Stand by for a big announcement at 10pm – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

ping said:

No Canada & NZ

Interesting

No NZ is no surprise as it involves nuclear and Ardern is a tad too chummy with Xi....Canada is in the middle of an election and only has (very old, British built), diesel electric subs.

But this sounds like more than just a minor Treaty about submarines. This is a big strategic maneuver to counter China. I don't believe the US, UK or Oz would choose to cut out the Canadians. Why? Canada is a vast, resource rich and pretty powerful country by itself, and a firm English speaking ally of all three nations.

Canada's absence is surely just because of their election?

On your substantive point, it's not going to be just about the submarines (although I'm sure submarines will be part of it), I think it's going beyond NATO to a smaller, but more integrated defence cooperation agreement between the three largest countries in the Anglosphere, and which is World (rather than Atlantic or Pacific) in scope.

Canada's non-inclusion probably reflects the fact that its defence spending as a percentage of GDP is now *well* below Germany's. They're a freeloader.

Canada is bigger than Oz in population, GDP and geographical size, so you're not correct on "3 biggest"

An Anglospherical defence union to match the intelligence union makes total sense, versus China, but Canada should be in it, and will be, I hope

As someone else has said this is a real bind for Arden. Kiwis won't like being left out, to be China's toy

The problem with Kiwis is that they are Chinese gooseberries.

Leon said:

Impressive singing at Anfield. Walk On, done very well

https://twitter.com/ChantLFC/status/1438223178619408387?s=20

In my top three personal sporting atmosphere experiences, was a European night at Anfield - utterly electric.

The other two were Lewis Hamilton winning at Silverstone, and England beating Australia at Twickenham in 2010 - including a full two minutes’ silence for Remembrance Day, during which you could have heard a pin drop in the stadium.

Trying to get tickets for India v Pakistan in the T20 World Cup next month…

MrEd said:

Even if you do not like Trump, the second to last paragraph is spot on:

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/elected-mark-milley-china-military/

It's not.

Leon said:

Impressive singing at Anfield. Walk On, done very well

https://twitter.com/ChantLFC/status/1438223178619408387?s=20

Away goal for Milan

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ping said:

No Canada & NZ

Interesting

Nor France

I doubt any EU country would be trusted. Including 1 means having to include all 27 so even if we wanted France in the club it means having Germany in there who will no doubt leak said technology to China.

France vetoed plans for European defence integration way back in the 1950s. In practice I don't think they would go through with anything that ceded real control to the EU.

Unless, of course, France was top.

Trouble is that Germany has basically shut France out recently.

bigjohnowls said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

Weird day to pick for a reshuffle with this coming?

Or is he hoping any dead bodies Williamson digs up will be safely buried in the news?

A good day to bury an horrendous inflation figure.

0.2% above target range is horrendous? 🤔

Maybe horrendous for the Governor, who will have to write a letter to the Chancellor - but for most of the rest of us, not so much.

I am sure that the governor can explain that the dropping out of the EOTHO scheme from last August when the Chancellor was subsidising meals out to create demand has distorted the inflation figure sufficiently to put it outwith target but this is an artificial blip, not a subject of serious concern.

Although some are predicting 4.0% by Christmas


Something to do with supply and demand.

Next month is most important for Treasury as it is used for next years benefits

We are undoubtedly going to have some old fashioned cost push inflation as wages rise given the tightness of the labour market. But I think that is at most a part of what we have seen in this particular increase.

What the heck happened in Liverpool? Get up to pee and its 1-0, get back down and its 1-2.

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

jonny83 said:

Can Labour capitalise on this cut to UC? This is the sort of thing they should be scoring hits on a government over and yet I don't think they are being effective at all over it.

I do not support the loss of the temporary £20 UC uplift but the country is divided 38/39 on support/ oppose

Not an easy one, but was clearly part of the pandemic emergency funding, and they’ll need to find £6bn per year in taxes or borrowing to keep it running.

Ditto the furlough scheme, there’s several hundred thousand about to go from 80% of their salary to the dole. It still has to be done though.

In the last few days I have come to the conclusion that Boris is determined that wages have to rise hence why he is not permitting work visas

He seems to be developing a narrative that the conservative party are a high wage controlled immigration party, while labour will hold down wages through their support for unrestricted immigration

There is evidence wages are rising quite quickly and of course the electorate will see this in their pay packets, and it raises more tax and reduces the need for benefits

This is the brexit divided if it comes about

Not just that, but the pay rises are coming from the bottom.

For many years, the minimum wage was a maximum for many jobs - but now we are seeing genuine increases for the poorest workers, as firms compete to hire people, rather than people competing to be hired by firms.

Also good for the Treasury as:

(1) Higher wages mean more income tax and NI payments
(2) Higher wages potentially means lower tax credit payments

Partially offset by higher wages means lower corporate profits which means lower corporation tax. However, as firms like Amazon do not pay taxes anyway, not much impact there.

There is, though, a small issue.

The UK already imports a lot more than it exports. We want higher wages, but that has to be matched by increased productivity, otherwise we will end up squeezing our remaining export industries.

I am heartened by Gove at Housing: my hope is that one is able to offer "real" pay rises to people by making their cost of living lower.

But this is a tightrope. And it's not like British firms are particularly profitable - corporate profits in the UK are already a smaller percentage of GDP than most of our European peers.

Edit to add: the NI charge is an issue here, as it effectively is a real pay cut for workers, and is really not what we want to be doing here.

Most of the higher wages are in service industries, which are generally internal with a few exceptions such as transport.

Increased costs of providing baristas, bartenders and arse-wipers, shouldn’t translate too much into inflation of exported goods.

I don't think that's true.

If wages rise to £100,000 for HGV drivers, then it will result in people who might have take a job at a factory for £45,000/year choosing a different career path.

One supervisor at my local Aldi is already doing this.

Philip_Thompson said:

What the heck happened in Liverpool? Get up to pee and its 1-0, get back down and its 1-2.

Eagles is there.

MattW said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

jonny83 said:

Can Labour capitalise on this cut to UC? This is the sort of thing they should be scoring hits on a government over and yet I don't think they are being effective at all over it.

I do not support the loss of the temporary £20 UC uplift but the country is divided 38/39 on support/ oppose

Not an easy one, but was clearly part of the pandemic emergency funding, and they’ll need to find £6bn per year in taxes or borrowing to keep it running.

Ditto the furlough scheme, there’s several hundred thousand about to go from 80% of their salary to the dole. It still has to be done though.

In the last few days I have come to the conclusion that Boris is determined that wages have to rise hence why he is not permitting work visas

He seems to be developing a narrative that the conservative party are a high wage controlled immigration party, while labour will hold down wages through their support for unrestricted immigration

There is evidence wages are rising quite quickly and of course the electorate will see this in their pay packets, and it raises more tax and reduces the need for benefits

This is the brexit divided if it comes about

Not just that, but the pay rises are coming from the bottom.

For many years, the minimum wage was a maximum for many jobs - but now we are seeing genuine increases for the poorest workers, as firms compete to hire people, rather than people competing to be hired by firms.

Also good for the Treasury as:

(1) Higher wages mean more income tax and NI payments
(2) Higher wages potentially means lower tax credit payments

Partially offset by higher wages means lower corporate profits which means lower corporation tax. However, as firms like Amazon do not pay taxes anyway, not much impact there.

There is, though, a small issue.

The UK already imports a lot more than it exports. We want higher wages, but that has to be matched by increased productivity, otherwise we will end up squeezing our remaining export industries.

I am heartened by Gove at Housing: my hope is that one is able to offer "real" pay rises to people by making their cost of living lower.

But this is a tightrope. And it's not like British firms are particularly profitable - corporate profits in the UK are already a smaller percentage of GDP than most of our European peers.

Edit to add: the NI charge is an issue here, as it effectively is a real pay cut for workers, and is really not what we want to be doing here.

Most of the higher wages are in service industries, which are generally internal with a few exceptions such as transport.

Increased costs of providing baristas, bartenders and arse-wipers, shouldn’t translate too much into inflation of exported goods.

I don't think that's true.

If wages rise to £100,000 for HGV drivers, then it will result in people who might have take a job at a factory for £45,000/year choosing a different career path.

One supervisor at my local Aldi is already doing this.

One of our HCAs is off to Aldi as better pay, so the merry go round continues.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Impressive singing at Anfield. Walk On, done very well

https://twitter.com/ChantLFC/status/1438223178619408387?s=20

Away goal for Milan

Do they count this year

No, and def not in the group stage.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Impressive singing at Anfield. Walk On, done very well

https://twitter.com/ChantLFC/status/1438223178619408387?s=20

Away goal for Milan

Do they count this year

Not for much in the group stage anyway, I suppose.

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

The combined nominal GDP of CAUKUS (if Canada joins, and they surely will?) is a pretty impressive $27bn (most of it the USA of course)

China's is $14.5 (but much higher on PPP)

It would take China quite some time to overtake that, and they would never have the geographic, worldwide span

This is all to peg China down

They're going to announce the political and economic union of US, UK, Canada and Australia? That will certainly put Dominic Raab's demotion in the shade!

Interesting that Oz seems to be going for the US attack subs, which are slower and quite a lot more expensive that Astute, but can carry more missiles.

But the US would insist.

ClippP said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

The combined nominal GDP of CAUKUS (if Canada joins, and they surely will?) is a pretty impressive $27bn (most of it the USA of course)

China's is $14.5 (but much higher on PPP)

It would take China quite some time to overtake that, and they would never have the geographic, worldwide span

This is all to peg China down

They're going to announce the political and economic union of US, UK, Canada and Australia? That will certainly put Dominic Raab's demotion in the shade!

Perhaps they are coming together to celebrate the removal of Raab?

No, it will be the announcement of joint action against the Faroe Islands.

MrEd said:

ydoethur said:

MrEd said:

Even if you do not like Trump, the second to last paragraph is spot on:

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/elected-mark-milley-china-military/

No, sorry, that article is BS. Trump by inciting the overthrow of Congress and attempting to subvert the election was no longer the ‘legally elected president’ as he had broken his oath to defend the constitution. Which, I would point out, is what the general in question swore an oath to uphold. There is ample precedent for putting safeguards in place to prevent a president who has completely lost what passes for his mind launching Armageddon. It has been done at least once, probably twice before.

True, the 25th should have been invoked, and it says a lot about the nature of Trump’s cabinet and not in a good way that they connived at open treason.

There was only one coup attempt over the 2020 election. Fortunately, it failed. The fact Trump’s fanboys don’t *like* that doesn’t alter that simple fact.

Sorry @ydoethur that is absolutely crap on your part and I suspect a bit of TDS coming into your reasoning. Milley told his Chinese counterpart that he would give him advance warning if there was going to be an attack by the US, which is effectively giving the Chinese time to respond. He also effectively override the Chain of Command by himself and without - as far as any of the reports I have seen - consulting with anyone in the civilian chain of command, such as the Secretary of Defense.

I deliberately highlighted the second to last paragraph because the arguments you are citing to justify Milley's behaviour could easily be used against Biden, especially given his state of mind. If you would be happy with Milley's behaviour in a similar situation involving Biden, fine. If not, you are not guided by principles but my partisanship.

Third, as I said re Trump's behaviour at the time, he was wrong. However, let's not forget the attempted coup over the 2016 election. Which gives me an opportunity to highlight one of my favourite YouTube clips

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38340115

Rubbish, I am afraid. You may be unaware that power to declare war in the US is held specifically by Congress (article 1, section 8, if you wish to check). Nuclear weapons may be authorised by the President in retaliation only.

What this was about was thwarting a potential illegal attack ordered by a president who had already demonstrated his contempt for the constitution. Milley might actually have been considered negligent and a traitor had he not done so. The author is just a third rate fascist twat (like Trump himself) for not wilfully misunderstanding that.

Leaving aside the ridiculous ‘whataboutery’, there was no ‘attempted coup’ in 2016. There was a lot of stupid posturing by some even stupider sore losers. In 2020 massive vote fraud was attempted and an actual violent attempt was made to prevent the results being tallied. To compare 2016 to 2020 - well, I’m afraid it shows why Trump was able to get away with it.

But I know as a Trump proponent - note, I do not say supporter - you may find facts difficult. That is your problem. It is a shame it becomes a problem for the rest of the planet due to his power over the large number of complete lunatics in America.

I would absolutely be happy for a general to say a President could not authorise a missile strike if Biden suffered mental health issues. As I have explained, that is the long established procedure dating back fifty years to the time of Nixon, and it is there for a very good reason. But it would be unlikely to happen as before it got to that stage the 25th would be invoked. The issue with Trump was his cabinet were as corrupt and criminal as he is.

MattW said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

The combined nominal GDP of CAUKUS (if Canada joins, and they surely will?) is a pretty impressive $27bn (most of it the USA of course)

China's is $14.5 (but much higher on PPP)

It would take China quite some time to overtake that, and they would never have the geographic, worldwide span

This is all to peg China down

They're going to announce the political and economic union of US, UK, Canada and Australia? That will certainly put Dominic Raab's demotion in the shade!

Interesting that Oz seems to be going for the US attack subs, which are slower and quite a lot more expensive that Astute, but can carry more missiles.

That should allow them to protect their trade routes to China more effectively...(some mistake surely?)

I wonder if it's nuclear weapons sharing as well as the subs?

Both Australia and the UK have some interesting AI tech, so it might include that ?

ydoethur said:

MrEd said:

ydoethur said:

MrEd said:

Even if you do not like Trump, the second to last paragraph is spot on:

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/elected-mark-milley-china-military/

No, sorry, that article is BS. Trump by inciting the overthrow of Congress and attempting to subvert the election was no longer the ‘legally elected president’ as he had broken his oath to defend the constitution. Which, I would point out, is what the general in question swore an oath to uphold. There is ample precedent for putting safeguards in place to prevent a president who has completely lost what passes for his mind launching Armageddon. It has been done at least once, probably twice before.

True, the 25th should have been invoked, and it says a lot about the nature of Trump’s cabinet and not in a good way that they connived at open treason.

There was only one coup attempt over the 2020 election. Fortunately, it failed. The fact Trump’s fanboys don’t *like* that doesn’t alter that simple fact.

Sorry @ydoethur that is absolutely crap on your part and I suspect a bit of TDS coming into your reasoning. Milley told his Chinese counterpart that he would give him advance warning if there was going to be an attack by the US, which is effectively giving the Chinese time to respond. He also effectively override the Chain of Command by himself and without - as far as any of the reports I have seen - consulting with anyone in the civilian chain of command, such as the Secretary of Defense.

I deliberately highlighted the second to last paragraph because the arguments you are citing to justify Milley's behaviour could easily be used against Biden, especially given his state of mind. If you would be happy with Milley's behaviour in a similar situation involving Biden, fine. If not, you are not guided by principles but my partisanship.

Third, as I said re Trump's behaviour at the time, he was wrong. However, let's not forget the attempted coup over the 2016 election. Which gives me an opportunity to highlight one of my favourite YouTube clips

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38340115

Rubbish, I am afraid. You may be unaware that power to declare war in the US is held specifically by Congress (article 1, section 8, if you wish to check). Nuclear weapons may be authorised by the President in retaliation only.

What this was about was thwarting a potential illegal attack ordered by a president who had already demonstrated his contempt for the constitution. Milley might actually have been considered negligent and a traitor had he not done so. The author is just a third rate fascist twat (like Trump himself) for not wilfully misunderstanding that.

Leaving aside the ridiculous ‘whataboutery’, there was no ‘attempted coup’ in 2016. There was a lot of stupid posturing by some even stupider sore losers. In 2020 massive vote fraud was attempted and an actual violent attempt was made to prevent the results being tallied. To compare 2016 to 2020 - well, I’m afraid it shows why Trump was able to get away with it.

But I know as a Trump proponent - note, I do not say supporter - you may find facts difficult. That is your problem. It is a shame it becomes a problem for the rest of the planet due to his power over the large number of complete lunatics in America.

I would absolutely be happy for a general to say a President could not authorise a missile strike if Biden suffered mental health issues. As I have explained, that is the long established procedure dating back fifty years to the time of Nixon, and it is there for a very good reason. But it would be unlikely to happen as before it got to that stage the 25th would be invoked. The issue with Trump was his cabinet were as corrupt and criminal as he is.

Not sure you're correct there. My understanding is that there's a movement in the US to restrict the Pres to retaliatory nuclear strikes only, but at the moment he can launch them whenever he likes.

Hopefully it’s not a Deep Impact type speech.

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

"Fears London and Paris would die due to Covid are unfounded, finds survey
Residents in the cities still mainly content where they are, with minimal change in numbers wanting move out"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/15/fears-of-the-death-of-london-due-to-covid-unfounded-finds-survey

There's a real buzz in London at the moment. Still lots of empty shops and shuttered bars, but also lots of new places opening

I agree the city will survive, it will just get younger, even in the centre, which is no bad thing. Half of London was turning into a ghetto for the rich and old

It's a bit of a pop-up city at the moment.

If you wander round the quieter, but central, parts there's a real sense of emptiness and decay. I think there will be a huge upheaval, and it'll feel much like the transition that happened in the area of the City in the 80s, and the docklands in the 90s. Just a lot bigger. It'll probably turn out fine, but I'm not totally sanguine about it.

Telegraph:
Supplementary voting system to be axed after it was blamed for confusing the public and seeing ‘loser’ candidates win on second preferences

The traditional “first past the post” voting system is to be restored for all elections in England, The Telegraph can disclose, to make metro mayors, police and crime commissioners more accountable to their voters.

New changes to the Elections Bill this week will axe the supplementary vote system which has been blamed for confusing voters with a first choice and second choice transferable vote system.

There have been claims that the system – which can mean that a “loser” candidate can win on second preferences – had led to hundreds of thousands of votes being wasted.

Winston Churchill was a known critic of using transferable votes to decide elections, saying in 1931 that the system meant “the decision is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/14/exclusive-losers-can-no-longer-win-first-past-post-plans-elections/

Stark_Dawning said:

ydoethur said:

MrEd said:

ydoethur said:

MrEd said:

Even if you do not like Trump, the second to last paragraph is spot on:

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/elected-mark-milley-china-military/

No, sorry, that article is BS. Trump by inciting the overthrow of Congress and attempting to subvert the election was no longer the ‘legally elected president’ as he had broken his oath to defend the constitution. Which, I would point out, is what the general in question swore an oath to uphold. There is ample precedent for putting safeguards in place to prevent a president who has completely lost what passes for his mind launching Armageddon. It has been done at least once, probably twice before.

True, the 25th should have been invoked, and it says a lot about the nature of Trump’s cabinet and not in a good way that they connived at open treason.

There was only one coup attempt over the 2020 election. Fortunately, it failed. The fact Trump’s fanboys don’t *like* that doesn’t alter that simple fact.

Sorry @ydoethur that is absolutely crap on your part and I suspect a bit of TDS coming into your reasoning. Milley told his Chinese counterpart that he would give him advance warning if there was going to be an attack by the US, which is effectively giving the Chinese time to respond. He also effectively override the Chain of Command by himself and without - as far as any of the reports I have seen - consulting with anyone in the civilian chain of command, such as the Secretary of Defense.

I deliberately highlighted the second to last paragraph because the arguments you are citing to justify Milley's behaviour could easily be used against Biden, especially given his state of mind. If you would be happy with Milley's behaviour in a similar situation involving Biden, fine. If not, you are not guided by principles but my partisanship.

Third, as I said re Trump's behaviour at the time, he was wrong. However, let's not forget the attempted coup over the 2016 election. Which gives me an opportunity to highlight one of my favourite YouTube clips

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38340115

Rubbish, I am afraid. You may be unaware that power to declare war in the US is held specifically by Congress (article 1, section 8, if you wish to check). Nuclear weapons may be authorised by the President in retaliation only.

What this was about was thwarting a potential illegal attack ordered by a president who had already demonstrated his contempt for the constitution. Milley might actually have been considered negligent and a traitor had he not done so. The author is just a third rate fascist twat (like Trump himself) for not wilfully misunderstanding that.

Leaving aside the ridiculous ‘whataboutery’, there was no ‘attempted coup’ in 2016. There was a lot of stupid posturing by some even stupider sore losers. In 2020 massive vote fraud was attempted and an actual violent attempt was made to prevent the results being tallied. To compare 2016 to 2020 - well, I’m afraid it shows why Trump was able to get away with it.

But I know as a Trump proponent - note, I do not say supporter - you may find facts difficult. That is your problem. It is a shame it becomes a problem for the rest of the planet due to his power over the large number of complete lunatics in America.

I would absolutely be happy for a general to say a President could not authorise a missile strike if Biden suffered mental health issues. As I have explained, that is the long established procedure dating back fifty years to the time of Nixon, and it is there for a very good reason. But it would be unlikely to happen as before it got to that stage the 25th would be invoked. The issue with Trump was his cabinet were as corrupt and criminal as he is.

Not sure you're correct there. My understanding is that there's a movement in the US to restrict the Pres to retaliatory nuclear strikes only, but at the moment he can launch them whenever he likes.

Yes, here it is:

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IN10553.pdf

UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100k

UK local R

2 - 2

ydoethur said:

MrEd said:

rpjs said:

MrEd said:

Even if you do not like Trump, the second to last paragraph is spot on:

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/elected-mark-milley-china-military/

Nope, no-one elected Mark Milley but no-one elected Vasili Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov either, but we might not still be here if they hadn’t done what they did.

And US military swear oaths to obey lawful orders from their superiors, and the bit about defending the Constitution comes first IIRC. Hard to defend a constitution if the country it constitutes is a pile of smoking rubble.

Stanislav Petrov is a bad example. He was the Duty Officer and made a decision that the alarm was probably false.

It is slightly different to telling your opposite number you will give them advance notice of an attack and consult no civilian on your actions.

As I said to @ydoethur the question is, if Milley did this to a Democrat President under the same circumstances or a similar situation, would you see it as similarly justified or say it is wrong?

Any sane person would see it as justified whoever the president is.

I am aware this definition does not include most current Republican voters.

And with that that, Good night.

I thought there was a confirmed rumour/leak that Mattis and Kelly intended to stop Trump physically if he tried to launch nuclear missiles. Personally I think what Miley did comes under the old heading of 'keeping the back channels open'. I am pretty sure if that hadn't happened during the cold war we would all be so much radioactive dust by now.

UK hospitals

UK deaths

Age related data scaled to 100K

Here's the link to the White House feed for the BoJoScoMoJoBi announcement.

Jhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM0S8OwNiFY

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

ping said:

No Canada & NZ

Interesting

No NZ is no surprise as it involves nuclear and Ardern is a tad too chummy with Xi....Canada is in the middle of an election and only has (very old, British built), diesel electric subs.

But this sounds like more than just a minor Treaty about submarines. This is a big strategic maneuver to counter China. I don't believe the US, UK or Oz would choose to cut out the Canadians. Why? Canada is a vast, resource rich and pretty powerful country by itself, and a firm English speaking ally of all three nations.

Canada's absence is surely just because of their election?

On your substantive point, it's not going to be just about the submarines (although I'm sure submarines will be part of it), I think it's going beyond NATO to a smaller, but more integrated defence cooperation agreement between the three largest countries in the Anglosphere, and which is World (rather than Atlantic or Pacific) in scope.

Canada's non-inclusion probably reflects the fact that its defence spending as a percentage of GDP is now *well* below Germany's. They're a freeloader.

Canada is bigger than Oz in population, GDP and geographical size, so you're not correct on "3 biggest"

An Anglospherical defence union to match the intelligence union makes total sense, versus China, but Canada should be in it, and will be, I hope

As someone else has said this is a real bind for Arden. Kiwis won't like being left out, to be China's toy

The thing is, though, Australia spends money on defence, Canada doesn't.

The UK, Oz, the US all spend between 2 and 3% of GDP on defence (the published US number is inflated because Veterans is included in the defence budget). For Canada, it's just over 1%.

It's entirely possible that one of the positive legacies of Trump is that countries are expected to pay their way as part of international defence agreements.

Agree with that

Canada is a vital player however, even if she is a freeloader. The Arctic is going to be a major proxy battlefield in the next decades, and Canada owns half of it. Plus that means CAUKUS domination of the north Atlantic

I wonder if any other nations might join, eventually. In Anglophone terms South Africa is a very distant possibility, but would be a crucial ally, in the far future

Norway as a rando? Not in the EU, must feel a bit lonely, speak English almost like natives, likewise Iceland. But I don't know how reliant they are on China, and this is all about China as we have agreed

Given the possible nuke submarine deal for Australia, the next question is will Canada go nuke for submarines as well? It's been suggested many times, since much of the Canadian territorial waters is ice bound....

williamglenn said:

Here's the link to the White House feed for the BoJoScoMoJoBi announcement.

Jhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM0S8OwNiFY

Do you reckon it's an announcement about Aliens getting in touch?

Leon?....

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

Weird day to pick for a reshuffle with this coming?

Or is he hoping any dead bodies Williamson digs up will be safely buried in the news?

A good day to bury an horrendous inflation figure.

0.2% above target range is horrendous? 🤔

Maybe horrendous for the Governor, who will have to write a letter to the Chancellor - but for most of the rest of us, not so much.

I am sure that the governor can explain that the dropping out of the EOTHO scheme from last August when the Chancellor was subsidising meals out to create demand has distorted the inflation figure sufficiently to put it outwith target but this is an artificial blip, not a subject of serious concern.

Maybe, but there appear to be a handful of genuine inflationary pressures at work too.

Best to take Philip's line that an increasing inflation rate is now a positive measurement.

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

ping said:

No Canada & NZ

Interesting

No NZ is no surprise as it involves nuclear and Ardern is a tad too chummy with Xi....Canada is in the middle of an election and only has (very old, British built), diesel electric subs.

But this sounds like more than just a minor Treaty about submarines. This is a big strategic maneuver to counter China. I don't believe the US, UK or Oz would choose to cut out the Canadians. Why? Canada is a vast, resource rich and pretty powerful country by itself, and a firm English speaking ally of all three nations.

Canada's absence is surely just because of their election?

On your substantive point, it's not going to be just about the submarines (although I'm sure submarines will be part of it), I think it's going beyond NATO to a smaller, but more integrated defence cooperation agreement between the three largest countries in the Anglosphere, and which is World (rather than Atlantic or Pacific) in scope.

Canada's non-inclusion probably reflects the fact that its defence spending as a percentage of GDP is now *well* below Germany's. They're a freeloader.

Canada is bigger than Oz in population, GDP and geographical size, so you're not correct on "3 biggest"

An Anglospherical defence union to match the intelligence union makes total sense, versus China, but Canada should be in it, and will be, I hope

As someone else has said this is a real bind for Arden. Kiwis won't like being left out, to be China's toy

The thing is, though, Australia spends money on defence, Canada doesn't.

The UK, Oz, the US all spend between 2 and 3% of GDP on defence (the published US number is inflated because Veterans is included in the defence budget). For Canada, it's just over 1%.

It's entirely possible that one of the positive legacies of Trump is that countries are expected to pay their way as part of international defence agreements.

Britain's defence expenditure also now includes military pensions, since George Osborne fiddled the figures to meet the NATO 2 per cent commitment. As the public might be surprised to learn, defence expenditure has been cut massively by the Conservatives and was steady or increased under Labour. Boris recently announced increased spending but controversially aggregated totals over three years, as he had done earlier with health spending.

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

ydoethur said:

MrEd said:

rpjs said:

MrEd said:

Even if you do not like Trump, the second to last paragraph is spot on:

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/elected-mark-milley-china-military/

Nope, no-one elected Mark Milley but no-one elected Vasili Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov either, but we might not still be here if they hadn’t done what they did.

And US military swear oaths to obey lawful orders from their superiors, and the bit about defending the Constitution comes first IIRC. Hard to defend a constitution if the country it constitutes is a pile of smoking rubble.

Stanislav Petrov is a bad example. He was the Duty Officer and made a decision that the alarm was probably false.

It is slightly different to telling your opposite number you will give them advance notice of an attack and consult no civilian on your actions.

As I said to @ydoethur the question is, if Milley did this to a Democrat President under the same circumstances or a similar situation, would you see it as similarly justified or say it is wrong?

Any sane person would see it as justified.

I am aware this definition does not include most current Republican voters.

Most sane - and true - liberal voters would see Milley’s actions as unjustified. And you still haven’t answered whether you would support Milley’s actions if a Democratic President was involved in a similar situation.

Really?

British nuclear weapon launching is under military rather than political control, I believe.

But with civilian authorisation. Correct me if I am wrong but, unless in extreme circumstances, the military can’t go launching nuclear missles by themselves.

The memos regarding PALs on UK nuclear weapons are amusing reading. The military point of view was that such systems wouldn't really effect the issue of Mad Terrorists and were directly counter to Good Chap Theory.

moonshine said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

williamglenn said:

Here's the link to the White House feed for the BoJoScoMoJoBi announcement.

Jhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM0S8OwNiFY

Do you reckon it's an announcement about Aliens getting in touch?

Leon?....

It remains possible. An aliens announcement would come with a mundane cover story to prevent leaks. Oh I dunno, something about procurement contracts for nuclear subs. But… I doubt it is because the Japs would probably be on stage too.

Found a preview of the speach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5_Bc8ixvv8

This may interest @NickPalmer and a few others.

Jon Worth has started a Diagramm of coalition possibilities in the German Election.

https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1434559909270630402

(You need a big monitor or a big printer, I expect)

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Liverpool 3 - Milan 2

Cracker

Absolutely brilliant game.

Malmesbury said:

Age related data

Clear school effect there

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

ydoethur said:

MrEd said:

rpjs said:

MrEd said:

Even if you do not like Trump, the second to last paragraph is spot on:

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/elected-mark-milley-china-military/

Nope, no-one elected Mark Milley but no-one elected Vasili Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov either, but we might not still be here if they hadn’t done what they did.

And US military swear oaths to obey lawful orders from their superiors, and the bit about defending the Constitution comes first IIRC. Hard to defend a constitution if the country it constitutes is a pile of smoking rubble.

Stanislav Petrov is a bad example. He was the Duty Officer and made a decision that the alarm was probably false.

It is slightly different to telling your opposite number you will give them advance notice of an attack and consult no civilian on your actions.

As I said to @ydoethur the question is, if Milley did this to a Democrat President under the same circumstances or a similar situation, would you see it as similarly justified or say it is wrong?

Any sane person would see it as justified.

I am aware this definition does not include most current Republican voters.

Most sane - and true - liberal voters would see Milley’s actions as unjustified. And you still haven’t answered whether you would support Milley’s actions if a Democratic President was involved in a similar situation.

Really?

British nuclear weapon launching is under military rather than political control, I believe.

But with civilian authorisation. Correct me if I am wrong but, unless in extreme circumstances, the military can’t go launching nuclear missles by themselves.

Unlike the Americans, British Nukes are launched by the submarine crew, with no code required.

While I want the things scrapped, I would rather trust the Royal Naval officers, than politicians of any Party.

Malmesbury said:

moonshine said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

williamglenn said:

Here's the link to the White House feed for the BoJoScoMoJoBi announcement.

Jhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM0S8OwNiFY

Do you reckon it's an announcement about Aliens getting in touch?

Leon?....

It remains possible. An aliens announcement would come with a mundane cover story to prevent leaks. Oh I dunno, something about procurement contracts for nuclear subs. But… I doubt it is because the Japs would probably be on stage too.

Found a preview of the speach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5_Bc8ixvv8

I'm not entirely sure if this was meant to be parody or serious, but this is a good one too:
https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8?t=211