Was the CONHome members’ survey the driver of the re-shuffle? – politicalbetting.com

First.

The reshuffle actually feels like a little of a damp squib to me.

I want to see ideas from the government. Last night's news was a decent start; let's have some more.

No, the ConHome survey was not the trigger – that was last week's poll lead for Labour, breaking 150-odd consecutive Tory leads and landing a few bets for PBers. The ConHome survey almost certainly determined individual sackings and promotions.

Michael Gove did not get the promotion he was angling for, and tipped for, possibly by himself! – one (any) of the great offices of state. Did his personal life get in the way? As Housing Secretary, Gove has the hot potato of planning reform, with its capacity to hand Conservative seats to the LibDems, and although Gove has gained a departmental role, in moving out of the Cabinet Office, he has become remote from the seat of power.

Andy_JS said:

"Exclusive: Get ready for a general election, says Oliver Dowden
New Conservative chairman tells party staff that the fight for votes starts now, with a poll as little as 20 months away"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/15/exclusive-get-ready-general-election-says-oliver-dowden/

That sounds like it's really soon...

But actually, it's an election just a year before the the FTPA would mandate one anyway. It's May 2023, rather than May 2024.

Interesting that the French fulmination over the subs deal makes no mention of the UK. Is that 1) a snub because they don’t want to credit us with anything on the global stage or 2) a recognition that in Europe the UK is the only other serious military power in town and that’s a bridge not worth burning?

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:

"Exclusive: Get ready for a general election, says Oliver Dowden
New Conservative chairman tells party staff that the fight for votes starts now, with a poll as little as 20 months away"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/15/exclusive-get-ready-general-election-says-oliver-dowden/

That sounds like it's really soon...

But actually, it's an election just a year before the the FTPA would mandate one anyway. It's May 2023, rather than May 2024.

There is one important difference. A 2023 election would be on the old constituency boundaries, whereas 2024 would be on the new ones. The Boundary Commission final reports are due in July 2023.

Although early expectations were that the new boundaries would give the Conservatives a dozen or so extra seats but with recent Conservative success in the red wall seats, and LibDem and Labour success in more prosperous seats, it has been reported that some Conservative activists are sceptical of these gains.

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting that the French fulmination over the subs deal makes no mention of the UK. Is that 1) a snub because they don’t want to credit us with anything on the global stage or 2) a recognition that in Europe the UK is the only other serious military power in town and that’s a bridge not worth burning?

I know we build our own submarines, but have we made any sales to other countries? France's defence industry exists because countries want Western technology, but don't want to be dependent on the US.

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

First.

The reshuffle actually feels like a little of a damp squib to me.

I want to see ideas from the government. Last night's news was a decent start; let's have some more.

Gove.

Are you saying give Gove a chance?

But yes, hopefully he'll come up with some good ones. Mandatory nightclub nights for all men in their mid-fifties?

Gove will tear us apart.

Although I wonder if his ambitions are quite what they were - with the departure of Lady Macbeth from his life?

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting that the French fulmination over the subs deal makes no mention of the UK. Is that 1) a snub because they don’t want to credit us with anything on the global stage or 2) a recognition that in Europe the UK is the only other serious military power in town and that’s a bridge not worth burning?

It could be a snub but mainly this is an Australian-American deal with Britain as bit-part players. Australia was due to buy French submarines. Now it will buy American. That is what France is complaining about, not the sliver of the deal that benefits this country.

Really there is no contract signed but an undertaking to start a two year feasibility study, negotatiating work and technology transfers. The boats will be built in Australian shipyards, for instance, and there will be questions of who supplies and maintains various components. The sorts of considerations that are standard on large arms deals.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:

"Exclusive: Get ready for a general election, says Oliver Dowden
New Conservative chairman tells party staff that the fight for votes starts now, with a poll as little as 20 months away"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/15/exclusive-get-ready-general-election-says-oliver-dowden/

That sounds like it's really soon...

But actually, it's an election just a year before the the FTPA would mandate one anyway. It's May 2023, rather than May 2024.

There is one important difference. A 2023 election would be on the old constituency boundaries, whereas 2024 would be on the new ones. The Boundary Commission final reports are due in July 2023.

Although early expectations were that the new boundaries would give the Conservatives a dozen or so extra seats but with recent Conservative success in the red wall seats, and LibDem and Labour success in more prosperous seats, it has been reported that some Conservative activists are sceptical of these gains.

Interesting.

My gut is that the boundary changes help the Conservatives because they muddy the tactical voting equation. The longer a party is in power, the more their opponents will tactically vote to remove them. Look at 1992 - the Conservatives got 42% of the vote, and were eight points clear of Labour, and yet only squeaked out a majority.

Well... We shall see.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting that the French fulmination over the subs deal makes no mention of the UK. Is that 1) a snub because they don’t want to credit us with anything on the global stage or 2) a recognition that in Europe the UK is the only other serious military power in town and that’s a bridge not worth burning?

I know we build our own submarines, but have we made any sales to other countries? France's defence industry exists because countries want Western technology, but don't want to be dependent on the US.

The only export order France had for its Barracuda class was Australia. The UK hasn’t exported any subs since we went all nuclear - Australia’s current diesel electrics are based on Swedish tech, which replaced British designed subs.

Liz Truss is around 12/1 in the betting. Depending which bookmaker you look at, this is the same sort of price as Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt. You might take the view that Truss is a more likely successor than either man.

Jeremy Hunt – no return to the front bench.

We’ll see the new Culture Secretary @NadineDorries in action in DCMS questions in the Commons at 9.30 this morning. Life comes at you fast in a reshuffle.

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1438374778369454081?s=20

Dura_Ace said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting that the French fulmination over the subs deal makes no mention of the UK. Is that 1) a snub because they don’t want to credit us with anything on the global stage or 2) a recognition that in Europe the UK is the only other serious military power in town and that’s a bridge not worth burning?

It could be a snub but mainly this is an Australian-American deal with Britain as bit-part players. Australia was due to buy French submarines. Now it will buy American. That is what France is complaining about, not the sliver of the deal that benefits this country.

Really there is no contract signed but an undertaking to start a two year feasibility study, negotatiating work and technology transfers. The boats will be built in Australian shipyards, for instance, and there will be questions of who supplies and maintains various components. The sorts of considerations that are standard on large arms deals.

It's politically impossible to 'build' them anywhere but ASC at Osborne in South Australia. However that yard has zero autochthonous experience with nuclear propulsion so the centre sections will probably be built at GDEB (who also had to be brought in to sort out the Astute program) in Groton, CT and then shipped to Australia for integration.

I could see it splitting three ways:
* Hull built in Oz.
* Sensors and weapons systems from US.
* Powerplant from UK (RR PWR-2 or 3)

Probably not, though.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Liz Truss is around 12/1 in the betting. Depending which bookmaker you look at, this is the same sort of price as Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt. You might take the view that Truss is a more likely successor than either man.

Jeremy Hunt – no return to the front bench.

She has many similarities to Johnson as well. Dishevelled looking blond with a rather mad turn of phrase, boundless self confidence and beloved by the grassroots.

Also known for her ummm…lively private life.

JosiasJessop said:

Dura_Ace said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting that the French fulmination over the subs deal makes no mention of the UK. Is that 1) a snub because they don’t want to credit us with anything on the global stage or 2) a recognition that in Europe the UK is the only other serious military power in town and that’s a bridge not worth burning?

It could be a snub but mainly this is an Australian-American deal with Britain as bit-part players. Australia was due to buy French submarines. Now it will buy American. That is what France is complaining about, not the sliver of the deal that benefits this country.

Really there is no contract signed but an undertaking to start a two year feasibility study, negotatiating work and technology transfers. The boats will be built in Australian shipyards, for instance, and there will be questions of who supplies and maintains various components. The sorts of considerations that are standard on large arms deals.

It's politically impossible to 'build' them anywhere but ASC at Osborne in South Australia. However that yard has zero autochthonous experience with nuclear propulsion so the centre sections will probably be built at GDEB (who also had to be brought in to sort out the Astute program) in Groton, CT and then shipped to Australia for integration.

I could see it splitting three ways:
* Hull built in Oz.
* Sensors and weapons systems from US.
* Powerplant from UK (RR PWR-2 or 3)

Probably not, though.

PWR3 is a lightly rebranded American S9G anyway. The US Navy operates 100 reactors and just has a completely different level of expertise and experience to the RN. The Australians would be mad to get their nuclear propulsion knowledge second hand via the UK.

All of the Australian reactor officers will have to go through the USN NPS system at Goose Creek anyway. This is going to take decades...

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Liz Truss is around 12/1 in the betting. Depending which bookmaker you look at, this is the same sort of price as Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt. You might take the view that Truss is a more likely successor than either man.

Jeremy Hunt – no return to the front bench.

She has many similarities to Johnson as well. Dishevelled looking blond with a rather mad turn of phrase, boundless self confidence and beloved by the grassroots.

Also known for her ummm…lively private life.

Box of frogs says steady on.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Michael Gove did not get the promotion he was angling for, and tipped for, possibly by himself! – one (any) of the great offices of state. Did his personal life get in the way? As Housing Secretary, Gove has the hot potato of planning reform, with its capacity to hand Conservative seats to the LibDems, and although Gove has gained a departmental role, in moving out of the Cabinet Office, he has become remote from the seat of power.

As I have said before Gove is a depressingly rare resource in modern politics, a Minister who can think, analyse and come up with solutions themselves. Where Boris deploys that rare resource shows us his priorities. He is determined to make something of this levelling up agenda beyond mere soundbites and has deployed the Gove to achieve that. He may not succeed of course. Not all of his original thinking produces useful ideas as @ydoethur will no doubt remind us, but this is the area where change and action is to be expected.

I would have preferred him to be at the Home Office but have no doubt the housing crisis is where the action is going to be. Interesting.

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

Dura_Ace said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting that the French fulmination over the subs deal makes no mention of the UK. Is that 1) a snub because they don’t want to credit us with anything on the global stage or 2) a recognition that in Europe the UK is the only other serious military power in town and that’s a bridge not worth burning?

It could be a snub but mainly this is an Australian-American deal with Britain as bit-part players. Australia was due to buy French submarines. Now it will buy American. That is what France is complaining about, not the sliver of the deal that benefits this country.

Really there is no contract signed but an undertaking to start a two year feasibility study, negotatiating work and technology transfers. The boats will be built in Australian shipyards, for instance, and there will be questions of who supplies and maintains various components. The sorts of considerations that are standard on large arms deals.

It's politically impossible to 'build' them anywhere but ASC at Osborne in South Australia. However that yard has zero autochthonous experience with nuclear propulsion so the centre sections will probably be built at GDEB (who also had to be brought in to sort out the Astute program) in Groton, CT and then shipped to Australia for integration.

I could see it splitting three ways:
* Hull built in Oz.
* Sensors and weapons systems from US.
* Powerplant from UK (RR PWR-2 or 3)

Probably not, though.

PWR3 is a lightly rebranded American S9G anyway. The US Navy operates 100 reactors and just has a completely different level of expertise and experience to the RN. The Australians would be mad to get their nuclear propulsion knowledge second hand via the UK.

All of the Australian reactor officers will have to go through the USN NPS system at Goose Creek anyway. This is going to take decades...

"PWR3 is a lightly rebranded American S9G anyway."

Do you actually have direct evidence for that? I know RR got access to S9G designs, but I've not seen much saying they're the same.

As for the Aussies being mad: they were mad enough to sign the Shortfin Barracuda deal in the first place ...

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Michael Gove did not get the promotion he was angling for, and tipped for, possibly by himself! – one (any) of the great offices of state. Did his personal life get in the way? As Housing Secretary, Gove has the hot potato of planning reform, with its capacity to hand Conservative seats to the LibDems, and although Gove has gained a departmental role, in moving out of the Cabinet Office, he has become remote from the seat of power.

As I have said before Gove is a depressingly rare resource in modern politics, a Minister who can think, analyse and come up with solutions themselves. Where Boris deploys that rare resource shows us his priorities. He is determined to make something of this levelling up agenda beyond mere soundbites and has deployed the Gove to achieve that. He may not succeed of course. Not all of his original thinking produces useful ideas as @ydoethur will no doubt remind us, but this is the area where change and action is to be expected.

I would have preferred him to be at the Home Office but have no doubt the housing crisis is where the action is going to be. Interesting.

That’s putting it mildly.

And Nick Gibb is out, out, OUT!!!!

Just Spielman left, and when Rashford sees her comments this morning she’s toast too. Hopefully.

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

French elections next year btw. Whether the submarine news might be a factor...

Nah, it will sink without trace.

Or emerge from the deep

Scots could miss out on international healthcare after SNP refuses to agree to post-Brexit Bill

Row could mean English travellers are entitled to treatment in foreign countries where there is a reciprocal agreement, but Scots are not

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/15/scots-could-miss-international-healthcare-snp-refuse-agree-post/

JosiasJessop said:

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

Dura_Ace said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting that the French fulmination over the subs deal makes no mention of the UK. Is that 1) a snub because they don’t want to credit us with anything on the global stage or 2) a recognition that in Europe the UK is the only other serious military power in town and that’s a bridge not worth burning?

It could be a snub but mainly this is an Australian-American deal with Britain as bit-part players. Australia was due to buy French submarines. Now it will buy American. That is what France is complaining about, not the sliver of the deal that benefits this country.

Really there is no contract signed but an undertaking to start a two year feasibility study, negotatiating work and technology transfers. The boats will be built in Australian shipyards, for instance, and there will be questions of who supplies and maintains various components. The sorts of considerations that are standard on large arms deals.

It's politically impossible to 'build' them anywhere but ASC at Osborne in South Australia. However that yard has zero autochthonous experience with nuclear propulsion so the centre sections will probably be built at GDEB (who also had to be brought in to sort out the Astute program) in Groton, CT and then shipped to Australia for integration.

I could see it splitting three ways:
* Hull built in Oz.
* Sensors and weapons systems from US.
* Powerplant from UK (RR PWR-2 or 3)

Probably not, though.

PWR3 is a lightly rebranded American S9G anyway. The US Navy operates 100 reactors and just has a completely different level of expertise and experience to the RN. The Australians would be mad to get their nuclear propulsion knowledge second hand via the UK.

All of the Australian reactor officers will have to go through the USN NPS system at Goose Creek anyway. This is going to take decades...

"PWR3 is a lightly rebranded American S9G anyway."

Do you actually have direct evidence for that? I know RR got access to S9G designs, but I've not seen much saying they're the same.

As for the Aussies being mad: they were mad enough to sign the Shortfin Barracuda deal in the first place ...

As a former RR shareholder (professionally, not personally), I did note that Knolls/GE have an awful lot of patents related to modular nuclear reactors, while RR has relatively few. That always suggested to me that they were licensing a fair amount of technology.

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Michael Gove did not get the promotion he was angling for, and tipped for, possibly by himself! – one (any) of the great offices of state. Did his personal life get in the way? As Housing Secretary, Gove has the hot potato of planning reform, with its capacity to hand Conservative seats to the LibDems, and although Gove has gained a departmental role, in moving out of the Cabinet Office, he has become remote from the seat of power.

As I have said before Gove is a depressingly rare resource in modern politics, a Minister who can think, analyse and come up with solutions themselves. Where Boris deploys that rare resource shows us his priorities. He is determined to make something of this levelling up agenda beyond mere soundbites and has deployed the Gove to achieve that. He may not succeed of course. Not all of his original thinking produces useful ideas as @ydoethur will no doubt remind us, but this is the area where change and action is to be expected.

I would have preferred him to be at the Home Office but have no doubt the housing crisis is where the action is going to be. Interesting.

Yeah it's such a priority that he's been PM for two years and is yet to put any policies in place to help realise this empty soundbite, while pushing ahead with policies that undermine it.
An alternative explanation is that he sees Gove as a backstabbing rival and is setting him up as the fall guy for the government's abject failure to "level up".

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Michael Gove did not get the promotion he was angling for, and tipped for, possibly by himself! – one (any) of the great offices of state. Did his personal life get in the way? As Housing Secretary, Gove has the hot potato of planning reform, with its capacity to hand Conservative seats to the LibDems, and although Gove has gained a departmental role, in moving out of the Cabinet Office, he has become remote from the seat of power.

As I have said before Gove is a depressingly rare resource in modern politics, a Minister who can think, analyse and come up with solutions themselves. Where Boris deploys that rare resource shows us his priorities. He is determined to make something of this levelling up agenda beyond mere soundbites and has deployed the Gove to achieve that. He may not succeed of course. Not all of his original thinking produces useful ideas as @ydoethur will no doubt remind us, but this is the area where change and action is to be expected.

I would have preferred him to be at the Home Office but have no doubt the housing crisis is where the action is going to be. Interesting.

Yeah it's such a priority that he's been PM for two years and is yet to put any policies in place to help realise this empty soundbite, while pushing ahead with policies that undermine it.
An alternative explanation is that he sees Gove as a backstabbing rival and is setting him up as the fall guy for the government's abject failure to "level up".

I think it is fair to say that the last 2 years have been rather busy what with the B word and this pandemic thingy. But there has been more commitment to investment in northern infrastructure and manufacturing. Long way to go of course.

OT Balinese officials have come up with a rather unorthodox punishment for maskless travelers.

While those who are deliberately non-compliant are subject to a 100,000 rupiah ($9) fine, visitors who admit to having slipped up, for example, bringing their mask out with them but forgetting to put it on, have been given the option of doing push ups, or even sweeping the street instead.

Badung regency Public Order Agency chief I Gusti Agung Kerta Suryanegara told the ABC that 80% of those who received a fine were travelers.

In recent weeks, various videos of tourists completing push-ups have been posted online. "The fine is absolutely nothing, but the videos might be a deterrent," says O'Regan.

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

Dura_Ace said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting that the French fulmination over the subs deal makes no mention of the UK. Is that 1) a snub because they don’t want to credit us with anything on the global stage or 2) a recognition that in Europe the UK is the only other serious military power in town and that’s a bridge not worth burning?

It could be a snub but mainly this is an Australian-American deal with Britain as bit-part players. Australia was due to buy French submarines. Now it will buy American. That is what France is complaining about, not the sliver of the deal that benefits this country.

Really there is no contract signed but an undertaking to start a two year feasibility study, negotatiating work and technology transfers. The boats will be built in Australian shipyards, for instance, and there will be questions of who supplies and maintains various components. The sorts of considerations that are standard on large arms deals.

It's politically impossible to 'build' them anywhere but ASC at Osborne in South Australia. However that yard has zero autochthonous experience with nuclear propulsion so the centre sections will probably be built at GDEB (who also had to be brought in to sort out the Astute program) in Groton, CT and then shipped to Australia for integration.

I could see it splitting three ways:
* Hull built in Oz.
* Sensors and weapons systems from US.
* Powerplant from UK (RR PWR-2 or 3)

Probably not, though.

PWR3 is a lightly rebranded American S9G anyway. The US Navy operates 100 reactors and just has a completely different level of expertise and experience to the RN. The Australians would be mad to get their nuclear propulsion knowledge second hand via the UK.

All of the Australian reactor officers will have to go through the USN NPS system at Goose Creek anyway. This is going to take decades...

Quite an expensive project for the RAN. If the Naval contract was cancelled mainly because of escalating costs at AUD 90 billion, and porkbarrelling at ASC, this is unlikely to be quicker or cheaper.

Jonathan said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

WAPO Editorial

The new alliance is meant to bolster allies in Asia, starting with Australia, that are facing intense pressure from a China that seeks regional dominance. As Australia has pushed back, Beijing has reacted with sharp economic reprisals and meddling in Australian politics. Australia pressed the White House, soon after Biden’s inauguration, “Don’t leave us alone in the field.” The Biden team, after consulting with Johnson, who touts a “global Britain,” moved ahead quickly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/15/new-us-alliance-responds-chinese-aggression-us-military-complacency/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

It's interesting that we are involved in this at all. In many ways Japan or South Korea would have been a more obvious fit for what both Australia and the US were seeking to achieve here. It's almost as if the UK matters after all. Ah well.

Trade deal, quid quo pro. Suspect we might be getting involved in all sorts of schemes from now on.

Vaccine swap……

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

We’ll see the new Culture Secretary @NadineDorries in action in DCMS questions in the Commons at 9.30 this morning. Life comes at you fast in a reshuffle.

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1438374778369454081?s=20

The reshuffle did get rid of the worst duffers in the Cabinet and is therefore to be welcomed but Mad Nad is a bizarre appointment, presumably for the entertainment value.

She is just there for the Culture War stuff, which will be a key part of GE strategy.

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

We’ll see the new Culture Secretary @NadineDorries in action in DCMS questions in the Commons at 9.30 this morning. Life comes at you fast in a reshuffle.

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1438374778369454081?s=20

The reshuffle did get rid of the worst duffers in the Cabinet and is therefore to be welcomed but Mad Nad is a bizarre appointment, presumably for the entertainment value.

She is only there to throw red meat at the lunatics. She will shriek about the wokeists under the bed and try to impose a union flag onto the set of every news broadcast.

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Liz Truss is around 12/1 in the betting. Depending which bookmaker you look at, this is the same sort of price as Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt. You might take the view that Truss is a more likely successor than either man.

Jeremy Hunt – no return to the front bench.

She has many similarities to Johnson as well. Dishevelled looking blond with a rather mad turn of phrase, boundless self confidence and beloved by the grassroots.

Also known for her ummm…lively private life.

It'd be interesting if the Conservatives chose a THIRD female leader while Labour has only chosen men.

Not so much point-scoring as outright trolling.

moonshine said:

Need to see how they build on this initiative but it does have the potential to transform my view of Uk politics. It’s hard to imagine Arch Remoaner Starmer’s barely post-Corbynite party moving so firmly in this direction. And it’s far more important than the national insurance vs income tax debate.

I would gentle suggest that last night's new defence agreement with US and Aus could only have happened under Boris and his global outlook and the consequences of this agreements are profound, far reaching, and will impact on trade and the EU

The media are highlighting the purchase of nuclear submarine technology (not weapons) by Australia in a top secret deal that excludes all other parties, certainly at this stage

However, it is more than that as the agreement will see the exclusive sharing of intelligence, AI and much more as the Trans Pacific join together to deal with the threat of China. It is ludicrous that Ardern of New Zealand has already banned Australian nuclear subs from their waters, but then she has moved very much into China's pocket

It is also clear that UK will soon join the Trans Pacific partnership and it is more than likely so will the US

It has been said that the reason this deal has come into place is not just that France's diesel subs were not suitable for Australia's defence requirements, but also that Germany is heading towards neutrality and that the EU and Germany could not be trusted not to share nuclear secrets with Russia or China

This indicates wide distrust with the EU and in the medium term they face being isolated from the World's largest trading block, giving them little choice but to negotiate their own membership and at a stroke resolve the trading impasse with the UK as they would all then trade under the same terms

Some will say fantasy, but those who support the EU need to wake up and see the direction of travel

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here's an idea: the EU just reframes itself as as trading block/regulatory union and gives up on "strategic autonomy" with the nations that care and do defence, France, Sweden and maybe Spain, integrating themselves into a pan-Western defence network worldwide.

There. Solved it.

The problem is that some countries have money (Germany), while others have capability (France), and everyone wants to be treated like they're really important.

You say that, and yet France pays and pulls its weight on defence and yet Germany doesn't.

We need to get far more comfortable with intersecting and overlapping alliances. If Germany wants to focus on local defence of the central European plain, fine. France can pursue more global interests and aspirations, and that's also fine.

Different nations, different roles, but complimentary and coherent - not contradictory.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here's an idea: the EU just reframes itself as as trading block/regulatory union and gives up on "strategic autonomy" with the nations that care and do defence, France, Sweden and maybe Spain, integrating themselves into a pan-Western defence network worldwide.

There. Solved it.

The problem is that some countries have money (Germany), while others have capability (France), and everyone wants to be treated like they're really important.

No, the main problem with that is that the EU is the EU.

If it starts giving up powers, there is a danger that people will realise how pointless it is. You can't justify five Presidents, a large bureaucracy, a big budget, a flag and embassies everywhere for just a trading agreement. That's what they're terrified of.

Foxy said:

Fishing said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Liz Truss is around 12/1 in the betting. Depending which bookmaker you look at, this is the same sort of price as Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt. You might take the view that Truss is a more likely successor than either man.

Jeremy Hunt – no return to the front bench.

She has many similarities to Johnson as well. Dishevelled looking blond with a rather mad turn of phrase, boundless self confidence and beloved by the grassroots.

Also known for her ummm…lively private life.

It'd be interesting if the Conservatives chose a THIRD female leader while Labour has only chosen men.

Not so much point-scoring as outright trolling.

How did the last one do against Labour?

Beat them, iirc.

And the one before that thrice trounced them.

CarlottaVance said:

Damn, another huge NYT scoop. I thought it was 9 counts of wire fraud and 2 counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud that led to the Elizabeth Holmes trial.

https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1438378564525694983?s=20

The article isn't saying that Holmes shouldn't be put on trial:


"Yet Ms. Holmes is also exceptional for the basic fact that she is a woman. Time and again, we see that the boys’ club that is the tech industry supports and protects its own — even when the costs are huge. And when the door cracks open ever so slightly to let a woman in, the same rules don’t apply. Indeed, as Ms. Holmes’s trial for fraud continues in San Jose, it’s clear that two things can be true. She should be held accountable for her actions as chief executive of Theranos. And it can be sexist to hold her accountable for alleged serious wrongdoing and not hold an array of men accountable for reports of wrongdoing or bad judgment."

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It has been said that the reason this deal has come into place is not just that France's diesel subs were not suitable for Australia's defence requirements, but also that Germany is heading towards neutrality and that the EU and Germany could not be trusted not to share nuclear secrets with Russia or China

Who has been saying this, just so I can judge the value of such a suggestion?

CatMan said:

CarlottaVance said:

Damn, another huge NYT scoop. I thought it was 9 counts of wire fraud and 2 counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud that led to the Elizabeth Holmes trial.

https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1438378564525694983?s=20

The article isn't saying that Holmes shouldn't be put on trial:


"Yet Ms. Holmes is also exceptional for the basic fact that she is a woman. Time and again, we see that the boys’ club that is the tech industry supports and protects its own — even when the costs are huge. And when the door cracks open ever so slightly to let a woman in, the same rules don’t apply. Indeed, as Ms. Holmes’s trial for fraud continues in San Jose, it’s clear that two things can be true. She should be held accountable for her actions as chief executive of Theranos. And it can be sexist to hold her accountable for alleged serious wrongdoing and not hold an array of men accountable for reports of wrongdoing or bad judgment."

Do they name names and crimes that have gone without prosecution?

Casino_Royale said:

Here's an idea: the EU just reframes itself as as trading block/regulatory union and gives up on "strategic autonomy" with the nations that care and do defence, France, Sweden and maybe Spain, integrating themselves into a pan-Western defence network worldwide.

There. Solved it.

They could rebrand themselves at the same time. Maybe as the "European Economic Community"?

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

We’ll see the new Culture Secretary @NadineDorries in action in DCMS questions in the Commons at 9.30 this morning. Life comes at you fast in a reshuffle.

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1438374778369454081?s=20

The reshuffle did get rid of the worst duffers in the Cabinet and is therefore to be welcomed but Mad Nad is a bizarre appointment, presumably for the entertainment value.

She is just there for the Culture War stuff, which will be a key part of GE strategy.

It's also a great appointment to troll the BBC.

"You think you are important? Well, meet your new contact point with Government..."

THAT is how you do humour, HIGNFY, Mock the Week, The News Quiz....

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It has been said that the reason this deal has come into place is not just that France's diesel subs were not suitable for Australia's defence requirements, but also that Germany is heading towards neutrality and that the EU and Germany could not be trusted not to share nuclear secrets with Russia or China

Who has been saying this, just so I can judge the value of such a suggestion?

I'm not sure what motive there might be in giving Germany US submarine tech in any event. It's a particularly odd idea.in the context.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

Morning all! Brighter this morning, but the weather seems to be cooling. As, to be fair, one would expect.

Can't understand this obsession with 'Global Britain', and getting involved with potential conflicts thousands of miles away. We can't really afford it and it's hardly environmentally friendly to be charging over to the other side of the globe.

Unless it's trying to bring back achievements of days of yore. Like me running for a bus; I'd like to think I could do it, but realism has to prevail.

We live in an interconnected world and as such the direction of travel is much wider than just Europe and indeed the Trans Pacific partnership will dwarf the EU in trading terms

It is also true that China is a threat to the west, and this is widely recognised and this new defence agreement is the precursor to a wider alignment of cooperation with like minded western countries both in defence and trade whiich may in years to come result in a world wide trading association of countries

Or local political pressures now force us to stretch and contrive economic and defence policy. We’re still in Europe, anchored in the cold North Atlantic and close in time zone to the EU, even if for now the UK government can’t be seen to accept that fact.

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

We’ll see the new Culture Secretary @NadineDorries in action in DCMS questions in the Commons at 9.30 this morning. Life comes at you fast in a reshuffle.

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1438374778369454081?s=20

The reshuffle did get rid of the worst duffers in the Cabinet and is therefore to be welcomed but Mad Nad is a bizarre appointment, presumably for the entertainment value.

She is just there for the Culture War stuff, which will be a key part of GE strategy.

It's also a great appointment to troll the BBC.

"You think you are important? Well, meet your new contact point with Government..."

THAT is how you do humour, HIGNFY, Mock the Week, The News Quiz....

THAT is how you would govern ?

Groundgord Day on R4.

Broony: I know what Scots really want, and it’s not BJ & his muscular Unionism and it’s not the Scottish nationalists.

It’s Labour isn’t it!