Hagir Ahmed is a former Corbyn campaigner, who’s been photographed at Momentum events and “Jeremy for Labour” phone bank sessions. She seems to have have a change of heart and was seen out campaigning with Tory MP Greg Hands since turning up to Sunak’s launch event.
This reminds me of Charlie Mullins, the Pimlico Plumbers man, going from aparently ploughing millions of his fortune into Remain, to saying that "Boris and Nigel to need to join up for the country",and joining Reform, just the other day.
Also, for some reason, Peter Hitchens, who apparently at some point in the 70's or '80s turned overnight from a Trotskyist to a moraly rightwing ranter.
Up to 38% tarrifs on BYD and MG electric cars into EU customs zone.
Everyone in favour of Net Zero, should understand what a massive Brexit benefit we have in the UK not introducing these tarrifs.
Although the UK has less of a motor manufacturing industry to protect than the EU I doubt it will want to be the sole major car market to be targeted by excess Chinese manufacture.
Expect the UK to follow suit with new tariffs.
But the CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!
It’s an EMERGENCY, right, and we need to be doing everything possible to get to NET ZERO, even if it means selling the West to China?
I suppose it depends on whether cheap Chinese EVs get displaced with these tariffs by European ICEs and that depends in turn on the trend: are we on a path from ICE to EV that has hit a temporary stumble or are we going to stick with ICE and the EV fashion falls by the wayside. I don't suppose it matters from a climate perspective whether we drive Chinese or European EVs but it does matter if we stick with ICE.
Who is more likely to build a new factory in the UK ? If we use carrot & stick, I'd say we ought to be able to get one of the Chinese manufacturers to do a Nissan. I'd want a battery plant first, though.
Why wouldn't the Chinese manufacturer base their factory in the EU to avoid these tariffs? The UK and EU have an agreement to partially reduce trade barriers on motor vehicles, both not fully.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
There is a possibility of course that it becomes a Lib-Lab marginal. I can see why Nick and his team are keen to maximise Labour advances here even at the risk of letting the Tories through the middle. It's the border between the obvious Lib Dem target lands and obvious Labour target lands. The Donbas of the M4 corridor. Like the Soviets (Labour) and the Western Allies (Lib Dems) racing to cross Germany to establish their spheres of influence in 1944, the two non-Tory parties are in a scramble for Wessex.
Ha! An awesome metaphor. But still inexcusable in my book. There were similar scenes (in reverse) when the Libs got uppity at Labour for going hard for one of the by-election seats, which Labour duly won (can't remember which one). It led to unedifying scenes on here whereby the usually sane and pleasant Liberal @Barnesian said he'd rather see Susan Hall win the GLA than Sadiq Khan!!
Mid Beds wasn’t it? AFAIC a Lab government with the LibDems as main Opposition would suit me fine!
🆕Our latest @moreincommon_@TheNewsAgents voting intention poll finds Labour have a 16 pt lead over the Conservatives 🔵 CON 25% (-2) 🔴 LAB 41% (-3) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 13% (+2) 🟢 GRN 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3%(-) Dates 11-12/6, N=2037, change on 5-7 both on new methodology
There's definitely a trend this week. Labour down, Tories down but a bit less so, LD up, Ref up. No real trend in Green and SNP slightly recovering in Scottish polls.
Little net change in blocs generally but this one isn't so good for the left. LLG 56 (-3), RefCon 38 (=). Rounding/other +3%.
NOM remains value. NOM wins unless Labour net gains 123 or 124 seats. That's still a lot if a wheel comes off the Labour bus in the next three weeks.
There's a huge amount of skepticism out there in voterland about Labour's offer of recharging dentistry and NHS appointments from currently unfound due taxes. As somebody said to me today: "Firstly you have to hire the people to find this tax. Then you have to train them. It'll be six years before it shows any profit...."
The general tone I'm hearing is everyone is lying to them - all will have to put up taxes. Significantly. But Labour's offer is an order of magnitude adrift of reality.
Apart from the not very bright and the delusional I doubt if many are voting Labour with any belief at all in what they say about tax and spend, or anything else much. I think there is a hope that they are more competent and honest than the last lot - which isn't hard.
Most people know that the rules of elections since 1992 (and reinforced in 2017) is that everyone lies about tax and any sort of personal voter liability because you can't win an election by doing otherwise.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Same thing in my Newton Abbot constituency. If they could sort it they would easily unseat the incumbent tory (Anne Morris)
It really is silly behaviour. They need to sort it out.
Sort what out? They're different parties with different supporters and different policies.
They should give each seat their all and may the best candidate win.
Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.
Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
For some people their sob stories just do not add up.
Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.
Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.
They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites. Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
If the school your kids were sent to was poor, and was not giving them a great education, would you still have the same view?
For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
The vast majority of parents in that situation couldn't afford private school so the only fair solution is to invest both money and effort in improving the performance of the state sector. This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people. Fwiw I would do anything for my kids, luckily sending them to private school isn't something I see myself having to do, especially if we get a government that is a little more attuned to the sector's needs rather than telling us that if we really loved our kids we'd never use the services they're providing.
"This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people"
I think that's a vast mischaracterisation of the debate. Many people who do not currently send their kids to a private school may see it as an aspiration; or like me, as a useful backstop if the state sector fails my family.
I also think there's an issue that investment in the performance of the state sector will automagically 'fix' poor schools; at least in time to help the kids who currently attend them. The next generation, perhaps; but many of the issues facing an individual school may take years to fix. And far longer than most of the kids in the school have.
There's also parents like me: I'm not going to go private, but I'd quite like my youngest to go to the same good secondary school as her sister - and the exodus from the private sector makes that less likely. And no, siblings don't get preference. And no, there isn't capacity in the state sector: London schools might face falling rolls because families can't afford to live there, but GM schools are creaking at the seams.
The one on Marsland Rd ?
I was there when the boys and girls merged in the early 90s.
Ha - I'm sure we must know people in common! But then I would guess we are the only two pbers who live on the same road. I have one child there, but I'm actually thinking of its counterpart three Met stops to the north where my middle child goes.
You’d think going last might help Sunak . He’d hear what Starmer said and could modify his answers .
OTOH how many people (especially those who may still be open to persuasion) pay attention to any of these events, let alone one held on a relatively niche channel like Sky News?
Provided that Starmer doesn't make any catastrophic gaffes the event should do him neither harm nor good.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Same thing in my Newton Abbot constituency. If they could sort it they would easily unseat the incumbent tory (Anne Morris)
It really is silly behaviour. They need to sort it out.
Sort what out? They're different parties with different supporters and different policies.
They should give each seat their all and may the best candidate win.
Totally agree, it's less than 10 years since the LDs were happily voting through Conservative policies whatever they pretend about being centre-left.
Up to 38% tarrifs on BYD and MG electric cars into EU customs zone.
Everyone in favour of Net Zero, should understand what a massive Brexit benefit we have in the UK not introducing these tarrifs.
Although the UK has less of a motor manufacturing industry to protect than the EU I doubt it will want to be the sole major car market to be targeted by excess Chinese manufacture.
Expect the UK to follow suit with new tariffs.
But the CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!
It’s an EMERGENCY, right, and we need to be doing everything possible to get to NET ZERO, even if it means selling the West to China?
I suppose it depends on whether cheap Chinese EVs get displaced with these tariffs by European ICEs and that depends in turn on the trend: are we on a path from ICE to EV that has hit a temporary stumble or are we going to stick with ICE and the EV fashion falls by the wayside. I don't suppose it matters from a climate perspective whether we drive Chinese or European EVs but it does matter if we stick with ICE.
Who is more likely to build a new factory in the UK ? If we use carrot & stick, I'd say we ought to be able to get one of the Chinese manufacturers to do a Nissan. I'd want a battery plant first, though.
If any Brexiters are serious about Brexit benefits, there's one.
(A 38% tariff isn't going to be enough to displace Chinese imports, btw, so maybe the EU is thinking along the same lines.)
It’s only 17% on BYD so European carmakers could face a double-whammy with retaliatory tariffs from China as well as cheap competition in Europe.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Same thing in my Newton Abbot constituency. If they could sort it they would easily unseat the incumbent tory (Anne Morris)
It really is silly behaviour. They need to sort it out.
Newton Abbot is an obvious Lib Dem target and they were second in 2019 and control Teignbridge council. I think in most cases like this voters will know the right answer.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
A different issue is whether we need to build them in the UK, or buy off the shelf to get more tanks cheaper (and known to be working) than the MoD process for creating new, expensive and ineffective designs. Or build foreign designs under licence. I must say however I don't know what the answer is.
I think this ‘Super-majority’ scare tactic by the tories is dangerous for Labour.
It’s the first decent thing the Conservatives have done the whole campaign. If people believe it they might back away from Labour and that could produce any result. Individual voters just can’t pick and choose the outcome like that.
Labour need to fight this hard.
I don't think there's 5d chess going on here. It's drivel by people running the GE equivalent of "please clap".
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
There is a possibility of course that it becomes a Lib-Lab marginal. I can see why Nick and his team are keen to maximise Labour advances here even at the risk of letting the Tories through the middle. It's the border between the obvious Lib Dem target lands and obvious Labour target lands. The Donbas of the M4 corridor. Like the Soviets (Labour) and the Western Allies (Lib Dems) racing to cross Germany to establish their spheres of influence in 1944, the two non-Tory parties are in a scramble for Wessex.
Ha! An awesome metaphor. But still inexcusable in my book. There were similar scenes (in reverse) when the Libs got uppity at Labour for going hard for one of the by-election seats, which Labour duly won (can't remember which one). It led to unedifying scenes on here whereby the usually sane and pleasant Liberal @Barnesian said he'd rather see Susan Hall win the GLA than Sadiq Khan!!
It was Dorries old seat Mid Beds . It did look at one point that the vote would split allowing the Tory to hang on .
Thanks. That's the one. Caused quite a ruckus on PB at the time as I recall. I told @Barnesian he was being silly then; and I'm happy to say the same to @NickPalmer in reverse now re: Didcot.
Con 21% (-1%) Lab 41% (-4%) Lib Dem 11% (+1%) Reform UK 17% (+3%) Green 6% (+1%)
Changes since June 4-5
Labour slide definitely on. Hard to work out why exactly, given the terrible Tory coverage. It does sort of imply some voters are switching from Lab to Ref.
Slightly off-topic, but I was told yesterday by someone who might be well-informed that the reason for the sudden election is that Leadsom, among others, was planning a motion of no confidence in the PM at the 1922 committee and it appeared that the chances of success were good. Sunak got wind of it and dashed off the see the King.
A panicked decision would certainly explain why they've seemed so under-prepared...
But would Leadsom and other malcontents not have spoken out publicly about Sunak's ruse?
I think this ‘Super-majority’ scare tactic by the tories is dangerous for Labour.
It’s the first decent thing the Conservatives have done the whole campaign. If people believe it they might back away from Labour and that could produce any result. Individual voters just can’t pick and choose the outcome like that.
Labour need to fight this hard.
I don't think there's 5d chess going on here. It's drivel by people running the GE equivalent of "please clap".
There are still surprisingly large numbers of people out there who don;t have a clue how far ahead Labour is in the polls. I was talking to a colleague today. Comments such as:
When is the actual election date? Why did SKS ban Diane Abbott? Do you think Labour could win this?
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Same thing in my Newton Abbot constituency. If they could sort it they would easily unseat the incumbent tory (Anne Morris)
Riding mon velo pour une sportive down your way next weekend
What is going on with debates? Most sources think we get brand Sunak at 7 but the telegraph thinks it is sks and Sunak with Beth rigby
I think this ‘Super-majority’ scare tactic by the tories is dangerous for Labour.
It’s the first decent thing the Conservatives have done the whole campaign. If people believe it they might back away from Labour and that could produce any result. Individual voters just can’t pick and choose the outcome like that.
Labour need to fight this hard.
I don't think there's 5d chess going on here. It's drivel by people running the GE equivalent of "please clap".
You have to remember the Tories, as Unionists, like to claim that Scotland under a minority SNP government is a "one party state" anyway. So their trigger level for OPSes is about as low as a nemertean belly dancer can get below.
I think that's Ed Balls, The Sturge, and George Osborne already signed up for ITV. It's going to be unbeatable coverage –– AGAIN.
I've always been a BBC man for election night, but I think I'll be giving ITV a go this time, having enjoyed Balls' and Osborne's podcast. I feel slightly disloyal and also anxious at having to wrangle with the unholy mess that is STV player.
I’m aiming to have at least two, but probably three, channels running concurrently on a couple of MacBooks
Sky News are usually quick. ITV could be good.
BBC often terrible these days. Slow to report and slow to respond.
The best coverage, as always, will be on PB.
The best coverage consistent with being in bed at the time is on Radio4/5; slow, sleep inducing, civilized, gets there in the end, maybe a few word pictures from Jim Naughtie. No cowboys illustrating swing, no drunks on Thames boats.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
Nostalgia.
We don't have the luxury of avoiding hard choices. If you asked Ukraine whether they'd rather have five hundred Storm Shadows, and five hundred AMRAAMs (or equivalent) or a hundred Challengers from us, I know which they'd pick.
Eastern Europe is going to be awash with new tanks in a few years time. Any we might contribute (assuming they're not already obsolete by then) is irrelevant.
And if we ever need them, we can buy them.
It's not a core UK capability - or speciality - any more. And it never will be.
If any party is serious about defence procurement, they will have to make such choices.
Con 21% (-1%) Lab 41% (-4%) Lib Dem 11% (+1%) Reform UK 17% (+3%) Green 6% (+1%)
Changes since June 4-5
Labour slide definitely on. Hard to work out why exactly, given the terrible Tory coverage. It does sort of imply some voters are switching from Lab to Ref.
LLG 58 (-2), RefCon 38 (+2)
Makes sense, Labour have gained many 2019 first time Tory voters.
Wouldn't surprise me if at least some of them are going to REFORM, as well as just traditional WWC voters.
Up to 38% tarrifs on BYD and MG electric cars into EU customs zone.
Everyone in favour of Net Zero, should understand what a massive Brexit benefit we have in the UK not introducing these tarrifs.
Although the UK has less of a motor manufacturing industry to protect than the EU I doubt it will want to be the sole major car market to be targeted by excess Chinese manufacture.
Expect the UK to follow suit with new tariffs.
But the CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!
It’s an EMERGENCY, right, and we need to be doing everything possible to get to NET ZERO, even if it means selling the West to China?
I suppose it depends on whether cheap Chinese EVs get displaced with these tariffs by European ICEs and that depends in turn on the trend: are we on a path from ICE to EV that has hit a temporary stumble or are we going to stick with ICE and the EV fashion falls by the wayside. I don't suppose it matters from a climate perspective whether we drive Chinese or European EVs but it does matter if we stick with ICE.
Who is more likely to build a new factory in the UK ? If we use carrot & stick, I'd say we ought to be able to get one of the Chinese manufacturers to do a Nissan. I'd want a battery plant first, though.
Why wouldn't the Chinese manufacturer base their factory in the EU to avoid these tariffs? The UK and EU have an agreement to partially reduce trade barriers on motor vehicles, both not fully.
Why would anyone ?
That's really a question for the Brexit crew, not me. But we need to be answering it.
Pollster Frank Luntz tells @TimesRadio Tory MPs accused him of "trying to get news" when he predicted anyone with a majority of less than 15k was in trouble.
He tells @JPonpolitics : "If you force me to make a projection, I project between 120 and 130 (seats for the Tories)."
Con 21% (-1%) Lab 41% (-4%) Lib Dem 11% (+1%) Reform UK 17% (+3%) Green 6% (+1%)
Changes since June 4-5
Labour slide definitely on. Hard to work out why exactly, given the terrible Tory coverage. It does sort of imply some voters are switching from Lab to Ref.
LLG 58 (-2), RefCon 38 (+2)
Looks like some movement Labour to Lib Dem and Green with a bit more to Reform . Is this the low hanging fruit Labour to Reform .
I’d think that it might be easier for Tory to Reform to switch back closer to the time than Labour to Reform .
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Their spoiler act in Didcot & Wantage, and Bicester & Woodstock too, is making the LibDems rather mulish in Banbury.
Labour don't have a gnat's chance in D&W or B&W, and nor do the LibDems in Banbury. But there are rather more LibDem diamonds in the latter than you would be expecting given that it's clearly a Con/Lab marginal.
You’d think going last might help Sunak . He’d hear what Starmer said and could modify his answers .
Yes it's a major advantage (assuming he can hear Stormer's answers – do they lock him in a room sans phone?)
The mistake you are making there is thinking that Sunak is a quality political operator. He will modify his answers in a way that make him sound even worse / out of touch.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
I really don’t understand your position.
In the UK what would we need tanks for? To fight against enemy infantry and armour yes?
How do the enemy infantry and armour get here? Across the sea.
Can we attack them at sea and on the other side of the sea before they get here? Uh, yes with ships, subs, aircraft and missiles.
But if all our planes, helicopters, ships, subs and missiles are used up and they get across? Well last chance is infantry units with anti-tank weapons v the armour and infantry v the infantry.
But aren’t we absolutely fucked if it gets to that point where the enemy has air superiority, naval superiority and has landed tanks and troops? Yes, so we will have already resorted to nukes or accepted we’ve lost.
The point is that European NATO countries such as Germany and Poland should be focussing on big land war v Russia whilst countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Us should be bolstering naval power and air power to stop Russia from going around the big land forces made up of the countries susceptible to a Russian land invasion. We can help with specialist infantry and kit but absolutely bonkers to be blowing money on tanks.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
Nostalgia.
We don't have the luxury of avoiding hard choices. If you asked Ukraine whether they'd rather have five hundred Storm Shadows, and five hundred AMRAAMs (or equivalent) or a hundred Challengers from us, I know which they'd pick.
Eastern Europe is going to be awash with new tanks in a few years time. Any we might contribute (assuming they're not already obsolete by then) is irrelevant.
And if we ever need them, we can buy them.
It's not a core UK capability - or speciality - any more. And it never will be.
If any party is serious about defence procurement, they will have to make such choices.
As CR3 is only being produced in 147 units,. that's only enough for maybe 2 regiments plus spares plus bits and bobs for trials etc. (56 per regiment). [Edit] Whether CR2 itself is still workable or plain obsolescent I don't know.
The issues to my mind are (a) is it worth such a short run for a partly unique design rather than buying overseas and (b) can the full capability and command skillset for armoured manoeuvre at divisional and army level be maintained without enough toys of the right kinds? One needs to add for instance also SP artillery, also at a low ebb.
Malmesbury said: "Some years ago, the US Army spent a fortune on a series of programs to design a new super duper rifle. To increase hit rate.
They discovered, almost by accident, during the testing, that the biggest improvement was teaching soldiers to shoot, and giving them practise."
The US Army should have remembered Audie Murphy:
"Audie Leon Murphy (20 June 1925 – 28 May 1971)[1] was an American soldier, actor, and songwriter. He was widely celebrated as the most decorated American combat soldier of World War II,[4] and has been described as the most highly decorated soldier in U.S. history.[5][6] He received every military combat award for valor available from the United States Army, as well as French and Belgian awards for heroism. Murphy received the Medal of Honor for valor that he demonstrated at the age of 19 for single-handedly holding off a company of German soldiers for an hour at the Colmar Pocket in France in January 1945, before leading a successful counterattack while wounded and out of ammunition.
Murphy was born into a large family of sharecroppers in Hunt County, Texas. After his father abandoned them, his mother died when he was a teenager. Murphy left school in fifth grade to pick cotton and find other work to help support his family; his skill with a hunting rifle helped feed his family." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
As I understand it, mostly he shot squirrels and rabbits -- which are harder to hit than the "most dangerous game".
Sniper originally means someone who can shoot snipe
Small birds, snipe. Tasty but small
There is a wonderful and maybe apocryphal story of a posh Edwardian gent - from the decadent 1900s - being confronted with a reduced World War One menu. And then saying
“I am prepared to share many things with my friends, including my wife, but I draw the line at a snipe”
We escaped being made into meat pies at the last chateau and have made it the next one 65 km cycling later. Nearly all over, which is a relief as I am starting to lose my marbles. We have the biggest shower imaginable in one of the towers, but I managed to open the door to the hall instead, just wearing my underwear.
Con 21% (-1%) Lab 41% (-4%) Lib Dem 11% (+1%) Reform UK 17% (+3%) Green 6% (+1%)
Changes since June 4-5
Labour slide definitely on. Hard to work out why exactly, given the terrible Tory coverage. It does sort of imply some voters are switching from Lab to Ref.
LLG 58 (-2), RefCon 38 (+2)
Makes sense, Labour have gained many 2019 first time Tory voters.
Wouldn't surprise me if at least some of them are going to REFORM, as well as just traditional WWC voters.
Is possible, although could it not also simply be the consequence of some DKs migrating to the smaller parties, whilst the larger ones stay static?
Regardless, there doesn't seem to be much for Labour to worry about at this stage.
Labour have been on 42% to 43% for much of the year with More in Common (40% in February) so I’m not sure I read a massive amount into this. They’re at around the 40-ish mark with a manifesto launch tomorrow.
Churn.
No Reform breakthrough. No Faragasm. The usual flattering to deceive.
Lab 41% (-5) Con 25% (-) LibDem 10% (+1) Reform 13% (+2) Green 5% (-1) SNP 3% (1)
Fieldwork 11-12 June
The what if's....Tory campaign was half decent, Farage doesn't throw his hat into the ring....it could get a poll with a <10% lead. Would at least give us a bit of excitement as the hyperbolic the reactions from all sides.
Lab 41% (-5) Con 25% (-) LibDem 10% (+1) Reform 13% (+2) Green 5% (-1) SNP 3% (1)
Fieldwork 11-12 June
They have changed methodology and are quoting against the previous poll if it had also been done the same way thus 🔵 CON 25% (-2) 🔴 LAB 41% (-3) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 13% (+2) 🟢 GRN 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3%(-)
Malmesbury said: "Some years ago, the US Army spent a fortune on a series of programs to design a new super duper rifle. To increase hit rate.
They discovered, almost by accident, during the testing, that the biggest improvement was teaching soldiers to shoot, and giving them practise."
The US Army should have remembered Audie Murphy:
"Audie Leon Murphy (20 June 1925 – 28 May 1971)[1] was an American soldier, actor, and songwriter. He was widely celebrated as the most decorated American combat soldier of World War II,[4] and has been described as the most highly decorated soldier in U.S. history.[5][6] He received every military combat award for valor available from the United States Army, as well as French and Belgian awards for heroism. Murphy received the Medal of Honor for valor that he demonstrated at the age of 19 for single-handedly holding off a company of German soldiers for an hour at the Colmar Pocket in France in January 1945, before leading a successful counterattack while wounded and out of ammunition.
Murphy was born into a large family of sharecroppers in Hunt County, Texas. After his father abandoned them, his mother died when he was a teenager. Murphy left school in fifth grade to pick cotton and find other work to help support his family; his skill with a hunting rifle helped feed his family." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
As I understand it, mostly he shot squirrels and rabbits -- which are harder to hit than the "most dangerous game".
Sniper originally means someone who can shoot snipe
Small birds, snipe. Tasty but small
There is a wonderful and maybe apocryphal story of a posh Edwardian gent - from the decadent 1900s - being confronted with a reduced World War One menu. And then saying
“I am prepared to share many things with my friends, including my wife, but I draw the line at a snipe”
Jack Snipe are even smaller - and even more cryptic.
The big question is whether Labour will avoid any dementia tax style toxic policies in their manifesto.
If the Labour slide continues after the manifesto launch then things will get interesting.
They won't, because they're not stupid. It will look like the policies they've already announced on a piece of paper.
Don’t count your chickens. Even some of the things they’ve already announced might become more of an issue once they’re formal policies rather than just trial balloons.
The Tories will be disappointed that their manifesto seems to have done nothing for their poll numbers . Labour would like to see their vote share stay above 40% .
@TheNewsAgents voting intention poll finds Labour have a 16 pt lead over the Conservatives 🔵 CON 25% (-2) 🔴 LAB 41% (-3) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 13% (+2) 🟢 GRN 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3%(-) Dates 11-12/6, N=2037, change on 5-7 both on new methodology
Have to report that I heard a mention of the election at work for the first time today. Three of us were going back in after break time. A complete stranger yelled across the street. "Youse lot aren't Tories are you? I fucking hate them." (May have been our blue school merch and blue lanyards and ID badges?). And that was it. Agreed it was the worst thing we'd ever been accused of in our SEN career.
Pollster Frank Luntz tells @TimesRadio Tory MPs accused him of "trying to get news" when he predicted anyone with a majority of less than 15k was in trouble.
He tells @JPonpolitics : "If you force me to make a projection, I project between 120 and 130 (seats for the Tories)."
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
Nostalgia.
We don't have the luxury of avoiding hard choices. If you asked Ukraine whether they'd rather have five hundred Storm Shadows, and five hundred AMRAAMs (or equivalent) or a hundred Challengers from us, I know which they'd pick.
Eastern Europe is going to be awash with new tanks in a few years time. Any we might contribute (assuming they're not already obsolete by then) is irrelevant.
And if we ever need them, we can buy them.
It's not a core UK capability - or speciality - any more. And it never will be.
If any party is serious about defence procurement, they will have to make such choices.
Yes. The correct approach is to ask “what threats will the UK military face in the next 20 year time period, and what is the best way to overcome them”.
You go from there, and you try to innovate. The one good thing about Ukraine, and some of the other proxy conflicts, is that we have real data to analyse too.
Up to 38% tarrifs on BYD and MG electric cars into EU customs zone.
Everyone in favour of Net Zero, should understand what a massive Brexit benefit we have in the UK not introducing these tarrifs.
Although the UK has less of a motor manufacturing industry to protect than the EU I doubt it will want to be the sole major car market to be targeted by excess Chinese manufacture.
Expect the UK to follow suit with new tariffs.
But the CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!
It’s an EMERGENCY, right, and we need to be doing everything possible to get to NET ZERO, even if it means selling the West to China?
I suppose it depends on whether cheap Chinese EVs get displaced with these tariffs by European ICEs and that depends in turn on the trend: are we on a path from ICE to EV that has hit a temporary stumble or are we going to stick with ICE and the EV fashion falls by the wayside. I don't suppose it matters from a climate perspective whether we drive Chinese or European EVs but it does matter if we stick with ICE.
Who is more likely to build a new factory in the UK ? If we use carrot & stick, I'd say we ought to be able to get one of the Chinese manufacturers to do a Nissan. I'd want a battery plant first, though.
If any Brexiters are serious about Brexit benefits, there's one.
(A 38% tariff isn't going to be enough to displace Chinese imports, btw, so maybe the EU is thinking along the same lines.)
Yeah, compare it to the US 100% tariff - the EU are levelling the playing field to some extent, but not seeking to end Chinese imports altogether.
The sensible path for the UK would be to try to get some inward investment agreed in the next few months, but to be prepared to follow the EU's lead if it looks like it won't happen.
Mind you, our current SoS for Business and Trade seems to think that BEVs are some sort of woke plot, so god only knows what's actually happening...
Labour have been on 42% to 43% for much of the year with More in Common (40% in February) so I’m not sure I read a massive amount into this. They’re at around the 40-ish mark with a manifesto launch tomorrow.
Churn.
No Reform breakthrough. No Faragasm. The usual flattering to deceive.
I was just browsing back through the wiki and it looks like a regression to mean. We're getting polls so often, sampled over very short periods that I'd be surprised if we didn't see noise.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
There is a possibility of course that it becomes a Lib-Lab marginal. I can see why Nick and his team are keen to maximise Labour advances here even at the risk of letting the Tories through the middle. It's the border between the obvious Lib Dem target lands and obvious Labour target lands. The Donbas of the M4 corridor. Like the Soviets (Labour) and the Western Allies (Lib Dems) racing to cross Germany to establish their spheres of influence in 1944, the two non-Tory parties are in a scramble for Wessex.
Ha! An awesome metaphor. But still inexcusable in my book. There were similar scenes (in reverse) when the Libs got uppity at Labour for going hard for one of the by-election seats, which Labour duly won (can't remember which one). It led to unedifying scenes on here whereby the usually sane and pleasant Liberal @Barnesian said he'd rather see Susan Hall win the GLA than Sadiq Khan!!
It was Dorries old seat Mid Beds . It did look at one point that the vote would split allowing the Tory to hang on .
The Labour victor did a chicken run to Hitchin for the GE. Quite an insult to the locals!!
We escaped being made into meat pies at the last chateau and have made it the next one 65 km cycling later. Nearly all over, which is a relief as I am starting to lose my marbles. We have the biggest shower imaginable in one of the towers, but I managed to open the door to the hall instead, just wearing my underwear.
Remember- no more pics today. Especially in your underwear.
Labour have been on 42% to 43% for much of the year with More in Common (40% in February) so I’m not sure I read a massive amount into this. They’re at around the 40-ish mark with a manifesto launch tomorrow.
Churn.
No Reform breakthrough. No Faragasm. The usual flattering to deceive.
I read things a different way. I think withut Farage Reform would already have dipped a lot, whereas even if they don't achieve the highs of some recent polls, his intervention prevents the kind of squeeze they otherwise would have faced. When actual Tory MPs would probably vote for him over Rishi, that is a definite help.
Lab 41% (-5) Con 25% (-) LibDem 10% (+1) Reform 13% (+2) Green 5% (-1) SNP 3% (1)
Fieldwork 11-12 June
The what if's....Tory campaign was half decent, Farage doesn't throw his hat into the ring....it could get a poll with a <10% lead. Would at least give us a bit of excitement as the hyperbolic the reactions from all sides. </p>
I think that was theoretically possible. My money would have been against it, but high single figures may have been possible.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
I really don’t understand your position.
In the UK what would we need tanks for? To fight against enemy infantry and armour yes?
How do the enemy infantry and armour get here? Across the sea.
Can we attack them at sea and on the other side of the sea before they get here? Uh, yes with ships, subs, aircraft and missiles.
But if all our planes, helicopters, ships, subs and missiles are used up and they get across? Well last chance is infantry units with anti-tank weapons v the armour and infantry v the infantry.
But aren’t we absolutely fucked if it gets to that point where the enemy has air superiority, naval superiority and has landed tanks and troops? Yes, so we will have already resorted to nukes or accepted we’ve lost.
The point is that European NATO countries such as Germany and Poland should be focussing on big land war v Russia whilst countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Us should be bolstering naval power and air power to stop Russia from going around the big land forces made up of the countries susceptible to a Russian land invasion. We can help with specialist infantry and kit but absolutely bonkers to be blowing money on tanks.
Tanks are rather a "wrong type of snow" proposition. Severely hampered in Normandy for instance
Con 21% (-1%) Lab 41% (-4%) Lib Dem 11% (+1%) Reform UK 17% (+3%) Green 6% (+1%)
Changes since June 4-5
Labour slide definitely on. Hard to work out why exactly, given the terrible Tory coverage. It does sort of imply some voters are switching from Lab to Ref.
LLG 58 (-2), RefCon 38 (+2)
Some Lab to Ref but mostly a lot of churn across the parties with Con, Ref, LD, Green saand prev Con now DKs all in the mix.
The polls are also converging as we approach polling day with pollsters with the largest Lab leads over Con seeing the largest drops with most of them now settling on about a 20% Lab lead.
@TheNewsAgents voting intention poll finds Labour have a 16 pt lead over the Conservatives 🔵 CON 25% (-2) 🔴 LAB 41% (-3) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 13% (+2) 🟢 GRN 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3%(-) Dates 11-12/6, N=2037, change on 5-7 both on new methodology
We escaped being made into meat pies at the last chateau and have made it the next one 65 km cycling later. Nearly all over, which is a relief as I am starting to lose my marbles. We have the biggest shower imaginable in one of the towers, but I managed to open the door to the hall instead, just wearing my underwear.
These posts are beginning to recall those slightly pornographic Hammer horrors of early 1970s vintage.
Lab 41% (-5) Con 25% (-) LibDem 10% (+1) Reform 13% (+2) Green 5% (-1) SNP 3% (1)
Fieldwork 11-12 June
They have changed methodology and are quoting against the previous poll if it had also been done the same way thus 🔵 CON 25% (-2) 🔴 LAB 41% (-3) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 13% (+2) 🟢 GRN 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3%(-)
The big question is whether Labour will avoid any dementia tax style toxic policies in their manifesto.
If the Labour slide continues after the manifesto launch then things will get interesting.
They won't, because they're not stupid. It will look like the policies they've already announced on a piece of paper.
Don’t count your chickens. Even some of the things they’ve already announced might become more of an issue once they’re formal policies rather than just trial balloons.
One does not need to count one's chickens to have a reasonable idea that they're not going to turn into pink elephants. Naturally, any launch is freighted with peril but unless one of SKS' aides woke up, snorted twelve lines of cocaine and downed a bottle of vodka before opening "Manifesto_v5_final_final.docx" I suspect we know exactly what's in it.
You’d think going last might help Sunak . He’d hear what Starmer said and could modify his answers .
Yes it's a major advantage (assuming he can hear Stormer's answers – do they lock him in a room sans phone?)
The mistake you are making there is thinking that Sunak is a quality political operator. He will modify his answers in a way that make him sound even worse / out of touch.
‘Easy read’ version available, along with short and long versions (though on their website both are the same length, so who the hell knows – it seems to do so by taking out the cover and pictures to replace with more text).
“Real Hope. Real Change” is a pretty good slogan. Unrealistic for them, but good.
Still no hyperlinking of sections – but then the website is better for this
Foreword
Open on cost of living crisis – nurses using foodbanks, schools crumbling, dentist appointments like gold dust
Climate emergency after cost of living crisis
Party offers hope, following science
Net zero by 2050 not enough. Must transition to decarbonized economy.
Solutions to climate crisis the same as those for other problems (note – how convenient!)
Building a fairer, healthier country
Most serious crisis in NHS history – deliberate conservative underfunding
Oppose creeping privatization
Guarantee rapid access to a GP, access to a dentist, boost NHS pay, local public health budgets.
8b needed next year, 28bn by 2030 (note – at least they put a number on it, not all do)
Increase funding for primary medical care. Reduce administrative burden on GPs
National commission to agree approach on drug law reform – move toward a legally regulated market (Note – I do tend to support that, but why have a commission for an ‘evidence based’ approach if they’ve already decided this).
Additional funding for NHS dentistry
National cancer control plan – reduce cases through food, tobacco interventions
Actually less on mental health than LDs or Tories. Vut does mention specifically tailored provision for LGBTIQ+. Trained counsellor in ever school and college – paid through bursaries (note – but who pays for those?)
Change the law on assisted dying
No more HIV by 2030
Caring with fairness, compassion, and dignity
4.7m unpaid carers, 150k vacancies in sector.
Free personal care, increased pay rates and career structure for carers, 20bn investment per year. End exploitation of overseas workers
Uplift disability benefits by 5%. Mandatory free transport for 16-18 year old SEND
3bn to local authorities for children’s social care (note: needed, but is that per year or one off?)
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
I really don’t understand your position.
In the UK what would we need tanks for? To fight against enemy infantry and armour yes?
How do the enemy infantry and armour get here? Across the sea.
Can we attack them at sea and on the other side of the sea before they get here? Uh, yes with ships, subs, aircraft and missiles.
But if all our planes, helicopters, ships, subs and missiles are used up and they get across? Well last chance is infantry units with anti-tank weapons v the armour and infantry v the infantry.
But aren’t we absolutely fucked if it gets to that point where the enemy has air superiority, naval superiority and has landed tanks and troops? Yes, so we will have already resorted to nukes or accepted we’ve lost.
The point is that European NATO countries such as Germany and Poland should be focussing on big land war v Russia whilst countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Us should be bolstering naval power and air power to stop Russia from going around the big land forces made up of the countries susceptible to a Russian land invasion. We can help with specialist infantry and kit but absolutely bonkers to be blowing money on tanks.
Tanks are rather a "wrong type of snow" proposition. Severely hampered in Normandy for instance
But essential to get out of Normandy ... scissors, paper, stone stuff.
We escaped being made into meat pies at the last chateau and have made it the next one 65 km cycling later. Nearly all over, which is a relief as I am starting to lose my marbles. We have the biggest shower imaginable in one of the towers, but I managed to open the door to the hall instead, just wearing my underwear.
Remember- no more pics today. Especially in your underwear.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Same thing in my Newton Abbot constituency. If they could sort it they would easily unseat the incumbent tory (Anne Morris)
Who came second last time? How many district and county councillors in the constituency does each party have? Which candidates have regular columns in the local papers? And which candidates are regularly recognised and greeted in the street?
Not hard to see who the real challenger is in Newton Abbot, I think.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Their spoiler act in Didcot & Wantage, and Bicester & Woodstock too, is making the LibDems rather mulish in Banbury.
Labour don't have a gnat's chance in D&W or B&W, and nor do the LibDems in Banbury. But there are rather more LibDem diamonds in the latter than you would be expecting given that it's clearly a Con/Lab marginal.
Well exactly. 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' is a tried and tested formula. They need to adopt it, and quick.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
There is a possibility of course that it becomes a Lib-Lab marginal. I can see why Nick and his team are keen to maximise Labour advances here even at the risk of letting the Tories through the middle. It's the border between the obvious Lib Dem target lands and obvious Labour target lands. The Donbas of the M4 corridor. Like the Soviets (Labour) and the Western Allies (Lib Dems) racing to cross Germany to establish their spheres of influence in 1944, the two non-Tory parties are in a scramble for Wessex.
Ha! An awesome metaphor. But still inexcusable in my book. There were similar scenes (in reverse) when the Libs got uppity at Labour for going hard for one of the by-election seats, which Labour duly won (can't remember which one). It led to unedifying scenes on here whereby the usually sane and pleasant Liberal @Barnesian said he'd rather see Susan Hall win the GLA than Sadiq Khan!!
It was Dorries old seat Mid Beds . It did look at one point that the vote would split allowing the Tory to hang on .
The Labour victor did a chicken run to Hitchin for the GE. Quite an insult to the locals!!
He apparently lives in Shefford, which is in the chunk of his constituency that was moved into the new Hitchin seat when the boundaries were redrawn. Mightily convenient, to be sure, but he's not really running away.
It is understood that a red flag was automatically raised by Ladbrokes as the bet in Williams’ name was potentially placed by a “politically exposed person”, and the bookmaker is particularly cautious over “novelty” markets.
The £100 bet, which could have led to a £500 payout on odds of 5/1, is believed to have been placed via an online account that would have required the user to provide personal details including their date of birth and debit card.
Have to report that I heard a mention of the election at work for the first time today. Three of us were going back in after break time. A complete stranger yelled across the street. "Youse lot aren't Tories are you? I fucking hate them." (May have been our blue school merch and blue lanyards and ID badges?). And that was it. Agreed it was the worst thing we'd ever been accused of in our SEN career.
Out for walk with Mrs C yesterday. Group of people in the housing estate conferring - all very smartly dressed corporate style, looked like a group of leasehold managers/landlords' enforcers/estate agents, complete with red clipboards and lanyards. But Labour on closer scrutiny.
Lab 41% (-5) Con 25% (-) LibDem 10% (+1) Reform 13% (+2) Green 5% (-1) SNP 3% (1)
Fieldwork 11-12 June
Stop posting fake numbers.
Don’t be so acerbic (towards me) TSE, if that’s in your capacity.
The actual numbers are correct not fake. I picked it up from the wiki opinion poll page. I wasn’t to know that methodologies have changed so we have to skip the previous poll and go the one but previous.
Look at the way @wooliedyed did it, and he and I don’t probably share political perspectives. Be more polite in future.
@TheNewsAgents voting intention poll finds Labour have a 16 pt lead over the Conservatives 🔵 CON 25% (-2) 🔴 LAB 41% (-3) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 13% (+2) 🟢 GRN 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3%(-) Dates 11-12/6, N=2037, change on 5-7 both on new methodology
@TheNewsAgents voting intention poll finds Labour have a 16 pt lead over the Conservatives 🔵 CON 25% (-2) 🔴 LAB 41% (-3) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 13% (+2) 🟢 GRN 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3%(-) Dates 11-12/6, N=2037, change on 5-7 both on new methodology
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Their spoiler act in Didcot & Wantage, and Bicester & Woodstock too, is making the LibDems rather mulish in Banbury.
Labour don't have a gnat's chance in D&W or B&W, and nor do the LibDems in Banbury. But there are rather more LibDem diamonds in the latter than you would be expecting given that it's clearly a Con/Lab marginal.
Well exactly. 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' is a tried and tested formula. They need to adopt it, and quick.
Trouble is, "Youy scratch my back and I'll scratch the back of your chum in Buggerthorpe and Seiston" doesn't work very well.
Have to report that I heard a mention of the election at work for the first time today. Three of us were going back in after break time. A complete stranger yelled across the street. "Youse lot aren't Tories are you? I fucking hate them." (May have been our blue school merch and blue lanyards and ID badges?). And that was it. Agreed it was the worst thing we'd ever been accused of in our SEN career.
Out for walk with Mrs C yesterday. Group of people in the housing estate conferring - all very smartly dressed corporate style, looked like a group of leasehold managers/landlords' enforcers/estate agents, complete with red clipboards and lanyards. But Labour on closer scrutiny.
I've had to tell the Labour phonebank to piss off. They've called me four times today, including while driving, and in a meeting twice. I'm starting to get extremely annoyed.
@TheNewsAgents voting intention poll finds Labour have a 16 pt lead over the Conservatives 🔵 CON 25% (-2) 🔴 LAB 41% (-3) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 13% (+2) 🟢 GRN 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3%(-) Dates 11-12/6, N=2037, change on 5-7 both on new methodology
Labour have been on 42% to 43% for much of the year with More in Common (40% in February) so I’m not sure I read a massive amount into this. They’re at around the 40-ish mark with a manifesto launch tomorrow.
Churn.
No Reform breakthrough. No Faragasm. The usual flattering to deceive.
I was just browsing back through the wiki and it looks like a regression to mean. We're getting polls so often, sampled over very short periods that I'd be surprised if we didn't see noise.
The big question is whether Labour will avoid any dementia tax style toxic policies in their manifesto.
If the Labour slide continues after the manifesto launch then things will get interesting.
They won't, because they're not stupid. It will look like the policies they've already announced on a piece of paper.
Don’t count your chickens. Even some of the things they’ve already announced might become more of an issue once they’re formal policies rather than just trial balloons.
One does not need to count one's chickens to have a reasonable idea that they're not going to turn into pink elephants. Naturally, any launch is freighted with peril but unless one of SKS' aides woke up, snorted twelve lines of cocaine and downed a bottle of vodka before opening "Manifesto_v5_final_final.docx" I suspect we know exactly what's in it.
That's a fairly standard breakfast in political circles, or so I am led to believe.
Lab 41% (-5) Con 25% (-) LibDem 10% (+1) Reform 13% (+2) Green 5% (-1) SNP 3% (1)
Fieldwork 11-12 June
Stop posting fake numbers.
Don’t be so acerbic (towards me) TSE, if that’s in your capacity.
The actual numbers are correct not fake. I picked it up from the wiki opinion poll page. I wasn’t to know that methodologies have changed so we have to skip the previous poll and go the one but previous.
Look at the way @wooliedyed did it, and he and I don’t probably share political perspectives. Be more polite in future.
You also posted fake YouGov numbers the other night.
OGH used to ban people for that sort of behaviour.
The big question is whether Labour will avoid any dementia tax style toxic policies in their manifesto.
If the Labour slide continues after the manifesto launch then things will get interesting.
They won't, because they're not stupid. It will look like the policies they've already announced on a piece of paper.
Don’t count your chickens. Even some of the things they’ve already announced might become more of an issue once they’re formal policies rather than just trial balloons.
One does not need to count one's chickens to have a reasonable idea that they're not going to turn into pink elephants. Naturally, any launch is freighted with peril but unless one of SKS' aides woke up, snorted twelve lines of cocaine and downed a bottle of vodka before opening "Manifesto_v5_final_final.docx" I suspect we know exactly what's in it.
“Boss it was 2019Manifesto_v5_final_final.doc I was meant to give to the media wasn’t it”….?
If (unlikely obviously) Farage’s numbers started tanking in Clacton do people think he would stay and fight it out and face a 9th loss publicly or would something such as his doctors discovering a bone in his leg force him to withdraw in medical grounds to save face?
It is understood that a red flag was automatically raised by Ladbrokes as the bet in Williams’ name was potentially placed by a “politically exposed person”, and the bookmaker is particularly cautious over “novelty” markets.
The £100 bet, which could have led to a £500 payout on odds of 5/1, is believed to have been placed via an online account that would have required the user to provide personal details including their date of birth and debit card.
Indeed. Why not stick two large on? Better to be hung for a sheep as for a lamb! *
(* For the avoidance of any doubt that was satire. A joke.)
EXCL: Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide placed bet on election date days before announcement
The Gambling Commission is understood to have launched probe after Craig Williams, PM's parliamentary private secretary, placed bet with Ladbrokes on Sunday 19 May.
Sunak made surprise announcement that a general election would be held on 4 July just three days later.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
I really don’t understand your position.
In the UK what would we need tanks for? To fight against enemy infantry and armour yes?
How do the enemy infantry and armour get here? Across the sea.
Can we attack them at sea and on the other side of the sea before they get here? Uh, yes with ships, subs, aircraft and missiles.
But if all our planes, helicopters, ships, subs and missiles are used up and they get across? Well last chance is infantry units with anti-tank weapons v the armour and infantry v the infantry.
But aren’t we absolutely fucked if it gets to that point where the enemy has air superiority, naval superiority and has landed tanks and troops? Yes, so we will have already resorted to nukes or accepted we’ve lost.
The point is that European NATO countries such as Germany and Poland should be focussing on big land war v Russia whilst countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Us should be bolstering naval power and air power to stop Russia from going around the big land forces made up of the countries susceptible to a Russian land invasion. We can help with specialist infantry and kit but absolutely bonkers to be blowing money on tanks.
Tanks are rather a "wrong type of snow" proposition. Severely hampered in Normandy for instance
But the answer to that was engineer vehicles with ploughs to break through the bocage. Strangely....
Lab 41% (-5) Con 25% (-) LibDem 10% (+1) Reform 13% (+2) Green 5% (-1) SNP 3% (1)
Fieldwork 11-12 June
Stop posting fake numbers.
Don’t be so acerbic (towards me) TSE, if that’s in your capacity.
The actual numbers are correct not fake. I picked it up from the wiki opinion poll page. I wasn’t to know that methodologies have changed so we have to skip the previous poll and go the one but previous.
Look at the way @wooliedyed did it, and he and I don’t probably share political perspectives. Be more polite in future.
You also posted fake YouGov numbers the other night.
OGH used to ban people for that sort of behaviour.
To be fair it was something posted online but fair comment ref. that one. I shouldn’t have reported it although I did issue a heavy caveat that it was a rumour and that I wasn’t sure the source was accurate. I shan’t do that again.
But not ref this one. Unnecessary remark by you and impolite.
It is understood that a red flag was automatically raised by Ladbrokes as the bet in Williams’ name was potentially placed by a “politically exposed person”, and the bookmaker is particularly cautious over “novelty” markets.
The £100 bet, which could have led to a £500 payout on odds of 5/1, is believed to have been placed via an online account that would have required the user to provide personal details including their date of birth and debit card.
Indeed. Why not stick two large on? Better to be hung for a sheep as for a lamb!
Its like fiddling your taxes or expenses for peanuts. If you are going to do it, you don't do it for £100, unless you are low-IQ.
It's official: Eric Ciotti, president of the Les Républicains party, has been excluded from the party presidency and expelled from the party. The political board fired him after Eric Ciotti announced an alliance with the RN for the legislative elections.
It is understood that a red flag was automatically raised by Ladbrokes as the bet in Williams’ name was potentially placed by a “politically exposed person”, and the bookmaker is particularly cautious over “novelty” markets.
The £100 bet, which could have led to a £500 payout on odds of 5/1, is believed to have been placed via an online account that would have required the user to provide personal details including their date of birth and debit card.
Indeed. Why not stick two large on? Better to be hung for a sheep as for a lamb!
Its like fiddling your taxes or expenses for peanuts. If you are going to do it, you don't do it for £100, unless you are low-IQ.
On that score I suspect it was just an unwise and very silly decision to take a punt rather than insider trading, but it's very stupid either way.
Hagir Ahmed is a former Corbyn campaigner, who’s been photographed at Momentum events and “Jeremy for Labour” phone bank sessions. She seems to have have a change of heart and was seen out campaigning with Tory MP Greg Hands since turning up to Sunak’s launch event.
This reminds me of Charlie Mullins, the Pimlico Plumbers man, going from aparently ploughing millions of his fortune into Remain, to saying that "Boris and Nigel to need to join up for the country",and joining Reform, just the other day.
Also, for some reason, Peter Hitchens, who apparently at some point in the 70's or '80s turned overnight from a Trotskyist to a moraly rightwing ranter.
They may not know much about politics, but they know what they don't like.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
Nostalgia.
We don't have the luxury of avoiding hard choices. If you asked Ukraine whether they'd rather have five hundred Storm Shadows, and five hundred AMRAAMs (or equivalent) or a hundred Challengers from us, I know which they'd pick.
Eastern Europe is going to be awash with new tanks in a few years time. Any we might contribute (assuming they're not already obsolete by then) is irrelevant.
And if we ever need them, we can buy them.
It's not a core UK capability - or speciality - any more. And it never will be.
If any party is serious about defence procurement, they will have to make such choices.
There'll be a bit of a Dreadnought situation wrt making tanks that are useful in an environment that's saturated with drones, surely?
We either need to be at the forefront of redesigning the things from the ground up, or we need to put off any procurement decisions for a decade until we see how new designs from other countries pan out.
Is there any actual threat on the horizon that requires us to build new tanks right now? If not, I'd suggest that we should follow the latter path.
Comments
Also, for some reason, Peter Hitchens, who apparently at some point in the 70's or '80s turned overnight from a Trotskyist to a moraly rightwing ranter.
AFAIC a Lab government with the LibDems as main Opposition would suit me fine!
It's all getting a bit Downfall.
Most people know that the rules of elections since 1992 (and reinforced in 2017) is that everyone lies about tax and any sort of personal voter liability because you can't win an election by doing otherwise.
I have one child there, but I'm actually thinking of its counterpart three Met stops to the north where my middle child goes.
Provided that Starmer doesn't make any catastrophic gaffes the event should do him neither harm nor good.
@NorstatUKPolls GB-wide Poll June 10-12
Westminster Voting Intention
Con 21% (-1%)
Lab 41% (-4%)
Lib Dem 11% (+1%)
Reform UK 17% (+3%)
Green 6% (+1%)
Changes since June 4-5
Hmm.
LLG 58 (-2), RefCon 38 (+2)
When is the actual election date?
Why did SKS ban Diane Abbott?
Do you think Labour could win this?
What is going on with debates? Most sources think we get brand Sunak at 7 but the telegraph thinks it is sks and Sunak with Beth rigby
We don't have the luxury of avoiding hard choices.
If you asked Ukraine whether they'd rather have five hundred Storm Shadows, and five hundred AMRAAMs (or equivalent) or a hundred Challengers from us, I know which they'd pick.
Eastern Europe is going to be awash with new tanks in a few years time. Any we might contribute (assuming they're not already obsolete by then) is irrelevant.
And if we ever need them, we can buy them.
It's not a core UK capability - or speciality - any more. And it never will be.
If any party is serious about defence procurement, they will have to make such choices.
Wouldn't surprise me if at least some of them are going to REFORM, as well as just traditional WWC voters.
If the Labour slide continues after the manifesto launch then things will get interesting.
That's really a question for the Brexit crew, not me.
But we need to be answering it.
He tells @JPonpolitics : "If you force me to make a projection, I project between 120 and 130 (seats for the Tories)."
https://x.com/theousherwood/status/1800931717349319161
I’d think that it might be easier for Tory to Reform to switch back closer to the time than Labour to Reform .
Labour don't have a gnat's chance in D&W or B&W, and nor do the LibDems in Banbury. But there are rather more LibDem diamonds in the latter than you would be expecting given that it's clearly a Con/Lab marginal.
Lab 41% (-5)
Con 25% (-)
LibDem 10% (+1)
Reform 13% (+2)
Green 5% (-1)
SNP 3% (1)
Fieldwork 11-12 June
In the UK what would we need tanks for? To fight against enemy infantry and armour yes?
How do the enemy infantry and armour get here? Across the sea.
Can we attack them at sea and on the other side of the sea before they get here? Uh, yes with ships, subs, aircraft and missiles.
But if all our planes, helicopters, ships, subs and missiles are used up and they get across? Well last chance is infantry units with anti-tank weapons v the armour and infantry v the infantry.
But aren’t we absolutely fucked if it gets to that point where the enemy has air superiority, naval superiority and has landed tanks and troops? Yes, so we will have already resorted to nukes or accepted we’ve lost.
The point is that European NATO countries such as Germany and Poland should be focussing on big land war v Russia whilst countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Us should be bolstering naval power and air power to stop Russia from going around the big land forces made up of the countries susceptible to a Russian land invasion. We can help with specialist infantry and kit but absolutely bonkers to be blowing money on tanks.
The issues to my mind are (a) is it worth such a short run for a partly unique design rather than buying overseas and (b) can the full capability and command skillset for armoured manoeuvre at divisional and army level be maintained without enough toys of the right kinds? One needs to add for instance also SP artillery, also at a low ebb.
There is a wonderful and maybe apocryphal story of a posh Edwardian gent - from the decadent 1900s - being confronted with a reduced World War One menu. And then saying
“I am prepared to share many things with my friends, including my wife, but I draw the line at a snipe”
We escaped being made into meat pies at the last chateau and have made it the next one 65 km cycling later. Nearly all over, which is a relief as I am starting to lose my marbles. We have the biggest shower imaginable in one of the towers, but I managed to open the door to the hall instead, just wearing my underwear.
Regardless, there doesn't seem to be much for Labour to worry about at this stage.
Churn.
No Reform breakthrough. No Faragasm. The usual flattering to deceive.
🔵 CON 25% (-2)
🔴 LAB 41% (-3)
🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1)
🟣 REF UK 13% (+2)
🟢 GRN 5% (-1)
🟡 SNP 3%(-)
🆕Our latest
@moreincommon_
@TheNewsAgents
voting intention poll finds Labour have a 16 pt lead over the Conservatives
🔵 CON 25% (-2)
🔴 LAB 41% (-3)
🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1)
🟣 REF UK 13% (+2)
🟢 GRN 5% (-1)
🟡 SNP 3%(-)
Dates 11-12/6, N=2037, change on 5-7 both on new methodology
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1800906236638142954
Three of us were going back in after break time.
A complete stranger yelled across the street.
"Youse lot aren't Tories are you?
I fucking hate them."
(May have been our blue school merch and blue lanyards and ID badges?).
And that was it.
Agreed it was the worst thing we'd ever been accused of in our SEN career.
You go from there, and you try to innovate. The one good thing about Ukraine, and some of the other proxy conflicts, is that we have real data to analyse too.
The sensible path for the UK would be to try to get some inward investment agreed in the next few months, but to be prepared to follow the EU's lead if it looks like it won't happen.
Mind you, our current SoS for Business and Trade seems to think that BEVs are some sort of woke plot, so god only knows what's actually happening...
The polls are also converging as we approach polling day with pollsters with the largest Lab leads over Con seeing the largest drops with most of them now settling on about a 20% Lab lead.
- ‘Easy read’ version available, along with short and long versions (though on their website both are the same length, so who the hell knows – it seems to do so by taking out the cover and pictures to replace with more text).
- “Real Hope. Real Change” is a pretty good slogan. Unrealistic for them, but good.
- Still no hyperlinking of sections – but then the website is better for this
Foreword- Open on cost of living crisis – nurses using foodbanks, schools crumbling, dentist appointments like gold dust
- Climate emergency after cost of living crisis
- Party offers hope, following science
- Net zero by 2050 not enough. Must transition to decarbonized economy.
- Solutions to climate crisis the same as those for other problems (note – how convenient!)
Building a fairer, healthier countryLe Pen victory threatens ‘Liz Truss-style’ debt crisis in France
Finance minister warns voters over economic impact of backing National Rally party
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/12/marine-le-pen-victory-trigger-liz-truss-style-debt-crisis/
https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1800937826176901494?s=46
Outrageous behaviour.
How many district and county councillors in the constituency does each party have?
Which candidates have regular columns in the local papers?
And which candidates are regularly recognised and greeted in the street?
Not hard to see who the real challenger is in Newton Abbot, I think.
Shouldn't be a problem.
It is understood that a red flag was automatically raised by Ladbrokes as the bet in Williams’ name was potentially placed by a “politically exposed person”, and the bookmaker is particularly cautious over “novelty” markets.
The £100 bet, which could have led to a £500 payout on odds of 5/1, is believed to have been placed via an online account that would have required the user to provide personal details including their date of birth and debit card.
The actual numbers are correct not fake. I picked it up from the wiki opinion poll page. I wasn’t to know that methodologies have changed so we have to skip the previous poll and go the one but previous.
Look at the way @wooliedyed did it, and he and I don’t probably share political perspectives. Be more polite in future.
Inside job?
No insider trading here.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/03/27/we-may-need-to-revise-our-summer-plans/
OGH used to ban people for that sort of behaviour.
If (unlikely obviously) Farage’s numbers started tanking in Clacton do people think he would stay and fight it out and face a 9th loss publicly or would something such as his doctors discovering a bone in his leg force him to withdraw in medical grounds to save face?
(* For the avoidance of any doubt that was satire. A joke.)
EXCL: Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide placed bet on election date days before announcement
The Gambling Commission is understood to have launched probe after Craig Williams, PM's parliamentary private secretary, placed bet with Ladbrokes on Sunday 19 May.
Sunak made surprise announcement that a general election would be held on 4 July just three days later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Armoured_Vehicle_Royal_Engineers
But not ref this one. Unnecessary remark by you and impolite.
We'll see.
https://x.com/underscoreyara/status/1800902472837550583?s=46
Rishi no longer has the worst start to an election campaign at least…
We either need to be at the forefront of redesigning the things from the ground up, or we need to put off any procurement decisions for a decade until we see how new designs from other countries pan out.
Is there any actual threat on the horizon that requires us to build new tanks right now? If not, I'd suggest that we should follow the latter path.