Ex-pm Johnson makes most of this morning’s front pages – politicalbetting.com

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

And more:

"The German government spokesperson denies the claims by Foreign Minister Baerbock who said Germany wouldn’t "stand in the way" of Poland sending its Leopards to 🇺🇦

The spokesperson told Politico that it would have to be discussed in Germany's Federal Security Council."

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1617481495555497985

They make our government look positively competent and statesmanlike.

When I was young and quite stupid, I realised that some vital information had ben left out of a project briefing. So, at the meeting, I presented the missing information.

The push back was savage - several managers hadn't wanted to know the answer, officially. I had committed the offence of making them know, *on the record*.

I was once in a meeting with a Japanese company who wanted to buy some of our tech. One of the things they wanted was to reduce the boot time of the device. I suddenly had a thought, excused myself from the meeting and went to my desk. Ten minutes later I had a bootable image that reduced boot time by a few seconds. I went back to the meeting and passed my boss a note telling him that.

He sent me a note back saying: "Don't tell them that! We can charge them for the work..."

(If I remember correctly, the kernel had a delay loop in it designed to cope with ye olden days hard drives spinning up. The device was fully solid-state, with no hard drives. Remove that code, remove unneeded modules, and partly recompile the OS.)

Yes, but there was 10 days’ dev, 10 days’ QA, 5 days’ documentation and 5 days’ implementation for that fix - call it £60k, or one annual salary for the developer.

I’ve been in that sort of meeting, and one quickly learns to keep their mouth shut when it comes to speaking directly to the customer as a technical or project resource. That’s what account managers and corporate directors do best.

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

And more:

"The German government spokesperson denies the claims by Foreign Minister Baerbock who said Germany wouldn’t "stand in the way" of Poland sending its Leopards to 🇺🇦

The spokesperson told Politico that it would have to be discussed in Germany's Federal Security Council."

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1617481495555497985

They make our government look positively competent and statesmanlike.

When I was young and quite stupid, I realised that some vital information had ben left out of a project briefing. So, at the meeting, I presented the missing information.

The push back was savage - several managers hadn't wanted to know the answer, officially. I had committed the offence of making them know, *on the record*.

I was once in a meeting with a Japanese company who wanted to buy some of our tech. One of the things they wanted was to reduce the boot time of the device. I suddenly had a thought, excused myself from the meeting and went to my desk. Ten minutes later I had a bootable image that reduced boot time by a few seconds. I went back to the meeting and passed my boss a note telling him that.

He sent me a note back saying: "Don't tell them that! We can charge them for the work..."

(If I remember correctly, the kernel had a delay loop in it designed to cope with ye olden days hard drives spinning up. The device was fully solid-state, with no hard drives. Remove that code, remove unneeded modules, and partly recompile the OS.)

Yes, but there was 10 days’ dev, 10 days’ QA, 5 days’ documentation and 5 days’ implementation for that fix - call it £60k, or one annual salary for the developer.

I’ve been in that sort of meeting, and one quickly learns to keep their mouth shut when it comes to speaking directly to the customer as a technical or project resource. That’s what account managers and corporate directors do best.

Are you some of the guys that complain about productivity ... ?

Mexicanpete said:

...

malcolmg said:

Mexicanpete said:

Scott_xP said:

It does appear that Zahawi's dodgy financial dealings are distracting people from BoZo's dodgy financial dealings, which is not to Rishi's advantage.

Sunak is sunk.

Johnson's Chancellor Zahawi negotiated a deal for unpaid taxes whilst he was in office, Johnson arranged for personal liquidity whilst PM which involved all kinds of odd arrangements with people with vested interests.

Yes Sunak is finished, not in small part due to Johnson's shenanigans, so enter PM Johnson stage right. It's a comedy of errors.

For those of us who can't see Emperor Johnson's new clothes his visits to Kyiv at moments of Sunakian weakness do look suspicious, but then I suppose if the side effect of Johnson's manouvres accelerate a Russian defeat, what's the harm in that.

Why would fatso visiting Kyiv hasten the end of the war in any way.

It won't. I was just humouring the Johnsonians. Mind you I do like his new exaggerated round-shouldered Churchillian stoop. Very impressive.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LostPassword said:

Zahawi's error was to get caught. Britain is now a country where a lot of people are making a lot of money breaking a lot of laws and mostly getting away with it.

See this latest example to do with organised crime and waste disposal.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jan/23/buried-bbc-podcast-exposing-waste-rubbish-crime-scandal

This is only going to change when Parliament prioritises enforcing the existing laws, instead of creating new ones for PR purposes. Britain could do with resurrecting the impeachment process to deal with a few prominent examples until people get the message and realise they can't brazen something like this out, and stop trying it on for fear of being caught.

Pretty much the worst thing that can happen to a society is for organised crime to gain a meaningful foothold. I worry that this is now happening here as the state's ability to fight the infection has weakened, in part thanks to austerity. I would make measures to eradicate or at least severely degrade organised crime one of the government's top priorities.

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

* This may be too kind.
** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
*** Or lying, as some would call it

** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

So broadly, not really.

Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

*Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.

The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...

Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

And it has wasted a decade.

And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.

My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
*) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
*) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

*If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.

I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.

I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.

Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.

I think the assumption from all voters in the Brexit referendum, remain or leave, was that leaving entailed ceasing to be subject to European law, regulation, and overall direction of policy travel. Poor Government and exceedingly damaging administration have prevented that from happening. At all. It's absurd to complain of the lack of concrete advantages from 'leaving' when there is no meaningful sense in which we have actually left - except of course leaving the privileges of membership.

You do have a rather fundamental problem with this argument though. "Scrap the EU laws and regulations and the benefits will arrive". Which is the Singapore-on-Thames Brexit argument - bin off all those EU red tape barriers which stop us making workplaces more dangerous and workers easier to exploit and we can get richer.

Problem is that Leave only won because the Workers Republic of Britain voters supported Brexit so that they could get paid more and have better workplaces. What you want directly conflicts with what they want.

Which is why "BREXIT" would always fail long after we delivered Brexit - leaving the EU. I know that Rees-Mog and the spiv class want to be able to cut nanny-state red tape and worker protections, but the workers won't vote for you in thanks...

The worst thing is that neither “Singapore-on-Thames” nor “Workers Rebuplic of Britain” have happened - thanks to a combination of Treasury orthodoxy and an unwillingness from Whitehall to take advantage of the freedoms, lest it become more difficult to rejoin the EU in the near future.

And neither extreme will *ever* happen. Nor will the middle ground mercantilists who wanted freer trade be happy. The EU/EEA/CU offered compromises which made all these groups unhappy in different ways. Now we have left all, the inherent reasons why we did things like found the EEA are clear...

Incidentally which of the freedoms do you think we should have gone for:
Scrap worker's rights and protections so that Rees-Mogg types can profit more?
Boost workers rights and protections so that Rees-Mogg types will have to pay more?
Deregulate my bit of the market just enough so that I get cheaper access to my existing market than my foreign competitors?

None of the above.

The problem is that people think in terms of more or less worker protections, and better or worse product standards, when different regulations - specific to the UK production, labour, import and export markets - can achieve the best of both worlds.

For too many people, the idea that UK=bad and EU=good (or vice-versa) is allowed to dominate. The future is with accepting equivalence in regulation, not alignment.

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

And more:

"The German government spokesperson denies the claims by Foreign Minister Baerbock who said Germany wouldn’t "stand in the way" of Poland sending its Leopards to 🇺🇦

The spokesperson told Politico that it would have to be discussed in Germany's Federal Security Council."

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1617481495555497985

They make our government look positively competent and statesmanlike.

It is a much easier decision for our government to make, though. There are obvious reasons why it would not be prudent for Germany to look as though it is taking the lead on supplying tanks. These include both the risk of giving Putin a propaganda victory in terms of comparisons with WW2 and the fact that Germany is entirely reliant on others for its nuclear deterrent.

I expect that Germany will ultimately end up allowing the export of Leopards, but it is very much in its interests to be seen to be reluctant about doing so. This doesn't apply to the UK.

They're not taking the lead. Loads of Soviet-era tanks were sent last year, and we've set modernish C2's. That's a really poor excuse.

Putin's already getting a propaganda victory from this: he can show (rightly) that the west is divided. This will give him confidence that he can split the coalition against him.

When did our tanks arrive in Ukraine?

Not yet, as far as I know. But we're sending them, along with other kit (repair and bridging kit). Why's that of relevance?

There's always a delay (although apparently one of 200 vehicles Canada said they were giving last week has already been lost at the front, so I think some countries are announcing things as they arrive.)

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

And more:

"The German government spokesperson denies the claims by Foreign Minister Baerbock who said Germany wouldn’t "stand in the way" of Poland sending its Leopards to 🇺🇦

The spokesperson told Politico that it would have to be discussed in Germany's Federal Security Council."

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1617481495555497985

They make our government look positively competent and statesmanlike.

It is a much easier decision for our government to make, though. There are obvious reasons why it would not be prudent for Germany to look as though it is taking the lead on supplying tanks. These include both the risk of giving Putin a propaganda victory in terms of comparisons with WW2 and the fact that Germany is entirely reliant on others for its nuclear deterrent.

I expect that Germany will ultimately end up allowing the export of Leopards, but it is very much in its interests to be seen to be reluctant about doing so. This doesn't apply to the UK.

They're not taking the lead. Loads of Soviet-era tanks were sent last year, and we've set modernish C2's. That's a really poor excuse.

Putin's already getting a propaganda victory from this: he can show (rightly) that the west is divided. This will give him confidence that he can split the coalition against him.

When did our tanks arrive in Ukraine?

Not yet, as far as I know. But we're sending them, along with other kit (repair and bridging kit). Why's that of relevance?

There's always a delay (although apparently one of 200 vehicles Canada said they were giving last week has already been lost at the front, so I think some countries are announcing things as they arrive.)

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

And more:

"The German government spokesperson denies the claims by Foreign Minister Baerbock who said Germany wouldn’t "stand in the way" of Poland sending its Leopards to 🇺🇦

The spokesperson told Politico that it would have to be discussed in Germany's Federal Security Council."

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1617481495555497985

They make our government look positively competent and statesmanlike.

It is a much easier decision for our government to make, though. There are obvious reasons why it would not be prudent for Germany to look as though it is taking the lead on supplying tanks. These include both the risk of giving Putin a propaganda victory in terms of comparisons with WW2 and the fact that Germany is entirely reliant on others for its nuclear deterrent.

I expect that Germany will ultimately end up allowing the export of Leopards, but it is very much in its interests to be seen to be reluctant about doing so. This doesn't apply to the UK.

They're not taking the lead. Loads of Soviet-era tanks were sent last year, and we've set modernish C2's. That's a really poor excuse.

Putin's already getting a propaganda victory from this: he can show (rightly) that the west is divided. This will give him confidence that he can split the coalition against him.

When did our tanks arrive in Ukraine?

Not yet, as far as I know. But we're sending them, along with other kit (repair and bridging kit). Why's that of relevance?

There's always a delay (although apparently one of 200 vehicles Canada said they were giving last week has already been lost at the front, so I think some countries are announcing things as they arrive.)

There has been considerable comment on a few online forums about increased training with tanks on Salisbury Plain. It isn't exactly inconceivable that training of Ukrainian tank crews has beeb going on before this announcement. And the required engineers....

TOPPING said:

While the govt is undoubtedly mired in sleaze a la 1997 I'm not too sure the country will rise up in joy at the prospect of SKS bounding along Downing St shaking hands as he goes.

TOPPING said:

nico679 said:

TOPPING said:

While the govt is undoubtedly mired in sleaze a la 1997 I'm not too sure the country will rise up in joy at the prospect of SKS bounding along Downing St shaking hands as he goes.

I will. The Tories need to go and spend time in opposition . They’ve become an absolute cesspit .

How did you vote GE19?

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

And more:

"The German government spokesperson denies the claims by Foreign Minister Baerbock who said Germany wouldn’t "stand in the way" of Poland sending its Leopards to 🇺🇦

The spokesperson told Politico that it would have to be discussed in Germany's Federal Security Council."

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1617481495555497985

They make our government look positively competent and statesmanlike.

It is a much easier decision for our government to make, though. There are obvious reasons why it would not be prudent for Germany to look as though it is taking the lead on supplying tanks. These include both the risk of giving Putin a propaganda victory in terms of comparisons with WW2 and the fact that Germany is entirely reliant on others for its nuclear deterrent.

I expect that Germany will ultimately end up allowing the export of Leopards, but it is very much in its interests to be seen to be reluctant about doing so. This doesn't apply to the UK.

They're not taking the lead. Loads of Soviet-era tanks were sent last year, and we've set modernish C2's. That's a really poor excuse.

Putin's already getting a propaganda victory from this: he can show (rightly) that the west is divided. This will give him confidence that he can split the coalition against him.

When did our tanks arrive in Ukraine?

Not yet, as far as I know. But we're sending them, along with other kit (repair and bridging kit). Why's that of relevance?

There's always a delay (although apparently one of 200 vehicles Canada said they were giving last week has already been lost at the front, so I think some countries are announcing things as they arrive.)

It's relevant because we decided to send them a fortnight or so ago and we (you, mainly) seem to be castigating Germany for not immediately following our lead. Why didn't we send them six months ago if it is so obvious they need to be sent.

Ukraine have asked specifically for the Leo 2's. And it should be noted that the Leo2 is the best choice for Ukraine: easy to maintain, with common ammo with other western kit, and available in numbers that may make a difference. As several eastern European countries operate them, maintenance kit and knowledge is also much more widespread.

In comparison the C2's use non-standard ammo, and only have a few available. Leclercs are less numerous as well. Abrams are fuel-hungry and complex to maintain.

But the main point is this: Germany have not even done the groundwork to send them, or even investigate what needs doing to send them. Hence the stoopid 'over a year' claim to send them from one of the arms companies.

kamski said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

And more:

"The German government spokesperson denies the claims by Foreign Minister Baerbock who said Germany wouldn’t "stand in the way" of Poland sending its Leopards to 🇺🇦

The spokesperson told Politico that it would have to be discussed in Germany's Federal Security Council."

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1617481495555497985

They make our government look positively competent and statesmanlike.

It is a much easier decision for our government to make, though. There are obvious reasons why it would not be prudent for Germany to look as though it is taking the lead on supplying tanks. These include both the risk of giving Putin a propaganda victory in terms of comparisons with WW2 and the fact that Germany is entirely reliant on others for its nuclear deterrent.

I expect that Germany will ultimately end up allowing the export of Leopards, but it is very much in its interests to be seen to be reluctant about doing so. This doesn't apply to the UK.

They're not taking the lead. Loads of Soviet-era tanks were sent last year, and we've set modernish C2's. That's a really poor excuse.

Putin's already getting a propaganda victory from this: he can show (rightly) that the west is divided. This will give him confidence that he can split the coalition against him.

When did our tanks arrive in Ukraine?

Not yet, as far as I know. But we're sending them, along with other kit (repair and bridging kit). Why's that of relevance?

There's always a delay (although apparently one of 200 vehicles Canada said they were giving last week has already been lost at the front, so I think some countries are announcing things as they arrive.)

It's relevant because we decided to send them a fortnight or so ago and we (you, mainly) seem to be castigating Germany for not immediately following our lead. Why didn't we send them six months ago if it is so obvious they need to be sent.

Ukraine have asked specifically for the Leo 2's. And it should be noted that the Leo2 is the best choice for Ukraine: easy to maintain, with common ammo with other western kit, and available in numbers that may make a difference. As several eastern European countries operate them, maintenance kit and knowledge is also much more widespread.

In comparison the C2's use non-standard ammo, and only have a few available. Leclercs are less numerous as well. Abrams are fuel-hungry and complex to maintain.

But the main point is this: Germany have not even done the groundwork to send them, or even investigate what needs doing to send them. Hence the stoopid 'over a year' claim to send them from one of the arms companies.

"Ukraine have asked specifically for the Leo 2's" - yes, and for many months.

Ukraine have also specifically asked for Challengers, Abrams and Leclercs for many months.

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

kamski said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

And more:

"The German government spokesperson denies the claims by Foreign Minister Baerbock who said Germany wouldn’t "stand in the way" of Poland sending its Leopards to 🇺🇦

The spokesperson told Politico that it would have to be discussed in Germany's Federal Security Council."

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1617481495555497985

They make our government look positively competent and statesmanlike.

It is a much easier decision for our government to make, though. There are obvious reasons why it would not be prudent for Germany to look as though it is taking the lead on supplying tanks. These include both the risk of giving Putin a propaganda victory in terms of comparisons with WW2 and the fact that Germany is entirely reliant on others for its nuclear deterrent.

I expect that Germany will ultimately end up allowing the export of Leopards, but it is very much in its interests to be seen to be reluctant about doing so. This doesn't apply to the UK.

They're not taking the lead. Loads of Soviet-era tanks were sent last year, and we've set modernish C2's. That's a really poor excuse.

Putin's already getting a propaganda victory from this: he can show (rightly) that the west is divided. This will give him confidence that he can split the coalition against him.

When did our tanks arrive in Ukraine?

Not yet, as far as I know. But we're sending them, along with other kit (repair and bridging kit). Why's that of relevance?

There's always a delay (although apparently one of 200 vehicles Canada said they were giving last week has already been lost at the front, so I think some countries are announcing things as they arrive.)

It's relevant because we decided to send them a fortnight or so ago and we (you, mainly) seem to be castigating Germany for not immediately following our lead. Why didn't we send them six months ago if it is so obvious they need to be sent.

Ukraine have asked specifically for the Leo 2's. And it should be noted that the Leo2 is the best choice for Ukraine: easy to maintain, with common ammo with other western kit, and available in numbers that may make a difference. As several eastern European countries operate them, maintenance kit and knowledge is also much more widespread.

In comparison the C2's use non-standard ammo, and only have a few available. Leclercs are less numerous as well. Abrams are fuel-hungry and complex to maintain.

But the main point is this: Germany have not even done the groundwork to send them, or even investigate what needs doing to send them. Hence the stoopid 'over a year' claim to send them from one of the arms companies.

"Ukraine have asked specifically for the Leo 2's" - yes, and for many months.

Ukraine have also specifically asked for Challengers, Abrams and Leclercs for many months.

And we've sending C2's. Why won't Germany send Leo2's? Why won't they allow other countries to send them? Why haven't they done an inventory of what they have to send? Why did the outgoing defence minister stop such a survey?

There is a matter of weeks in it. How do you know what they've done. Are you eyes only access for such minutes?

kamski said:

JosiasJessop said:

kamski said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

And more:

"The German government spokesperson denies the claims by Foreign Minister Baerbock who said Germany wouldn’t "stand in the way" of Poland sending its Leopards to 🇺🇦

The spokesperson told Politico that it would have to be discussed in Germany's Federal Security Council."

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1617481495555497985

They make our government look positively competent and statesmanlike.

It is a much easier decision for our government to make, though. There are obvious reasons why it would not be prudent for Germany to look as though it is taking the lead on supplying tanks. These include both the risk of giving Putin a propaganda victory in terms of comparisons with WW2 and the fact that Germany is entirely reliant on others for its nuclear deterrent.

I expect that Germany will ultimately end up allowing the export of Leopards, but it is very much in its interests to be seen to be reluctant about doing so. This doesn't apply to the UK.

They're not taking the lead. Loads of Soviet-era tanks were sent last year, and we've set modernish C2's. That's a really poor excuse.

Putin's already getting a propaganda victory from this: he can show (rightly) that the west is divided. This will give him confidence that he can split the coalition against him.

When did our tanks arrive in Ukraine?

Not yet, as far as I know. But we're sending them, along with other kit (repair and bridging kit). Why's that of relevance?

There's always a delay (although apparently one of 200 vehicles Canada said they were giving last week has already been lost at the front, so I think some countries are announcing things as they arrive.)

It's relevant because we decided to send them a fortnight or so ago and we (you, mainly) seem to be castigating Germany for not immediately following our lead. Why didn't we send them six months ago if it is so obvious they need to be sent.

Ukraine have asked specifically for the Leo 2's. And it should be noted that the Leo2 is the best choice for Ukraine: easy to maintain, with common ammo with other western kit, and available in numbers that may make a difference. As several eastern European countries operate them, maintenance kit and knowledge is also much more widespread.

In comparison the C2's use non-standard ammo, and only have a few available. Leclercs are less numerous as well. Abrams are fuel-hungry and complex to maintain.

But the main point is this: Germany have not even done the groundwork to send them, or even investigate what needs doing to send them. Hence the stoopid 'over a year' claim to send them from one of the arms companies.

"Ukraine have asked specifically for the Leo 2's" - yes, and for many months.

Ukraine have also specifically asked for Challengers, Abrams and Leclercs for many months.

And we've sending C2's. Why won't Germany send Leo2's? Why won't they allow other countries to send them? Why haven't they done an inventory of what they have to send? Why did the outgoing defence minister stop such a survey?

I'm just suggesting you do a tiny bit of homework before posting.

Another example: of course they've done an inventory. According to Spiegel it was completed by May last year.

Also why link to visegrad24 when these things have been widely reported in reputable media?

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

@DeltapollUK: 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
Labour lead is fourteen points in latest results from Deltapoll for the Mail on Sunday.
C… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617480288061227012

Tories up to 30%, Labour down to 44%