy able to project force - which in turn means having both carriers commissioned and usable, together with necessary escorts, plus sufficient destroyers / frigates to patrol elsewhere. We should also have an army capable of deploying at least 30,000 on major extended overseas operations such as the Gulf or Iraq Wars, with enough spare to cope with either a secondary conflict or domestic disturbance duties. So yes, there should be a sizable increase in spending, incremented over 5-10 years.
Yeah, that's going to take a lot more than a sizable increase and it's going to take a lot longer than 10 years.
To provision two carrier strike groups simultaneously you'd have to double the size of RN surface combatant fleet and acquire another three Astutes. The RFA is inadequate for what we're doing now so triple tanker and solid supply hulls. That will need a great deal of vertrep and ASW support so we're probably into increasing the size of the FAA rotary wing fleet. Now Culdrose isn't big enough so let's build another NAS. We probably need at least another 10-12 F-35s for the second air wing. Now Marham isn't big enough. Maybe we can buy Coltishall back and demolish the solar farm.
Pompey and Guzz are already full so there isn't the dock space for all of this (tories closed Portland and sold it off) so we need another Naval base on the Channel. Has anyone seen those forms we use for compulsory purchase orders?
Naturally we don't have anywhere near enough crew for all of this so they'll have to be recruited, trained and seasoned.
20bn and ten years wouldn't touch the sides. The hulls themselves are an expensive and time consuming proposition but all that pales when compared to building the supporting infrastructure and having sufficient people to crew them.
Williamson isn't after an extra £20bn. He's after an extra £20bn per year, which should be enough. I agree that 10 years wouldn't be enough time to get it finished but it would be long enough to get the contracts in place and building underway.
As an aside, you don't necessarily need both carriers operating simulataneously, though they should be able to in an emergency, even if it means having to strip support from elsewhere. But we should have both operational, so that there's always at least one at sea or ready to go to sea at any given time, while the other's down for servicing, refitting and so on. Granted, that still means having the facilities to support them and the aircraft to operate from them, but it doesn't necessarily mean two full carrier groups' worth of escorts.
A lot of people saying Dems need someone like Biden or Bernie to win white working class voters.
Sorry that is NOT where the Democratic base is. They will not nominate a white man for 2020, identity politics still reigns supreme in the party for better or for worse (of course the right is just as bad when it comes to identity politics if not worse).
Look at Dem nominee's for open House seats, women are way over preforming men and ideology is playing very little part in it apart from the far left candidates getting mostly badly beaten.
Personality politics.
Are we for it or against it?
Ideology and policies should surely be fundamental but you need a strong personality as leader to drive through the change. The partnership of Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher split the role with Thatcher the driving force.
Who could be today's partnership for Conservative, Labour or Lib Dems?
Sarah Wollaston's twitter remark is neither funny nor informative - just gratuitously trying to stir up trouble. She is becoming a liability to the Conservative party.
However, for a trading nation, the sea-lanes of the world need to be kept open, which means a strong navy able to project force - which in turn means having both carriers commissioned and usable, together with necessary escorts, plus sufficient destroyers / frigates to patrol elsewhere. We should also have an army capable of deploying at least 30,000 on major extended overseas operations such as the Gulf or Iraq Wars, with enough spare to cope with either a secondary conflict or domestic disturbance duties. So yes, there should be a sizable increase in spending, incremented over 5-10 years.
Yeah, that's going to take a lot more than a sizable increase and it's going to take a lot longer than 10 years.
To provision two carrier strike g.
Pompey and Guzz are already full so there isn't the dock space for all of this (tories closed Portland and sold it off) so we need another Naval base on the Channel. Has anyone seen those forms we use for compulsory purchase orders?
Naturally we don't have anywhere near enough crew for all of this so they'll have to be recruited, trained and seasoned.
20bn and ten years wouldn't touch the sides. The hulls themselves are an expensive and time consuming proposition but all that pales when compared to building the supporting infrastructure and having sufficient people to crew them.
Williamson isn't after an extra £20bn. He's after an extra £20bn per year, which should be enough. I agree that 10 years wouldn't be enough time to get it finished but it would be long enough to get the contracts in place and building underway.
As an aside, you don't necessarily need both carriers operating simulataneously, though they should be able to in an emergency, even if it means having to strip support from elsewhere. But we should have both operational, so that there's always at least one at sea or ready to go to sea at any given time, while the other's down for servicing, refitting and so on. Granted, that still means having the facilities to support them and the aircraft to operate from them, but it doesn't necessarily mean two full carrier groups' worth of escorts.
So you advocate completely repositioning the UK's strategic global role?
I mean it sounds great (subject of course to @Dura_Ace's reality check it ain't gonna fkin happen, etc) but why? Why now?
Is it Brexit? I think it is for @Casino_Royale who is feeling a bit insecure right now, but you also?
Williamson isn't after an extra £20bn. He's after an extra £20bn per year, which should be enough. I agree that 10 years wouldn't be enough time to get it finished but it would be long enough to get the contracts in place and building underway.
So he's asking for a 40% increase in defence spending? I wonder if the fireplace showroom has kept his job open because I have a feeling the stupid twat might be needing it.
Comments
Oh, and we can easily afford to properly equip our armed forces. Financial reality isn’t the issue - we’ve just decided to increase spending on the NHS by more than tenfold what the MoD are asking for.
It’s just we’d rather put our fingers in our ears and spend the money on something else.
Having once claimed that being health secretary was "likely to be my last big job in politics", Hunt has his eye on a bigger prize.
During this summer drinks season, his is the name that I have heard most as a possible, plausible leader. And he sparks the least angry reaction from non-fans – "I couldn't stay in the party led by X", is a regular refrain after the second glass of fizz.
Johnson has only added to his detractors, while Gavin Williamson is trying to play Hunt's game with defence spending with rather less subtlety.
And does anyone else agree that the hype over England's win over some minnows yesterday is beyond extreme. Lets see how they perform against proper opposition
ConHome polls are quasi voodoo polls now.
As for that YouGov ‘rating’ you’ve been told that’s a glorified voodoo poll.
The rating is based on the last 100 respondents, which gives it a ridiculous MOE.
For all that though, they created a lot of chances and took most of them. And compared to the utterly insipid performances in the previous two tournaments it's a sea-change.
She was a 66/1 shot a couple of years before she became PM.
YouGov themselves have said that rating shouldn’t be used as a political rating.
But you know better than YouGov.
None of this is to say that England will win, or even that they'll get past the second round, but it is to say that they have a realistic chance.
The RN fleet going into the Second World War had a greater average age than that going into 1914. Our armed forces have been living off past glories for a very long time indeed.
If it was made in England you're okay.
If it was made in Ecuador you should have been in working in your garden.
If it was made in China oh dear.
There are the obvious ones like full thermonuclear war, through to economic and terrorist attacks. A 'traditional' military of guns and planes is not necessarily good at tackling or responding to all these threats, and intelligence-based efforts may be far better.
For instance, enhancing MI5's and the polices capabilities against terrorists may prove to be more effective spending than the same amount on the 'traditional' military. Likewise, economic attacks on things like Internet and power infrastructure might best be done by other groups.
It's a case of looking at the realistic threats, and working out how we would respond to them. For instance, after Salisbury it might be good for Porton Down (MOD) to get more funding.
As ever, if you have to use the guns-and-planes aspect of a military then you have to a certain extent already failed. Is it better to invest in preventing the need for them to use, and maintain a reactionary force for when you fail?
Firstly, he didn't want to become President in the first place, what he was aiming for was to lose and be able to go on Fox and complain about the rotten election system that kept him out, etc. etc. etc..
Even with all the distraction kerfuffle about immigrants and splitting babies and children from their parents, the legal problems for Trump are growing day by day, if, and it seems likely that Cohen flips, then Trump will be going to prison. Both Mueller and NYC Justice reputedly have enough now to pull the plug on the Presidency, Cohen flipping would be the icing on the cake.
Lastly, and this seems unbelievable until you think about the first point, he is doing his best to lose the GOP their majority in both houses, as with the Dems in power, they would be blocking all of his "great" initiatives to make US great again, giving him more time on the golf course, and of course, plenty of air time on Fox complaining about the rotten electoral system....
Trump only thinks about one person, and he sees him every time he looks in a mirror.
What the presidency is giving Trump, in addition to feeding his ego, is lots of opportunities for stealing, and it's almost impossible to imagine that he'd pass up the opportunity to carry on stealing, as well as to use the office to protect himself and his people.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1010240903959777280
https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1010241491833241600
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1010242353163055104
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/05/27/The-United-States-has-supplied-Britain-with-advanced-Sidewinder/8382391320000/
Why does it take at least an hour longer to get off the ferry and out of the port in Newcastle than it does in Amsterdam? Those who go on about the adverse consequences of another 15 minutes clearly have no experience of the current shambles.
Dukakis came across as a wimp; Harris will give as good as she gets.
In any event, you should have read the rest of the piece:
Once in office, she made a point of building bridges, and some of the law-enforcement leaders I spoke to praised her support (as they saw it) for Rackauckas in Orange County and the distance she has kept from sentencing reform. They also said she reassured them on the death penalty. In 2014, Harris appealed a federal judge’s decision striking down California’s system of capital punishment as unconstitutional. By the time of her re-election campaign two years ago, she had the endorsement of four dozen law enforcement groups, and she won easily....
She's a far more street smart pol than Dukakis.
Still queuing.
However, for a trading nation, the sea-lanes of the world need to be kept open, which means a strong navy able to project force - which in turn means having both carriers commissioned and usable, together with necessary escorts, plus sufficient destroyers / frigates to patrol elsewhere. We should also have an army capable of deploying at least 30,000 on major extended overseas operations such as the Gulf or Iraq Wars, with enough spare to cope with either a secondary conflict or domestic disturbance duties. So yes, there should be a sizable increase in spending, incremented over 5-10 years.
I wrote an almost identical letter (to this post) to my MP on Friday, who just so happens to sit in Cabinet.
Jezza better book up this diary with overseas engagements for the next year....
If anything it seems to be as much that having Her Majesty's Opposition run from an Islington Fair Trade Quinoa bar is becoming as much an issue as any particular policy stance, including Brexit.
https://twitter.com/badassday/status/1010867077647949824
Look forward to Belgium and England both vying to lose to the other next week, or, in the event of not being able to persuade the other to score, contriving to have a sacrificial substitute sent off in the 90th minute in order to mess up their fair play tally.
Brave Sir Boris flew away,
When voting reared its ugly head
he bravely turned his tail and fled
etc
Sounds about right.
Given how other top teams are struggling the confidence boost from beating Belgium if we do is worth more than an easier tie.
Sorry that is NOT where the Democratic base is. They will not nominate a white man for 2020, identity politics still reigns supreme in the party for better or for worse (of course the right is just as bad when it comes to identity politics if not worse).
Look at Dem nominee's for open House seats, women are way over preforming men and ideology is playing very little part in it apart from the far left candidates getting mostly badly beaten.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44596072
Inflation at 11% sounds quite high. One shudders to think what the journalists here who wet themselves over 3% would make of it.
To provision two carrier strike groups simultaneously you'd have to double the size of RN surface combatant fleet and acquire another three Astutes. The RFA is inadequate for what we're doing now so triple tanker and solid supply hulls. That will need a great deal of vertrep and ASW support so we're probably into increasing the size of the FAA rotary wing fleet. Now Culdrose isn't big enough so let's build another NAS. We probably need at least another 10-12 F-35s for the second air wing. Now Marham isn't big enough. Maybe we can buy Coltishall back and demolish the solar farm.
Pompey and Guzz are already full so there isn't the dock space for all of this (tories closed Portland and sold it off) so we need another Naval base on the Channel. Has anyone seen those forms we use for compulsory purchase orders?
Naturally we don't have anywhere near enough crew for all of this so they'll have to be recruited, trained and seasoned.
20bn and ten years wouldn't touch the sides. The hulls themselves are an expensive and time consuming proposition but all that pales when compared to building the supporting infrastructure and having sufficient people to crew them.
As an aside, you don't necessarily need both carriers operating simulataneously, though they should be able to in an emergency, even if it means having to strip support from elsewhere. But we should have both operational, so that there's always at least one at sea or ready to go to sea at any given time, while the other's down for servicing, refitting and so on. Granted, that still means having the facilities to support them and the aircraft to operate from them, but it doesn't necessarily mean two full carrier groups' worth of escorts.
https://twitter.com/pierrebri/status/1011190927296212992
Are we for it or against it?
Ideology and policies should surely be fundamental but you need a strong personality as leader to drive through the change. The partnership of Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher split the role with Thatcher the driving force.
Who could be today's partnership for Conservative, Labour or Lib Dems?
Ha. We and the French are the two most militarily powerful countries in Europe. How gracious of them.
Has Boris been knighted?
Or did the PM just ask the queen to wield the sword?
I mean it sounds great (subject of course to @Dura_Ace's reality check it ain't gonna fkin happen, etc) but why? Why now?
Is it Brexit? I think it is for @Casino_Royale who is feeling a bit insecure right now, but you also?